Here's a hypothetical question: would you be willing to pay 50% of your income in taxes, if it means complete elimination of poverty in America? As well as free socialized healthcare for all citizens? And for those lucky ones making $60K or more, you would have to pay 60% of your income.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Question for the left-leaning Americans
- Thread starter Lardbutt
- Start date
- Status
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Paying 50% would throw me into poverty. =/
In a way it could even itself out, 50% may be too high.
However if paying higher taxes means not having to worry about paying additional insurance fees (there's like $110 a month knocked out right there), if done properly, paying "extra" tax could actually end up being a lot more beneficial...
However if paying higher taxes means not having to worry about paying additional insurance fees (there's like $110 a month knocked out right there), if done properly, paying "extra" tax could actually end up being a lot more beneficial...
Drinky Crow
Banned
Easily. I'd pay 75% of my income in taxes if it meant "elimination of poverty".
IntestineBoy
Sasquatch of 1000 (hairy) colons
Eliminating poverty could be done for a lot less than that. I think it was like, 7 cents out of every hundred dollars could eliminate poverty globally. I would do that instantaneously. 50% isn't realistic. I would give up 50% if I got the equivalent in services back, College, Health Care, Insurance, utilities, etc.
As it stands I live in a state where we pay more taxes than we receive (so fuck you Alabama) but if it got reversed, I wouldn't be so against it.
As it stands I live in a state where we pay more taxes than we receive (so fuck you Alabama) but if it got reversed, I wouldn't be so against it.
Meh, the one thing that capitalism has going for it is the hope that you can either out work or out wit the chump next to you, and that you'll somehow climb the economic ladder. The other way to look at it is if you DON'T outwork the guy next to you, he'll take your job. Worker motivation drives the economy.
Honestly, why even go to work if you have that kind of safety net? If I knew I would never dip into poverty I probably would spend all day scratching my nuts and not much else. Just knowing that if I bothered to go to work I'd have half my wages taken away and given to the lazy fucks would be enough to turn me into one of the lazy fucks.
Ofcourse, such a system would be a godsend to the legitimatly injured or infirm.
Honestly, why even go to work if you have that kind of safety net? If I knew I would never dip into poverty I probably would spend all day scratching my nuts and not much else. Just knowing that if I bothered to go to work I'd have half my wages taken away and given to the lazy fucks would be enough to turn me into one of the lazy fucks.
Ofcourse, such a system would be a godsend to the legitimatly injured or infirm.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Boy, you people spend a lot of time worrying about these often anecdotal "lazy fucks".
Me, I'd rather see everyone have a good life on average -- lazy or otherwise -- at the expense of me having a vastly superior life while nine other folks have shit. I really don't value my perceived financial superiority at ALL.
Me, I'd rather see everyone have a good life on average -- lazy or otherwise -- at the expense of me having a vastly superior life while nine other folks have shit. I really don't value my perceived financial superiority at ALL.
Since when does higher taxes = socialist? I noticed someone here point this out.
Canada, UK, etc. do not represent a socialist society the last time I checked. It's just that most Americans are blind as to what being to the "far left" really is. It's amazing that they thought Kerry was the most liberal man the country could possibly elect President. They should pay attention to politics in Europe.
Canada, UK, etc. do not represent a socialist society the last time I checked. It's just that most Americans are blind as to what being to the "far left" really is. It's amazing that they thought Kerry was the most liberal man the country could possibly elect President. They should pay attention to politics in Europe.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
If you extend this to left-leaning Europeans:
In a hearbeat.
In a hearbeat.
Instigator
Banned
Slo said:
Poverty is a relative term. I think most people would agree that equal access to (higher) education, affordable housing and being able to feed yourself and your family are bare essentials. But what about luxuries? Being able to travel abroad, drive a sports car, wear fancy clothes, have the latest in electronics, have a ranch. Obviously, these things wouldn't be cover in an anti-poverty initiative and would require people to work extra to be able to get those things. Some people are lazy, yes, but staying at home, just watching TV and eating frozen dinners is not the idea of a life for most. They want to pamper themselves and would be willing to go the extra mile to get it.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
This is a fallacious question though: the simple wording and number choice you have chosen tricks people to believe that they would be losing much more than they're gaining. According to your question, even if we're paying 50% in taxes, we're still not going to be in poverty, so why worry? It seems to me the only people that could be possibly threatened by your hypothetical scenario are rich conservatives, so you're damning your own cause and admitting fault in it.Lardbutt said:
I'm a political apathist, so I'm not trying to swing this one way or another. I'm just clearing it up.
Higher taxes to me would only be bad if they did not eliminate everything that they DO in other countries. The idea of it in other countries, based on what I've read and have by told by Canadians and Europeans here, is that it's like a compromise. Higher taxes, but you don't have to pay for insurance and a trip to the doctor is free, for example. And if you are having problems with money, you would be much better off in what some people here call a "socialist" approach to taxing people.
I don't see what's so unrealistic about my numbers. Americans already pay close to 40% tax rate on income with federal and state taxes combined. And accounting for the gross inefficiencies in government redistribution of wealth, I think adding another 10% to reach those objectives, is rather optimistic.
Beer Monkey
Member
I don't really consider myself a lefty, but I see the follies of Neocon policy (spend like a drunken sailor, ship jobs out of the country, absolve corporations of legal liability when they harm or poison citizens, and snoop into people's bedrooms).
For the purposes of fiscal responsibilty, I'd be willing to go up to 50% for a period of time if that's what it took to balance the budget and pay down the debt to a reasonable level.
But before raising middle-class taxes we need to flatten the taxes out more and make them less regressive for the upper class. Billionaire Theresa Heinz Kerry only paid taxes on 12.4% of her income last year, and pays a lower effective tax rate than you and I do. That shit has got to stop.
This isn't the Reagan years, and the upper class is no longer being unfairly penalized by 70% taxes. Bush's tax cut for the true elite (like Heinz Kerry) during a time of war is not only unprecedented and unneeded, it's stupid.
For the purposes of fiscal responsibilty, I'd be willing to go up to 50% for a period of time if that's what it took to balance the budget and pay down the debt to a reasonable level.
But before raising middle-class taxes we need to flatten the taxes out more and make them less regressive for the upper class. Billionaire Theresa Heinz Kerry only paid taxes on 12.4% of her income last year, and pays a lower effective tax rate than you and I do. That shit has got to stop.
This isn't the Reagan years, and the upper class is no longer being unfairly penalized by 70% taxes. Bush's tax cut for the true elite (like Heinz Kerry) during a time of war is not only unprecedented and unneeded, it's stupid.
Not all Americans pay close to 40%. It depends on how much money you make.Lardbutt said:
I wouldn't call Kerry out for that, he admitted quite a few times that there is no need for him to be reaping the benefits of Bush's tax cuts; he's rich enough. Hillary Clinton has said the same thing.
It wouldn't work. Rich people would still find loopholes to pay drastically less, and some poor people would still find ways to foolishly give their money away.
Also, what about illegal immigrants? With such low wages they will always live in poverty, unless you want to pay them to live here.
Also, what about illegal immigrants? With such low wages they will always live in poverty, unless you want to pay them to live here.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Ugh.
Ummm... paying 50% of my income would put me in poverty... so I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.
If you mean basic and necessary things (shelter, food, utlities, ability to operate productively (including transport)) are taken care of for all people, paying 50% of my income, then sure.
If you mean basic and necessary things (shelter, food, utlities, ability to operate productively (including transport)) are taken care of for all people, paying 50% of my income, then sure.
Drinky Crow said:
Hey, I just stated how I'd act in that situation. That "anecdotal" lazy fuck is me, and there are a whole lot of people like me. All I'm saying is that if I was guarrenteed 3 squares, gov't medical insureance and 2 bedroom ranch in suburbia, I'm not sure how hard I'd work at my 9-5. Turning that 2 bedroom house into a 4 bedroom just became twice as hard for me, since half of my wages would be paying for my neighbor's place.
Then why does it work in other countries (not socialist ones, thanks)? Where EVERYTHING is more expensive, and even though people get paid more for minimum wage, it's basically the same because of the cost of everything else?Himuro said:I just find this like the dumbest question ever.
I mean, yeah if you want to, do it. It will make the poor more middle class. But then at the same time, most of the middle class would slump into poverty. Then the NEW middle class people would have to pay for the new poor people! The cycle would continue.
It just seems dumb to me. =/
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
No. I lean left, but not on taxes.
The problem I see with the proposed solution is that economics is a fluid thing, and there isn't a practical way to do this and not screw with the economy.
I would rather see better use of the money we are taxed with-- ie, stop gutting domestic programs, and stop funding expensive, pointless wars.
The problem I see with the proposed solution is that economics is a fluid thing, and there isn't a practical way to do this and not screw with the economy.
I would rather see better use of the money we are taxed with-- ie, stop gutting domestic programs, and stop funding expensive, pointless wars.
Beer Monkey
Member
I'm not, and I didn't. I'm making an example using a high-profile multi-billionaire. Smart rich folks like Kerry and Warren Buffett know the folly of these cuts at this time.
Never said I did, I said flatter, and I was talking about the upper class. The effective tax rate is progressive until the middle class, then becomes regressive after that. That's what we need to flatten.
Lardbutt: Right now taxes make up less than 17% of GDP. That figure includes federal, state, and local taxes.
Not to mention the original post is loaded, because if you're going to redistribute wealth to someone making minimum wage, you obviously wouldn't take away half their income beforehand. This is why us lefties keep nagging the government to keep a progressive tax schedule.
I mean, honestly, are you just making these numbers up?
Slo's got a point about incentives, but I don't think too many people would stop working if guaranteed food/shelter/healthcare, and I don't think that 2-bedroom suburban ranch is really implied by being just over the poverty line.
Not to mention the original post is loaded, because if you're going to redistribute wealth to someone making minimum wage, you obviously wouldn't take away half their income beforehand. This is why us lefties keep nagging the government to keep a progressive tax schedule.
I mean, honestly, are you just making these numbers up?
Slo's got a point about incentives, but I don't think too many people would stop working if guaranteed food/shelter/healthcare, and I don't think that 2-bedroom suburban ranch is really implied by being just over the poverty line.
Instigator
Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
What if the pointless wars, when they work, are for long-term strategic and economic interests of the US, securing key ressources, creating satellite states and helping American multi-nationals to get a foothole in foreign markets. Would you be for those wars then? The dividend is obviously the US gaining a definitive competitive advantage by force of arms.
I forget what the exact numbers are but basically anyone unlucky enough to be in the Top 10% get to pay 50% of their earnings in taxes.
We're talking mostly about small corporations and people that make ~ 800,000 - 1,000,000 a year. They actually stand to lose the most.
People in the Top 5% (the 'truely' wealthy) only lose 35-40%
We're talking mostly about small corporations and people that make ~ 800,000 - 1,000,000 a year. They actually stand to lose the most.
People in the Top 5% (the 'truely' wealthy) only lose 35-40%
beermonkey@tehbias said:
Er, I didn't say you did. I was responding to the original question, which proposes a 50% flat tax with a minor, but useless, nod to progressive taxation by adding an extra bracket for the middle class.
I agree with you. Current western taxation tends to punish the middle class due to loopholes and low-tax forms of income (dividends, capital gains, income splitting, and sheltering) being relatively unavailable to anyone but the higher income earners, and not getting the default tax break of the lower class.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
Lardbutt said:
Um, bullshit. Poverty levels in the US dropped during the Clinton administration, the budget was balanced, and while tax rates increased, we didn't pay anywhere NEAR the levels you're talking about. Bush came in, lowered taxes, and increased spending. And, poverty levels are now INCREASING since the Bush administration began.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Instigator said:
I'm not a believer in trickle-down economics. So, wars which benefit multinationals don't thrill me. I'm also not a fan of corporate imperialism. It was bad in SE Asia and it'll end badly here.
Now you're hitting my seriously liberal side.
Instigator
Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
Just checking.
dammitmattt
Banned
Mandark said:
I'm sure as hell paying more than 17% in taxes, and that is not even including the artificial inflation of all goods and services due to corporate taxes and sales tax. Even worse, if I am lucky enough to get a bonus, it is taxed at almost 50%. I think the average middle-class person is ALREADY spending 50% of their income in taxes.
Also, you think that people would not stop working if they had guaranteed food/shelter/healthcare?!? What kind of fantasy world do you live in???
Outdoor Miner
Member
Vark said:
Yeah, those poor unlucky s.o.b's.
Do people honestly PAUSE AND READ the fucking things they post?
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
If my reply is, "absolutely not" perhaps I'm not as left-leaning as I once imagined ;p
FortNinety
Member
I love these extremely trite attempts at proving how stupid liberals are. Your leader is an embarassing fool and your excuses to cover his ass is just as transparent as his own. Just be happy that you're all getting what you want and be done with it, please.
- Status