|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Secondly, what is the point of taxing the rich 70-80%. Are we taxing them just for the sake of higher taxes. Everyone deserves the right to the fruits of their labor and the government should keep nose out of people's business. Also, who benefits most from higher taxes? Can't you see the link between higher taxes and more corporatism? |
"Everyone deserves the right to the fruits of their labor" -- of course they do. But everyone also has the responsibility to pay for the society that supports them. And, like I said, there are several excellent reasons why it makes sense to demand that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income.
The question here isn't whether taxes in general are good or bad. It's about the amount of tax each income bracket should be paying. "For the sake of higher taxes"? What do you think, I'm advocating high rates on the top brackets out of spite? I have nothing against rich people. I just want to find the most equitable and productive way to distribute the inevitable tax burden.
I think you may be confusing corporate tax rates with individual income tax. I'm talking about the latter, not the former. |
Well, 70-80% personal tax on the rich is obscene, and would be an outlier in the Western world.
My personal feeling is that nobody should be taxed more than half of their income. If the gov't needs more than that, its larger than it should be.
We have a lot of spending issues. We need to cut back on just about everything, except health care, which needs to be rehauled and expanded, and education, which needs to be quasi-nationalized. We need to tackle the debt at the same time. The gov't is a mess, but we can't sacrifice corporate competitiveness to straighten it up. We can, however, tax the rich 5-6% more of their income. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Since the top 1% already pay 29% of the income taxes and the top 5% pay 50% I don't think they should have to pay more. That's hardly equitable to begin with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Since the top 1% already pay 29% of the income taxes and the top 5% pay 50% I don't think they should have to pay more. That's hardly equitable to begin with. |
You are assuming that "equitable" means all income brackets paying an equal share of the full tax burden, and that's an astonishingly narrow and arbitrary definition of the word. It would be like claiming that an "equitable" foreign aid policy would mean giving exactly the same amount of money to every country in the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Among the remaining Presidential aspirants, McCain has the least voter confidence concerning the economy. (scroll to page 20)
Only 1/9th of the US is very confident of McCain's ability to make the right decisions about the economy, and just over 2/5ths are somewhat confident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
