According to my professor, tax laws are written by the rich, for the rich.

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DVK916
He said the government is in the pockets of the rich and big corps, and tax laws are passed to take from the poor to give to the rich. That when they do a tax cut for the rich, they raise taxes on the poor.

What do you think of this.

Where do you think the rich get their play money for the stock market from???

From working hard to eventually earn a higher income?

 

[Conky]

Your professor is a hippy.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: DVK916
Personally I support a hyper progressive tax, one in which your tax rate increases at faster than a linear rate. Something alone the lines of, for each 1000 dollars of income over 30,000 the tax rate on that thousand dollar increases by 1%, until you reach around 65%.

You must not like a thriving economy, then. Check out how bad things were last time we had taxes like that. (hint: think Jimmy Carter)

Dude, don't dis democrats here unless you wanna be banned.

Even if Jimmy Carter enabled radical muslims to take over Iran... don't go against the anti-American tide here.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DVK916
He said the government is in the pockets of the rich and big corps, and tax laws are passed to take from the poor to give to the rich. That when they do a tax cut for the rich, they raise taxes on the poor.

What do you think of this.

Where do you think the rich get their play money for the stock market from???

Most of them worked very hard for it. Not all rich people are like Paris Hilton.

 

[Auryg]

You're all talking about need-once you get past so much money, you have your "needs" covered.

So what's to motivate people to start businesses that make a lot of money, that in turn employ a lot of people?

Tax the richer to a certain extent, but you take it overboard and people have next to no reason to try to succeed past a certain level.

 

[HamSupLo]

i agree that the tax system is in favor of the rich and corporations. How do you expect the common man to come up with the knowledge and have the access to influence legislation and to hire lobbyists?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: DVK916
He sited massive tax breaks for railroad companies, tax breaks for big corps for trivial things. That Big corps give billions of dollars to politicians to pass laws they want, and the little people screwed.

What tax breaks for railroads exactly? The reason I ask is that AmTrak actually loses money (in other words it costs more to operate than they bring in in revenue) but the government bails them out because they found the net gain to society outweighs the cost. If there is no passenger rail service then there would be more congestion on the roads (more traffic equating to longer commuting times as well as more wear on the roads among other things). Non-passenger rail service is competing with overseas shipping as well as both air and ground freight. By giving them breaks they are lessening the burden on those other transportation methods.

Republicans have traditionally liked the trickle-down effect on taxes, where as someone already stated, the idea is that by giving the large corporations that employ the largest number of people tax breaks, they'll in turn pass on the wealth by raising salaries or benefits (or other means, such as public benefit projects and/or charity work that only a large corporation could feasibly take on), and thus the net effect would benefit society as a whole.

The point is, you don't have to agree with the methods to understand the idea behind them.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Auryg
You're all talking about need-once you get past so much money, you have your "needs" covered.

So what's to motivate people to start businesses that make a lot of money, that in turn employ a lot of people?

Tax the richer to a certain extent, but you take it overboard and people have next to no reason to try to succeed past a certain level.

You're creating a false dilemma. Obviously the rich are still rich, they just have one less Ferrari in the garage. We aren't talking communism here.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Personally I support a hyper progressive tax, one in which your tax rate increases at faster than a linear rate. Something alone the lines of, for each 1000 dollars of income over 30,000 the tax rate on that thousand dollar increases by 1%, until you reach around 65%.

Then you would discourage people from working hard to do better. You're penalizing people because they make more money. Think how quickly your money would deplete if you're taxed that extensively. There would be no motivation to really succeed. You'd get rich only to have it taken away by the government in a short time. I'm not saying one way or the other is better, but if it was that steeply progressive it would be discouraging to workers.

There is a big reason why people with a lot of money don't want high taxes. They're no different than the common man, who believes the government does not really make the greatest use of the money they have. Understand why Bill Gates might believe he can spend his billions better than the government? Instead of it being given to a welfare society who will just squander it, he could spend it helping underprivelaged people around the world (where there's a higher rate of return, as $1 elsewhere can do more good than it can here).

 

[SagaLore]

Your professor is an idiot. If anything, tax laws are written by the rich, for the poor. There are a lot more lower class than upper class, which means more voters, which means more government handouts.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: DVK916
He sited massive tax breaks for railroad companies, tax breaks for big corps for trivial things. That Big corps give billions of dollars to politicians to pass laws they want, and the little people screwed.

What tax breaks for railroads exactly? The reason I ask is that AmTrak actually loses money (in other words it costs more to operate than they bring in in revenue) but the government bails them out because they found the net gain to society outweighs the cost. If there is no passenger rail service then there would be more congestion on the roads (more traffic equating to longer commuting times as well as more wear on the roads among other things). Non-passenger rail service is competing with overseas shipping as well as both air and ground freight. By giving them breaks they are lessening the burden on those other transportation methods.

Republicans have traditionally liked the trickle-down effect on taxes, where as someone already stated, the idea is that by giving the large corporations that employ the largest number of people tax breaks, they'll in turn pass on the wealth by raising salaries or benefits (or other means, such as public benefit projects and/or charity work that only a large corporation could feasibly take on), and thus the net effect would benefit society as a whole.

The point is, you don't have to agree with the methods to understand the idea behind them.

Amtrak is essentially a government agency, they don't pay taxes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Personally I support a hyper progressive tax, one in which your tax rate increases at faster than a linear rate. Something alone the lines of, for each 1000 dollars of income over 30,000 the tax rate on that thousand dollar increases by 1%, until you reach around 65%.

What?

nsfw

 

[foghorn67]

Flat Tax FTW.

 

[imported_Tick]

I hate tax brackets. Let's punish the rich for being rich! Great idea!

Flat tax percentage FTW!

 

[Brainonska511]

Flat tax is idiotic. Progressive taxes are the way to go and will be as "Fair" a system as you can get. If anything, the AMT needs to be re-adjusted to hit the .1 - .01% (~13000 families in the US) that it was meant to tax in the first place to remove the burden from people making between 80k and 300k/year.

 

[state 08]

Actually, I was reading up on tax proposals, and found this one to be pretty interesting:
Dual-Rate Income Tax

Basically, instead of 6 brackets, there are just two - 15% and 27%. Overall, for the majority of the population, this will decrease the Marginal Rates.

 

[Corporate Thug]

question: is your professor a secular progressive? (just curious)

 

[Toastedlightly]

Meh, people should be taxed for the services they use. The rich man should be taxed the same as the poor man if they both use the same services from the government.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Shouldn't you be posting this under your UCDAggies account?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Shouldn't you be posting this under your UCDAggies account?

I've been tempted to post that all night...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I think your professor should omit his personal opinions from the curriculum.

This is a tax class, and we were talking about how and why tax laws are passed.

Whether there's truth to it or not, it's still a personal opinion. I don't think there is any room for opinion in a taxation class.

I don't think that is much of an opinion as truth.

People tend to confuse the debate by bringing in stuff having nothing to do with taxes.

The more money you make the easier it is to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

I personally feel a sales tax based system with only a few and precise exceptions would be best for everyone. If you don't spend your money...you are not taxed.

The laws would need to be complicated to prevent someone from transfering funds out of the country...buying items there and shipping them back.

I do think the middle class is the most effected, there are a lot of concessions out there the lower class and those that fudge their tax returns to fall into that group yet ride around in upper 5 figure cars.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the BS indoctrination contiues.

As your prof how much he makes. Ask him how much taxes he pays.

Then compare that with the INCREDIBLE tax burden anybody beyond a middle class income has. Ask him to explain that. Get your FACTs from IRS.GOV.

Shut he's mouth quick.

dagnabbit
I bit the lure again.

MOUTH!

That tax burden is easily diminished. Most middle class cannot contribute their maximums to 401k/Roths/etc. These tend to reduce income. Same with a lot of things out there. Also it's a lot easier for an upper class person to create a few businesses with the sole purpose of losing money. You play it right so the losing hand is actually paying your winning one.

The tax laws in the US are a cluster fck.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: DVK916
Personally I support a hyper progressive tax, one in which your tax rate increases at faster than a linear rate. Something alone the lines of, for each 1000 dollars of income over 30,000 the tax rate on that thousand dollar increases by 1%, until you reach around 65%.

Then you would discourage people from working hard to do better. You're penalizing people because they make more money. Think how quickly your money would deplete if you're taxed that extensively. There would be no motivation to really succeed. You'd get rich only to have it taken away by the government in a short time. I'm not saying one way or the other is better, but if it was that steeply progressive it would be discouraging to workers.

There is a big reason why people with a lot of money don't want high taxes. They're no different than the common man, who believes the government does not really make the greatest use of the money they have. Understand why Bill Gates might believe he can spend his billions better than the government? Instead of it being given to a welfare society who will just squander it, he could spend it helping underprivelaged people around the world (where there's a higher rate of return, as $1 elsewhere can do more good than it can here).

This is such a bogus argument. People who have a desire to get rich, will still have a desire to get rich despite higher taxes. The reality is the extremely wealthy find all sorts of ways to bypass taxes in many different creative ways, so it doesn't really matter.

The only way a flat tax is even CLOSE to being fair is if say, the first $15,000 of income is not taxed. This ensures the very poor pay zero or close to zero taxes.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The rich pay the VAST majority of the taxes.

No doubt about that, but at what percent of their income? Are they paying more than the ~25% of my gross income i pay?

Hell yes, they are. Top tax bracket is 35%. That is PLENTY high. The 25% bracket is for folks in the 31-64k range.
The percentage should NOT keep going up as income increases.

In fact, if they really want to make things fair, they need to go with a flat tax across the board. The rich will still pay the majority of the taxes, but everyone will pay the same percentage of their income.

Understandable. But is a person making 200k a year going to miss that 35% more than i am going to miss that 25% at 30k a year?

So because I earn more, I deserve to keep less of what I make. Who are you to decide what I will miss and wont miss. I earn it just the same way someone else did who makes less than me - by working.

As of now, I have no problem with the current system, but I'm tired of people who think the rich (or the government) owe them something. Its ridiculous.

 

[imported_Tango]

Income taxes are not the only taxes you people should be considering.