Why is that strange? Do you really think it’s fair to raise taxes on the rich for no better reason than that they have a lot of money? That is indeed a subjective definition of “fair”.
If you pay to do it, it’s play. If you get paid to do it, it’s work.
What should the tax rates be on a 401(k) or an IRA?
Regards,
Shodan
Agreed. And if you posses an exceptionally rare talent, then you get paid alot to do it.
IMHO, it should be based off of your marginal rate, not a flat rate. That way, it is still a progressive tax.
I think it is fair to raise the rates on the rich because they benefit the most from living in a country where they can have access to the tools to achieve that kind of wealth.
They are not wealthy in a vacuum, they didn’t build everything wit their own two hands. They rely on the infrastructure to get customers, employees, and supplies. They rely on the educational system to provide them with quality employees. They rely on a stable government and civics to provide them security. They rely on a wealthy economy to be able to make their profits.
No matter how self made a wealthy individual considers themselves, they would not have nearly as much without the support that is provided by having strong governments that are paid for by taxes.
It’s strange that they would think about it at all. I don’t care if a guy who made $30 billion paid $10 billion in taxes. Why would I? Doesn’t hurt him, and helps the rest of the country. Why do YOU care? Are you hurt by it? Are you overcome by great sadness to hear when a guy with $30 billion has to pay $10 billion in taxes? Do you feel his pain to such an extent that you favor cutting services just so he has an extra $5 billion dollars?
Aren’t 401(k) withdrawals taxed at whatever bracket you are in?
I agree. It takes money to make money, and those with money have the tools to benefit disproportionately from the system. So it’s fair if they are required to pay disproportionately to maintain the system. I’m in favor of progressive taxation.
But the OP doesn’t seem interested in defending progressive taxation. The question focuses just on raising tax rates on the rich, presumably beyond the elevated rates progressive policy already allows, without mentioning any justification for doing so.
No, the question is why someone who makes a little money cares whether rich people pay more in taxes. It’s sort of right there in the title.
The Other Waldo Pepper addressed this question already in Post #17. I agree with that response.
To expand on it, I have trouble understanding why you think I wouldn’t care if I found the government was taxing any fellow citizen unfairly. Since I am also a citizen, that unfair practice is being conducted in my name and for my benefit. I don’t want to be party to it.
Do you assume that if a person has more money than they need that that fact alone grants you justification to confiscate that money and spend it as you please? Or are you just confused why anyone who indirectly benefits from the robbery would choose not to look the other way while it was taking place?
We are all taxed and we all benefit from taxes - in theory, why wouldn’t they care?
In practice, however, most don’t care. Look at the low voter turnout, particularly among poor voters, then consider what small percentage of that already small number are primarily motivated by taxation policy.
Again, this assumes a definition of “fair” that all might not agree with. You already agree that rich people should pay more. Here is your quote:
“So it’s fair if they are required to pay disproportionately to maintain the system. I’m in favor of progressive taxation”
So, if you agree that it’s fair for rich people to pay more, why do you care if they pay 1% more than they do now? How did you determine that what they are taxed at RIGHT NOW is fair, but anything more than that is NOT fair?
And if you want to go with “I should care because the government is treating fellow citizens unfairly”, the plight of the super rich is a strange item to care about. Maybe you should care less what super rich people are paying in taxes, and more about what poor people pay for things necessary to live.
Here’s a bullet from the original OP that quotes the Clinton tax plan:
[ul]
[li]Creates a 4 percent “surcharge” on high-income taxpayers, which would apply to AGI above $5 million.[/li][/ul]
Would you support this? Why or why not?
I would not be in favor of a surcharge because that is a transparent policy to tax the rich just for being rich.
On the other hand, I might not oppose a plain 4% rate hike on the highest tax brackets provided that hike could be justified under the theory of progressive taxation. In other words, an economist would have to show that the current highest tax rate wasn’t high enough to properly equalize the relative tax burden.
They do have formulas for that sort of thing, though I wouldn’t pretend to understand them (or entirely trust them, but that’s a separate topic).
Have not read the thread but my answer is “I am a poor taxpayer”. Shouldn’t this be enough?
That’s a fair answer, thanks. But:
So? They are rich, they can afford it.