Would you be for or against a progressive tax rate?

Would you be for or against a progressive tax rate? Topic: Check case status usa
June 25, 2019 / By Abegail
Question: This is simple, those who earn bare minimum pay , let's say 15-20% Those who earn average income - middle class - pay 30% Those who are rich - earn more than tripe the average income - pay 85% I did not give numbers because i don't know how much is "rich" or "poor" in your countries. I am simply stating that, the richer people are, the more they should give out to society so the govt, can fund proper schools systems, proper healthcare ( *cough* hello USA *cough* ), proper services in general for the population at large. FOR or AGAINST it? Now i will tell you what it means: FOR means you agree that the richest people should give out more to the society that helped them rise to their status and they repay that society by helping it create further rich people, further educated people, etc AGAINST means you agree to condemn poor people to DEATH, to LACK OF EDUCATION and generally to a very miserable life weather it is or it is not their fault. You agree that the (lucky) circumstances that led to your advancement in life are enough to justify the misery of others. ( This is my personal opinion ) So...one more time.. FOR...or AGAINST ? @Anna: Thank you Anna. :) @Egon: the clasification is ...arbitrary, the concept is the main idea. Perhaps i should have just left it to "progressive tax" :P @Quentin: Thank you for the reply, however i don't think they aren't "wise" but they are "bought" by the very rich they should tax. @♥ Aρρlερορ: History lesson, my dear for you : In 1951 the US '"rich" payed 97% tax. For every dollar they earned, they had to give the state 97 cents. In 1965 the US "rich" payed 84% tax. For every dollar they earned, they had to give the state 84 cents. In 1970 the US "rich" payed 71% tax. So the notion that the curve is "steep" or "too much" or "we are hurting the poor rich people", is laughable. They were fine a few decades ago and since they robbed the whole world, they would fine still, they would afford one less yacht every week. @MY Evil Twin: ( fitting name by the way ): How is taxing 300$ a person who earn 2000$ and the same 300$ a person who earns 2,000,000$ considered..."fair", again? Please do explain. @WWSGD: See the taxes payed by the rich from 1951 to 1970 and judge for yourself is 85% is "a lot" or not. @My Evil Twin: First of all i am talking about a strong enforcement of said taxes - no "exceptions" or "breaks" from it. And yes if you check US history they DID pay 97%. Don't believe me go research. A "flat tax" means a flat sum, not a flat percentage - let's get clear in the terminology here. A flat -percentage would do, yes. But it wouldn't still be enough to stop the gap between rich and poor from widening - and that is ultimately the purpose. @♥ Aρρlερορ: And i have taken that into account too, and i already explained that it would still not close the gap between rich and poor which is very proeminent and growing in the western world these days. @Cinamonn: And why would taxing the already rich be detrimental to small shops? It isn't the rich who start creating those after all. Trickle down economics failed - we see this everywhere where it has been tried. It hasn't helped the middle class, and it hasn't helped the poor. We gave the rich money and HOPED they would trickle down. They didn't. Shaming? But that IS what you are doing by denying people healthcare and education because they are "too poor to help" right? You are - in an indirect way - condemning them to death or medical problems in the best case AND lack of education. @Claire: let's be clear here, if the state WANTS your money, nothing will stop it. YOu leave the country - you can only take a maximum of 100,000$ with you and the rest is BLOCKED in the country until you return. You cannot transfer MORE than 10,000$ a month in tax-heaven either. Some draconic measures and the rich rats would have nowhere to hide. The alternative is to propagate the high tax tactic. France just did this - the rats fled to Belgium. Belgium imediatly racked up taxes and they are thinking of leaving again. But this is a vicious cycle, where can they run? Eventually all the countries will catch on if their people push hard enough and ramp up taxes. There will be no escape. IN AMERICA, in 2008, in Oregon, there was a law passed that would TAX the rich imensly. They ratified it and took it to the governor who SIGNED IT. At that point the republicans and the rich organized a massive campaign for a refferendum to have the law repealed. And in the west USA democracy actu
Best Answer

Best Answers: Would you be for or against a progressive tax rate?

Stephen Stephen | 10 days ago
Yes, absolutely. However, I worry about the point Evil Twin makes - any Politician who avoids the temptation to court the rich (by allowing loopholes in the taxation system, for instance) has to be very determined and very confident. Rich people fund political parties, poor people don't. What you suggest is the honorable and humane way to do things, but rich people can (and do) just leave the country when taxes are raised beyond what they are prepared to pay
👍 128 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? Would you be for or against a progressive tax rate? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Check case status usa

Stephen Originally Answered: Progressive Ere , HELP?
The Progressive Era was a period of social activism and political reform in the United States that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons. At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.A second theme was building an Efficiency movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions. Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,economics, and political science. In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side. Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people. The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe, and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913.Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system"

Pace Pace
yes If I am poor and no if I am rich. But in general if your system is simply devided into 3 categories low, midl and rich then No because there are rich who 1/3 of other rich so no. But i agree with the idea that who who earn more should give bigger %. Ofc in a country where there is no corruption in government. The point of having such a system to to help the midl and low people and not to punish the rich. sorry for my syntax I am quite tired.
👍 40 | 👎 4

Lincoln Lincoln
I am way against the format you speak of. By your shaming & saying it comdemns people to me is just a tactic to enforce extreme gov. control. The more taxes the more regulations & gov. control & reliance. I am not anti taxes at all, but the extremity of what you speak I am against. I believe that format strips the options of a free er society & I am not in defense of the rich, but the middle ho would hardly be able to sustain or start small business'. Well I happen to of had 2 forms of cancer 3 x's and have a pretty hard time getting health care @ a affordable monthly rate, yet I haven't went and demanded any of rich neighbors pay for my misfortune. So as we speak I am over a yr past due on my melanoma screening & 2yrs past due on my cervical screening. Why because its the principal of the matter & I am too proud to FORCE others to pay for my medical needs. Instead I am 10 grand + in medical debt (my only debt) & will just bite the bullet & pay it. So mr humanitarian maybe you should consider some of those in opposition with your stance are those which you speak of. Wow what compassion you have. Not everyone wants false charity or enforced charity.
👍 31 | 👎 -2

Jared Jared
I favor some "progressive" tax rate, i.e. one that increases for higher earners. I do so on the basis that it is easier to make money, when one already has money. For example, someone with excess income can invest that extra, in stocks, in education, in a business, in lobbying for special interests, etc, leading to even greater income in the future. Someone who is barely scraping by on minimum wage cannot do the same, or cannot do so as easily. 85% though? LMFAO no!
👍 22 | 👎 -8

Freddie Freddie
no. i am for a "flat tax" with NO exception, exemptions or breaks. with a progressive tax, the more you make the more you pay (in theory) (how is that fair?) doesn't ever REALLY happen, instead the rich get special tax breaks and exemptions so they pay LESS that lower income earners. "fair" would be a GREAT selling point, with corporate, income, capital gains, import, export and gift ALL sharing the same basic FLAT RATE. for EQUALITY (and equity). added. are you special ed? how is the SAME RATE not fair? do you REALLY think the rich PAID 97% ?? NO, they got tax breaks for owning a race horse and exemptions for their personal jet. BETTER would be EVERYONE pays the same rate. edit AGAIN. you dare accuse my of no research? 94% was maximum rate. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1 BUT you never answered the root issue, RICH people gets special BREAKS. from the very first i said flat tax RATE.
👍 13 | 👎 -14

Deforrest Deforrest
If Members of Parliament were wise, yes, but, they are not wise, and therefore do not set the correct incomes to increase/decrease the tax rates. Who knows where these are, anyway?
👍 4 | 👎 -20

Baruch Baruch
85% is steep. Who is going to want to work to only keep 15% of their pay? In general it is a good idea for those who earn more to pay more, but those numbers are ridiculous. *EDIT* He said everyone pays the same rate, not the same amount.
👍 -5 | 👎 -26

Baruch Originally Answered: Are humans as a species PROGRESSIVE?
the progression of worldly knowledge is happening, but accumulated knowledge of ourselves (which is much more valuable) is growing very slowly. In my opinion, you have a skewed view of who is attaining this knowledge. By your inclusion of 'doctors' in the progressive group, I think you are just making a statement on what information you find valuable. Anyone who makes theories and tries to see whether they hold is a scientist. Physicians don't normally do this, just those in research fields. Philosophers and sociologists make similar theories, but because the answers are normally grounded in the mind, they are less discernible. The other professions not involved in research most likely won't unveil breakthrough truths, but everyone who is opened to questioning themselves in the pursuit of new knowledge is a progressive.

If you have your own answer to the question check case status usa, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.