Income tax brackets should decrease in percent the more one makes

This would incentivize people to work more- working an extra 10% could earn one an extra 12%- and working an extra 20% could earn one an extra 30%.

How do we make this a reality?

Most people don't get to choose to earn more or not. They take whatever they can get, there is nothing to incentivize.

Economics are secondary to demographics, we should stop importing shitskins that depress our wages and train our own workers.

yup, after livable wages
you can do whatever with taxes and there won't be any incentive to work (apart from personal dreams)
however, greed still applies and people will avoid paying taxes

> People qq for liveable wage.
> People have to live to qq.
>Contradiction.obvious

>how much money someone makes is related to how hard they work

Is this what your mom and dad told you?

>Most people don't get to choose to earn more or not. They take whatever they can get
People can always choose to work more- just not for a 'fair wage' which is just Jewish conspiracy to get more tax revenue.

Must be from CommieTario. Keep paying $190 for power bills, comrade.

Making money comes from working smart, not working hard.

I would unironically be a lolbertarian if getting a middle class job was as easy as putting in an application, rather than the fucked up process of networking and dick sucking that it is.

Money comes from a combination of time and 'smart work.'

Networking is only needed because companies can't fire people easily enough- networking is a form of vetting.

Allow companies to fire anyone for any reason and networkign will be less important

Diversity is strength!

>working an extra 10% could earn one an extra 12%- and working an extra 20% could earn one an extra 30%.

You don't understand how marginal tax rates work, unless you're suggesting higher rates for lower brackets, in which case you still don't understand how marginal tax rates work but in a different way. I'm off to bed now though so will leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. Have fun.

t. accountant

> unless you're suggesting higher rates for lower brackets

That is the POINT of this thread.

New Zealander needs a New Brain.

Yeah and it's fucking retarded.

Based baguette with the facts

>British (Pakistan)
Of course.

Thats some low taxes...

I do not see a problem. He seems like a very educated guy working in his profession.

Ok then, you've annoyed me enough to keep me awake. Let me tell you what would happen. Spoiler: it sucks. Some high earners earn lots because they have demanding high-pressure jobs. These people (with maybe a handful of exceptions) don't want to pick up extra part-time work on the side because their remaining free time is more important to them than a small amount of extra income - reducing the tax rate would do very little to change this. Other high earners have mostly passive income (e.g. interest, dividends) that requires essentially no effort, only investment. Whatever rate you tax them at, they're already trying to maximise their income because they don't have to work for it. Congratulations - you've just lost a great deal of tax revenue by reducing rates on high earners without materially increasing the income taxed at that rate.

At the other end of the spectrum people have less incentive to work at all. In NZ, people who receive government benefits can earn a small amount without it affecting their benefits, but beyond that amount their payments are reduced proportionately. As a result we have a massive problem with people not wanting to get off government assistance and transition to full-time work because the marginal benefit is heavily reduced, or they just work under the table and avoid paying tax or having their government payments reduced - again, a loss for the government and the economy alike. To balance out the decreased incentive to work at all for low earners you need to increase minimum wage (putting the squeeze on businesses and customers), pay even more people not to work, or both. Or let the entire system collapse because no one wants a low-skilled job if they can't afford to live off it.

Economics 101 - people make decisions at the margin. Minimum wage is even less attractive (compared to government assistance for zero effort expended) when you increase the tax rates. Your idea sucks and you probably suck too.

>He seems like a very educated guy working in his profession.
Are you colorblind? Because if so, your nose will let you know if you ever come into contact with such type of person.

Of course you don't see the issue, Mr. Singh.

> At the other end of the spectrum people have less incentive to work at all. In NZ, people who receive government benefits can earn a small amount without it affecting their benefits

You could still keep X amount untaxed- but make it worth it to work more after that.

Regarding high earners- money earned (by investment) is still work- due dilligence is required, plus the work to have earned the money in the first place. Think of the 'investment money' as the person's labor- because that is what it is- just in another form.

>You could still keep X amount untaxed- but make it worth it to work more after that.

So you're revising your stupid idea to make it slightly less stupid. That's a good start, but every tweak you make to make it work will bring you closer to increasing marginal tax rates - they're not so popular in succesful countries because they don't work. Or why not just make it a flat tax rate beyond the tax-free amount? Or flat tax on every dollar? Then you avoid all disincentives to earn more when people think the marginal cost of less free time outweighs the marginal benefit of extra income. Or how about avoiding having to finely balance your rates and brackets and doing away with income tax altogether and basing everything on sales tax or (my favourite) land tax? Why are you stuck on this idea of reversing marginal tax rates when you'll need so many workarounds to make it even remotely viable?

>Regarding high earners- money earned (by investment) is still work- due dilligence is required, plus the work to have earned the money in the first place. Think of the 'investment money' as the person's labor- because that is what it is- just in another form.

You really need ro read (or reread) a few entry-level economic textbooks. What you call "investment money" is usually known as capital. Labour it ain't.

Good god I'm tired. Now start being sensible so I can sleep.

>What you call "investment money" is usually known as capital. Labour it ain't.
Capital comes from labour. Ice is still water.

jesus these tax % are fucking nothing
fuck you americans

Yet somehow our government does more for us- why is the Netherlands so broke and so corrupt? Is it the drugs?

Even better idea. Get rid of it and switch to a flat tax or fair tax.

>How do we make this a reality?

We never will, because we have more (and ever increasing) poor stupid people who think intelligent people should pay for them to live.

And yet ice and water have almost entirely different physical properties. Honestly just look up compound interest and dividend reinvestment, then ask your bank how much interest they'll pay you if you give them 40 hours of your labour to look after. There's a difference - a big clue is in there being different words for them.

Also the reversed marginal rates idea has major problems, but at least you're thinking in a novel way - I sincerely encourage you to keep it up. Now though, I bid you goodnight.

Good night insightful Kiwi.

That is what the guns are for. Not today, not tomorrow- but evenentually.

The world "fair" is poisoned so badly now.

IMO the flat tax is fine- but flat in amount, not in %. AKA everyone pays $4k- or get deported (and if someone can't pay 4k (when young), then loans can be made).

>People can always choose to work more
L0Lno fgt pls
Lrn2always

How about no taxes.
Keeping one's own property instead of having it forcibly taken seems like a better situation.

ROADS AND BRIDGES

Are you a lolBertarian? Someone needs to be the police and run the hospitals.

Why not have everyone paying the same amount. Then someone making a million dollars a year will pay more than the guy sucking homeless dicks for change.

I'm prevented from being a doctor or a police officer because there are no taxes?

How exactly do you stop me? Magic powers?

Tax the poor, hmm, k

you are a complete retard, you want lower class to pay higher taxes so police can protect higher class? WUT?

people should pay taxes only for benefits they get from paying them, I don't need the army, I don't need police, rich people need that so they should pay it

I need roads, electricity, water, internet, fuck everything else

No one would pay for police when all these libtards attain benefit without paying the cost- they are free riders.

Remember to bake the cake- you don't have to ice it for (the gays) though.

The more one earns, the more taxes they pay- do you know how income tax brackets work?

So when Jamal and Ahmed move to a neighborhood and start stealing and assaulting people, not a single soul would be willing to pay someone to protect them is what you're saying.

Not a single person.

You're fucking brilliant senpai.

Libertarians are worse than commies- at least commies acknowledge that they are simply divying up their nation's resources.

Why pick black/muslim names for assailants...why so racist?

yes I know, do you? People pay more because they have more to protect... simple as that, that is why response time in rich areas are like 1 minute and in poor areas like 12 minutes, same goes for ambulance

this chart makes me so fucking angry
In Germany people who make more than 55k year fall in the highest tax bracket and have to pay 45% income tax

just fuck our shit up

>black/muslim names
Woah are you just *assuming* a name as being indicative of someones race?

Great "argument" besides. It's really a wonder people who think as shallowly as you manage to be able to blink and breathe at the same time.

In both income tax scenaroius, the rich pay more money in taxes.

Why would police rush to protect people who are a net cost economically?...they are literally parasites.

Germany is cucked so hard. 45%...that's unreal.

Taxes.disincentivize.work- and yet ppl still say taht lower taxes will cause people to work less.

>they are literally parasites.
>police

>Losing half your income
And people wonder why most rich people avoid taxes or try to get even richer.

Statistics say that those names are more likely to be Muslim/black- and is it pure chance that you used them?

"They will gladly pay taxes to be patriotic."

Statistics also say people with those names commit incredibly disproportionately more theft and assault than the average population. Why are you making it about race? Are you a racist?

most rich people are rich only because they had a shady deal with the state in one time or another...

they don't pay taxes but are first in line when the state is providing

While stastically the names are of people who commit crime, someone of that name does not have any necessary liklihood of being a criminal.
Check. Mate.

Most rich people are rich by honest dealings.

The government does not make that many people rich- it mainly does the opposite.

Oh I'm sure they are really patriotic,

Once they move to a country with low taxes.

>someone of that name does not have any necessary liklihood of being a criminal
Then by the same token they simultaneously don't have any necessary likelihood of being of any given ethnicity based on their name, making an ignorant and bigoted statement.

Why are you so racist and dumb, cuck?

>Most rich people are rich by honest dealings.

name 10, and look what will happen

So you deny that blacks and muslims are more likely to be criminals than whites?

I neither know nor care, because taxes are still immoral~

2 big problems.

1 - People rarely choose how/when they work, people already respond to incentives of pay and tend to work just about the best job they can.

2 - The people in society who don't work at all wont be encouraged to get a job if they going to be stung by the highest tax bracket to start with.

The issue is that low paid people are low skilled people, they're low IQ and unable to defer gratification which means they're less likely to save and invest in the future, be that with cash, with education/training for jobs or be that investing in gaining experience in the work place (which means accepting low wages until your value is high enough to earn more)

Typical lolbertarian, escaping an argument with "muh morals" or "muh constituation"

>The people in society who don't work at all wont be encouraged to get a job if they going to be stung by the highest tax bracket to start with.

They are parasites as it is- while they may be even more parasitical, there will be more incentive for many (including some poor) to work more. Give and take- just not sure whidch is greater.

Escaping what?
Where did you ever make any argument?

A fucking leaf.

I always think that US was a tax heaven. Holy shit. Thats literally socialism. How can people do their bussiness when they give 40% of their income away?

>escaping an argument

taxes are theft

I don't need state paid culture
I don't need state paid education
I don't need state paid sports
I don't need state non-governmental organizations
I don't need state paid health (well only basic ones could be paid)
I don't need so many things paid by my taxes

My point on morality is taht it's impossible to live (with others atm) 100% morally- and I don't beleive that one should be relegated to inaction simply for living in an imperfect world.

When, in ordre to excercise one's freedom, one must hurt others, I don't believe that it's wrong- especially if those who are hurt refuse to pick a side (moral or not).

What I think needed, with today's libertarians (paralyzed by confusion) is a listening to Ayn Rand's "Sanction of the Victim" and less argumentative ethics by Hoppe.

>Holy shit. That's literally socialism. How can people do their business when they give 40% of their income away?

It is like that everywhere, or even worse, people just like to bash other countries, not even knowing that they have it much worse

The US used to be better. And remember that health care is on top of these taxes.

The US is the most corrupt in total dollars wasted- just not in % (because it's so fucking rich).

What inaction?
What are you even referring to?

I'm positing the position "taxation is immoral" with the implicit premise that things that are immoral should be avoided or otherwise not committed.

How does anything you just said have anything to do with that?

>What inaction?
Teh 'libertarian thing' is becoming 'self-sustinence,' which is anti-trade, and thus anti-civilizaiton.

> I'm positing the position "taxation is immoral" with the implicit premise that things that are immoral should be avoided or otherwise not committed.

Do you buy gasoline-> paying taxes (and the crimes commited with such money) makes you guilty of being immoral- but does one not ahve the right to act in such cases?

My point is that most actions have immoral consequences- and one can choose to not do such- but avoiding such, one is also allowing the state to be immoral to him.

>Teh 'libertarian thing' is becoming 'self-sustinence,' which is anti-trade, and thus anti-civilizaiton
????
???????????
Since when is libertarianism synonymous with fucking agrarianism??????
Are you high?

People stealing my money doesn't make me responsible for what people do after they've stolen from me. If I mug you and buy a burger, you're not responsible for my buying a fucking burger you stupid leaf.

>Teh 'libertarian thing' is becoming 'self-sustinence,' which is anti-trade, and thus anti-civilizaiton.

Libertarians are anti-trade, and not others who practically steal 10-20% of a products value

Facepalm

>People stealing my money doesn't make me responsible for what people do after they've stolen from me.
They are not stealing it- they are taking a cut of the money you pay for another item. You can choose to not pay it- but you don't choose to stop someone robbing you.

If I give Joe a dollar and Joe gives me a candy bar in return, and Bob walks up goin' "AYO HOL UP I NEED MY CUT AH DAT SHIET" and then proceeds to try and physically take from either me, Joe, or both of us, Bob is fucking stealing.

>You can choose to not pay it
Taxes are optional now?
Hey bro, you ever try that?

>They are not stealing it- they are taking a cut of the money you pay for another item.

Sounds like mafia to me lol

>If I give Joe a dollar and Joe gives me a candy bar in return, and Bob walks up goin' "AYO HOL UP I NEED MY CUT AH DAT SHIET" and then proceeds to try and physically take from either me, Joe, or both of us, Bob is fucking stealing.
When buying X, you are agreeing to pay the tax.

Taxes are optional to pay when you can choose actions that involve them.

Except the mafia does not start wars and destroy cultures.

Lolbertarians are a cancer.

>When buying X, you are agreeing to pay the tax.
>Taxes are optional to pay when you can choose actions that involve them.

WHAT?!!11!!!??!!1!!

Turf wars... they would if they could

>Lolbertarians are a cancer.
Exactly. Come to think of it, Gary Johnson was an accurate representation of them- SAD!

There is no money in destroying- the money made in gov't wars comes from the sale of munitions.

When I give Joe a dollar for a candy bar I do not agree to Bob coming up and threatening me to hand over 20 cents or else, no.

neat

When you pay for something, taxes are not a part of the transaction between you and the seller- the seller simply collects for the government. You, by proxy, are funding wars.

not even one logical reason for that claim

> argues that libertarians are serious and moral
> argues that no buyers pay taxes, and that only sellers pay taxes
> Nice mental gymnastics.

well yeah, so we said that it is bad, therefore it is immoral

also I did not agree to that, I was forced to, because there are not some other product that I can chose to buy that is without taxes...

Better yet, zero income tax. Flat 20% sales tax on all purchase. People that consume the most, pays the price.

>I was forced to, because there are not some other product that I can chose to buy that is without taxes
Being self-sufficient is 100% morale- but one chooses to be partly immorale (which I don't believe is wrong- I am just saying that modern living involves many immoral acts).

Your income is not really about how hard you work, it's more about what IQ level you were born with. As well as your social network, and your innate proclivities

Just because somebody is born a genius doesn't mean they should run off with all the wealth. They got lucky, but they have a duty to their fellows that aren't so well off

Yeah.
Fuck everyone who trades for things they want. They owe other people their stuff by sheer virtue of trading.

20% is quite high- I believe that current tax is 15% of all earnigns.

> They got lucky, but they have a duty to their fellows

Agree- I think it's a shame that these libertarians don't respect the will of the social order. I think that most are asocial or got shunned early in life.