What should be the MOST % of your income that goes to taxes?

[Bez]

So if I think having infinite wealth is obscene then I'm a Commie? I don't think so. Of course there is no arbitrary figure you could put on what is necessary.

Back to the original question, if I was Roman Abramovich, then I don't think it would be wrong for the government to take away 70% of my earnings. However, the situation is clouded somewhat by the fact that I wouldn't trust any government to spend the money wisely, which puts a different slant on the original question.

[HDPM]

So upon what basis do you decide how much is enough? Why is it moral to take money away from somebody above that point?

I think that the government taking more than 50% of your income would qualify as obscene. No one should have more than 35-40% of their income taken at all levels of government combined.

So if I make 1 million a year, my property, state, and federal taxes combined should not exceed 350k.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to define pure capitalist but I certainly support a capitalist system. However, there just comes a point when having more money is just unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not support a pure capitalist system but I think it is a stretch to say you are something other than a capitalist. Being a socialist for example requires more than an opinion about the tax code.

Most likely you are a non-moderate democrat simlar to perhaps Dennis Kucinich

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
You do not support a pure capitalist system but I think it is a stretch to say you are something other than a capitalist. Being a socialist for example requires more than an opinion about the tax code.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right his statement means he does not support pure capitalism, I personally do not believe that there is a point where more money serves no purpose, I consider myself a CapSocialist, I do not belive anyone should pay more than 33.3% of their annual earnings in taxes. I mean ANYONE.

Mack

[HDPM]

I think a collectivist is willing to steal from one person based on the arbitrary whim of another for some vague idea of what is good for some group or another. I am sorry to say the poster fits in that group. The fact that he says the theft is based on a reason different from the reasons advanced by some communists, or that the money is maybe going somewhere other than where one socialist or another would send it doesn't change the nature of the transaction. Poster Bez Basically posits that it is OK to take money from one person, by force, when that person has too much. What is too much is left to be decided by somebody other than the one being stolen from. So is the question of who has too much and is therefore a target for the theft. That isn't capitalism, sorry.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I think having infinite wealth is obscene then I'm a Commie? I don't think so. Of course there is no arbitrary figure you could put on what is necessary.

Back to the original question, if I was Roman Abramovich, then I don't think it would be wrong for the government to take away 70% of my earnings. However, the situation is clouded somewhat by the fact that I wouldn't trust any government to spend the money wisely, which puts a different slant on the original question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fairest system would charge a lower percentage to the people who earn the most, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, FWIW I earn relatively little, and would classify myself as more socialist than anything else.

Mack

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Even with tax breaks the rich people get they still pay a higher % of taxes than anyone else, you definatly are not pure capatalist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, on income. The problem is untaxed wealth. The uber-rich only pay in a small amount of what they're worth. Even the upper-upper-middle class are worth mostly their income, and as long as that's where taxes are coming from, it's going to be hard to build wealth.

[James Boston]

I know what you mean, but "taxes" is still a broad term. For instance, SS taxes are hurting Americans terribly, IMO. I don't know how to get the numbers to prove my theory, but I believe that lowering that percentage paid to SS, while lifting the cap to all income instead of the first $90K, would produce more money for the government relieve those earning under $90K; far and away the vast majority of the population.

Wouldn't doing that make it so that people earning above 90k would be paying way more in to SS than they would ultimately get out of it?