Why is it ok to unjustly target the rich?

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: her209
Because the corporation finds loopholes to not be taxed in the first place. Then with the new no-tax on dividends, they pocket all the money. Meanwhile, the poor cannot afford to own dividend stocks.

What stops the poor from going online to buyandhold.com or walking into a brokerage to purchase stocks?

Stop babying them and they may grow up.

While I'm no hippie crying about how we should redistribute the wealth, save the whales, or "make friends not enemies", the answer to that should be self evident. If you are poor, you dont have much to any money, which you need to buy stocks.

Lets say the poor start buying stocks... how much of a boost is a poor person going to get from not getting taxed on the dividends paid out by 10 shares of stock? Versus a moderately rich person who owns 5,000 shares of stock in his portfolio?

Should they get coupons or vouchers for lottery tickets instead?
They have money enough to gamble on lottery tickets but not to invest in an almost sure thing?

 

[derek2034]

People have way too much sympathy for the poor here. If you want to be honest, a couple each making $7.50 an hour can easily save nearly $1000 a month if they are fiscally responsible (depends on region, I am using GA as example). Yes, it does have sacrifices such as:

Virtually no eating out or going to movies, driving a $1000 car, getting cheapest apartment that is available, no name brand of anything, buy everything at a bargain. Oh, and how about using birth control? Becoming a baby factory is NOT an excuse.

But they could certainly afford high speed internet/cable for entertainment, and the occasional cheap perk.

The best way to make money is to not spend it in the first place.

 

[Rob9874]

I'm sickened by those who think wealth sharing is a good thing. That is the basis of communism. In America, we have the right to pursue wealth, success, and happiness. But if you get there, we're gonna force you to give half of it to us. Charity should be voluntary. Forced philanthropy has no value. This Robin Hood mentality is very disturbing. Would I like a share of Bill Gates' wealth? Sure I would. But it's not right, so I wouldn't demand it.

I bet if there were a ballot option in the next election that read "Should Bill Gates be forced to give each person in your hometown $50,000?", most democrats would vote yes. Justify it all you want, it's theivery.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I'm sickened by those who think wealth sharing is a good thing. That is the basis of communism. In America, we have the right to pursue wealth, success, and happiness. But if you get there, we're gonna force you to give half of it to us. Charity should be voluntary. Forced philanthropy has no value. This Robin Hood mentality is very disturbing. Would I like a share of Bill Gates' wealth? Sure I would. But it's not right, so I wouldn't demand it. I bet if there were a ballot option in the next election that read "Should Bill Gates be forced to give each person in your hometown $50,000?", most democrats would vote yes. Justify it all you want, it's theivery.

Such a refreshing opinion... I couldn't agree more 🙂

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It isn't "ok" to "unjustly" target the rich, but it *is* ok to tax the rich more. The reason for that is that the rich are more capable of paying a higher tax without being burdened more due to the higher tax %. In a country where the "rich" keep getting "richer"(describes most First World nations), I find the arguement of "unjust taxation" to be poppycock.

McDonalds employee: Minumum wage is unfair!
Society: Life isn't fair!
"the Rich": My level of taxation isn't fair!
Society: Life isn't fair!

It is not ok to tax the "the rich" more than someone working at McDonalds. This country was founded on the basis of Freedom, not communism.

If a person chooses to work at McDonalds or any other job at the agreed to wage that is their right. Then that person turns around and says "that unfair" and expects the government to compensate them for their decision that is wrong.

If a person chooses to develop their own business or higher education at a cost to themselves again that is their choice. But then the government imposes a higher tax rate because other people choose to work at a lower income that is not fair.

Everyone in America should pay the same tax rate, without the loopholes. Whether you are rich or poor, by whatever your standard is, our government then takes the same percentage of your earned income.

It sickens me to think the business I spend the last fifteen years developing for my family's security could be voted away from me because enough people were unhappy about their own personal finances.

This is why I vote!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: sandorski
It isn't "ok" to "unjustly" target the rich, but it *is* ok to tax the rich more. The reason for that is that the rich are more capable of paying a higher tax without being burdened more due to the higher tax %. In a country where the "rich" keep getting "richer"(describes most First World nations), I find the arguement of "unjust taxation" to be poppycock.

McDonalds employee: Minumum wage is unfair!
Society: Life isn't fair!
"the Rich": My level of taxation isn't fair!
Society: Life isn't fair!

It is not ok to tax the "the rich" more than someone working at McDonalds. This country was founded on the basis of Freedom, not communism.

If a person chooses to work at McDonalds or any other job at the agreed to wage that is their right. Then that person turns around and says "that unfair" and expects the government to compensate them for their decision that is wrong.

If a person chooses to develop their own business or higher education at a cost to themselves again that is their choice. But then the government imposes a higher tax rate because other people choose to work at a lower income that is not fair.

Everyone in America should pay the same tax rate, without the loopholes. Whether you are rich or poor, by whatever your standard is, our government then takes the same percentage of your earned income.

It sickens me to think the business I spend the last fifteen years developing for my family's security could be voted away from me because enough people were unhappy about their own personal finances.

This is why I vote!

Communism? Not even close, hell, it's not even Socialism.

Look, are the "rich" living in the streets? Are they being repressed? No, they are getting richer, for the vast majority of "them". "Fairness" doesn't exist, just ask those who can't afford the same education that the "tax repressed rich" can easily afford. No one is planning on "voting" your company out of existance.

BTW, I agree with "Loopholes". "Loopholes" are an excellent way for the government to direct funds to areas of society where Social or Economic issues need to be addressed. They are excellent for keeping certain types of funding within the Private Sector. This assumes, of course, that they are used in a wise manner.

 

[Siddhartha]

Somebody has to pay for the upcoming wars....

 

[Tom]

In order to believe taxing the rich is "unjust" you have to begin from an unrealistic understanding of the real world.

To put it very broadly, people become rich in large part because they are part of a successful society, therefore it is in their interest to see that the society continues to be successful.

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
In order to believe taxing the rich is "unjust" you have to begin from an unrealistic understanding of the real world.

To put it very broadly, people become rich in large part because they are part of a successful society, therefore it is in their interest to see that the society continues to be successful.

Since when is redistributing weath making society successfull? Isn't is just creating a group of people who become dependant on a program or handout instead of doing for themselves?

 

[Analog]

its wrong.

 

[derek2034]

Question: What's worse than a huge, bloated corporation sitting on a massive war chest of cash and expanding into every area they can?

Answer: A company that employs nearly 20% of the US population and has the ability to use deadly force.

If you look at the government as men and not as a diety, the folly of trusting them any more than a company is apparent.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Damage

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
In order to believe taxing the rich is "unjust" you have to begin from an unrealistic understanding of the real world.

To put it very broadly, people become rich in large part because they are part of a successful society, therefore it is in their interest to see that the society continues to be successful.

Since when is redistributing weath making society successfull? Isn't is just creating a group of people who become dependant on a program or handout instead of doing for themselves?

Who is "redistributing wealth"? Is the current US tax system is doing that?

 

[Tom]

Obviously NO ONE could get rich in the first place without "redistribution of wealth".

The real question here is, it costs money to have a successful society, and what is the fairest way to pay for it? Using phrases like "redistribution of wealth" is just propaganda.

As far as the particulars of taxing dividends, obviously removing or reducing the tax on dividends is going to reward people who have a lot of income from dividends at the expense of those that don't.

That is "redistribution of wealth" just as much as giving food stamps to poor people is.