• @OriginalMP3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    377 months ago

    This graphic is based on the percentage of income paid to taxes. A family making $500k a year paying a higher dollar amount than one making $50k a year is expected, but the higher earners should also be paying a higher percentage because 20% to them means a lot less sacrifice than 20% to a low income family. The sacrifice of not buying that third or fourth house is a lot less than whether the low income family goes to the doctor for a checkup.

    • @GreenCheese882@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      So you want socialism. No thanks. If I earn $500k a year because I went to college and put in far more effort than someone who makes $50k a year, why should I pay multiples more in taxes than them? Someone earning $50k a year is leaching far more off society than someone making $500k. The $50k per year person buys less and pays less sales tax, they have a far smaller house and pays far less property tax. They will be much more likely to incur medical bills they can’t pay. If you have a disability, great, you get assistance (or should), but if you are lazy, why shouldn’t you pay the same income tax as me? I pay the tax on everything else that I consume.

      • @OriginalMP3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        177 months ago

        They will be much more likely to incur medical bills they can’t pay.

        Wow, you almost got the point there then got completely lost. Low income people can’t pay medical bills because they don’t have the money to do so. How will taxing them help that situation? You seem like a student of the “fuck you, I’ve got mine” school of thought.

        Take the Waltons of Walmart fame as an extreme example. They are some of the richest people in America but their Walmart employees include people that are being paid so poorly they also need to collect social services such as food stamps and Medicaid. Walmart pays low wages knowing the employees can’t survive and will be assisted by the taxpayers. Paying lower wages means more profits and more money in the Waltons pockets at the expense of the employees. Do you think the Waltons are spending all their extra earnings on things that incur more taxes or are they just putting it away like a dragon on their pile of treasure?

        Walmart also uses taxpayer funded services like public roads to move goods, the FAA and ATC for their corporate and private jets, tax breaks when they build new warehouses or stores, etc. So, are the underpaid Walmart employees the ones leaching off society or is it the high earners like the Waltons causing the issues?

        • @GreenCheese882@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          I am a “fuck you, I am still working hard every day for mine” kind of person. I have known many people who flake out and try to take short cuts, then blame everyone but themselves for their problems. People who work for walmart are idiots. They go find an easy job, then stay long after they should. If walmart had a hard time employing people they would have to raise the wages and benefits. But they don’t, and don’t have to. Supply and demand. If I was a dog walker and walked a millionaires dog every day do you think they owe me a livable wage, a 401k, and Healthcare? Hell no, go find a real job. Yes, underpaid walmart employees are absolutely leaching off society. Go find some real work… take off that dumb blue shirt and either make money with your brain or with your muscles.

          • @tan00k@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            77 months ago

            If someone is underpaid, that means they are working harder/longer than they should for the pay they get, right? Which means they are giving more than they are getting. That makes it the opposite of leaching.

            Walmart is the one getting more than they should for the amount of pay they offer. So isn’t it Walmart that is the leach in this example?

          • @twix@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            37 months ago

            While I do agree some jobs are easier than others, those still require a human to do the work, so that human should be able to live from doing that job.

      • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        117 months ago

        If I earn $500k a year because I went to college and put in far more effort than someone who makes $50k a year, why should I pay multiples more in taxes than them?

        Because you are forgetting of the net benefit of taxes that have been paid for decades before you were born, which improved everyone’s standing to allow for:
        The training of your teachers to allow you to get your education.
        The city infrastructure that allowed you easy access to school, and later to your profession.
        The social stability for your business to thrive.
        The quality of life for your business’s customers, allowing them to afford to be customers, allowing the business to afford your $500k a year.

        You do not live in a vacuum. If all the people who make $50k a year disappeared it would significantly negatively impact your life. “A rising tide raises all ships”, and a society on which everyone can thrive benefits everyone in that society. You can afford to pay a higher % and still thrive, in order to ease the burden on someone who is struggling.

        You’re argument of “I make more money than I need, I should keep it and let other people starve” isn’t very compelling.

        • @GreenCheese882@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Not a liberal. I am a hard working capitalist that wants to earn more for working harder. Just read the wiki page. You definitely want socialism. No thanks. This is a very academic idea that would never work, as we have seen. It just allows the lazy to be more lazy, but the people who would innovate in a capitalist economy to have no motivation to take risks and work harder.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

          Socialist systems divide into non-market and market forms.[15][16] A non-market socialist system seeks to eliminate the perceived inefficiencies, irrationalities, unpredictability, and crises that socialists traditionally associate with capital accumulation and the profit system.[17] Market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and sometimes the profit motive.[18][19][20] …

          By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify anti-capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.[29][30] By the early 1920s, communism and social democracy had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement,[31] with socialism itself becoming the most influential secular movement of the 20th century.[32] …

          A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.[334]

          —Albert Einstein, “Why Socialism?”, 1949

          • The Menemen!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            9
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            So, high income taxes is the collectivization of the means of production? You wrote a lot of words, but none of them make sense in regards of your original statement.

            And yes, I want socialism (though not in the form you probably assume, but this is getting really OT). But we are not talking about socialism here.

      • @hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 months ago

        Is this a joke? The wealthy consume far more of the efforts of the government than the poor.

    • @Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      Taxes should be treated like insurance. If you’re more likely to use social services, then you should pay more taxes. Those who do not require public social services should not pay taxes at all.

      • @OriginalMP3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        137 months ago

        So high income people don’t use roads, fire, police, the FAA, tax breaks for businesses, etc? They don’t indirectly benefit when their lower income employees, people at the store, people that use whatever drives the high income people’s earnings, etc. are using these social services including food assistance and Medicaid? Do high income people just live in a magical bubble where people have no interaction and connections to each other and they earn money without the input of anyone else? I’d love to live in this fantasy land with you.

      • @jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        87 months ago

        The rich person is more likely to require more police services. The rich person is pretty much the only sort of person that’s ever going to have the FBI seriously in their corner. That rich person is more likely to care deeply about the interstate system and the FAA. If a foreign military is coming, the rich are the people that would most desperately want the defense. The rich have the government acting on their best interests in meddling in world affairs and negotiating trade.

        Though you probably think welfare is what most taxes go toward, but that’s actually a relatively small piece of the tax funded pie.

      • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        77 months ago

        Taxes should be treated like insurance. If you’re more likely to use social services, then you should pay more taxes. Those who do not require public social services should not pay taxes at all.

        Who’s more likely to need and benefit from a well funded police force? A wealthy man with a lot of property that needs to be protected? Or a poor man with little property, nothing to lose, and a grudge against the rich man hoarding his wealth?

      • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        Clearly you’ve never done a hard day’s work in your miserable life, which I hope doesn’t last much longer. People like you disgust me.

        I worked my way up from poverty. And I did it the hard way. Heat stroke. Broken bones. 75 hour work weeks. Coming home every day covered in dirt and sweat and too tired to even shower.

        Now I make good money and I am honored to pay taxes. Taxes kept me from the brink. Taxes funded the work-study programs, the food banks I visited, the shelters I stayed at while homeless. I pay a TON of taxes and that is fucking GREAT. It’s an investment in my neighbors. I want to live in a good place. I want others to have the opportunities I did.

        And I don’t fucking delude myself into thinking I made it out because I’m just that awesome. I worked hard, but I also got LUCKY. My taxes make it more possible for others to follow in my footsteps.