You guys also gotta consider the hockey player may only play for a year because risk of injury or replacement is high. Also to be able to make that much money is a very low chance even if you are a good hockey player. Should he be punished for excelling to the top? Should he not have enough savings for training all of his life to get to that point?
Is it OK to over-tax rich people just because they make more money?
- Thread starter Rahim
- Start date
I hear this a lot, but it overlooks the reality of regressive taxes (such as on gasoline, alcohol, sales and property taxes, etc.) in which there is a greater burden on those with lower incomes.
We also have to consider the fact that it's a lot easier for the wealthy members of society to hire a lobbyist to get the tax code changed, and thereby pay less in taxes.
The "everyone should be taxed equally" idea is little more than a pipe-dream. In practice, the wealthy pay more in some regards and the poor pay more in other regards.
We also have to consider the fact that it's a lot easier for the wealthy members of society to hire a lobbyist to get the tax code changed, and thereby pay less in taxes.
The "everyone should be taxed equally" idea is little more than a pipe-dream. In practice, the wealthy pay more in some regards and the poor pay more in other regards.
In terms of volume, poor people do not pay more in taxes. In any country as stratified as the USA (and most -- if not all -- of the developed world) the upper few percent earn a crazy amount of wealth and wind up paying a high percentage of the taxes. They pay more in taxes because they earn more money. That makes sense.
In terms of proportion of income, there are plenty of situations in which poor people pay more than wealthy persons. For instance, we go to the gas pump and pay a flat tax rate on gasoline. We all pay the same rate for the gasoline, but this makes up a higher percentage of our overall income if we are living in poverty, as opposed to if we're Bill Gates. So called "sin taxes" are another example. Being that I am not very wealthy, the tax rate on cigarettes winds up being a larger percentage of my income than it is for Charlie Sheen. Sin taxes are themselves discriminatory, as they overlook a mountain of psycho-social research on the nature of substance use, and instead pass character judgment with the intention of increasing tax revenue -- but that's a story for a different thread.
Property taxes are a tricky issue, and it only becomes regressive if done poorly. Unfortunately, it is (often) done poorly. I will quote wikipedia:
"Property tax has been thought, by some, to be regressive (that is, to fall disproportionately on those of lower income) when not correctly implemented because of its impact on particular low-income/high-asset groups such as pensioners and farmers in drought years. Because these persons have high-assets accumulated over time, they have a high property tax liability, although their realized income is low. Therefore, a larger proportion of their income goes to paying the tax. In areas with speculative land appreciation (such as California in the 1970s and 2000s), there may be little or no relationship between property taxes and a homeowner's ability to pay them short of selling the property.[3] This issue was a common argument used by supporters of such measures as California Proposition 13 or Oregon Ballot Measure 5; some economists have even called for the abolition of property taxes altogether, to be replaced by income taxes, consumption taxes such as Europe's VAT, or a combination of both. Others, however, have argued that property taxes are broadly progressive, since people of higher incomes are disproportionately likely to own more valuable property. In addition, while nearly all households have some income, nearly a third of households own no real estate. Moreover, the most valuable properties are owned by corporations not individuals. Hence, property is more maldistributed than income.
It has been suggested that these two beliefs are not incompatible - it is possible for a tax to be progressive in general but to be regressive in relation to minority groups. However, although not direct, and not likely one-to-one, property renters can be subject to property taxes as well. If the tax reduces the supply of housing units, then it will increase the rental price. In this way, the owner's cost of taxation is passed on to the renter (occupant)."
Property tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the whole lobbyist/tax-code thing: I was oversimplifying. I would also like to state that I am a strong supporter of the existence of lobbyists and PAC's in general. They're beng unfairly thrown under the bus, IMO. However, there are obscure bits of tax code that have been written to benefit one single person. Politicians from both major parties have gone to great lengths to close unfair tax loops, but they remain, largely because it's bad for your political career to go screwing with "welfare for the rich" and pork-barrel spending and other asinine issues of fiscal policy (see: McCain, John; who lost the 2000 GOP nomination to Bush, partially due to his unwillingness to pander to special-interest groups).
I would support an effort to have everybody pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, but any plan to do so has to account for regressive taxes. Regressive taxes aren't some fringe, left-wing concept: they're accepted by every single Economist, Sociologist, and Political Scientist in the world. The problem is, it's incredibly difficult to correct this issue. It would almost certainly call for a radical overhaul of the entire system.
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In terms of proportion of income, there are plenty of situations in which poor people pay more than wealthy persons. For instance, we go to the gas pump and pay a flat tax rate on gasoline. We all pay the same rate for the gasoline, but this makes up a higher percentage of our overall income if we are living in poverty, as opposed to if we're Bill Gates. So called "sin taxes" are another example. Being that I am not very wealthy, the tax rate on cigarettes winds up being a larger percentage of my income than it is for Charlie Sheen. Sin taxes are themselves discriminatory, as they overlook a mountain of psycho-social research on the nature of substance use, and instead pass character judgment with the intention of increasing tax revenue -- but that's a story for a different thread.
Property taxes are a tricky issue, and it only becomes regressive if done poorly. Unfortunately, it is (often) done poorly. I will quote wikipedia:
"Property tax has been thought, by some, to be regressive (that is, to fall disproportionately on those of lower income) when not correctly implemented because of its impact on particular low-income/high-asset groups such as pensioners and farmers in drought years. Because these persons have high-assets accumulated over time, they have a high property tax liability, although their realized income is low. Therefore, a larger proportion of their income goes to paying the tax. In areas with speculative land appreciation (such as California in the 1970s and 2000s), there may be little or no relationship between property taxes and a homeowner's ability to pay them short of selling the property.[3] This issue was a common argument used by supporters of such measures as California Proposition 13 or Oregon Ballot Measure 5; some economists have even called for the abolition of property taxes altogether, to be replaced by income taxes, consumption taxes such as Europe's VAT, or a combination of both. Others, however, have argued that property taxes are broadly progressive, since people of higher incomes are disproportionately likely to own more valuable property. In addition, while nearly all households have some income, nearly a third of households own no real estate. Moreover, the most valuable properties are owned by corporations not individuals. Hence, property is more maldistributed than income.
It has been suggested that these two beliefs are not incompatible - it is possible for a tax to be progressive in general but to be regressive in relation to minority groups. However, although not direct, and not likely one-to-one, property renters can be subject to property taxes as well. If the tax reduces the supply of housing units, then it will increase the rental price. In this way, the owner's cost of taxation is passed on to the renter (occupant)."
Property tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the whole lobbyist/tax-code thing: I was oversimplifying. I would also like to state that I am a strong supporter of the existence of lobbyists and PAC's in general. They're beng unfairly thrown under the bus, IMO. However, there are obscure bits of tax code that have been written to benefit one single person. Politicians from both major parties have gone to great lengths to close unfair tax loops, but they remain, largely because it's bad for your political career to go screwing with "welfare for the rich" and pork-barrel spending and other asinine issues of fiscal policy (see: McCain, John; who lost the 2000 GOP nomination to Bush, partially due to his unwillingness to pander to special-interest groups).
I would support an effort to have everybody pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, but any plan to do so has to account for regressive taxes. Regressive taxes aren't some fringe, left-wing concept: they're accepted by every single Economist, Sociologist, and Political Scientist in the world. The problem is, it's incredibly difficult to correct this issue. It would almost certainly call for a radical overhaul of the entire system.
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
honestly, who really needs more than 9 million in a life time? taxes or not.
thats true, but a lot of times famous people get shit for free. therefore he doesnt really have to have THAT much savings....
Free shit includes
I.E. free clothing and gadgets....because they are in the spotlight, so they work as advertisers...which 'poor' people or...should i say, 'unknown' people are shit out of luck when it comes to that.
thats true, but a lot of times famous people get shit for free. therefore he doesnt really have to have THAT much savings....
Free shit includes
I.E. free clothing and gadgets....because they are in the spotlight, so they work as advertisers...which 'poor' people or...should i say, 'unknown' people are shit out of luck when it comes to that.
This is a prime example of what I like to call "talking out of your ass."
Just to be clear: when someone "talks out of his or her ass," they are making exaggerated, unsubstantiated, or even utterly false claims.
I challenge you to find a single source that claims regressive taxes are universally accepted by economists. My guess is that you wouldn't even be able to find a source that says they are generally accepted or supported.
From my experience, and considering that I'll have a degree in economics by the end of this spring, I can say that this is an outright lie.
Just to be clear: when someone "talks out of his or her ass," they are making exaggerated, unsubstantiated, or even utterly false claims.
I challenge you to find a single source that claims regressive taxes are universally accepted by economists. My guess is that you wouldn't even be able to find a source that says they are generally accepted or supported.
From my experience, and considering that I'll have a degree in economics by the end of this spring, I can say that this is an outright lie.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.