should the rich pay more tax?

Tax does not equate only to job-seekers allowance. What about schools, roads, NHS, etc? What is wrong with the 'rich' making a larger contribution to their community?

And even when it comes to Job-seekers, the percentage of people that actually want a job but are unable to find one is much higher than the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle would have you believe. Would you rather those that are actively looking for work do so on the streets scrounging what food they can rather than you making a small contribution towards living costs for them? I'm not sure how people can honestly value a 4th car or second home over another persons life/well being.

Well on your first point, why should the rich pay more than any other person in contribution to a community? Especially when they worked harder than those in the community to get that money, why should they be forced to redistribute it among those who didn't. If you support communist ideals, come out and say it, but otherwise, you'll have to accept that there is absolutely no sound reason for it, only a percieved notion of fairness which is false. They work for their money = it's theirs. Totally fair.

On your second point, sure, some may be looking for work. And I do support giving these people help while they do so, as I do for the genuine poor. However anyone who is not sick or looking for a job should not be on state support, yet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are. This is what I object to, these people who do no work, contribute nothing to society, and expect the rich to support this "lifestlye".

Yes I support Progressive Taxation. I'll have to quote Elizabeth Warren here:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Everyone person should be taxed the same amount by % like Scandinavian countries do. There is relatively few (Even though the media like to hype it up) people who just get their money chucked at them, A lot of people have to work very hard to be what we consider 'rich' and they are not any less deserving of their money than a poor person is.

SOME of them have, but some of them are just rich because of who their parents, granparents, great-granparents, etc, were.

They haven't earned or worked for their money, so why should they 'deserve something back'?

I see you got hoodwinked by that yank rather well...... LOL

Let's put some things straight here. We are talking of an American system here (USA to be exact)

Warren is blowing hot air on FEDERAL taxes.

Roads = state matter, so it is mostly funded by STATE taxes and other forms of revenue.

Education = In US it is either state or private, unless you are going to a military funded university of which it numbers less than 10 over 4000 its rather unlikely any Federal money gets there. K-12 schools, these too are state funded rather than Federal funded, in fact many parts of the country have education system that were funded purely by the state lottery system. Federal government payments towards education largely goes towards issuing student loans (which later on gets managed by a bank or company... and you pay almost commercial type rates to it) Some grants are available but these are small and usually insignificant towards the actual cost of your tuition and living expenses.

Policing = LOL... unless you're talking of the FBI and CIA, almost every police department in USA is either at State, County or local level and is paid for by state revenue.

She also somewhat forgets that the vast majority of people get rich through their business and it is these businesses that utilizes any of the infrastructure (ironically very little infrastructure is built using Federal money) these businesses have already been levied a corporate tax, so why is there a need to pay taxes twice then to utilize the same resources?

And what % would that be?
I am sure you realise the value of money decreases as you get more of it.
So for someone on £25k a year, 20% of that would be worth more than compared to what 20% would be worth to someone on £100k a year. Despite the obvious actual different in amount.
So if you set a fixed % for all earners, those on lower wages will always feel the effects of tax more than the rich.
Also, as total tax revenue would fall massively, what government spending would you cut to make up for that difference?

We should just tax those who haven't worked for it and let those who have worked for it keep every penny.

It's not difficult to see who earns and who inherits.

Then we should intervene before they inherit it and tax it at that stage of proceedings.

In my ideal world the lottery would be banned. It just doesn't fit with my meritocratic model. Getting wealth through luck just aggravates me.

I mean, just look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Carroll_%28lottery_winner%29



If we absolutely have to have it, then yes, it should be taxed to the hills.

Very few people who win the lottery are the type of deserve the lucky break. It's just not in the mentality of a hard worker to throw that much money down the drain on a several-million-to-one shot! So the people that do get paid off are just... well.. thickos and lay-abouts, usually.

Wealth is accumulated by creating social disparity. The minority of individuals who gain wealth not only keep wealth for themselves, but diminish the chances of everyone else to improve their situation. Rich people don't want other people to be able to get rich as well, they want to get richer themselves and keep it all. They don't want to create jobs or require security and safety for their employees, they want the cheapest way to make a profit.

Then we should intervene before they inherit it and tax it at that stage of proceedings.

We elect people into power because we expect them to do what's in our interests, i.e. we expect them to make policies which ensure fairness.

It's perfectly within their power to do so. So the fact that life isn't fair in human society isn't some natural and immutable law of the Universe, it's a consequence of incompetence of those in power, and a culture of obscene wealth for the undeserved.

I expect my children to make their own way in life. I will love them, and to express that love, I will give them care, attention, support, teaching, and do my best to endow them with the skills, passions and determination to put themselves to good use for the good of society, and for the good of their own personal lives. I will make honest people out of them.

My children will not receive inheritance from me because it's simply not in the spirit of graft, hard work and due reward, and in my experience, people who obtain wealth and unlimited treasures and material gifts from their parents tend to be airheaded ***** with no concept of reality or work, and I would loathe for my children to turn into those very people I despise.

It'll be tough for my kids, but they'll look back on their lives and all of their own wealth and be able to say "everything I have, I earned for myself", and as somebody who has earned everything he has, I can tell you that it makes success so much the sweeter when you weren't living in somebody else's pockets to do it.

P.S. it's quite disgusting that you equate 'love' with 'giving obscene amounts of money to'.

I would actually say that in this country people seem to respect the rich and dislike the poor, look at all the comments on this forum for example

I expect my children to make their own way in life. I will love them, and to express that love, I will give them care, attention, support, teaching, and do my best to endow them with the skills, passions and determination to put themselves to good use for the good of society, and for the good of their own personal lives. I will make honest people out of them.

My children will not receive inheritance from me because it's simply not in the spirit of graft, hard work and due reward, and in my experience, people who obtain wealth and unlimited treasures and material gifts from their parents tend to be airheaded ***** with no concept of reality or work, and I would loathe for my children to turn into those very people I despise.

It'll be tough for my kids, but they'll look back on their lives and all of their own wealth and be able to say "everything I have, I earned for myself", and as somebody who has earned everything he has, I can tell you that it makes success so much the sweeter when you weren't living in somebody else's pockets to do it.

P.S. it's quite disgusting that you equate 'love' with 'giving obscene amounts of money to'.

I'm to say it's wrong. It produces some NASTY, NASTY individuals, promotes nothing, encourages nothing, and rewards the lazy whilst penalising the hard workers.