Middle Class, Rich, taxes, argument

[OrangeHeat]

So I have this running argument with my brother on taxes and have ventured off my normal path to ask for opinions here in the OT.

He believes that the rich (he defines this as +100K) should pay more taxes than they do now. Ideally he wants no one under 100K paying taxes. He is a proud member of the UAW and staunch Democrat.

I believe that there should be no reason a person making 60,000 should pay less of a percantage of their income than one making 150,000 and vice versa.

He couldn't answer this question for me :

Why should one individual who has worked 30 years and makes $150,000 pay more of a percentage of his income than another guy who has worked 30 years and is making $50,000 a year?

Can you?

I think it should be the same. Why punish the guy doing better for being successful(i.e. flat tax - no IRS - str8 X% out of payrolls)?

Thanks,

Orange

PS I am not affiliated with any party. I like Guns (Right), I like the ACLU (Left), I hate abortion (Right), I like Unions (Left), etc... Neither one fits.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
I like Guns (Right)

[/ QUOTE ]


Now I understand what "Orangeheat" stands for:

[OrangeHeat]

Lol...I should have said I like my rights to own a gun. I have a carry concealed permit but don't use it much.

I do have hunting rifles/shotguns which I used to use when I had time.

Orange

[andyfox]

A person earning less has to devote a higher percentage of his income to the basics of life. Plus he already pays a higher percentage of his income in other taxes (social security, medicaire, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc.).

On income tax, both the person making $50,000 and the person making $150,000 are paying the exact same percentage on the first $50,000 of income. The $150,000 earner is paying a higher rate on the additional $100,000 of income.

[Boris]

Rich people benefit more from our public infrastructure and laws. Therefore they should pay more. Also the marginal utility of a dollar is less for a rich person so it doesn't hurt them as much to pay taxes.

[ddollevoet]

I am also in favor of a flat tax. I really grew interested in the flat tax when Forbes was running for president. He was suggesting something like a $13,000 exemption ($26,000 if you were married) and 18% on everything over that. That way lower class pay little to no tax and everyone else pays their fair share.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this would ever be put in place. It is too logical...

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
Rich people benefit more from our public infrastructure and laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that?

[andyfox]

We already have a flat tax.

I'll let others elaborate.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should one individual who has worked 30 years and makes $150,000 pay more of a percentage of his income than another guy who has worked 30 years and is making $50,000 a year?

Can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

To affect the distribution of income to the desired levels through transfer payments and indirectly through services.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be the same. Why punish the guy doing better for being successful(i.e. flat tax - no IRS - str8 X% out of payrolls)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've decided that I will never vote for a politician who promises to raise taxes on anyone or anybody unless they indicate the desired distribution of income after the taxes are paid. Flame away but it's my vote [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. BTW the distribution of income has been skewed more towards the higher income quintiles for the last 20 years or so since Reagan took office. Also GDP growth has been well, IMO, great during this time period. Raising taxes is a slippery slope. Some would have it that income be re-distributed such that everyone basically gets the same income. Yuck...

[OrangeHeat]

Yes - but why should the more successful person be charged more on the 100,000?

Orange