Should the rich pay more income taxes?

Should the rich pay more income taxes?

Other urls found in this thread:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572085
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They do

No

reading comprehension

No. If I tax the rich and the rich leave, who supplies the jobs? The government. And that would be socialism user. Socialism is bad.

>implying the rich would pay those taxes

no one should pay income tax

>implying the rich don't pay taxes

the companies invest into their businesses so as to not pay too much tax on income, this will help the economy and the income raised to the government. Whether you make 2 million a year or 10 million you won't work harder for it at a certain point. Certainly many greedy company owners will leave in this international climate but demand and the possibility to still be comfortably rich will be meet by new entrepreneurs

If a rich guy calls 911 for a heart attack, and a slightly less rich guy two blocks away also calls for heart attack, does the richer guy get an amberlamps dispatched sooner?

then why should he pay more?

"2 million a year or 10 million" That's an idiotic statement. When you have someone who has the drive to create a business or company that will reach that level of income, they aren't going to stop at some "happiness level", leaf.

because he's siphoning more from his worker he could pay more and the products he's selling to the people are too expensive that's why he's banking so much. If the governments steps in and takes a reasonable amount it's ethical.

Yes. Money is supposed to be a representation of labor. It doesn't mean we get paid the same but money is often representative of one's being close to money, if that makes sense. As in those in that group author their own value and because they're at the top they all author it so together to maintain their winning.

Investing in things doesn't decrease your income tax.

you don't understand, burger; it's not some happiness level, it's a satisfaction level. A worker can find extra motivation in extra financial compensation, but at a certain point he doesn't any more. Will a worker, no matter what his job or position is work harder for 10 million than for 2? no. So his income should be taken from him beyond that point, in actuality not because it's unnecessary but because it's ethncal. No man should be a billionaire.

Ethical for the government to take what they did not create? Starting and growing a business takes an insane amount of hard work, dedication, time and RISK most people don't have the testicular fortitude to attempt much less the intellectual and physical stamina to maintain. Fuck off, commies.

>but at a certain point he doesn't any more
This is a statement only made by someone who hasn't reached that point XD.
>implying rich people don't want to become richer.

that's not the point, burger. Investing in your business is preferable for the rich when they are taxed much, they can prefer to build their business over paying taxes to the government.

A ceo pays himself. If his tax rates on income total 60% he may prefer to pay himself more of that than if they were 80% for instance. Reinvestment is incentivised in many ways in this case.

Whats the point, they'll just find a way to avoid it anyway.

there's no bigger financial reward for anyone than making as much money as they can and need. If you make 2 million a year you have all the money you can need. If you compare a full time worker who makes 45k a year the ceo banking 2 million - this more than accounts for any extra hard work and dedication etc that the ceo invested personally to grow his business and at any case growing and having a business doesn't make it ethical for you to overcharge, underpay your employees to funnel all the cash to your fat pockets.

So what's wrong with him growing his business and investing in hiring more thankless anons like you? You get a job out of it.

You also realize CEOs do not all set their own salaries and answer to a board in many public companies, right? They aren't this omnipotent god of their organization.

Further, many private companies in he US are s-corps which means all income goes through the owner and tax rates are very high.

ffs are people here retarded?

yeah odds are any poster isn't a multi millionaire on Sup Forums. You provide no counter argument.

rich people wanting to become richer is greed, they don't work harder.

Pay more compared to what?

The is obviously a point where taxes are too high (unless you think a 100% tax rate is good) and there is a point where it is too low (unless you want gov't not to exist). So there is an optimal tax rate. My guess is Canada is above the perfect tax rate.

Wages are a representation of bargaining power not labor. So a misunderstanding of wages is your first problem. The second would be you're a fucking leaf.

I do hate banks so you got me with that example to some degree but particularly in the case of private companies, I do not see what place it is for the government to demand a higher percentage of his earnings due to his increasing success. And if the salary he offers to you is insufficient, don't take the job.

Do you actually know any successful SMB owners personally?

>rich people wanting to become richer is greed

Wanting to forcibly take the property of other people is also greed. Even if the weapon you use to take their property is government.

>thankless
for being against exorbitant annual income some ceos pay themselves?

>CEOs do not all set their own salaries and answer to a board in many public companies

the share holder boards of public companies determine the ceos pay. And they usually don't allow him to bank as much as i'm trying to prevent. What is your point? or did you not know this?

The tax rates in the US for the very wealthy are around 50% perhaps slightly more. This means a ceo who pays himself 100 million dollars, will bank 50 million that year in CASH while he pays his underling 45k a year for a full time job. That's an over 1000 fold discrepancy, it's grossly abhorrent

>A worker can find extra motivation in extra financial compensation, but at a certain point he doesn't any more
that's called their "value". When you have 1,000 lined up to do the same job, for an equal or lower price, you don't pay them more money. Sorry. A rich person doesn't go to the grocery store and pay more for bread than everyone else.

then why even try to earn a profit?

Should income tax be used as punishment?

here is your $10/month allowance. More is unnecessary. Be happy. Now get back to work.

Yes, pic related. Even if it reduces the productivity of our society a bit, some amount of progressive taxation makes sense, simply because your bottom dollar is worth much more than your top dollar.

so why doesn't your worthless ass do something that takes away from their market share?
Because you want everything easy in life and would rather cry about other people having while you have not.

If he product he was selling was too expensive, he wouldn't be selling many of them and therefore wouldn't be very successful so you have a failed circular argument here...

>it's a leaf unironically supports communism episode

if he makes the 2 million by March and you tell him he cannot earn any more for the rest of the year he would probably just close his business until the next year.

>This means a ceo who pays himself 100 million dollars, will bank 50 million that year in CASH while he pays his underling 45k a year for a full time job. That's an over 1000 fold discrepancy, it's grossly abhorrent

Why is that a bad thing? If the CEO is bringing in billions in revenue for the company and the employee is responsible for a few 100K, they are getting paid what they deserve.

>I do not see what place it is for the government to demand a higher percentage of his earnings due to his increasing success
two things, because nobody needs money past the point of necessity and secondly because it's not success that is attributable to his yearly company earnings from which he'll take a part for himself as income. The reason there's a large poll is because he OVERCHARGED for his products, and otherwise could have shared a larger part of the wealth to his workers keeping himself the largest at the end still.

Small businesses would not all be affected by a high tax rate on high income earners, some don't break even, some are on loans, but even if you take a growing one it will make enough money for the CEO to have as much money as he needs balancing that with reinvestment into his company.

I know SMB owners, they are all millionaires. Intelligently reinvesting into thier businesses, but paying themselves more than what could be given more fairly to either again the workers, the business, or the government though higher taxes

>Limited resources
>Secure them essentially by force (laws are inherently violent)
>Be born and be told you are essentially a slave
>Slave away to make the 'owners' of said resources even richer
>Watch as their descendants get all those resources passed on to them
>Be told you have to work hard if you want a comfy life
>Be told you can't take away the 'owners' resources because you have to respect the laws that they pay to enforce

>rich people are richer than ever!
And currently you have a fucking cushy existence in comparison to basically everyone in history.
Go whine elsewhere.

so start a business and be grossly abhorrent yourself. I bet you cannot do it. Maybe THAT is why they are paid more. Doing what most cannot.

we're not talking about property, we're talking about income and tax on it. This is not ethically self allocated past a point it should be taxed much higher.

No and no income taxes should exist.

big if dickhead

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572085

tldr; the more you pay your CEO the worse your company does

>Should the rich pay more income taxes?
What for?
Also income taxes should be replaced with a sales tax

You don't need the internet for shit posting on Sup Forums.
If you actually want to start arguing need prepare to whittle your belongings down significantly.

Income Taxes shouldn't exist. Taxation is theft.

Then the best companies will find the ideal wage for their CEO that keeps the most CEOs from leaving them but maximizes profits. The companies that don't will lose money.

What does this have to do with morality and what business is it of the gov't?

>This is not ethically self allocated
is it self allocated if it is the board of directors paying him?

We're not talking about preventing profits. We're talking about ethically redistributing high ceo pays. A highly taxed ceo can still make a profit. It's an ethical issue passed a certain point it's unethically self allocated and should be ethically taxed.

the income tax should be abolished
raise taxes on businesses

> we're not talking about property, we're talking about income

Your income is your property.

>and should be ethically taxed.
why?

No, Goy. The Jews are rich and that would be like another Shoah.

>self allocated
you keep saying this as if the CEO pays himself whatever he wants. This is extremely rare.

wtf are you even babbling, projecting?

it doesn't matter if it's greed or not. To the victor go the spoils. They solve problems tons of problems every day, like a boss, that would melt the average user snowflake. Imagine every decision you making could have an impact on thousands of people's livelyhoods?

>muh ethics
And politicians are going to decide this ethical amount?
Gee, I can't see how that could possibly get retarded.

no retard, i said too expensive as in compared to what he should charge for them which is less.

Jews want higher taxes because they control the government

You don't understand how profit works? How is his earning not attributable to the company's success outside of the 0.1% of shady businesses getting bonuses while the company fails? That is an extreme exception and not a rule. For most companies P&L is EXACTLY attributed to their income.

Your overcharge argument is ludicrous as well.

Sounds like you are advocating reinvestment in their business at the end there despite poo pooing on it earlier.

If you are unhappy with your station in life, do something about it. You aren't powerless despite what you have convinced yourself. How about you go start a business and make it the "Model" for what you advocate vs purporting empty commie rhetoric?

>ethically taxed
this needs defining. Why should a rich guy be responsible for paying tax for things he may never personally use, while at the same time the people that DO use it pay no taxes at all.

(((((((Rich people))))))))


Fuck the (((())))
JEWS HAVE ACCELERATED THEIR EFFORTS TO ENSLAVE AND DESTROY HUMANITY. WE ALL CAN SEE IT. NEOCON WARS FOR GREATER ISRAEL AND UNLIMITED REFUGEES FOR THE WEST. ALL CAUSED BY, AND ENABLED BY, RIGHT AND LEFTWING JEWS. TWO WINGS OF THE SAME DEMON.

MAKE EVERYONE AWARE...NOW. (YOU) CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BE AFRAID OF A PUBLIC BACKLASH FOR EXPOSING WHAT JEWS ARE DOING. THIS IS A FUCKING PSYCHOLOGICAL WORLD WAR..AND THE SYNAGOUGE OF SATAN HAS RECENTLY BEEN DOUBLING DOWN IN A FINAL PUSH. BLM, SAME SEX BATHROOMS, GAY ADOPTION AND TRANNY KIDS ETC

SHOW PROOF TO AS MANY NORMIES AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT PEOPLE GET THE MESSAGE THAT IT'S NOT JUST ONE JEW. THIS IS JEWISH "CULTURAL" AND TRIBAL WARFARE.

Sup Forums WE NEED TO SHILL EVERY AREA OF THE NET. SHILL RELENTLESSLY AND LIKE YOUR LIFE AND THE FUTURE OF CIVILISATION DEPENDS ON IT...BECAUSE IT FUCKING DOES

DO IT NOW BEFORE (((LAWS))) ARE INTRODUCED TO CENSOR THE NET COMPLETELY BECAUSE (YOU) KNOW (((THEY))) WILL SHUT US DOWN..SOON.

USE FACTS NOT MERCHANTS

THIS IS WORLD WAR MEME

And remember to copy pasta and fix any spelling mistakes for fuck sake

Nobody is forcing companies to overpay their CEOs

When we stop getting run by incompetent, over encumbering bureaucrats, and start having a competently ran country, then yes.

>impacts thousands of meth smoking uneducated trash who already live off of gov't subsidies
or
>impacts thousands of educated highly skilled workers who pay taxes that pay for the gov't subsidies of meth smoking uneducated trash

Everyone should pay the same tax. Just because someone is more successful at life doesn't mean it's okay to take more of his money.
I'm not sure what the exact sum should be, but a percentage based tax is unfair, and progressive tax rates are just ridiculous.

>Should the rich pay more income taxes?

No. Income tax is fucking stupid.

Instead, tax them on the money they don't spend. Tax them on the money they spend out of country.

All the money they spend in the country should be taxed as little as possible. Same for everyone else.

The move from tariffs to income tax was the worst thing to happen to the world.

Yes. The total ammount of tax taken should be the ammount needed to make society run effectively, no more and no less. If everyone is taxed equally, the poorest members of society will be left with almost nothing. They will only be able to buy the bare necessities, which will hurt the economy. Economic decline will lead to social decline, which will need even more tax to counteract.

>Instead, tax them on the money they don't spend
this is probably even dumber than an income tax

>taxed a greater portion of their income for the same shit
>taxed orders of magnitude more for the same shit
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEIR NOT PAYING THEY'RE FAIR SHARE

I'm not arguing for a cap on income. I'm arguing for a rate of tax on the high income earners. It's not a cap at say 2 million, i was saying 2 million as in if that's what he has left after taxes

>Yes. The total ammount of tax taken should be the ammount needed to make society run effectively
Specifically who decides what "effectively" means?

No it's not. Obviously I'm not talking about some sort of monthly levy or some system meant to prevent saving for large investments.

>The total ammount of tax taken should be the ammount needed to make society run effectively, no more and no less
you have it completely backwards. Government receives our tax contribution and budgets accordingly. The don't bill us.

you're just completely making things up. Go learn economics fag. Economics isn't something that you "feel" or "think". It's something that has laws, like physics. Grow up

punished for saving.. BRILLIANT!

because he still has much more money in the end. The heavy tax thing relies on assuming that you need society to get where you are, and you're a player in society, which there is truth to.

What specifically is a large investment?
Why are large investments bad specifically?

...

portions of your income can be written off in some circumstances
such as any interest you pay on your house payment can be deducted from your income

>It's not a cap at say 2 million, i was saying 2 million as in if that's what he has left after taxes
you implied that he'd get to keep 2 million regardless of how much more he earned. That is effectively a cap.

No. Close the loopholes and set a flat tax. Close more loopholes as lawyers find them.

So high taxation is just a political spanking for rich people?

no

You crack me up. Okay say he sells a widget for $100 each and has 20% market share. 40% profit margin. He turns into a commiefag overnight and suddenly decides that this profit margin is unethical and drops the price to $80. However, because his product is now cheaper yet still of comparable quality to the competitors, his market share moves to 50%. He is now making more profit by selling more units.

Your pricing argument is invalid. Stick to the pay muh employeez moar line.

Profits are always a race to the bottom anyways as technology evolves so profit up front is needed for R&D for the next evolution to stay relevant and... in business.

They pay more, but at a lower rate you fucking retard

>money is supposed to be a representation of labour
No it isnt. It's a good we use to barter for goods and services. It represents nothing now since we live in fiatville

It's like having a kindergarden of kids and one kid always ends up with 90% of the toys. The kindergardener then goes in and distributes some of them to the other kids.

geez, i can't think of a single thing that would happen besides candy canes and lolly pops if you created a hostile or stagnant environment where nobody has any incentive to do anything great

>No. If I tax the rich and the rich leave, who supplies the jobs?

are you stupid? do you believe supply dictates demand? businesses don't sprout jobs out of thin air, a business owner sees a demand for a product or a service and creates jobs according to it. demand dictates supply. people create jobs, moran

They do.

No it's like if there was a bring your toys to school day and one kid brought 10 of his toys to play with but another said he has to share 4 of them with the other kids.

>It's not a cap at say 2 million, i was saying 2 million as in if that's what he has left after taxes
So I work tirelessly and bring home hundreds of millions...and get to keep 2?
Why the fuck would I bother getting raped like that?

>income tax isnt deductible with investments
>"but no, that's not the point. With higher taxes, the businessman invests more"
Are you posting from a script? What you just said contradicts federal tax law

So what's the maximum value of human work? Certainly most of the world's richest are critically overvalued.

the CEO is not bringing in billions in revenues. The company would be.

>retarded

>be grossly abhorrent yourself
>dumb fuck

we went over this already, if its a publically owned business they will be allocated less.

talking in real terms, your self allocated multi millions are after taxes your property - which should be higher.

because ethics matter? Why are the rich taxed higher than the poor anyway?

it's not extremely rare, this is what happens in private businesses, do they not?

the people's representatives should they accept to live under a representative democracy

Say goodbye to every single person in the country that makes more than 4 million a year. They'll leave for another country and the economy will collapse

It's whatever supply and demand determines it to be.

this would indicate the other kids had nothing to do with the 10 toys, which is not true.