Photoplex

Yeah, I'm certain you'd be first in line cheering to give up a sizable chunk of income

Steve_

Don't you work in academia? "Aye lads, is' makin' mah takeways a lot murr cheaper."

Steve_

Well the question is whether you want the infrastructure it pays for.

scrubbedexpat091

I have no real issue with paying taxes, society cannot exist without it. Do you use healthcare? Drive on roads? Want police and fire service? And so on?


My issue with flat taxes are they punish the lower income earners and middle class, 10% lets say of 40,000 is a harder hit then 10% of 100,000 since the person making 100,000 still has more then enough left to meet their needs, where the person on 40k will probably be struggling depending on where you are, how many in the family and such.

No denying flat taxes benefit the high income folks and hurt everyone else.

Oink

I get paid in septic money.

Photoplex

And therein lies the problem.

Do you think the person who earned $100k worked any less for it than the person that earned $40k?

Did the person who earned $100k use more services than the person that earned $40k?

Do you think the person earning $40k has $80k of student loan debt to service?

A percentage is a percentage. One is paying $4k, the other $10k. One is already subsidizing the others life choices, and that isn't equitable or fair.

scrubbedexpat091

Taking 4,000 from 40,000 is more of a hit then taking 10,000 from 100,000.

The person making 100,000 wont be hurting to only have 90,000 left. Boo hoo.

I'll assume your high income based on your posts seems only those with high incomes have this sort of selfish mind set.

scrubbedexpat091

Your actually quite offensive, most people don't make much over 50,000 a year, and its pretty rude and offensive to say their life choices are being subsidized by the wealthy.

Photoplex

Firstly, nothing I said was offensive. You're the one getting pouty and reactionary about the whole thing. As that's aired and established, gloves off I suppose;

Whatever gets you through the day.

I'll assume you're low income based on your posts as only those with low incomes have this sort of "other people should pay my way" mind set.

MikeUK

they guy earning 100K probably had several people earning 40K working to support there role..
he will also have proportional more disposable income, and likely consume more therefore putting a higher demand on the states support
the correlation isn't linear...
the only people that like you to believe it is, are the very top earners

BristolUK

Almost certainly, yes.

They might make some important decisions but that doesn't mean it was hard for them to do.

Topics like this always remind me of a Panorama or world in action where some top business bloke claimed to work something like 20 hours a day and then we saw him 'working' at various points.

He was served his breakfast while talking about an appointment later in the day.

In his chauffeur driven car he was talking on the phone.

At the office he listened to a presentation done by someone.

Then there was the expenses paid business lunch at the Savoy or some such.

It's tough at the top.

If I included the same sort of stuff my working day also extended way beyond 9 to 5 with working through lunch, on the way home, over breakfast next day and often the middle of the night.

ExKiwilass

one has 36k left to live on, the other has 80k. seems MORE than fair to me, arguably the 80ker could be taxed a bit more (imo)

Photoplex

And the point you all miss spectacularly (or rather, intentionally) is that there was no royal or heavenly decree that proclaimed one person should earn more than another. There was usually a crap-ton of study, debt, and no earnings for years to get there.

That - which caused JSmith to get all frothy mouthed calling a "****ing prick" and that I should "to rot in hell" - was the point I was making when I mentioned "lifestyle choices" earlier.

"You can choose to work hard the first 25 years and relax for the rest, or you can relax for the first 25 and work hard for the rest"

Shard

It's you that is middling the point. The issue was whether higher earners ought to contribute proportionally to low earners, not whether higher earners deserve their additional income.

Photoplex

Not at all. The issue keeps distilling down to disposable income.