|
| Thread: Survey on tax structure |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · NEXT» |
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
posted March 31, 2009 02:46 PM |
|
|
Poll Question:
Survey on tax structure
what you think we should see from the poor/middle class/rich, as a percentage of income
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted March 31, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
|
*twitchy fingers* So tempted to make peasants bleed... Hmm tough call.
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
|
Lol, what is that you already write "bad" under one option. What kind of survey is this ;D
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 03:38 PM |
|
|
"it hurts bad" is an expression 
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 03:45 PM |
|
|
On one hand, "Ten Years After" sing:
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more...
And on the other, it seems kind of lame to punish people simply because they earn more money than other people.
I'd go with something like the progressive one, but perhaps with lowering taxes proportionally regarding how much a company or individual invests in charity.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 03:47 PM |
|
|
None of the above. 100/100/100 - and then government redistribution based on need.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 04:00 PM |
|
|
Earn more, contribute equal compared to what you earn. Yes i clicked "Rich give til it hurts".
____________
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 04:09 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 16:12, 31 Mar 2009.
|
Well I don't think those who work hard should earn less than those who work less hard, I just think these days, the rewards the rich receive is out of proportion. And they can spare more for the benefit of the community and still have more to spend for themselves. Technically speaking though, it should be left up to said rich to decide if they want to spend it on improving the community, that would be a good system. But I don't trust people to make morally right decisions, as many here seem to be dilluded about.
The idea companies invest money from their own pockets is a nice little theory, but not practise. More than that, the THEORY is companies improve the quality of their product to draw more customers, which is also not practise: companies gain more income not by improving quality, but by reducing costs, such as dumping waste, cutting wages and laying off workers.
So yeah I don't feel any remote pity for taxing these kinds of people more than hard workers. But I'm starting to think it might have more to do with what kind of society you want and the population amount. Wild west or carebear.
I fear with 6+ billion people, you can't afford a carebear society. There's too many miscreants that really don't deserve care either.
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 19:08, 31 Mar 2009.
|
Voted the second last option, although I'd prefer something like 5/25/55
Impossible to divide into 3 categories though... that is a very rough estimate. You have 15% as choice for middle-class in every option. 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 10:34 PM |
|
|
The only social responsibility of a corporation - short of avoiding aggression and fraud - is to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
|
None of the above. Flat percentage tax is silly.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 11:51 PM |
|
|
Yes yes we know all about your bizarro pseudo-logarithmic tax.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 07:27 AM |
|
|
Corribus - and this is not a personal remark, it's one aimed for the issue at hand -, do you know the definition of madness?
Madness is, if someone turns the door knob, pulls and the door doesn't open, turns again, pulls again and it still doesn't open, turns a third time, pulls with no effect, TO TRY A FOURTH TIME TO PULL at the darn door instead of giving it a damn PUSH.
Same is true with economics. They determine how society develops and society develops like... well.
Ask yourself a question: in your home, do you want to have large areas with mould, you are loathe to enter - like a big cellar, cold and clammy, mouldy, with big spiders and stuff lurking? Holes in the walls or ceiling? Kitchen with defunkt appliances? But a GREAT living room with the BEST TV, stereo, Blue Ray, you name it, a nice handmade carpet and a Picasso on the wall? Is THAT the way people like their homes?
If they don't - and I don't know anyone who does - then how the hell come, SOCIETY is that way?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 07:42 AM |
|
|
If you work harder and/or smarter cleaning the living room, then yea it should be cleaner.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 08:21 AM |
|
|
But no one does that because no one wants to live in such a flat - and actually no one wants to live in the mouldy, clammy cellar with the spiders and bugs in the corners; actually no one wants to HAVE such a thing.
So the question is why we still have such a thing (and a couple defunkt rooms as well)? Because it's so important that 10.000 people own unimaginable wealth and could buy themselves any Central African state (or US city) while a billion is starving?
And make no mistake, it IS because of that, the billion is starving. It's not that there wasn't enough for everyone, it's just that it's not properly divided.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 10:21 AM |
|
|
In Poland, we have progressive tax
and it's funny when people don't want to get a payment increase, because that would make them jump to the higher tax category and in fact earn less 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 10:36 AM |
|
|
That's generally impossible, because "progressive" tax generally means the following:
money earned up to sum X: tax rate A
money earned from sum X to Y: tax rate B
money earned from sum Y to Z: tax rate C
So, if you have tax rate A and get a raise, usually you have to pay rate B only for the sum you earn beyond X now.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 10:40 AM |
|
|
Oh trust me mate, it is. My friend's mom declined a payment increase directly because of it.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 11:55 AM |
|
|
Shakes head
I can never understand why so many people want to cripple the creators of wealth. Why cripple the venture capitalists? Why cripple the self funded entrepreneur? Why cripple the innovators and inventors?
Does anyone really think they'd be sitting there using luxury items like computers, the internet or cell phones if it weren't for those guys? Does anyone really think we'd have the advances in medicine without those guys? Does anyone really think we'd have the ability to feed 6 billion people without those guys?
Yes, technology would advance without them, but it would advance at a MUCH slower pace. Those are the guys who are willing to take the risks and push the limit. They not only push the technological limits, but the tough competition forces a rapid time to market and creates tremendous downward pressure on pricing.
Computers have become a commodity for this reason. They've gotten so cheap that even people under the so-called "poverty level" can afford to buy them. How the hell is that "exploiting" the poor people by allowing them to buy luxury items like extremely powerful computers? How is it exploitation by raising the standard of living of the lower classes?
Equipment for stem cell research, cell phones with built in internet and camera, wireless home LANs, wireless internet access, high speed sorting and processing of food products. I've done design work on all of that stuff, and it was all funded by venture capital. I'd guess that more than half of my pay over the last 15 years has come from venture capital. When those guys invest in a startup company the majority of that money is used to pay wages. They create many thousands of jobs every year.
They create thousands of jobs, yet THEY are taking all the risk. I get paid even if the technology doesn't work. And I get paid if the market doesn't accept the product. But if it works and there's a decent size market, due to the competition it won't be long before the price drops to the point where it becomes affordable to lower and lower income people. Everyone wins.
But wait, somebody suddenly points their finger at the venture capitalist and cries foul because he got rich. Never mind that everyone benefited from it. Somebody got rich so they must be evil exploiters.
Is this where I throw in the quote "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor"? So what if somebody got rich?
You know what they are going to do with that money? They are going to start all over again. They are going to finance ANOTHER new startup company. They are going to give a bunch more people jobs and they are going to try to bring something innovation to the market. And if they are successful, maybe they again raise the standard of living for the lower classes. Or maybe they come out with some new medical equipment or safety equipment that saves lives.
Again I ask why cripple the investors, innovators and inventors? Let the people do what they do best. Let the people who are good at creating wealth create wealth. And keep the government people who can't even do their own job right away from the ones who CAN do their job right.
In the US at least, the rich already provide the vast majority of the government revenues. They pay for most of the government itself, they pay for most of the roads, the schools, the dams, the police. And hopefully they still have enough left over to do their job. So let them do it instead of taxing them so damn much that they can't afford to pay me any more. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never gotten a pay check from a poor person.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2009 09:01 PM |
|
|
Let's see
Quote:
I can never understand why so many people want to cripple the creators of wealth. Why cripple the venture capitalists? Why cripple the self funded entrepreneur? Why cripple the innovators and inventors?
What do you mean, CRIPPLE? Forbes Magazine will tell you that - if yu exclude the Arabian oil sheiks - Bill Gates has the biggest PRIVATE wealth (and private means just that; what he has on the side, after taxes, excluding earnings. It was 62 Billion $ in 08, gone down to 40 in 09 due to stock market losses. CRIPPLE them? Hmm.
Quote:
Does anyone really think they'd be sitting there using luxury items like computers, the internet or cell phones if it weren't for those guys? Does anyone really think we'd have the advances in medicine without those guys? Does anyone really think we'd have the ability to feed 6 billion people without those guys?
Wait a second. While we do HAVE the ability to feed 6 billions, we actually feed only 5. The rest is starving. And if you take a look at how things got in motion and proceeded up until the First World War you'll see that people did all this OUT OF INTEREST. Guys like Newton didn't earn money with what they were doing - in fact, all those doing studies in medicine were busily breaking laws. You really think MONEY is everything people are after?
Quote:
Yes, technology would advance without them, but it would advance at a MUCH slower pace.
Which would actually be a good thing. Too much is done in too short time, things we don't have any idea about how the consequences will be; in fact it looks like most things will involve a big price to be paid - and it's always the next generation that pays.
Quote:
Those are the guys who are willing to take the risks and push the limit. They not only push the technological limits, but the tough competition forces a rapid time to market and creates tremendous downward pressure on pricing.
No, actually, the risk is on us all. Did you know that the same go who found that lead will have a nice effect on engines when put into gasoline, invented the fluorcarbonhydroxides? Who's at risk there?
And the rest of your statement - you think it's good that things eventually get cheap? Until recentl things were easy because only a small part of the world's population participated. But now 3 billion people in Asia want the same. What do you think will happen, when those 3 billion people all drive a car? Have a pc. 2 cell phones. 5 TVs. Produce the same amounts of garbage and use up the same amount of resources?
However, this is slightly beside the point. The question is: what difference does it make to Bill Gates if his private wealth dropped one third from 62 billion $ in 2008 to 40 in 2009, probably simply due to the srop of share values?
None, actually. He privately owns the same shares, corps and whatever than before and gets dividends and whatnot out of them - without even lifting a finger.
Now, that 22 billion of difference - how many average US citizens will have to give what for the poor and hungry to get that sum? What do you think, what can you give easily a year? 50 § a month or 600 $ a year? Sounds much - nut not that much, so let's take that sum, and for easy arithmetics lets make rge 22 billions 24.
And it's 40 million. You need FORTY MILLION money earning Americans giving 50 $ each MONTH for welfare to sum up 24 Billions, roughly the amount good ole Bill simply LOST in one year due to share value decline.
Now what can you DO with those 24 billions, I wonder. How far will an African come with 50$ a month? Dear, VERY far.I think, even TEN bucks a month would make a crucial difference, let's say 12 - for easy arithmetics. so those 24 billions could mean the difference between life and death for, well 200 million people. 200 million. Even if it was a HUNDRED million ONLY, half of it.
And you can't understand why people want to CRIPPLE private wealth?
|
|
|
|
