Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I doubt it would help solve poverty all that much. However, i do believe that hte people who benefit the most from a society, have the best interest in keeping the society going, and also shoudl pay much more to keep society going. This idea wa also expressed in "The Wealth of nations" (1776) by Adam Smith, the book on which the U.S. economic system is mostly based.
snytiger6
Level 9
Jan 27, 2019
2
How about a tax on upscale goods & services?
Example: You buy a new car.
The average price of a new car is $30,000.00. (have no idea on this, just using round numbers to keep it simple)
You choose a $135,000 top end BMW.
You then must donate, to the charity of your Choice, 15% of the difference between $30,000 and $135,000.
Win-win!
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Jan 27, 2019
2
@icolan There could be guidelines as to which charity for instance the % that's used for actual charity, and I think the element of choice is important,.
Other than donating to a charity, i do not know of any mechanism to donate to HUD, or any other government orgs........
@icolan found like what we used to have, before "trickle down"
@icolan I know! And strong unions! And the commencement of the Middle Class, and one-person incomes supporting the whole family, and upward mobility, and college degrees you could pay for, & etc etc etc. But nooooo, let's not have that!
there is no single way. we need a few different things at once. this could be one of them. making the tax rates truly progressive, with the richest paying the largest percentage, would be another thing. sales tax is one of the unfairest taxes of all since everyone pays the same rate and there really is no way for it to be otherwise; either there is a sales tax or there isn't. the sales tax should go. the social safety net should be expanded, not otherwise as some suggest, because it does NOT encourage laziness but rather encourages spending, since people using that net need the money for such extravagances as rent, food, medicine (well, meds should be part of medicare for all, but i mean as things stand now), transportation to and from work and school, education -- you know, stuff the ruling class thinks poor people don't deserve. making those things more readily available and affordable/free would certainly help to reduce poverty. infrastructure (not the kind that just exists to give kickbacks to criminals, but legitimate stuff like repairing roads and bridges, building affordable housing, upgrading airports, stuff like that) creates jobs and makes life safer and easier. a living wage instead of a paltry minimum wage would help. yeah, it is by no means just one thing that will cure this particular disease. it's systemic. it requires an attack from all sides.
g
genessa
Level 8
Jan 27, 2019
0
@Closeted exactly! i was including some of that in "living wage" -- i should've been more specific.
g
@Closeted i'm not holding my breath for any of it as long as republicans are in office, but i know the house is working hard to get a lot of this on the table. too bad the senate is only interested in pooping on that table, but there will be some senators up for reelection in 2020 too.
g
@Closeted i hope so too. with enough people voting for, rather than against, their own self-interests, even gerrymandering (which doesn't apply to the senate but they cheat in other ways) can be overcome, and the will of the people effected. we have to start prosecuting officials who purge voter rolls of legitimate voters.
g
If it is a fair tax it is a start but there are other things that are as important and these are laws, regulations, programs and their enforcement.
Marine
Level 8
Jan 27, 2019
0
They could accomplish the same thing by eliminating all the loopholes in the inheritance tax, and removing the tax deduction for donations to charity. Those two things allow the ultra rich to pass on their wealth and control it after their death while paying almost no taxes.
BD66
Level 8
Jan 27, 2019
1
@Closeted check the facts on that toilet scam. I belive there is a real explanation for that if you seek it.
I believe that there are more than 185,000 registered charities in the UK and the number is growing every year. A brief visit to the headquarters of any charity, in particular, the staff car parking area, will give you an insight into where some of the money that you donate is spent.
ASTRALMAX
Level 8
Jan 27, 2019
2
You can easily check any charities "works vs. administrative fees" and how much their administrators get paid, on Google, and I highly recommend you do before donating!
Yes. It worked beautifully in the US in decades past.
Orbit
Level 7
Jan 27, 2019
1
@Closeted In the 50's. That is how Eisenhower built our interstate highway system. I believe the way it worked, they paid 90% on the first million and then it dropped to I don't know what after the first million.
Maybe we could use that happiness number from a few years ago? I think it was $75,000 a year, so up to that number people actually get happier in their lives, and after that number it plateaus. So just to be safe, we could tax everything above 10 times that number at 70-80-90%.
greyeyed123
Level 7
Jan 27, 2019
1
@Closeted Often we hear this argument that massive amounts of money is why innovators create new things. The only reason innovators want more money is to create more innovation--not be to super rich. They have a vision they want to bring to the world that has little or nothing to do with a money motivation. Everyone has a money motivation, yet some people are inventing the future and some are not.
@Closeted Nobody needs a $100 million to live except those who want to fund an extravagant lifestyle.
@icolan I read that Piketty book a couple years ago, and all the economic data available says that making money off of having money (through rent, stocks, business, etc) always grows faster than making money off of work. Therefore income inequality is not just inevitable, but inevitable and guaranteed to worsen over time...unless something is imposed upon the system. The problem now is even starting in the top 1%, where the top tenth of 1% is growing faster than the bottom tenth of the top 1%. If I remember the book correctly, if current trends continue, the system will be unsustainable by 2100 because the number of super rich will be very small, and the number of extremely poor will be very high. (This is why I am so dismayed by my cousin who makes 10-12 thousand a year, and complains about his 50 cent raise due to the new minimum wage law because it "will hurt people". Good grief.)
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.