Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#21 - oceanmist (05/13/2013) [-]
A billionaire is in a 35% tax bracket, the average person is in a tax bracket of 15%.
User avatar #251 to #21 - tomoon (05/13/2013) [-]
I am 19 years old and I have 36% tax. (From Norway though)
User avatar #143 to #21 - rhetoricalfunny (05/13/2013) [-]
A Copypasta - Not mine

It isn't about taking it and giving it to the poor. Its about simple economics. The strongest economy this nation has EVER enjoyed was during the 50's and 60's. During this time period the rich ate a 91% tax on income, with a slightly lower tax of 50-60% on invested income (stocks). This lead the rich to invest the majority of their wealth (unlike today where the rich keep the vast majority of their wealth in cash). This meant two things; first, the money constantly flowed through the economy, allowing for rapid job growth and keeping the vast majority of Americans not only employed, but making a reasonable amount for their time and effort. Second, this meant that with the large tax income generated mostly by the rich, the government was able to build the interstates and national highways, which further kept people employed by hiring workers locally and thus injecting cash into local markets.

In addition to this it enabled the government to fund NASA, which pushed technology, as well as refitting the military like never before (which further pushed technology and kept money flowing through the economy) with out forcing the government to spend itself into debt. This meant that not only was the economy flourishing due to cash constantly flowing (instead of sitting static as it does now) but the government was able to provide schools, fire departments, police, emts, the works, with out building a deficit.

This is not the case now. With a tax rate of 15% on invested income, and only slightly over the average for middle and low income workers (20%) leading to an average of just over 16% tax rate on the rich, as well as the majority of their wealth simply moving from bank account to bank account (this does not even begin to touch on the vast sums of money the rich hide from the government to avoid paying taxes) which combined with the stagnating wages of the middle and lower class have lead to an economy that isn't working.
User avatar #111 to #21 - infiniteduress (05/13/2013) [-]
The problem though is sales tax, the rich can bank most of their income but the average family has to spend theirs in order to live.

look at say gas. Even if a billionaire uses 5-10 times more gas than average he is still only spending a tiny percentage of his wealth on gas, meanwhile the average family spends 4-8% of their income on gas.
This is exactly how sales tax works. While the billionaire may spend more, he is still being taxed a smaller percentage of his overall income thanks to how much he can invest/save.
User avatar #32 to #21 - icheatjews (05/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #34 to #32 - oceanmist (05/13/2013) [-]
Gonna be even higher next year.
User avatar #38 to #34 - davidavidson (05/13/2013) [-]
So why doesn't the gov't just make them pay more? I shouldn't hurt their pocket book that badly
#170 to #38 - xxpredatorxx (05/13/2013) [-]
Because it's immoral. At least, that's why I'm against it.
User avatar #48 to #38 - sophieshorts (05/13/2013) [-]
Raising taxes on the wealthy would make them spend less which means they are contributing less towards the economy.
User avatar #120 to #48 - thereoncewasaman (05/13/2013) [-]
The problem with that is that there are much much less rich people out there than there are poor and middle class. So the poor and middle class are really the ones contributing the bulk to the economy. Also tax rates for earned income on the wealthy are high yes, but tax rates on capital gains (which is when your money makes you money) are low, and that is often where a large amount of a wealthy persons money is made.
#50 to #48 - icheatjews (05/13/2013) [-]
That is a farce. That's just something they say through the media to discourage the idea.

If they don't pick up the demand in the US someone else from another country would be MORE than happy to pick it up for them..

Simple economics m8
User avatar #99 to #50 - sophieshorts (05/13/2013) [-]
Just for the sake of learning something new, aren't our exports unattractive to other countries? (Considering the fact that U.S. net exports are negative). And doesn't domestic consumption have more of an impact on the economy?
User avatar #123 to #99 - icheatjews (05/13/2013) [-]
Just for the sake of opening up your mind, isn't any first world country sought after when I comes to supply and demand? It doesn't make a shred of difference i our exports are low. We are backed by the Feds and will always consume more than produce (outside of war time)

Murrica, know the difference.
#56 to #50 - anonymous (05/13/2013) [-]
Really? I'm no economics expert, but...

If I have to pay more for something, I'm less likely to buy it.

I don't quite understand how it would be different for the rich.
User avatar #74 to #56 - icheatjews (05/13/2013) [-]
Because Exporting job and Importing goods is a fraction of the cost.
#51 to #50 - davidavidson Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
User avatar #53 to #51 - sophieshorts (05/13/2013) [-]
lol, guess I should revisit simple supply and demand instead of being on this website.

Who's gonna get a 1 on their AP Macro exam??? MEE :3
#54 to #53 - davidavidson Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#35 to #34 - obligatoryusername (05/13/2013) [-]
I think he was referring to the picture.
 Friends (0)