Should the rich pay more tax

[Gemsy-chan]

In theory the rich should pay more tax but they are the ones that can squirrel away their money in tax havens or leave the country if the tax is too high and when that happens you get less tax receipts. You need a fair tax system that will make the rich pay more but not make them leave the country.

 

[thedoctor2016]

Well that’s why you close the loop holes and if they get found on tax evasion make them pay it

 

[IncendiaryLemon]

Not sure about that, they don't even have choice in the matter the government just take without asking if they want to give more money for the poor.

You are literally arguing against basic human kindness at this point. You're saying rich people should be allowed to be massive assholes. How can you possibly defend this?

 

[Gemsy-chan]

It’s tax avoidance that the loop holes need closing as evasion is already illegal. But you still can’t stop them leaving the country.

 

[Watanabe Ken]

You are literally arguing against basic human kindness at this point. You're saying rich people should be allowed to be massive assholes. How can you possibly defend this?

No I was just saying human decency or being a massive asshole doesn't come into it when other people are makeing decisions for you.

 

[Watanabe Ken]

She's talking about capital flight you know what happened in Venezuela when they tried to make the rich pay for everything, now people are eating there beloved pets. #Socialism

 

[IncendiaryLemon]

No I was just saying human decency or being a massive asshole doesn't come into it when other people are makeing decisions for you.

No, what you asked was why rich people should give to those worse off than them, and why the Government is justified in taking more money from them than poorer people, to which I think being kind to one another and creating a fairer society is more than a good enough reason. By protesting this, you're essentially telling people you want the impoverished to be worse off. When making statements, you really have to take a good and deep look at what they actually mean and how they reflect upon yourself as a person and how other people will think of you, it might make you change your mind.

 

[Teapot]

Just a heads up: I expect that this thread might prove to be contentious, and I would like everyone involved to be sure to be excellent to one another. Keep it kind and civil, debate the point rather than attacking the person, and be sure to back up your arguments with facts and reason wherever possible. Thanks!

 

[Vashdaman]

they both made choices in life which led to the positions there in now, why does Richard have to pay for someone he doesn't even know, is him having all his virgin money somehow hurting Jon.

This isn't really how reality works though, it's not all down to lifestyle choices and one's own volition, there's an awful lot of stuff which is simply out of our control, the world isn't the fair and equal place you seem to think it is. It's a nice way to blame people for their misfortune, and one that our late stage capitalist societies love to employ to avoid giving welfare or talk about structural inequality, but there's a lot of variables and people who are simply or the wrong side of luck still deserve to have a decent life, and more people would have more decent lives if wealth was spread less selfishly, and this would benefit the whole society.

And no, you can't just trust the rich to give out of the goodness of their hearts, because they just won't (more often than not), humanity is too flawed to just leave them up to it.

 

[ayase]

Yes, because everything about our economy (and indeed, the global economy) is broken. And it's broken for the benefit of the wealthy.

The bottom bar is what people surveyed think would be a fair distribution of wealth. The middle is what they think it currently is. The top bar is the reality. I'm not sure how anyone can defend the top 20% of earners controlling 85% of the wealth. 80% of people would be better off if that 20% was paid a little less and they were paid a little more, or if that 20% were taxed higher.

If you are working, yet you still have to rely on tax credits or benefits to live (as many people do) then something is horribly wrong. The government is essentially propping up these people's employers with tax money by allowing them to pay their employees less than they need to live on. If you are working and cannot afford your rent and need housing benefits, then the government is propping up your landlord who is already wealthy enough to own another house to rent out.

A system that makes the people at the bottom suffer and struggle so the people at the top can add to their already sizeable wealth is not a defensible system. In the 1950s in the United Kingdom and the United States, the cheerleaders for capitalism at the height of the Cold War, the top income tax rate was over 90%. Ninety percent. Ours didn't fall below 75% until Thatcher, the USA's didn't fall below 65% until Reagan.

I think the biggest problem is moderately well off people massively overestimating themselves as being among the "wealthy" when people argue for higher taxes, like it's a tax on their success and it's targeting them. No, it would be a tax on extravagant and unnecessary wealth. Do people really think that anyone deserves to be paid £400 an hour when the people at the bottom are struggling on £2.50 an hour slave labour apprenticeships?

She's talking about capital flight you know what happened in Venezuela when they tried to make the rich pay for everything, now people are eating there beloved pets. #Socialism

That can only happen as long as some countries are happy to let people buy citizenship (I don't imagine you'd be in favour of that), pay low or no taxes and screw poor people, and as long as other countries are willing to allow people to move their money out of the country - An alternative, one the UK used until the 1970s, was capital controls. I don't think there was a lot of capital flight from the US and UK back in the 1950s-1970s, and that was because the capital had nowhere else to go.

 

[Watanabe Ken]

No, what you asked was why rich people should give to those worse off than them, and why the Government is justified in taking more money from them than poorer people, to which I think being kind to one another and creating a fairer society is more than a good enough reason. By protesting this, you're essentially telling people you want the impoverished to be worse off. When making statements, you really have to take a good and deep look at what they actually mean and how they reflect upon yourself as a person and how other people will think of you, it might make you change your mind.

Who's protesting I'm just asking questions, you say the government are justified in taking rich people's money so long as it creates a fairer society but what is this fairer society and who defines it.

 

[Watanabe Ken]

To be honest this just raises more questions than it asnswers.
1. How do they measure the wealth properties owned, how much money's in the bank.
2. How did the top 20% aquire this wealth did they do what bill gates did or did they acquire it dishonestly
I would love to just say boooooo evil rich people but I don't know the circumstances of how they acquired there wealth, I can't blame bill gates for being a genious and for people buying the Xbox and whatever else he invented.

 

[NoSurprises]

But if the rich are forced to pay more tax, how will they afford to launch more Teslas into space?!

(Also, is there a solid definition of 'rich'?)

 

[Watanabe Ken]

This isn't really how reality works though, it's not all down to lifestyle choices and one's own volition, there's an awful lot of stuff which is simply out of our control, the world isn't the fair and equal place you seem to think it is. It's a nice way to blame people for their misfortune, and one that our late stage capitalist societies love to employ to avoid giving welfare or talk about structural inequality, but there's a lot of variables and people who are simply or the wrong side of luck still deserve to have a decent life, and more people would have more decent lives if wealth was spread less selfishly, and this would benefit the whole society.

And no, you can't just trust the rich to give out of the goodness of their hearts, because they just won't (more often than not), humanity is too flawed to just leave them up to it.

No I don't think the world's a fair and equal place nor do think it ever will be. I just don't buy into the whole capitalism is bad for the poor because it isn't, it's actually the best it's ever been for the poor in human history.

 

[ayase]

I just don't buy into the whole capitalism is bad for the poor because it isn't, it's actually the best it's ever been for the poor in human history.

I thought the question was "Should the rich pay more tax" not "Capitalism vs socialism". This issue isn't that black and white, it's not a matter of people who want low taxes being capitalists and people who think taxes should be higher being socialists.

The UK and US were certainly capitalist countries in the 1950s and '60s and the rich were paying a lot more tax, as I mentioned above. A heavier tax burden on the wealthiest people doesn't necessarily equal "socialism" unless you think Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Truman and Eisenhower were socialists (or even Nixon, the top rate of income tax was still 70% during his time in office and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being a socialist). I also don't think anyone would say the wealthiest people in British and American society were having a hard time in the 1950s and '60s coping with this tax burden. And certainly there was a lot more investment in things like social housing.

 

[Watanabe Ken]

I thought the question was "Should the rich pay more tax" not "Capitalism vs socialism". This issue isn't that black and white, it's not a matter of people who want low taxes being capitalists and people who think taxes should be higher being socialists.

late stage capitalist societies

I probably wouldn't have mentioned it if he didn't bring it up, but saying that I'm always open to a capitalism vs socialism debate, I might even make a thread at a later date.

 

[ayase]

I probably wouldn't have mentioned it if he didn't bring it up, but saying that I'm always open to a capitalism vs socialism debate, I might even make a thread at a later date.

If you're going to be using Venezuela as the benchmark for socialism I think I'll be leaving that one well alone.

Any responses to my points on the actual topic of tax there?

 

[Watanabe Ken]

If you're going to be using Venezuela as the benchmark for socialism I think I'll be leaving that one well alone.

Any responses to my points on the actual topic of tax there?

Which one quote it and I'll answer it in the morning because I'm going to sleep now.

 

[Watanabe Ken]

The UK and US were certainly capitalist countries in the 1950s and '60s and the rich were paying a lot more tax, as I mentioned above. A heavier tax burden on the wealthiest people doesn't necessarily equal "socialism

I don believe I said heavier taxation on the wealthiest people does equal socialism so I don't know why your bringing it up, was my joke about Venezuela really that bad #socialism

I also don't think anyone would say the wealthiest people in British and American society were having a hard time in the 1950s and '60s coping with this tax burden. And certainly there was a lot more investment in things like social housing.

No why would they there rich and WW2 was very costly in many ways, but how are the two time periods comparable because correct me if I'm wrong but a good percentage of our population haven't been killed by the Germans and the Germans haven't been dropping bombs on our houses or have they and i just haven't noticed.

 

[st_owly (witch)]

Rich people need poorer workers to make their businesses successful. Therefore, rich people should contribute more to the state which allows people to use the NHS etc. No man is an island and all that.