Rich have too much

[jaysabi]

Hmm, unfortunately, redistribution of wealth has some dire economic consequences.

First of all, the rich are very good at hiding their assets, so good luck trying to steal their money when it's on offshore bank accounts or tied up into physical assets (or perhaps some even tied to bitcoin). Second of all, the best way to make a rich person flee a country (therefore no contribution to the tax pool) is to massively raise their taxes. You see this on an individual level in the United States because each state has discretion on their local tax rates. In fact, the way the US works, even municipalities can create their own tax rate. But what you end up with is the rich leaving highly taxed states for states with lower tax rates. In Europe where the entire country has the same effective tax rate, as I mentioned before, the rich will just shove their assets offshore.

For a country such as the United States, the risk of rich people renouncing their citizenship in order to avoid paying higher taxes is very low. Even rich people have their businesses and most of the immovable assets within the US. Renouncing the US citizenship would mean that now these businesses and assets would no longer be taxed under a favorable regime. Same can be said about the European Union, where the taxes are much higher than what they have in the United States.

Also there is an expatriation tax related to renouncing citizenship, and the amount of Americans who live abroad who renounce there citizenship is around 0.06%, suggesting that it's just not worth it financially to undertake such an extreme measure. U.S. citizenship is worth a lot, which is something people who gripe about taxes don't appreciate fully.

[Koro-Sensei]

Let's talk about laziness. If they give those money for free, would you really think that these poor people would still do work. Im not saying all of them, but let's say they're poor because of doing nothing and only relying to someone. It will just make them more comfortable with your kind of thinking. I believe what we need is laws that would make better opportunities for those who will work harder and probably this world might have a good future.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Also there is an expatriation tax related to renouncing citizenship, and the amount of Americans who live abroad who renounce there citizenship is around 0.06%, suggesting that it's just not worth it financially to undertake such an extreme measure. U.S. citizenship is worth a lot, which is something people who gripe about taxes don't appreciate fully.

People may complain a lot about the taxes, but very few would take drastic steps such as changing their residence or even citizenship. In many of the Californian cities, the total income tax (federal+state+local) easily amounts to more than 50%. But I haven't heard about large numbers moving away from these cities to take up residence elsewhere. People tend to flock to places where they have the potential to earn big, even if the tax levels are high.

[AndySt]

Also there is an expatriation tax related to renouncing citizenship, and the amount of Americans who live abroad who renounce there citizenship is around 0.06%, suggesting that it's just not worth it financially to undertake such an extreme measure. U.S. citizenship is worth a lot, which is something people who gripe about taxes don't appreciate fully.

People may complain a lot about the taxes, but very few would take drastic steps such as changing their residence or even citizenship. In many of the Californian cities, the total income tax (federal+state+local) easily amounts to more than 50%. But I haven't heard about large numbers moving away from these cities to take up residence elsewhere. People tend to flock to places where they have the potential to earn big, even if the tax levels are high.

People will always complain about taxes, because money is always small and it is human nature   Let's not forget that with a progressive tax system, the level of taxes is proportional to the level of income, and if a person earns not so much, then accordingly not so much and loses from the level of taxes and vice versa can even receive social assistance from the state. A much larger part of the population moves to other regions of the country or even to another country not because of the level of taxes, but because of higher earnings.

[Shasha80]

Being rich or poor is the choice of each person, because we can achieve being rich as long as we focus on making it happen. Only lazy people
in my opinion think it is impossible to be rich, because mostly poor people, especially in my country rely too much on other people to live.
Even though if someone works hard, I believe they can change lives for the better, so it is not wise if we are poor and ask the government to
take money from the rich. Regarding the tax issue between rich and poor, I agree that it must be distinguished, because the rich have more income,
so the taxes that apply must also be bigger.

[Sithara007]

Being rich or poor is the choice of each person, because we can achieve being rich as long as we focus on making it happen. Only lazy people
in my opinion think it is impossible to be rich, because mostly poor people, especially in my country rely too much on other people to live.
Even though if someone works hard, I believe they can change lives for the better, so it is not wise if we are poor and ask the government to
take money from the rich. Regarding the tax issue between rich and poor, I agree that it must be distinguished, because the rich have more income,
so the taxes that apply must also be bigger.

I have a different view on this. Lazy people exist in this world because the government has made it possible for them to sit at home and still get welfare payments. During the middle ages, everyone had to work hard. Back then, no one could refuse to work thinking about the unemployment benefits and welfare cheques. Because there were no such payments and if someone refuses to work, then he'll simply starve to death.

[klava1983]

I hope you are just kidding. We can't take someone's money because you need this money more.
p.s. What you are talking about is progressive tax system. Progressive taxes require high-income taxpayers to pay a larger fraction of their income than low-income taxpayers. That means, as income rises, the tax rate increases as well. This tax system is designed to affect higher earners more than people with a low income.

[Zanab247]

This idea will not improve the development of the country than to improve lazy citizens in the country, if the government put the law of giving to the poor without labour for it. Many rich men and women will withdraw their self from the area of investment because at the end of the struggle the benefits will go to the poor in the society.
I don't think any government will allow such law in the country because the poor will always depend on the rich to labour for them to consume.

[nightxglow]

No, i don't agree with that thoughts. I mean it's their right to save their assets, so it's ridiculous if they have to give it away to the poor just because they don't use it for a long time. But still, i agree that the rich should be able to distribute their wealth to the poor, help them. I think the wealth distribution to make a fair and equal society is important, but the way to do it must be thought thoroughly as well. It shouldn't make the rich feel robbed and the poor become lazy, and just expecting for the money from the rich.
But still, i think people need to work hard for the money they earn, and not expecting the free money from the rich.

[Vishnu.Reang]

People will always complain about taxes, because money is always small and it is human nature   Let's not forget that with a progressive tax system, the level of taxes is proportional to the level of income, and if a person earns not so much, then accordingly not so much and loses from the level of taxes and vice versa can even receive social assistance from the state. A much larger part of the population moves to other regions of the country or even to another country not because of the level of taxes, but because of higher earnings.

For blue collar workers who earn $3,000 or $4,000 a month, the taxes are in the range of 15%-20%, and they don't bother much. But for software engineers, stock traders.etc, the income tax can be 50% or more, especially if they reside in some of the high-tax jurisdictions such as California. For the latter group, it represents a dilemma. If they move away to a state such as Idaho or Montana, then the tax levels may be lower. But they won't be able to get the same salary that they get in California.

[Sophiya]

I think that such thoughts are just utopias from the universe of Thomas More.  You can't just take money from some and give it to others.  And who will give their money voluntarily?  Violence can only breed violence.  But in every possible way to encourage charity on a voluntary basis is simply necessary, helping those in need is an absolutely normal desire of a person.  Advertising campaigns and promotions, instilling from childhood the thought to children that helping one's neighbor is a common thing.  I sincerely admire people who share their fees and savings with relief funds.  Unfortunately, there are not too many such people, I myself study and work part-time in the hospital, where I constantly have to see how people do not have enough money for ordinary medicines, surgeries or rehabilitation, since state aid cannot provide patients with everything they need.  And at such moments it becomes very sad that someone is buying a fifth plane, and someone cannot buy antibiotics or inhalation cans.

[South Park]

Hmm, unfortunately, redistribution of wealth has some dire economic consequences.

First of all, the rich are very good at hiding their assets, so good luck trying to steal their money when it's on offshore bank accounts or tied up into physical assets (or perhaps some even tied to bitcoin). Second of all, the best way to make a rich person flee a country (therefore no contribution to the tax pool) is to massively raise their taxes. You see this on an individual level in the United States because each state has discretion on their local tax rates. In fact, the way the US works, even municipalities can create their own tax rate. But what you end up with is the rich leaving highly taxed states for states with lower tax rates. In Europe where the entire country has the same effective tax rate, as I mentioned before, the rich will just shove their assets offshore.

And they do it because they can, someone that belongs to the middle class cannot simply grab his possessions and leave, a great deal of his net worth is in his house which means that for the most part he cannot leave, besides those in the middle class still depend on their jobs which require them to show up at a time and a place, the rich do not have these limitation and when we take into account their superior resources this means that whenever they think the tax rate is being increased indiscriminately then they will just leave.

[bryant.coleman]

And they do it because they can, someone that belongs to the middle class cannot simply grab his possessions and leave, a great deal of his net worth is in his house which means that for the most part he cannot leave, besides those in the middle class still depend on their jobs which require them to show up at a time and a place, the rich do not have these limitation and when we take into account their superior resources this means that whenever they think the tax rate is being increased indiscriminately then they will just leave.

I don't know how much truth is there in such arguments. If that was the case, hardly anyone should be residing in states such as California, where the tax rates are insanely high. But rather than leaving California, rich people seems to be flocking towards that state. Rich people have their own business interests and other assets. They will stay in a region where it is possible to increase the profits from these assets. Those who leave will be hardly contributing anything to the economy, as most of their wealth will be in the liquid form.

[tabas]

People don't need money, protests or violence. They need information.

Knowledge which allows them to put current events into perspective. So they need not rely on billionaire owned media, and billionaire funded experts to explain things.

but it's not easy to do poor people have their own thoughts i try to explain about crypto / blockchain to someone else who doesn't understand and he says i am lying or it's a scam and they are afraid to use it so even if the information is given they need time to decide and believe me it won't easy.

And what you've quoted is right, it's about the information and knowledge because as you've said, you've tried to explain about it and yet they've already judged that it's a scam.
They've said that because they lack of knowledge and not fully aware that there are actual legitimate cryptocurrencies and probably, what they've only heard were those scams.

[MUHAMMAD NUR AMANAH]

I think there is no such law in real life that there are rich people and there must be poor people and that the rich should basically give the poor all of it depends on the individual and the greatness of our hearts to help each other human beings

[South Park]

And they do it because they can, someone that belongs to the middle class cannot simply grab his possessions and leave, a great deal of his net worth is in his house which means that for the most part he cannot leave, besides those in the middle class still depend on their jobs which require them to show up at a time and a place, the rich do not have these limitation and when we take into account their superior resources this means that whenever they think the tax rate is being increased indiscriminately then they will just leave.

I don't know how much truth is there in such arguments. If that was the case, hardly anyone should be residing in states such as California, where the tax rates are insanely high. But rather than leaving California, rich people seems to be flocking towards that state. Rich people have their own business interests and other assets. They will stay in a region where it is possible to increase the profits from these assets. Those who leave will be hardly contributing anything to the economy, as most of their wealth will be in the liquid form.

The rich have many legal venues to reduce their taxes, so even if they live in a place with high taxes there are ways in which they could reduce the taxes they pay while still living there, that is the whole point of companies, companies for all sake and purposes are separate entities from their owners, so while they live in a state with high taxes their company could be in a state with low or no state taxes and this will allow them the best of both worlds, pay little taxes and live wherever they want.

[Lorence.xD]

The rich have many legal venues to reduce their taxes, so even if they live in a place with high taxes there are ways in which they could reduce the taxes they pay while still living there, that is the whole point of companies, companies for all sake and purposes are separate entities from their owners, so while they live in a state with high taxes their company could be in a state with low or no state taxes and this will allow them the best of both worlds, pay little taxes and live wherever they want.

Does lobbying counts as tax reduction because rich people most of the time are involved in lobbying which is totally unfair because it is a sophisticated corruption. The only way for this narrative of rich people having too much money to be resolved is when the government finally realizes that they can make more money out of these companies by taxing them and not considering donations as a write offs.

[Natsuu]

Does lobbying counts as tax reduction because rich people most of the time are involved in lobbying which is totally unfair because it is a sophisticated corruption. The only way for this narrative of rich people having too much money to be resolved is when the government finally realizes that they can make more money out of these companies by taxing them and not considering donations as a write offs.

Then the problem does not lie with the "Rich" in this scenario, but to the government workers who are bribed for the sake of reducing tax.

Logically, tax for rich people are higher than normal, and many more tax are actually given to them, its just that there are many holes in the tax laws that can be avoided by doing other things. For example, building a foundation can reduce your tax greatly.

[iamsheikhadil]

Let's talk about laziness. If they give those money for free, would you really think that these poor people would still do work. Im not saying all of them, but let's say they're poor because of doing nothing and only relying to someone. It will just make them more comfortable with your kind of thinking. I believe what we need is laws that would make better opportunities for those who will work harder and probably this world might have a good future.

Not entirely true, while it's often good to teach a man how to catch fish rather than just donating them one fish, we also need to see if the man really has the means to catch fish even when we teach them. Being born into extreme poverty is like a life trapped with locks, it's easy to say they will be lazy and won't work hard, but the thing is, even if they want to work, is there any job available? We need to create job opportunities for them, giving them basic training and good education and health can give them access to many opportunities.

[mazdafunsun]

Rich have too much, especially because money corrupts. In this way rich are able to lobby and pay off government officials and get away with not paying taxes while the poor has no other option than pay those taxes. There are laws in different countries where people with higher income have to pay higher taxes and even fines, like Europe's nordic countries.