The wealthiest Americans pay most of the tax burden in the USA. There are those that say that is fair. He who has more can pay more, but making the rich pay more in taxes may have a negative effect on the poor. If a poor person wants a job does another poor person hire them? Certainly not. The rich Americans are the ones who provide jobs for the poor or lower class. The more you tax the rich the less disposable income they have to hire the poor with. Some may be inclined to say, “you are just giving it to them anyway, so give it to them in government subsidies”. My opinion is that a person can get more from a wealthy American by working for them then they can get from a government subsidy. Tax the rich for what they use, not the welfare system and Medicare, and let them redistribute the wealth to the poor that deserve for it.
3 comments:
This idea of not taxing the rich is completely absurd. This would mean that the middle class would shoulder the burden and that would certainly stifle growth. The middle class would have less disposable income and would likely mean that some that were previously in the middle class would drop out into poverty like conditions. The rich aren't out their creating new jobs with their personal wealth anyways. People like Michael Dell, George Soros, Steve Ballmer, and Warren Buffett are all at the helm of companies in which hundreds of thousands of people are employed either directly or indirectly because of their firms.
One minor misspelling in Student01's comment, which I'll let slide.
The economics here is good, but I am confused by Joe's comment - no one seriously claims that the rich invest to avoid taxes (other than in tax shelters). But ... I'm wondering if I misinterpreted what you wrote.
As to the others, while most of the thinking is good there is a big underlying confusion (everywhere, not just here) between marginal tax rates and tax revenue collected. The rich will always pay more taxes because they have more to tax. So, our tax revenue comes mostly from the rich. But, we also hinder the rich further in this country (and in most others) by taxing them at a higher marginal rate. So, we are encouraging them to constantly be thinking that their next endeavor will not yield as much for them as their last one. That's can't be heartening for them.
Here's another idea to chew on - marginal tax rates are actually fairly low in the U.S. already. Think about it - if your family earned in a developing country what they earned here, what would be their tax rate? Typically it would be a lot higher because those high (and confiscatory) rates charged the rich start at much lower income levels in developing countries. So, many, many people can get sorta-rich in the U.S. and still pay a fairly low share of their income in taxes.
^ Minus the fact that if we went back to a barter system on a large scale, it would be difficult to implement.. we'd almost be going back in time because how would you pay for something like a car? With 2000 chickens? It's better to have a measure of what something is worth. However, I do think in some cases, on a small scale, bartering is good because each party needs something and benefits.
And to the discussion.. who says the rich are paying the taxes anyhow? many probably use loopholes.
Post a Comment