And really crappy drivers…
Nobody want to comment on whether dividends should be taxed as payroll?
Some people say taxing dividends is double taxation of income since they are distributed from after-tax corporate profit. So there shouldn’t be any tax on dividends 
Obviously, the super-rich guys are being double taxed on their income but the article shrewdly ignored that, just took the tax on dividends into considerations but ignored the corporate tax that they paid. So the tax rate of super-rich is in effect greater than the highest bracket of 39.6%.
You can’t expect logic in those conversations. People misrepresent info to create emotional reactions.
Not rich or poor, lower middle class by bay area standards, but I drive a crappy 99 toyota corolla as my work car. It is dependable but I only get 25 miles per gallon and 125 miles per quart of oil. I am surprised it keeps passing the smog check. Lucky its a short 8 miles drive.
I did notice one difference when I drive that car. People give it alot more respect. They seem to know I don’t care what happens to it and they don’t tailgate me or cut me off as often.
I am probably going to get rid of it when I move. It would cost me almost $700 to move it to San diego.
Probably not worth it. Anybody want to buy a crappy car?
1 Like
Absolutely, the world (meaning the poor) are always filled with jealousy and a feeling of unjust toward the super rich, whether or not these people have actually exploited the poor to get to where they are today (they probably have).
1 Like
My 99 Toyota Corolla is long gone… I totaled it in 2001… 
Come on, drive it down to SD…shoot, it’ll make it fine…
So, leaving a slice of heaven for another, eh???
Have to drive wife’s car. She hates freeway driving.
I’ve never had a poor person hire me. Most companies I’ve worked for since college were founded by people who became self-made billionaires.
2 Likes
Tax should be compared on the tax amount, not on the percentage. Personal tax amount should be within a narrow range, not by such a huge difference.
Ideally, we should charge the same tax amount for each person. Say, Everyone pays $300 social security tax, if the ratio of working and retired pop is 4, each retiree would receive $1200 per month. This way, tax will serve as an insurance with everyone paying the same amount of premium.
A tax rate based system is not fair. Bill Gates may use the same amount of social benefit, but his tax is many times of average person. In this sense, we are overtaxing the rich and undertaking the non-rich.
The redistribution tax is like a robbery. Tax code robs millions of dollars from Gates to subsidize us average citizens. It’s not fair for Mr Gates.
Government is better operated as an insurance pool instead of a systematic robbery.
1 Like
The issue that is being overlooked is the marginal utility of each dollar. for someone making $10,000 and being taxed at 25%, it’s much harder for them to manage their needs then someone making $100,000 and being taxed at 25%. Society needs to redistribute to some extent so as to ensure we are re-investing in society. It is not reasonable or fair to expect that everyone pays in at a fixed amount as it would greatly stratify society and caused us to effectively be a feudal system as those with wealth are highly likely to retain wealth, while those without would not be able to move up the food chain.
2 Likes
I thought America taxes people on a progressive tax system. What that means is that the more money you make, the more you get taxed. However, this should not discourage you from making less money because your final take home pay is still going to be incrementally higher if you are earning more.
I think this is a pretty fair system. It does redistribute some wealth from the haves to the havenots since the wealthier you are, the more tax you pay. But it does not discourage anyone from trying to maximize their income because they are still getting paid more in the end after all the tax deductions should their income go up.
I agree completely with you. I used a fixed rate example to show the unfairness of any fixed system. that even at a % basis, it’s unfair, and the corollary would be a fixed $ system (which was espoused earlier) would be even more unfair.
2 Likes
IMHO, the tax system is unfair to the productive* since the more productive you’re the more you get taxed. Don’t agree with BA_lurker’s logic at all. His logic is essentially it Is fair to take (rob?) from others who can afford to be taken (robbed) from. The wealth redistribution is not about fairness, it is about society stability, and helping others that for whatever reasons could not do as well as you, to move forward (as articulated by you). The government stepping in to do the wealth redistribution is essentially saying we are not capable of shouldering the responsibility to help others, and as such they have to step in to force the wealth redistribution. I have no opinion on whether this premise is true or not.
*is not entirely true that earning capacity is correlated to productivity. You should be able to cite many anecdotal examples that this is not true.
1 Like
Moderate wealth redistribution is good for the economy. Our economy is mostly fueled by consumption. Who are the consumers?
Would Amazon survive in a society that only a few “productive” people have the disposable income to buy crap online? Henry Ford understood this 100 years ago.
Just work for start-ups. You’ll never have any time to spend what you make so by the time you’re 50 you’ll be at “critical mass.”
1 Like
You know what? Only kind of taxation allowed by original US constitution was like what you describe here. Then, they amended it in ~1900. So, framers agreed with you but the constitution can do only so much against a majority that does not share the same moral values.
2 Likes
If you really believe this, why not advocate a new taxation system where for every million dollar you earn, you keep $1 and pay the rest in taxes? After all, people would still work just as hard as more they earn, they get to keep more.
Do you know this?
In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation). In World War Two, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944.
2 Likes
I realize that there is a fundamental disagreement among a number of us that boils down to basic philosophy on wether there needs to be some level of wealth redistribution to help those who are lesser off. (btw I don’t advocate for, and it’s a poor argument, to throw up a strawman’s argument of any extreme and to bat it down). In the interest of urging some empathy/understanding (and at the risk of being accused of making an emotional argument), I would like to present this article:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
I grew up in a lower middle class family, and while my father did well later in life, I am well aware of all the struggles my parents put up with to ensure their kids will have a better life. I mainly put myself through college, so again pretty well aware of the tradeoffs i had to make daily. So now that I am doing pretty well, I feel the need to give back. Any my take is that I could not have achieved what I had if society didnt try to enable the less well off to be successful (going to good public schools, etc)
5 Likes