The progressive taxes are so stupid, why does richer people own the government a bigger portion of their income?
You literally punishing people for being successful
>>66288149
Superiour countries like Iceland have a flat income tax.
>>66288149
>muh linearity
There's a difference between equality and fairness.
If you were moving and had friends come and help, Chad and Tyrone would probably be moving more furniture than Stacy or Eugene, no?
>>66288271
+ the only thought leftists and americans are capable of is "rich people should have to pay more!", that from people who never really got the difference between percentages and absolute values in school gives you progressive tax.
>>66288149
ok, I'll take this bait: unless you're a libertarian or a globalist kike, you know progressive taxes is the only way to make the welfare feasable. And you need welfare, unless you don't want riot on the street every day of the year.
>>66288149
Government doesn't see it as "some money from this guy, some money from that guy". They see the entire thing as just one single source. They want a certain amount from that source. They will do whatever it takes to get as much as they can. If there was a flat tax, poor people would get pissed as fuck at "muh inequality" and might revolt against them. So they either lower the flat tax rate to avoid it, or push the higher rates on the rich people. The latter gets them more money so of course they do it.
Also there's of course the argument that 20% out of 30k will fuck that person over a lot more than 20% off of 1 million. Which I agree with. There's a lot more 30k guys out there than 1 million. No brainer on which one to keep happy (or at least placated).
>>66288149
moar like this
You are damn right.
I was called an elitist today for saying what you said.
>>66288600
>"some money from this guy, some money from that guy"
That's exactly what they do
>If there was a flat tax
I don't even know why people calling it flat tax
Let's say the tax is 10%
You make 17k a year you pay 1,7k
You make 170k a year you pay 17k
This is not flat tax is proportional tax
Making the richer paying a bigger portion is just plain out unfair and envious
>>66288600
This is what I'm talking about, your school system unironically teaches you to think 20% of a million isn't a fuckload more than 100% from 30k.
>>66288149
>The progressive taxes are so stupid, why does richer people own the government a bigger portion of their income?
Because rich people can afford to pay more taxes. If America had a flat tax rate, then the burden would be so crushing for poor people that they would be better off collecting welfare instead.
Libertarians are ignorant, ivory tower dumbcunts with absolutely no understanding of economics, politics or history.
>No minimum wage increase!
>Limit welfare spending!
>Flat tax now.
>No limits to gun ownership!
Put all those together and you have open class warfare in one generation. Read a book.
>>66289057
>>No minimum wage increase!
Are you dense? That will increase the unemployment rate and destroy small business
>>Limit welfare spending!
lmao are you serious? of course you need to limit welfare even democrats agree with that
>>Flat tax now.
I am a failure so successful people should give me their money
>>No limits to gun ownership!
What that even means?
Get your stupidity out of /pol/ retard
>>66289048
I never said it wasn't. I was implying that losing 20% of 30k is more of a blow than losing 20% off of 1 million as far as paying for your cost of living is concerned. Rich people don't inherently require more food, bigger houses, etc. The 30k guy may only barely make ends meet and have nothing left over for himself, whereas the rich person will easily make it and still have a comparatively vast sum remaining, even though they were taxed "equally" at 20%.
>>66289735
have fun when the poor start starving and decide to literally eat the rich.
extreme wealth inequality leads to instability and eventually armed revolts.
no one wants that.
>>66289735
>Libertarians are this stupid.
>Minimum wage
- Not raising the minimum wage to match inflation makes the poorest people even poorer and makes even more of them dependent on welfare to survive, despite having employment.
>Welfare
- Reducing welfare pulls the rug out from under the floating unemployed pool (fyi, unemployment is necessary is capitalists markets, read a book) as well as the people who can't make ends meet while employed.
>Flat tax
- Flat taxes have a disproportionate effect on people closest to the poverty line, since it makes it even harder to meet their basic needs and eliminates the ability to save for emergencies or education.
>Gun ownership
Even commies and monarchists are smart enough to realize that you don't allow your exploited serfs to have weapons if you don't want them to overthrow your rule the moment you put the boot down on their face.
Unrestricted gun ownership means that you're giving the poor have a legally encoded means to kill you and bring in whatever form of socialism gets popular after you fuck them over.
Librarians are so dumb and insulated that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they are not exactly the sort of tyrannical ideology that would be overthrown by the common man when they fantasize about people taking up arms to defeat oppressive governments.
Fucking hell you people are stupid.
>>66290757
These cucks will never understand. Rich people hold most, if not all, of the political power in the US. If they really, truly wanted to, they could change it so there is no welfare, and the non-rich get every single penny from the poor. So if they CAN do it, why DONT they do it? Have you ever fucking considered that line of reasoning? Greed rules, and yet they don't do this. Therefore there must be something greater than the money forcing them to not do this. As stated, the reason is they'd get fucking murdered by a pissed off populace. Money is worthless if you're dead. And even if you manage to survive, you have no more income because all your workers have left the factories in pursuit of their new job: overthrowing the government.
So it really doesn't matter how much you (OP) whines "wahhh its not fair"; the reality is that this is how it has to be, otherwise it would be different.
>>66288149
Because of inheritance, if there are no progressive taxes, wealth will consolidate naturally
huge inheritance tax + flat income tax = win
>>66290757
>wealth inequality
You listen a little too much to Bernie speeches
The poor are going to starve because rich people and business pay fair taxes?
The exact opposed is going to happen, but since you like bernie that shows you know nothing about economics so I don't expect you understand it
>>66290776
We have a triggered libtard over here
Everything you said is wrong but since you won't listen to reason I am not even going to bother
Stay mad
>>66291598
>I disagree with what you said, not due to any amount of rationale, but due to my dogmatic emotional approach to politics, but I have no ability to debate, so I'm just going to say stay mad, haha I got you
>>66291598
>Gets BTFO
>I'm rite but i cant be bothered backing it up!!!!
4chan is 18+ friend.
>>66288661
>this kills the country
>>66291598
sorry m8 i dont listen to political speeches.
and no the poor are going to starve because corporations will abuse their power if there are no regulations.
the free market is not infallible.
libertarians just don't seem to understand that economics are not the only thing that influences civilization.
social structure tends to collapse when economic inequality is too high.
>We have a triggered libtard over here
>Everything you said is wrong but since you won't listen to reason I am not even going to bother
>Stay mad
is not an argument.
>>66289057
>Ability to pay determines your taxes
This is straight up mafia talk.
>>66291899
>economic inequality
Those are dangerous socialists beliefs you are holding there
We should all be equality poor instead of some people being rich and some not?
If I can't have something you can't either, this is envy look it up
>>66292143
I'm not arguing for 100% equality you moron
A certain level of inequality is necessary for competition and a functional economy but if it becomes too high you will end up with political and social instability.
It's like you just ran out of arguments and are just strawmanning at this point.
>>66291899
>social structure tends to collapse when economic inequality is too high.
By far the most stable regimes in history had "extreme inequality". THis applies both to authoritarian and more libertarian regimes. China and Venice weren't known for dem programs but for their stability.
When all the arguments against flat tax boils down to "but poor people will revolt if they don't get their gibs", you are entering a fully weird plane of existence. "But muslims would revolt without their kuffar sex slaves!", "niggers would revolt without dem programs".
>>66292113
It's called pragmatism. If you don't pay the poor enough to live and then take what little they have through taxes, then they will kill you. You would have thought that even libertarians would have worked this out by now given how many socialist revolutions we had in the last two centuries, but I guess you can always count on them to be ignorant as fuck and completely irrational.
>>66292143
And then there this fucking faggot who isn't man enough to back up his dogma with an argument, but is going to keep shitposting about "muh ethical strawman!" to sooth his wrecked bum. Kill yourself coward.
>>66292373
>"but poor people will revolt if they don't get their gibs"
French revolution.
Russian revolution.
Chinese revolution.
Etc.
Poor people will kill you if you fuck them over, the 20th century is just one big argument against what you're saying.
>>66292373
>flat tax
>gibs
we are arguing about progressive tax here not increasing welfare.
In my opinion welfare should be only enough to live a very basic life (cheap food,cheap housing,clothes, etc, no luxury goods such as smartphones and such which every person on welfare in the US seems to have somehow).
>>66292332
>A certain level of inequality is necessary for competition and a functional economy but if it becomes too high you will end up with political and social instability.
First of all that not true and second you're contradicting yourself
Take a deep breath and concentrate
>>66292503
>If you don't pay the poor enough to live and then take what little they have through taxes, then they will kill you.
topkek
In what movie did you saw this happening?
>>66292838
>In what movie did you saw this happening?
Read a book retard.
>>66292838
What is your argument beyond "nuh-uh, you're mad?"
He made a statement and your response was to say "no" with no further explaination to back it up. How are you able to do this and convince yourself that you are right?
>>66292867
So you admitting you've read it from a fiction book
Well that was easy, next
>>66288149
To make it fair just make the first x amount tax free for all and then flat % tax on earnings after that.
>>66292838
how am I contradicting myself?
do you want me to draw you a chart?
>>66292962
>history
>fiction
wew lad whats next?
I knew libertarians don't like history or anything that contradicts them but come on m8
>>66288369
I see a lot of feelings in this statement...
>>66288451
>that's what socialists actually believe
>>66292962
Do you even realize how much of an unfunny faggot you are?
>>66288149
they get more from society, they pay more
>>66288451
Pay poor people or they riot.
How about smaller goverment and less parasites in society?
;^)
>>66288149
I think you meant to upload *this* graph
>>66293054
>I-I am not contradicting myself here look at this kindergarten chart(?) that sums up my understanding of economics
>>66293094
Who mention history books?
Are having hallucination too?
The less money you make, the more each dollar matters to you. If you were to implement a flat tax rate, it would harm poorer individuals
>>66293343
This isn't an argument. You're so desperate.
>>66288369
Tyrone would be moving the furniture to his own garage though.
>>66290776
Minimum wage must be increased so that people can be less depended on the goverment.
By doing so, you can lower welfare. Fair salary means you dont need to suck the goverments dick for money.
Flat taxes fuck up the poor and the middle class because they need a basic ammount of money to get by
By increasing said taxes. You will fuxk them up, since they dont have that much money to begin with.
I am actually pro gun, and this is coming from the Nethercucks with the lowest amount of guns, still around the same murder rate as white usa.
>>66289057
>Because rich people can afford
Stop right there.
Policies should be based on principles rooted in ethics and justice, not on expediency.
Because if you want to go this route, we could simply exterminate all poor people and managing welfare would be simpler.
>>66293216
The top 10% group earns more than 50% of all incomes. That this group also pays more taxes than any other group is only a thing to retards who don't know how statistics work.
>>66290757
So you are saying that those people should take stuff forcefully from producers, because otherwise they would kill them?
Sounds like plain extortion to me.
I'm fairly certain this is not a sustainable policy in the long run. Societies based on "might is right" and power of the group, over principles and individual rights, always decay into chaos.
Compare even moderate socialist countries like France and more liberal countries like Australia.
>>66293728
>if we kill all the poor people, no one will be poor anymore
what?
And the argument isn't "they've got the money, why not take it?" It's based on the fact that poor people spend a greater percentage of their income.
>>66293599
>I am actually pro gun, and this is coming from the Nethercucks with the lowest amount of guns, still around the same murder rate as white usa.
You should be pro-gun. The point is that Libertarians are so myopic and ignorant that they don't realize that by supporting gun rights, they're giving people the means to overthrow their rule.
Libertarianism is just a different sort of regressive authoritarian tyranny that gun ownership can protect us from.
>>66292734
Read history books.
None of those were revolutions of poor people, but of educated middle class people who wanted political control.
>>66293859
How they use their money shouldn't even enter the picture.
You're still arguing for something that is not rooted in ethics or justice, but mob rule.
>>66290588
Rich people usually have to pay their staff and invest in their company. That's the problem with dirt poor socialists deciding who "needs" the money they earned and who doesn't.
>>66293859
>And the argument isn't "they've got the money, why not take it?" It's based on the fact that poor people spend a greater percentage of their income.
Hence, "they've got the money, why not take it".
Are people like you always entirely ruled by their emotions?
>>66293987
>If you tax the lower class at the same rate as the rich, stagnate the minimum wage so that it cant keep pace with inflation, and remove the safety net so they have no way of supporting themselves, they will revolt and kill the top 1%, because the alternative is to live in crippling poverty and then starve.
>"So we should give in to the mob rule demands that they will kill us for enacting these equal policies? That's extortion! That's not rooted in ethics or justice!"
>because the alternative is to live in crippling poverty and then starve
>live in crippling poverty and then starve
>crippling poverty
>starve
How is this an ethical argument rooted in justice? It's ethical to form a tax/wage/welfare system that is disproportionately bad for one portion of society, drastically decreasing their quality of life and leading to their starvation, but it would be unethical to to point out that a group affected by such policies would seek to remove the group that was oppressing them?
>>66291228
The actual reason is in order for an economy to work, the lower and middle class have to have enough cash on hand to purchase goods. They are the consumers. If they don't have money to buy products the rich put out, the system collapses. Though, an uprising is always a threat.
>>66289043
flat tax is flat because the percentage never changes pls cyprus don't be a turk.
+ flat tax is the way to go
>>66293728
>Policies should be based on principles rooted in ethics and justice, not on expediency.
Capitalist society is and has always been about pragmatism over ideology. If paying too little and taxing too heavily will cause people to destroy the system, then it doesn't matter if your subjective opinion deems the alternative to be "injust".
>we could simply exterminate all poor people and managing welfare would be simpler.
Non-sequitur of the year right here. Do you understand how logically flawed that is simply at a conceptual level?
For starters, unemployment and welfare are a vital part of capitalist economics. The job supply needs to be finite in a society, otherwise being fired is a meaningless gesture and there's no way to encourage entry level employees to do a good job. This is one of the reasons why communism was so inefficient.
Welfare is necessary, because otherwise the pool of unemployed people will turn to desperate measures to support themselves, such as crime or insurrection.
Ignoring your completely subjective beliefs about ethics and justice, killing off the poor simply won't work, ergo it's not a practical solution any more than burdening the poor with taxes because "muh feels = objective truth" is a practical solution.
You guys just can't seem to understand that ideology doesn't create stable systems. Then you turn around and shit on Marxists for doing the exact same thing.
>>66293910
>None of those were revolutions of poor people, but of educated middle class people who wanted political control.
That's powerful historical revisionism you have right there.
>>66289043
>Let's say the tax is 10%
>You make 17k a year you pay 1,7k
>You make 170k a year you pay 17k
>This is not flat tax is proportional tax
You are fucking retarded, holy shit. I seriously hope that you're some dumb child who stumbled onto 4chan, because the alternative is too depressing to even consider.
>>66293210
>>66293167
Enjoy your wife and daughter being raped by an angry crowd. The only other alternative would be a systematic sterilization, but that's not possible and you know that.
>>66294318
To start with, the purpose of taxation should not be to steal from a group of people to give to another group of people. That's just organized theft, no matter how you want to justify it.
Taxation should fund common services like police and court.
Your argument is flawed because it can't be generalized. If it were a valid principle, you would want to have that principle extended globally. After all there is no reason for an engineer in Boston to fund a welfare recipient in Detroit more than one in Monrovia.
Ask the welfare recipient in Detroit if he would be interested in that idea...
>>66294725
We live in an increasingly globalized world. People with capital, including human capital, migrate from high-tax countries to low-tax countries.
That is certainly true for your own country, Luigi. Look at how many Italian engineers you will find in Britain or Ireland.
>>66294576
>You are fucking retarded, holy shit. I seriously hope that you're some dumb child who stumbled onto 4chan, because the alternative is too depressing to even consider.
lmao
Someone is super mad
If truth makes you this butthurt why you are even in /pol/?
>>66294828
I'm going to enjoy the beginnning of automatization so much...
>>66294858
Careful what you wishing for Luigi
>>66288149
Actually the richer people take tax deductions for donating to charities or "non-profits" of their choice. I imagine sometimes they dodge the tax system all together this way and pay for lobbyists to further the tax deductions.
>>66294769
Social safety nets, minimum wages, public education etc. are common services. If the lower class does not have a decent wage, they can't afford anything beyond base needs, which is terrible for the economy. If there is no social safety net, they are unable to live for any period of time when seeking work. With no education, there isn't a large enough educated workforce. Even those who make enough to not need to worry about government assistance for those things are helped by their existance because they contribute to a stronger economy.
Also, never got an answer on why creating systems that leave one portion of society at an abysmal quality of living and eventual starvation is fine but opposing such a system because said portion of society will revolt and kill those who oppressed them rather than starve is unethical and unjust.
>>66288149
Basic economy. Poor people will spend most of their money. If you tax their money, they will spend less money and the consumption will be lower leasing to less demand,less production ... Rich people don't spend most of their money, that's why you can tax them.
>>66295164
Creating systems? I'm not a socialist so I don't really know how to think in those terms.
But let's look at your own country. Were the founding fathers "creating a system"? Or instead defining the role and limits of government?
I don't think not helping a stranger is unethical. Again, if you believe the opposite, you would want that system you are creating to extend globally. Otherwise you will have to explain why it is more ethical for a Miami banker to forcefully help a welfare recipient in Seattle and not a poor person in Haiti.
On the other hand, taking someone's property by force, even through a complex or organized system, is unethical.
The "system" that you are creating leads to poor and, ultimately, collapsing societies.
>>66294769
>taxation is organized theft
The vast majority of people agree on paying taxes and see it as a need to organize society. You libtards are literal retards.
>>66295460
The system being created is the flat tax system, where everyone is taxed at the same percentage. Also, no welfare/minimum wage.
Advocates of a progressive tax system will point out that because poorer people spend a greater percentage of their income than rich people, this is unfair. They will have less money and be able to afford less goods (even less because of a lack of a minimum wage) and if they don't have enough to live on, they will starve and die, because there is no social safety net to prevent this. From both an ethical sense (people shouldn't be forced into poverty and die) and a practical sense (people being able to stay alive in between jobs and generally have more money to spend on goods is good for the economy and welfare of all), the rich should be taxed at a progressively higher rate to allow for such programs and reduce the burden on the lower class.
That's where you jump in and say it's unethical to force rich people to pay more simply because they have more. And we go back to saying how is it ethical to not do so when the alternative results in a generally poorer economy and people starving and dying.
Also, ideally, this would be global. But it's the rich man in haiti or monrovia's job to help the poor people there.
>>66295881
You didn't read my point German cuck.
I'm talking about what taxation is used for. If it's to pay for the police it's fine. If it's to build a giant statue of Michael Jackson it's wrong. And if it's to steal from one to give another, then it's just theft. I mean, that's literally the definition of theft.
You'll have to find better arguments than "rah rah libertarians" because it's been used quite a few times by various people on this thread.
>>66295955
>Also, ideally, this would be global. But it's the rich man in haiti or monrovia's job to help the poor people there.
That's what I thought, you are full of shit.
You know full well that your principle cannot be generalized, because if we did each welfare recipient would get an average of 5 dollars.
If a principle is good, or at least *valid*, it should be possible to generalize it. Private property works, I think it should be true on a global scale: people from Norway respect the private property rights of people from Peru. Indeed, that's generally the case.
You are just trying to justify gibsmedat.
>>66296428
So if tax dollars are okay for police systems, why don't you pay for police in Monrovia?
>>66296507
Because it's not policing my neighborhood, my bank or the stock exchange I use.
Paying police is not subsidizing the police, it's paying them to get a service in return. I'm not interested in them policing Japan.
>>66296574
Yes. So the upper class pays a higher progressive tax rate so that the lower class in his country can survive and have money to be able to take a job at his company and buy his products and strengthen the economy in his country. He doesn't get that out of the guy in Monrovia. Just like you don't get anything out of a cop in monrovia
>>66296266
>I mean, that's literally the definition of theft.
What's theft is defined in the laws of a country. Welfare programs are not part of it.
>>66296574
you're a lot better to argue with than cyprus was, but it's 5am where i am and i'm leaving. Feel free to take that as me fleeing from the discussion and you "winning" the argument or something though. i know how that's often how that goes,
>>66296709
This makes no sense whatsoever.
If you have to take my wealth so that people can buy my products, then we're back to square one and they're effectively stealing my products, through the government.
Producers *trade*. I'm not building stuff because I want plastic notes. I'm producing stuff because I want steaks, whisky, hookers, movies and coffee and shit. If you provide that I'll give you some of my stuff. If not fuck off.
>>66296840
No need to be bitter. There is no argument to win or lose.
Maybe somewhere in your mind my argument will have unlocked something that will make sense over time. Maybe not.
And maybe it's the opposite, for me.
>>66296952
Wow anon, that was suprisingly sensible and mature of you. I was not expecting that and may have misjudged you.
And yes, maybe so. Goodnight and have a nice day in australia
>>66296840
>I-I-I am NOT losing the argument I just have to sleep I promise
lel faggot, he crushed you and out of embarrassment you have leave
say it like it is
