Liberals, What amount of annual income constitutes being rich? and what percentage should be paid in taxes?

Question

I am not being glib here. I am honestly curious about your opinion on this.

Answer 1

I'm not a liberal but I, too, found this question interesting and was curious about how it would be answered.  My day started  with a good laugh when I read pibzz's tongue-in-cheek, yet, oh, so true  (in terms of how most liberals think) answer!  Thanks!!  lol

Answer 2

The medium income is around $36K so clearly anyone that earns over that is filthy RICH and should have nearly ALL their income confiscated.

This will improve the economy by giving incentive to those making less than $36K to NEVER strive for anything better (thus preserving the middle class)

The economy will be double benefited by forcing professionals to take menial jobs just to avoid high taxes.  

Closing business that earn more than $36K for their owners; forcing Doctors, CPA's, Attorneys, and other professionals to earn less is wonderful beause all those high paying jobs can be replaced by welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, and other liberal programs.

Also think of all the money we will SAVE in education, when people realize there is no need for basic and higher education, because any dime over $36K that is earned will be confiscated.

Taxing prosperity is GREAT for the environment too, because in so doing everyone will be forced to live in Soviet style condos near mass transit, and we can all take light rail and buses to work.  Cars are far too decadent, besides traffic accidents in cars strain our fragile health care.

The important thing is that life be fair.  People with dead end jobs feel bad when they see others succeed - this is just unacceptable.

If we are all capped at $36K America will be a truly beautiful land of fairness.  Opportunity and hard work are for the third world !

This is why we need to vote Obama 08!!!

Answer 3

I don't think someone is rich unless they make  millions(not 1 million but millions) of dollars a year.   People who make six figures(just my opinion) are upper middle class.

Answer 4

Pibzz: hilarious!

Answer 5

I don't know if this could ever actually work, but I've been kicking around an idea for a while now, and here's what it's based on: I think in all fairness, everyone should pay tax if they are going to live in and enjoy the benifits of the USA.

In California, where we have a state sales tax, even the little old lady living between a couple buildings and pushing her worldly possesions around in a shopping cart pays some sales tax. So why not just a national sales tax? It's not a fair system. Investments are not sales, and most sales happen at the wholesale level, between businesses. It would be too easy for the wealthy to manipulate their tax liability in a downward direction.

Under the plan I'm thinking of, the government would have to find new ways to motivate businesses and individuals to do what they want because there would be no tax incentives and no tax credits. Accountants would still be needed but companies like H&R Block would go away.

Money hasn't always been paper. In England, it used to be long wood sticks with notches. In Rome, it was gold coin with the emperor's face on one side. In ancient Sumeria, it was baked clay with wedge markings. Money is whatever is most suitable for the day. I say that digital bits in today's world makes the most sense. Even my local drive-through dairy has an electronic, online cash register. It would be fairly easy to call in the cash and issue digital credits. Like when we called in "Silver Certificates" and issued "Federal Reserve Notes." This makes it very difficult for tax fraud and other illegal activities to take place since all money would be trackable. Nowhere for money to run, nowhere for it to hide. We would have credit/debit cards, checks, online transaction capabilities, but no cash.

If every transaction could be tracked, then it stands to reason that every transaction could be taxed. That's right, a transaction tax. It might only need to be 1 percent, or maybe even less, I'm not sure, but when you get your paycheck you pay it and so does your boss. When you deposit it into your bank, you pay again and so does the bank. When you buy stocks with it, you pay again and so does the stock broker. He in turn pays when he buys the mutual fund on your behalf, and so does the fund manager (or collective fund owners). The fund pays when it identifies a good stock and purchases it from the exchange, and again, both sides pay a transaction fee. When you buy a new television or groceries, you pay again and so does the retailer.

I like this plan, at least on the surface, because money never sits. It always changes hands whether it's sunk into personal goodies or invested for profit. In the end, the guy with the most money pays the most tax. The guy with the least pays the least, but everyone is treated fairly. Incidentally, this tax would apply on wholesale transactions too.

Obviously, if the goal is limmited to the government getting exactly what they receive from us now, aggregated from several sources (fees, income tax, exise taxes, etc.) there would be a gross redistribution of how that tax burden would fall, but wouldn't it be more fair, and easier than what we have?

I would have to write a book in order to carefully consider all the complex ramifications of a complete reworking of our tax system, and it's likely that I'll never get around to it. All I know is, some people pay too much tax because others pay too little. What percentage of people in America cheat in some way on their taxes? I bet it's pretty high! The effect I'm trying to achieve is a fair and equal tax system for all, regardless of wealth. One where the system is automated. One where tax is paid in tiny bits on a daily basis instead of a huge chunk on April 15th. One where we don't get tax refunds. One where we can't overpay tax. Those with more money certainly have more and bigger transactions, and will pay more tax. People with less money will have smaller and fewer transactions, and pay less tax.

This doesn't solve the welfare issue, but at least when those folks spend the money we give them, they will pay tax on it.

It does solve the HUGE under-the-table employment issue. We could set a 5 year moritorium on cash, after which it would be illegal to be caught with it or accept it as payment.

I've thrown this idea out before, here and there, and I don't get much feedback. It might simply be because it would be a major upheaval in the current system, and it's hard to feel like one has their head around it. I certainly don't. Also, if you are currently cheating on your taxes, or if you've managed to cut your tax liability to the bone under the current tax laws, you aren't likely to appreciate the finer points of this idea. lol

Answer 6

COMPARE TO THE PEOPLE WHICH MAKE  $$  20.000 A YEAR IS NOT RICH  AT ALL. EVEN 70.000 BEFORE TAXES IS NOT  BUT  EVERYBODY  WITH A NET WORTH OF  $ 1.000.000 IS RICH  I AM FOR A FLAT TAX UP TO A CERTAIN  INCOME LEVEL  "THAN MORE "