headhonchoII wrote:Suvlaca, I told you what is rich to most people, the top percentile, whether that is the top 5/10/20%, that will be a fairly abitrary choice. But they will obviously have incomes that are many multiples of the median wage.
But using a term like rich or poor is not a good way to go about it. They should be divided into percentiles just like any progressive tax system, and the terms rich or poor are not a useful system of classification.
I couldn't agree less, and I truly believe it is thinking like this which caused the death of capitalism in almost all previously profitable countries. This is a socialist mindset and a method which has never done any good for anyone overall, other than putting money into government coffers for a short term. Punishing the very people with money to spare only results in them having less money to spend and invest in business, commerce, and employment of others.
This also results in dwindling investment into the most technological car brackets, which results in slowing down of most technological endeavors.
If one wishes to reduce the money in wealthy people's accounts or pockets through tax, in order to put money into other people's pockets instead, then one can simply start a socialist or communist campagne. This is completely unfair in every moral and practical way and until everyone agrees to have a socialist government, then any republican government such as Taiwan should and must stop taxing people just because the majority think that their pay grade and or benefits should be upped without having to put in any extra work or effort. This is systemic corruption and only brings down the living standards of everyone within it.
So let's say for argument's sake that nobody can afford a Ferrari any more, because they can't afford, or won't pay the tax for it. So then they buy a cheaper Porsche, and then people deem that too luxurious as there aren't any Ferraris on the market any longer, and then people buy BMWs instead, and then VWs, and then Toyotas, and then Nissans, and then Cherrys, and then bicycles, and then skate boards, and then Nikes, and then flip flops, and then nothing.
I suppose that might work though if what you want is for everyone to be within the mean wage bracket, and for there to eventually be nobody rich or wealthy any more.
The end result of taxing the rich or wealthy in order to benefit the average or the under average is that the rich and wealthy are taxed out of existence, or they simply move elsewhere. It's always, always, always a loose-loose ending. Tax needs to remain apportioned and the only way of doing that in this case is to tax people on what they use which is provided to them by the government, and which they can choose to use.
Fuel should not be subsidized by the government as those subsidies come from other people's pockets who don't necessarily drive. Fuel should be paid for by the people which use it. The same goes for milk and eggs, clothing and drugs, properties and the rest. Most people would find it ridiculous if the government charged them a tax on a hair cut and then gave the money to a gun company who produced guns for export. Or if they paid twenty percent more for a coffee because the government wanted to build a new basketball court for its legislators. But that's how the tax system usually works. It takes money from one thing and then spends it somewhere entirely unrelated. In other words, what you pay for is not what you get.
And that's no way to run an effective economic system.
Pay for what you use. No more!
I hate it. Really hate it , when I constantly read how the wealthy aren't taxed enough, or how they should be chased after for this tax, or that extra levy. It was the U.K. which first took the carrot off the end of my stick by putting up furious amounts of red tape in front of anything one wanted to do in life and then taxed the bejezus out of anyone, who, heavens forbid made anything of themselves by being successful.
I want to hear about all the pats on the backs and all the bailouts there are for failed restauranteurs, or garage owners, street vendors, and anyone else who had the incentive to try and make something for themselves, but yet failed in the process. There's no help for those who try and fail. But those who do succeed are then brandished as being too posh for everyone's good, and so it is demanded that they shouldn't enjoy their money so much and instead give it up to those who don't have as much.
I wish people would remember where the vast majority of these profits come from. They come from trial and error, investments and failures. From winning and losing. From very high investment risks. And yes, some from criminality, but that's another matter.
People with money generally like their money a lot, and generally like to make even more of it. They do this by investing. By hiring people. By taking risks and dangerous gambles at times. These people often live on the edge, and believe me don't always live the relaxed life that most people think they do. They're busy workers, with a lot of stress on their shoulders, and some dream of the day when they can step back and live out the rest of it without the prozac, booze, luncheons, travelling, studies of endless new bureaucracy, new tax codes, employment laws, minimum wages, health benefits, maximum working hours, and all of the other dictations by government.
And yes, at the end of the day these people like to feel just a little bit, like they've worked hard for a reason. They may like to sit in the sporty Ferrari they have tucked up at home. He might even like to take off his suit, put on his pink, lycra leotard and stretch out quietly in the back of his blacked out Hummer, so that he can listen to Bach at full volume, through his Alpine and drown out the stress of the day, whilst knocking back a glass of cold bubbly.
For whatever reason people enjoy their cars, they should be entitled to them. I know plenty of people with what some of you chaps would call extravagant cars, and yet can't really afford them. They are on a mean income, and yet all they want in life is one thing which they can be proud that they worked towards. And in this case, it's a nice looking car. Some people buy watches, others jewelry, and some like truffle shavings in their soup. We all like our 'luxuries' from time to time.
Should we really have to pay tax for them all?