Poll: Should The Wealthy Pay More Taxes?
May 15, 2010 - 7:22 am
Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com
Follow us on Twitter. http://twitter.com/theyoungturks
Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews
Duration : 0:4:59
[youtube CMV-Thhx3ps]
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
@leftstanding Let’s …
@leftstanding Let’s raise taxes on the rich now. When we get the national debt down to zero, then we can talk about a flat tax. Also this would be the perfect incentive for the rich to help getting rid of the national debt.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Yes. Raise taxes …
Yes. Raise taxes on the rich now, or they’ll be raised on everyone later.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
yes
yes
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
What will happen to …
What will happen to animals and the environment if Asian countries are payed back that money?? I’d rather have a cleaner planet with less torture of innocents. The deficit doesn’t matter.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
@SciMethodFTW you …
@SciMethodFTW you mean a flat tax? it sounds fair but when you think about the marginal value of income between a multi millionare and a middle class family, things don’t sould as fair anymore. I don’t know, maybe it just makes sense to me.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
always with the …
always with the glass half empty.
how about just lower taxes for the poor and leave it as is for the “well off” and raise it just a tad for the folks that have more money than they will ever spend anyway
off topic, last night i saw an infomercial for a penis pump and its free if you have insurance how fked up is that.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
I don’t know that …
I don’t know that I’d call him a socialist, but I certainly wouldn’t call him a capitalist in the modern sense. Yes. “The Wealth of all Nations” is an important book, but you fail to recognize his rhetoric in his, gosh, I can’t think of the title ‘moral’ book.
Smith was a political economist, if there is such a thing. He dances a dance with socialist tendencies…
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
@dirtyproduction ” …
@dirtyproduction “the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.”
I guess Adam Smith, father of capitalism, was a socialist, huh?
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
You sound like a …
You sound like a socialist…
Plus, you never answered why the poor man somehow acquired the right to the money of others…
Those who believe in the flat tax are advocates of equality while those who advocate income tax are fiscal slave masters.
Equality is simply a buzzword when one has his/her hand in the pockets of others.
The percentage of income used on necessities is moot. Prosperity should come only to those who achieve.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
@dirtyproduction …
@dirtyproduction Using raw figures like dollars and cents only works if everyone makes the same amount of money. This is why people who believe in a flat tax are batshit insane.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
It is simple. Use …
It is simple. Use dollars and cents as opposed to statistical percentages. I pay the same tax on the same shirt, the same jar of peanut butter, etc. We are equally taxed on that which we buy. That is equality.
When did the poor man’s right extend to my pocketbook… His right is to get a better job and make something of himself through hard work.
I do not want my pity to be governed by government. I should be able to extend my pity, by choice, to those I deem to need it.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
@dirtyproduction …
@dirtyproduction The car is just an example. By the time you factor in food, clothing, and everything else a person needs to get by, the lowest bracket has spent 100% of their income just to get by (actually, on average, 109% of it), which means 100% of their income gets taxed. A wealthy person does not spend 100% of their income. Therefore, in a sales tax scenario, the poor get taxed at a higher rate. That’s basic, Adam Smith economics. Pity you can’t grasp the simple stuff.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
However, a poorer …
However, a poorer person can choose a car of lesser expense and enable him or herself to decide the amount of tax paid. There is more liberty with the method I propose.
If I were to suggest that a flat tax of $2,500 per car regardless of cost, your theory would have validity. However, my proposal allows citizens to choose the amount paid in taxes by the cost of the car.
I should not be expected to pay more than any other citizen due solely to my income.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
@dirtyproduction I …
@dirtyproduction I think you misunderstand how percentages work. If a poor person buys a car and a rich person buys a really nice car, the poor person is still spending a larger portion of their income to purchase, and therefore, a larger percentage of taxes paid. A car is a huge purchase for someone on the low end. This is why sales taxes are considered a regressive tax; they hit lower incomes harder because lower incomes can’t save. Sales taxes aren’t “fair.”
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Do you feel that it …
Do you feel that it is the burden of those who have a achieved financial stability to support those who have not…
I am on no side to be honest.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
O, ok thanks for …
O, ok thanks for explaining. Makes much more sense than raising taxes on peple that don’t have the money. Just as long as you’re not on Rush’s side.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
No. Actually a tax …
No. Actually a tax based solely on the things we buy makes the most sense. You’re taxed based not on what you make, but what you spend. Meaning that regardless of whether you’re on welfare or not, if you buy a BMW M3 you’re going to be taxed the same sum as me.
If I buy a an M3 due to my income and you buy a Ford Fiesta — you save on taxes and I am still a self indulgent twit. Oh, and I pay more taxes. Then, I also have the right to buy the Fiesta and save what I have EARNED!
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
my underachievement …
my underachievement? LOL! You don’t know me….
Getting taxed more because you use more taxes… Hmmm… does that really seem to work in your mind?
Go suck Hannity’s balls and quit making such idiotic comments.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
That’s a ridiculous …
That’s a ridiculous question because right now the Wealthy don’t pay any taxes. They have lawyers to get them out of it, plus money made off stock (which is vast majority of their income) is only taxed 15%.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
America’s most …
America’s most prosperous period was the 1950’s through the 1970’s, when the top tax rate was 78%. When first Reagan and then Bush II gave the rich and Corporations huge tax cuts, the Rich spent the money on collectibles and Ponzi schemes and Corporations spent the money to move manufacturing overseas.
A high top end on marginal tax rates would also bring Executive Compensation under control because of diminishing returns.
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
the prob with flat …
the prob with flat taxes is it kills the poor caz then they will never beable to make the same amount as others and the weathy its like absolutely nothing to them but it kills some1 who makes min wage
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
not to mention they …
not to mention they dont usally keep there money in the us so then they skip all taxes
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
It’s not theirs …
It’s not theirs either, but they’re allowed to steal it anyway.
You really don’t know your face from your do you?
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
IT’S NOT OUR MONEY! …
IT’S NOT OUR MONEY! Why don’t you boycott instead? What’s that, you don’t really give a fuck?
May 15th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Since “equality” is …
Since “equality” is the underlying principle, how about a flat tax?