They earned it. If you want to be like them then go do it. No, the opposite it is true. We have a progressive tax system that takes larger percentages from larger incomes. We don't? The defense of our country benefits some people more than others? Perhaps you can explain yourself because your statement makes no sense. You need a good course in basic business and economics. What is good for business is good for you. Every nickel of our society's wealth comes from business. Why? It has nothing to do with anything. We were doing lots of trade with South Vietnam in the 1960's? Grenada was certainly a cauldron of economic importance to the U.S., wasn't? Afghanistan? Ah yes, I forgot those poppy seeds. No, the rich are only 1% of people according to your beliefs. That means the economic benefits of business to the 99% is far greater. Obviously you wouldn't consider working for a corporation for an income, would you? That is completely backwards and wrong. You know better than that. You've been swayed by propaganda rather than common sense.
Stock options are taxed when they are exercised. Who told you otherwise? A stock option is nothing more than a promise to sell stock. It has no value until it is exercised. When it is exercised, the stock is taxed like all other income.
No, there is hope for you because it is possible in our society because of our freedom to earn so much money that it can't be spent in a day. Some people have done what it takes to benefit from that fact and others have simply complain about those who have. In my experience it is the wealthy that do most of the charitable giving. But giving it to government to be wasted is not a good use for it, nor is it charitable.
Economics will inform us of the various sources of economic rents. Except in the case of creative destruction (which is argued to eventually give us socialism), they also inform us that they're not 'good for us'
What's fair is a very subjective judgment. I believe Justice Holmes said that taxes were the cost of having a civilization. I'd agree with that. I'd say that to be "fair" taxes should have at least some connection to benefit recieved and some connection to ability to pay this leaves a lot of room for the democratic system to decide exactly what they are/should be.
Its worse than that. Typically its a subjective evaluation based on ignorance. It makes no sense, for example, to refer to average tax rates.
Yes it does. If the rich only want their income protected by government services, a flat income tax is the way to go. If you want the Golden Goose protected from the Obamanation barbarians working toward ECONOMIC PARITY, and want the sqawn to not pay a flat income tax on inheritance of the Golden Goose and the income of tuition from daddy..., pay more: "Flat income tax scenario: EXT. CASTLE RAMPARTS DAY {i will skip the formating} Action: A few archers are on watch paying at dice. An archer sticks his head up between throws and jumps to his feet. PRIVATE PUSS IN BOOTS Sir, Hagar the Funny is raiding a nearby home. He is running away with the Golden Goose. LIEUTENANT JUSTIFICATION Is he taking any golden eggs? PRIVATE PUSS IN BOOTS No sir, he is only stealing the Golden Goose. LIEUTENANT JUSTIFICATION Stand down Private, we only received fifteen percent of the golden eggs not a percentage of the golden eggs and Golden Goose." http://www.politicalforum.com/budge...n-t-paying-enough-taxes-5.html#post1060776948 ***** Are you and drj90210 related?
If all the rich wanted the government to protect was their income, then why would a flat percentage tax be any better and or more fair than simply asking everyone to pay the same amount??
A poll tax? You should go take a break with some pond book by that (*)(*)(*)(*) Yankee. Protecting a ton of gold is a lot harder than protecting navel lint. They need an officer and a bunch of enlisted guys to move it, a bigger truck...they only need one belly button to carry navel lint to safety when the barbarians attack. Navel lint had the 12-4 watch when one of those rich guys had the first computer fair out in California introducing the PC, so navel lint could not go. Navel lint was very sad. Navel lint would have to go into debt to pay the same amount as Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs. But, maybe not as much as $250,000,000 net worth boy who ran for governor of Georgia and paid no income tax one year, and when he did he paid .75% of his net worth in taxes when Bob Dole paid more and Johnny Isakson paid more of his net worth in taxes than either of those too, and navel lint paid I higher percentage of his net worth in taxes than Johnny Isakson...
Ha, I though you meant something totally different when I first read the word naval lint. Now that I know what you're actually saying though, it makes sense, and I agree. BTW, that is the exact same reason for why a progressive tax is better than a flat tax. Though, perhaps the best tax system would be a polynomial tax. JK, but seriously, I think a simple exponential tax would make more sense than the bracket system we have now. -Meta
IMO a progressive tax system can be justified on two grounds. 1) based on relative burdens. A 20% tax means a billionaire gets a little smaller mega yacht, while a poor family does with basic necessities. A tax on the poorer poses a much heavier burden than an equivalent tax on the richer, which is why a "flat" tax is not "fair". 2) Quid pro quo for a capitalist system. Capitalism is a great engine of innovation and economic growth that works by providing fabulous rewards to those who provide what the market wants. These rewards incentive work, effort, and risk taking that provides innovation and efficiency. We should not destroy that element. The problem with capitalism is that it does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence. Capitalism doesn't care if they starve to death or bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance. Capitalism is only interested in profit. Capitalism doesn't care if our skies and waters and beaches are polluted or that our resources are mismanaged or that the unprotected are abused. Capitalism just cares about profit. So we have a basic captialistic system that allows some to create fabulous riches. The quid pro quo is that they chip in a percentage of that in taxes to provide assistance to those at the bottom to have a bit better life.
