Something I never understood about tax rates.

User Forum Topic
Submitted by NeetaT on January 2, 2013 - 12:44pm

I think we send the wrong message by imposing higher tax rates based on the more money you make. The message says: "You're not supposed to make that much money" "You're not supposed to live that good" "You're not supposed to drive that luxury car, thus luxury tax imposed". I know that 95% of you will not agree with me, but I just had to throw it out there.

Submitted by carlsbadworker on January 2, 2013 - 12:57pm.

NeetaT wrote:
I think we send the wrong message by imposing higher tax rates based on the more money you make. The message says: "You're not supposed to make that much money" "You're not supposed to live that good" "You're not supposed to drive that luxury car, thus luxury tax imposed". I know that 95% of you will not agree with me, but I just had to throw it out there.

I always think progressive tax is a form of bribe from the rich to the poor so that they don't riot in the street. The rich always has more to lose so they pay more to maintain the status quo.

Submitted by dumbrenter on January 2, 2013 - 1:18pm.

carlsbadworker wrote:
NeetaT wrote:
I think we send the wrong message by imposing higher tax rates based on the more money you make. The message says: "You're not supposed to make that much money" "You're not supposed to live that good" "You're not supposed to drive that luxury car, thus luxury tax imposed". I know that 95% of you will not agree with me, but I just had to throw it out there.

I always think progressive tax is a form of bribe from the rich to the poor so that they don't riot in the street. The rich always has more to lose so they pay more to maintain the status quo.

Or to put it in another way, the rich have a bigger stake in the current system continuing rather than an upheaval.
Take defense for example: we all pay tax in exchange for defense of the country (technically), but the rich have more to lose if the country gets run over by bad guys than the poor, simply because the rich have more assets or "stuff".

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on January 2, 2013 - 2:02pm.

dumbrenter wrote:
carlsbadworker wrote:
NeetaT wrote:
I think we send the wrong message by imposing higher tax rates based on the more money you make. The message says: "You're not supposed to make that much money" "You're not supposed to live that good" "You're not supposed to drive that luxury car, thus luxury tax imposed". I know that 95% of you will not agree with me, but I just had to throw it out there.

I always think progressive tax is a form of bribe from the rich to the poor so that they don't riot in the street. The rich always has more to lose so they pay more to maintain the status quo.

Or to put it in another way, the rich have a bigger stake in the current system continuing rather than an upheaval.
Take defense for example: we all pay tax in exchange for defense of the country (technically), but the rich have more to lose if the country gets run over by bad guys than the poor, simply because the rich have more assets or "stuff".

May I also add that even if tax rates were exactly the same for everyone, a rich person would still pay more in taxes than a poor person.

Submitted by flu on January 2, 2013 - 2:57pm.

What you think is irrelevant. Government can change the rules any time they want.

Submitted by livinincali on January 2, 2013 - 3:22pm.

flu wrote:
What you think is irrelevant. Government can change the rules any time they want.

Yup. Take whatever tax advantage you can immediately. Roth's are going to end up being the biggest sucker play ever.

Submitted by SK in CV on January 2, 2013 - 7:01pm.

livinincali wrote:
flu wrote:
What you think is irrelevant. Government can change the rules any time they want.

Yup. Take whatever tax advantage you can immediately. Roth's are going to end up being the biggest sucker play ever.

If you're arguing that tax benefits of existing Roths will go away, I suspect you're wrong. Nothing in the history of income tax in the US would indicate a change like that is likely.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 2, 2013 - 8:10pm.

See the queen of Versailles and tell me w a straight face that douche shouldn't pay a higher tax rate and he would be any less greedy if you raised his tax rate by 25 perc.

Submitted by CA renter on January 4, 2013 - 2:45am.

carlsbadworker wrote:
NeetaT wrote:
I think we send the wrong message by imposing higher tax rates based on the more money you make. The message says: "You're not supposed to make that much money" "You're not supposed to live that good" "You're not supposed to drive that luxury car, thus luxury tax imposed". I know that 95% of you will not agree with me, but I just had to throw it out there.

I always think progressive tax is a form of bribe from the rich to the poor so that they don't riot in the street. The rich always has more to lose so they pay more to maintain the status quo.

+1

This is why I've always said that welfare is for the rich. They benefit far more than the poor schmuck who's trying to feed a family on $300 a month (or whatever the number is) in an environment where costs are rising rapidly, but wages are not.

Submitted by bobby on January 5, 2013 - 3:33pm.

squat300 wrote:
See the queen of Versailles and tell me w a straight face that douche shouldn't pay a higher tax rate and he would be any less greedy if you raised his tax rate by 25 perc.

don't use an example of a greedy person to make all higher-earning folks look bad.
I can use an egregious welfare family to support my argument of lowering social services.

some of us work 6-7days a week to make a good living and don't feel like apologizing if we do make a little more than the average wage earner.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.