Is 39% tax for the rich too much?

Is 39% tax for the rich too much?

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#59b09a9348a3
youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Any taxes at all, whether 1% or 99% are too much, taxes are theft.

this, its a extortion racket

I don't know OP how would you like to have over a third of everything you make taken from you?

>libertardians still haven't grown up yet

>Fr3LLAoN

>tripfagging

fuck off triptard

give me your money or I throw you in jail. I deserve it more than you.

>tripfagging
lol?

Yes. But keep in mind they don't actually pay those taxes, so it's non-issue. Same goes for corporate tax.

Yes, it should never be higher than 10-15% for anyone rich or poor, unless we are at total war.

1% taxes are too much!

why can't we just make more money instead of tax people in the first place?

checkm8

>taxes are theft
>effectively mandatory payments to insurance companies, private police and fire services, and corporate own road tolls are perfectly acceptable though

samefag
>

>Is 39% tax for the rich too much?
no because they don't even actually pay it.

Only if you build me roads and schools I can use without being charged.

No, it is to be given to people who don't work.

Yes, it is too much. Flat tax. Otherwise, "Liberty and Justice for all" means jack shit because what justice is there in stealing other people's money (at all, yes, but I'm not a 15 year old anarchist, so I do realise taxes are necessary)?

>Is 39% tax for the rich too much?

It's extremely high, absurdly ridiculous, it implies that practically half of your income is being extracted, and in the end the only thing you obtain with taxes this high is more tax evasion (totally justified in cases like that).

Nice dub dubs, but I found the Bernie supporter.

flat tax is moronic. you'd have to make it low to keep poor/middle class people from starving, but then it'd be too low to make any real money from the wealthy people.

Not a proponent of this particular ideology, but libertarians don't really like government intervention to begin with, so in a perfectly libertarian society, there would be no legislature in place to make it so.

>but then it'd be too low to make any real money from the wealthy people.
well gee maybe then the government would have to stick to a budget and only do things that are really necessary, instead of taking more money and squandering it.

> but then it'd be too low to make any real money from the wealthy people.

That's completely retarded.

Flat taxes implies that the rich is still paying more money because their income is higher, but they pay the same portion of their income as any other citizen.

You would get the maximum amount of tax evasion regardless of whether the tax rate was 39% or 0.5%. If the loophole is there, it will be exploited.

you have to spend money to make money.

what do you mean by "the rich"? what income bracket are we talking about specifically?

Rich people are rich because they don't always pay.
Inb4 Offshore. Panama papers.

Who pays for the military in a Lolbertarian society? What's stopping a smaller nation but with an actual military from invading?

did you read the first part of what i said, you dumb proto-spic?

Well I'm sure the rich people don't mind funding the army that protects their assets.

$15/hr

The risk and the nuisance wouldn't be worth it with lower taxes.

negative income tax, it's the most effective way to administer welfare

No. The rich in the US, that is CEOs and capitalists, make hundreds of times what their employees earn.

A corporation that doesn't make use of every advantage and opportunity will also flounder in a dozen other ways and will be out-competed.

All tax is too much

progressive taxes are unfair,

but then, all taxes are unfair

What if they still choose to evade? You say that they'll evade tax if it is raised. But many evade at current levels. Do you think they;d all just decide to play the game cause you lower their liability? I think a couple of executions would be more likely to encourage compliance.

SHAD UUP!! GIVER US DA MONE OR WE PUD YOU IN DA JAIL, FUCKING SHEEP FUCK!!

I'am not a retarded and a cuck. I'am not a socialist so I state that the rich shoudn't be taxed but only the not rich.

The rich should receive wellfare and money from worker.

If you don't think like this, then you're a socialist cuck

The argument is that they make enough money to live comfortably, the tax is there to stop them from just sitting on their pile of money effectively stagnating the market, they don't have to pay the tax if they invest the money instead, effectively keeping it in the market and hopefully earning them even more money, the alternative is just the government taking it and investing it for you in infrastructure and other things which translates to salaries of ordinary working people.

hat are you talking about? leaf

>What's stopping a smaller nation but with an actual military from invading?
an armed citizenry.

>it'd be too low to make any real money from the wealthy people.
good

maybe you'll have less beurocrats to waste it on then

>people defending the Bush tax cuts

Tip: When you're rich tax evasion is easy.

Yes, and as I said you are retarded.

What we really need to get rid of is currency so that people can work at their passion out of love for life. Scientists just had an ALS breakthrough using money from the ice bucket challenge. Imagine the breakthroughs if currency didn't exist and everyone worked together as one family. Money is more of an obstacle.

>Tip: When you're rich tax evasion is easy.

So the solution is to abolish taxation?

Yes, but no, but yes.

Those taxes hit wage earners, which very rarely includes the very rich outside of CEO's and celebrity dipshits.

The ultra-rich, multi-generational, and investor rich don't pay them because they don't generally have 'income'.

Like Warren Buffet, and his bullshit example. He doesn't pay himself a salary, so he doesn't pay any income taxes. He only pays the taxes required on the profits he makes on his investments. The capital gains tax. That's a tax on money you've already earned and been taxed on once.

listen to this dumbass. as if anyone would work for free.

if currency didn't exist the word free would be meaningless retard

So your idea is to, what, gut the people who create jobs for hundreds so the government can waste other people's money? The fact of the matter is, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, at lower tax rates, the amount of tax revenue collected becomes greater. The simple solution to your problem of not collecting enough money is to spend less.

Case in point, social security. The money would be better spent in the hands of private citizens, rather than a portion of the tax money generated going to the salaries of those who allocate the benefits. A tax program and a retirement program put together where neither would stand alone becomes untouchable when you name it "social security," despite every indication that the payouts are less than half of what they would be if you simply allowed people to make their own individual plans for retirement. Taking care of your grandparents is cool. Having your money taken forcibly on pain of incarceration to provide a significantly lower standard of care for everyone's grandparents is a pisspoor social program of good intentions but misguided economic foundation. So yes, I believe in taxes for the common defence, but not to take care of other people's grandparents. That is a gross overstepping of bounds of governmental power.

>Education in US

>imblying lolbertarians are ancaps

People with lower incomes pay more proportionally under flat taxes, there's absolutely no disputing that.

Apparently that's a good thing though, because regressive taxation is perfect.

But they don't actually pay those taxes even still, because everything is based offshore and there are a thousand loopholes.

So what it will be then? Barter again?
Stupid libertarians.

61% of shitload of money is still a shitload of money

I wouldn't be worried for the rich people. I'm sure they'll manage somehow.

based blyat

the rich only could get rich because the state enabled it for them.

I didn't specify this in the post he was quoting, but yes. Rather than having hundreds of overlapping welfare programs (all with their own legions of salaried bureaucrats), the ailing are paid with cash in hand. The actual economists can figure out the numbers most likely to provide aid whilst also encouraging steady work, but I am a proponent of the theory.

the majority of the republican party consists of poor uneducated blue collar workers who vote to only help wealthy people.

There should just be a consumption tax.

Tax reform in the US sucks.

I was paying over 30% and not even making $100k in California.

Fuck that.

Young people should get a tax moratorium as well.

The solution is to provide incentives for the wealthy to actually pay taxes. Subsidizing their company health plans. Subsidizing training programs for new employees and working together with school systems to scout for talent. Subsidize long-term employee benefits to regulate employee turnover and stabilize the job market.

Look, I'm not a fucking Economist. Taxes are something that the rich will either submit to, spend their money fighting, or evaded altogether. There is an equilibrium to be reached. If rich people want to pay their taxes then you have succeeded. Easier said than done, yes, but so is abolishing taxes.

any income tax for anybody is too much.

>mfw income tax wasn't even constitutional so they had to amend it

The incentive is to not allow them to not pay taxes. It's as simple as that. They will never want to pay taxes and will dodge taxes however small if the option is available.

Of course you'd have to lower the taxes as well once you do this.

But all this requires a government not run by hostile elites.

Hah, no not at all

It's not enough. Tax should be 100% over 250k/yr income and a lower threshold on investment income. The money should garauntee a basic income of 20k/yr for everyone.

>implying tax cuts don't increase tax revenue
>forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#59b09a9348a3
It's almost as if you just picked an image and something to say because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>the tax is there to stop them from just sitting on their pile of money

If they don't want to invest their money then they would put it in a bank where in the bank would loan the money out to investors. Either way it is not in any way "stagnating the market" like you suggest.

Why not 100%? seriously what would happen if they did this. revolt from slavery I'm assuming so why is it ok if they do it partially?

Flat tax.

Everyone wants equal treatment unless you make more money than them.

Flat tax, quit your bitching.

I used to be a libertarian, but I've recently come around to the idea that the rich can go fuck themselves. If I can't have a sex island/harem filled with legal 16 year old fuck toys, why should they? Fuck them.

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs

The fact that they wouldn't be wasting money on a team of lawyers would give them an advantage, resulting in the dodgers being out-competed.

So if you can't have something, nobody can?

They teach kids why this is a bad attitude to have in kindergarten, user.

>every rich person is neffrey epstein

It actually consist of college educated whites, but nice try libtard. Enjoy your rustbelt.

>Armed citizenry
Yes. Because that has worked well before. Especially in Iraq.

its not in my rational self interest to support them. It's literal cuckoldry, because those of us who are have nots can simply decide to take their stuff and there's realistically nothing they can do about it. Allowing small amounts of men to aggregate all of the resources/women in your society is unacceptable and would have historically been met with lethal censure. There's no justification for this. Just because you can aggregate power in such a way, doesn't justify you being allowed to do so.

VAT plans are absolutely retarded and penalize both industry and the consumer.

CA would need an insanely high one to function anyways.

upvote

In a libertarian society there would be private emergency services that you would need to pay a fee to (probably yearly) to buy their services. How is this any different from having a part of the money you pay in taxes go to paying for these government run services?

More or less, yes. Rich people don't need to abide by the monogamy contract. Polygamy fucks over 99% of men.

Wealthy people don't become wealthy in the way governments do. Wealthy people that aren't born into money provide goods and services that people consider worth the price they pay. The wealthy become wealthy through consensual exchanges of goods, services, and currency. When those wealthy people have enough money to invest in new products and services, more jobs are created, and more wealth is to follow. Under a system of governmental interventionism, the rich are taxed at exorbitant rates (which they'll get around, resulting in less tax revenue) to provide welfare for those newly laid off because of a lack of money on the employers part to pay their salaries.

because I can choose which fire service to buy from, or take the risk myself, or install a fire suppression system

why do you love monopolies that givernment dictates must be bought?

do I still have free will?

Define rich.

I'm a right-wing libertarian and I think you're fucking retarded.. Stop making libertarians look like retarded anarchists

hello stefan

Flat taxes impact the poor far more than the wealthy. Losing 15% of your $250,000 income is a lot easier to manage than losing 15% of your $40,000 income. How much of each of those incomes going towards basic needs and necessities? There's a lot less wiggle room at the lower income ends than there is at the top.

the money for subsidisation doesn't come from thin air. It comes from taxes. And so the worker is subsidising the employers costs of operation. How about lowering the tax rate and getting more revenue? proof: forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#59b09a9348a3

You do know how percentages work, righT?

And if they raise prices and you can't afford their service?

It's 'fairness' in name only.

>It's literal cuckoldry, because those of us who are have nots can simply decide to take their stuff and there's realistically nothing they can do about it.
That's always where authoritarians go first, isn't it? You don't really have an argument other than "I don't like it, so I'll kill you if you don't go along with it"

>Allowing small amounts of men to aggregate all of the resources/women in your society is unacceptable
Why? Anyway if you don't like it, compete with them. No? Oh, I guess you're too weak to find your own way in life and need the government to take the big bad rich people's stuff and give it to you?

>and would have historically been met with lethal censure.
Oh I do love appeal to tradition. Historically, the ancient Greeks liked to diddle little boys, do you engage in that too?

Nazi germany proved you don't need taxes at all

Not when you do currency right. Which we don't.

Taxing those who do well is shitty. But inversely, under correct currency, no one should be getting obscenely retarded fuck off rich anyway.

if I can't afford a service then I won't buy it

should others pay for me to have a service? what right do I have to their earnings?

well said