• See, it's the rich who are stealing from the poor in the first place. By making them pay more, you're only returning what's back to the poor in the manner of more services, social program, infrastructure, etc. So, what's wrong with giving back to the poor what was theirs in the first place?
  • If you're talking specifically about the US economy and the tax plan under Obama, it will create jobs and imported goods will go down in price. Domestic goods will roughly stay the same price.
  • well if the rich are taxed a higher percentage than the poor are then it reiterates the fact that we think capitalism is a joke, as can be seen by our subsidies paid to farmers. What will it do? Not sure
  • I will be the Devil's Advocate here. What if the rich decide to up and leave and go somewhere else more tax friendly, there would be no rich to tax so the poor average worker will be lumped with more to pay. I personally think the rich get too much money in relation to the average Joe and should pay more into the Country :o)
  • the money can be used for health care, education, public services, so yes it will create jobs, but no things will not cost less, actually they will probably cost more.
  • The pros and cons are really pretty straight foreward. Pro - those who can afford the most pay the most. Someone who says makes over $250,000 would be hurt less personally if his taxes are raised then the family making $40,000. The monies could be used for schools, roads, ect. Those who are are against it believe that by taxing the rich more their investment dollars are decreased so they would be less likely to hire or expend thie business. As a rule the debate is between more taxes on the rich or the middle class. If you opt to tax the middle class more then the question becomes will they be able to purchase the products that the more affluent produce. That's it a nut shell - I believe
  • It will keep more money in the hands of people who will, out of necessity, need to spend it, thus driving the economy.
  • Taxes are unfortunately necessary and I don't see any reason why the most (quite literally) privileged should be taxed less than others. I also can see the logic of progressive taxation - they are better able to carry the burden than working class people. I am not in favor of "punishing success" or "socialist income redistribution" or any of those BS catchy but misleading phrases some people toss about. And in countries with much higher taxes there is still innovation, job creation, and good old fashioned rich people. The questions should be about useful and effective government spending and funding. Is it cheaper to have a welfare state funded by taxes or a permanent underclass funded by crime - for instance. Both models have existed - and still do - in various places so data is readily available. I'm not advocating either - just proposing how I would look at questions of government spending. +5
  • You cannot give what you do not have. We can only go after the ones that have something to give. If the tax monies is spent in the best way possible for everyone then it will certainly help our economy. If the money is ill spent then we will continue to suffer and see no growth. We do need to create a business friendly country to keep business here. If we support the businesses then they will support us and we have growth. With growth everyone can pay taxes. We need companies to stop raping the people and create fair prices. Hospitals, doctors, and etc are overcharging at an alarming rate and one that most people cannot pay.
  • It will create jobs and creste cost savings due to the assiciated economies of scale by putting into circulation currency that is currently hoarded.
  • The very rich have so much disposable income they can spend on foreign travel and investments and luxuries that do not affect the U.S. economy or create jobs. They also can invest in financial instruments such as derivatives that are very lucrative for them in the short run but siphon investment money away from the real economy (it also contributed to the recent crash). If they are taxed more it can have the salutary effect of reducing our mammoth and growing budget deficit.
  • How about we just tax everyone an equal percentage of their income? Why is a fair tax so out of the question? If you take 15% from those making $250,000 and 15% from those making $35,000, who could complain? It's so obvious, it's almost absurd that we haven't implemented it yet.
  • Let's see here. 8 years of less and less taxes on rich people- have resulted in: The biggest recession since The Depression. I say let's find out what'll happen when the Rich pay their fair share again.
  • It's not as simple as saying this guys rich and this guys not. First you got to define rich then determine if after expenses and taxes if they're still rich. Most of the folks being called rich are the ones running small businesses as sole proprietors and file as individuals instead of the business. Go through the yellow pages sometime and look at all of the small businesses. The majority of all transactions and employees are in small business sole proprietorship's. This administration is killing our economy.
  • You will here on this question how the rich are stealing from the poor but the fact of the matter is that the wealthy provide jobs and taxing them only slows the growth of jobs.
  • Tax the rich heavily enough and they will begin moving their money offshore. Think we've got problems now? Think again.
  • I don't think it would help. Penalizing someone for having a high income is ridiculous, and no incentive for anyone to try to do better than average.
  • The rich are the ones that give the jobs out most of the time. So taxing them creates less jobs.
  • The rich are due for a massive redistribution of the wealth they've accumulated. They haven't given us more jobs, they've given us less. As Moongrim pointed out, reducing their taxes does nothing for the rest of us.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy