I have to agree with goofyfish... But if the percentage is too big, poorer people will have more difficulty to go to medium or high class... that's what hold people in the places they are. Poor people pay to much, eventhough the percentage is equal. It's unfair... But that's what make the capitalism work... Love, Nelson
Truthseeker In other words, you're expecting to get a job. You need an education to get a job. You despise education. The world you're about to enter is rational. You ignore rationality. You will make enemies in the real world. You will love those enemies. They will hurt you... again and again until you no longer love them. That world will tear you to shreds and leave you to rot in your own bile. Big changes are a comin'... Are you ready? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! hehe
You have no idea what will really happen with me... "It's easy to accept things as they are. But the true hero is the one who fights for his own beliefs. His Dreams are his sword, his Heart is his army and his Trust in himself is his shield." Me.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
Yes I can understand that line of reasoning, and it does make sense. But let's consider another case. A man in Springfield has a store, which is doing well enough to guarantee him a decent income, but not enough to put him in the highest tax bracket. He decides to look into branching out. He considers opening a store in Shelbyville, which is just down the road but has a bit of an unemployment problem. After much research, he discovers that although the store itself might be slightly profitable, the income he would personally garner from it would put him into a higher tax bracket, and the total income would not cover the additonal tax he'd have to pay. He decides not to go ahead, and Shelbyville thereby misses out on a potential economy booster and some employment opportunites. Perhaps not the best example but I'm sure you'll see what I mean Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Goofyfish... I'm not sure if you're agreeing with Canada or me there ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A flat tax rate would mean that the wealthy WERE in fact paying more than those less fortunate, in dollar terms, simply because they earn more. If you combine a flat tax rate with a GST, then the wealthy are, again, still bound to pay more... they buy more goods and services, and therefore pay more tax. Those who save their money or invest it would then pay less than those who buy "toys"... which is what I think Canada wanted (?)
Tax in the UK. We start off with a Tax Code. This is a number, for example 385. Take the number, add a zero. This is how much you can earn Tax Free. Then, the first £1,500 of your taxable income is at 10%. Everything after that until about £30,000 is taxed at around 24%. From £30,000 to about £100,000 is taxed at 40% and anything over £100,000 is taxed at 50%. I pay about £500 per month in tax and national insurance. So there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We coould talk fuel tax if you want. In the UK tax on petrol (gasoline) is about eight hundered percent. Around seventy pence (about a dollar) per litre.
Corporations may, or may not (mine do), pay taxes. Owners of corporations -- stockholders -- aren't so lucky. Attend: "The wealthiest 1% of Americans, AP reports, pay more than 33% of taxes, but only accounted for 19% of the nation’s taxable income. The wealthiest 5% pay more than 55% of all taxes, while the bottom 50% pay just 4%. In 1989, the top 5% paid about 44% of income taxes, the bottom almost 6%." ======== So, stop your cry-baby whining -- you supposedly under-payed, obviously under-producing, under-achieving, under-motivated, got-to-have-someone-else-give-it-to-you-because-you-can't-achieve-if-for-yourself fools.
Don't sugar-coat it, Mr. G. How do you really feel about it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
Ya know, I think I like Mr G. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How do you feel about a GST then Mr G? Considering the tax we then pay is on the goods we prefer to buy, and if we dont buy goods we dont pay tax, does this sound more reasonable (if still not perfect) than a tiered income tax?
