Another FBook discourse gone awry. Notably, on the importance of distinguishing "fair-share," who should pay what in taxes, what taxes go where and my response to those who would outright attack the rich. It's hilarious how I come to the defense of the tax rate system and how we generate revenue. I always land on the side of the group I'm not even part of, because this whole "Hey they have money so they should be paying more taxes" argument is so disgusting. As a personal disclaimer: I came from very little. I worked hard to get where I'm at and I am proud of my accomplishments. For your pleasure...(Oh so that I don't break anyone's privacy rules, it's just my entries paraphrased)
Everyone gets tax breaks, from the poorest to the richest...
It is the income paradigm. Those who don't have, covet and want to have. Those who do have, will do what it takes to protect it. Just because you're poor, does not mean that someone who is rich owes
you anything. Just because you are rich, does not mean you owe anyone
anything. If it is unfair that the top
income earners find tax loopholes, than it is equally unfair that the
lowest income earners pay no income tax while a privileged minority pay the lion's share.
In the case of the ultra-rich, they don't pay less taxes, they pay a smaller rate as a common fallacy in these widespread arguments is that they somehow pay less. For the 20K in taxes that the common person pays per year some "rich" person pays 200K. Imagine if you were making 600,000 per year and the government, by force, took 200,000. That's 1/3, precisely the 30% rate they would like all those in that tax bracket paying. To me that's insane. If I made that money I would do my best to hide whatever income I could. Outside of hiding the money in offshore accounts what is equally forgotten is that the tax rate that everyone quotes, is the tax rate on investment dividends. This 15% rate is double-taxation, as the income that the dividends is based off of is already taxed to the business that generated it. Double taxation is against the law, yet somehow this is allowed to occur. In order to get rid of it altogether, they propose increasing the top rate for income earners to 28-32% of total income in order to enforce "fair share". While I totally agree that the freedoms and benefits that we enjoy require sacrifice, I also feel that
forcing someone to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes makes
me ill. Even for those who are lucky to consider themselves
millionaires, 30% on $1M is 300K. I would shoot someone if they tried
to take 300K from me.
People take what people give for granted. Tax based subsidies are forced by law, they aren't charitable handouts, yet people who are charitable find it in their hearts to give. Those less charitable are forced by law to give. If people are willing to pull themselves up, more power to them. If people go about the actions that will continue to keep them in poverty, then why should they be supported by law? By posting anti-money, you're basing arguments on those who find ways to make money, just as I am lambasting on those who wish to take it form me by force. I worked two crap jobs my whole life to eventually put myself through school. It can be done, without demanding more from anyone else.
What we feel
comfortable paying in taxes, one way or another, is all perspective
opinion. Besides, no one making $30K will ever know what a 30% tax rate
feels like. They are incrementally taxed at the 15% rate (rough
estimate, but it's not far off at all), and receive most of that back at
the end of the year. This results in a net income tax rate of
somewhere in the single digits. Those who have more, do pay more; much, much more. The top 1% (as is the popular reference with the kids
these days) may pay particular rates on some of their income that, at times, is
lower than the rates most pay on their income. However, they also
account for over 40% of all the tax revenue generated. This is where it
gets tricky...
Asking this limited group to pay more of that share
will also place them in a position of leverage over the same services
that you so pleasantly described. No one wants to talk about that, but
it's true all the same. If the revenue I provided to the country was
responsible for anywhere near a controlling share of that country's
services, I'd want a say in how they are run. This leads me to my
second point on the matter... (Although it's just an extension of this
thought, and in no way contradictory to what you are saying)
Those who earn more money do not use a substantially high percentage of
the services you describe. In fact, proportionally, they use quite a
bit less, while providing 40% of the funding for those services. Rich
folk don't cause more fires, drive on snowier roads, use public schools,
more police, cause more fires..etc. They money they pay in taxes
allows for those who don't pay any money at all to enjoy the services,
at an exponentially higher rate. As for scientific research, this may
be the only facet of the discussion where pay in equal pay out for those
that do the paying. Again I will reference the controlling stake issue
as well within this context of this paragraph. I imagine that most
would assume that if they had a hand in paying over 50% for any
particular service, they would want a say in how it's run. This applies
to everything from government down. Especially so in government, where
you see it in action currently...SuperPAC anyone?
Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment