Do The Rich Owe the Poor?

"With the most simple one being a single 10% flat tax on Goods and Non Essential Foods (chocolate, for example). This way, tax is voluntary - if you don't want to pay tax you don't buy the item you don't Need. Don't want to pay $100 tax, don't by the $1,100 LCD/plasma big screen TV. Simple."

I already pay that tax, Michael.

Here in the U.S. it's called "sales tax". While it may be higher or lower state to state, I'm paying 10% where I live. And it doesn't matter if I'm buying a gallon of milk, or a pound of candy. It's STILL the same.

Pete

Pete,

Thanks for adding.

We pay it too. We used to have Sales Tax and Wholesale Tax. The wholesaler pays wholesale tax and the retailer pays retail tax on top of the wholesale tax already paid - sometimes, sales tax was around 30% but usually it was 22%.

BUT, what people didn't know was, the Sales Tax was calculated on the Wholesale Price after the wholesaler had paid his wholesale tax for bringing it into the country, and Not the selling price. And this Sales Tax was paid To the wholesaler.

So the wholesaler might buy an item for $5 and pay 11% tax taking the item to a wholesale price of $5.55. This had the sales tax added on - let's use 22% for example - for a total wholesale price of $6.77 ($1.77 in total tax). This could then be sold in the shop at whatever price. Let's say it was a T shirt with print and has a retail price of $30.

Under our New system a 10% flat tax based on Sales Price. So a $30 item would then sell for $33 ($30 + 10% tax). Thus the $30 shirt would now bring tax revenue of $2.72 ($1 more than previous) - $30 divided by 11.

This tax was applied at each stage and credited at each stage of purchase...

Wholesaler sells $5 shirt for $5.50 to retailer. And thus owes $.50 to tax man.

Retailer sells shirt for $30 and has $2.72 tax owing. but as .50 has already been paid when the shirt was bought, only owes tax man $2.22. Either way, tax man then gets 10% of Sales Prices as tax. And has turned each and every business in the country into tax collectors.

Result = coffers become flooded with tax dollars.

Essential Food items are exempt. No separate state taxes. Just one tax. Simple.

Of course, a flat 10% on all goods and foods would be far simpler as well.

Michael Ross

OK, taxes aside, I agree with Michael:
No one owes anyone else.

I think the whole idea behind the article is that Americans have a notion of "the wealthy owe me".

I remember an Obama speech during his campaign where he wanted to give another round of "stimulus checks" out, and to pay for it he would simply tax the "excessive income" of oil companies. The whole premise was 'they make way more money than they need, so we'll take it and give it to the masses'. This speech garnered a thunderous applause from his supporters.

Michael also brought up a good point - who defines "rich" and "poor"?
Today the oil companies are too rich while anyone who Obama defines as 'middle class' is poor enough to get a handout from the government - paid for by oil company income! Who is rich tomorrow - anyone making $250k/year, $100k/year, 50k/year? How much extra should the government take from them to give to those who make below said amount?

I think the whole concept of "redistribution of wealth" is flat out stealing and based on flawed thinking. Sure, the more you make the more you can afford to pay in taxes, but the fact that you have wealth or that you make a certain income per year doesn't entitle the government to come in and take more so that it can be given away to others who didn't work as hard, or take as many risks, or spend a lifetime building a business, or whatever the case may be. The attitude of the masses seems to be "Whoa, that company made how much? That's just wrong, we should take some of it back!"

If oil companies make a 3% profit margin, but that 3% ends up being billions of dollars a quarter, it just seems like more than any company should make, so let's steal some back. What about Nike, they pay some Indonesian kid $10 a day to make shoes and sell them for $150 each. That's way too much markup, we should take money from them too. And diamond companies, they sell rocks for what 1,000% more than they cost to mine. Let's raid their bank accounts too. If we keep digging, we could probably scrape up a pretty sweet stimulus check for all the middle class families from all the companies that make 'too much' profit!

I'm surprised at how many disagreed with that article. I'm far from rich right now (actually struggling more than I'm willing to say), but I don't feel that anyone who has made themselves rich owes me anything. If I'm in debt, I owe - if I accumulate wealth, I don't owe. Hopefully someday I can be rich - and not have to be punished for it.

I am not rich nor poor. But I think there are more tax loop holes made for rich that they can easily escape. They remain rich. On the other hand poor due to lake fund for social funds dont get any facilities. So, rich must under stand this and must pay tax for the benift of the poors. Because what they earn is with help of poors or working class. So, they owe to them.

Wow. I read this thread before I went to go read the article. I finally read the article and I also can't believe how many people here disagreed with that article. Unbelievable. Especially on a small business forum. I had to stop reading the comments under the article because the lack of logical thinking was making me ill.

Originally Posted by Todd

OK, taxes aside, I agree with Michael:
No one owes anyone else.

I think the whole idea behind the article is that Americans have a notion of "the wealthy owe me".

I remember an Obama speech during his campaign where he wanted to give another round of "stimulus checks" out, and to pay for it he would simply tax the "excessive income" of oil companies. The whole premise was 'they make way more money than they need, so we'll take it and give it to the masses'. This speech garnered a thunderous applause from his supporters.

Michael also brought up a good point - who defines "rich" and "poor"?
Today the oil companies are too rich while anyone who Obama defines as 'middle class' is poor enough to get a handout from the government - paid for by oil company income! Who is rich tomorrow - anyone making $250k/year, $100k/year, 50k/year? How much extra should the government take from them to give to those who make below said amount?

I think the whole concept of "redistribution of wealth" is flat out stealing and based on flawed thinking. Sure, the more you make the more you can afford to pay in taxes, but the fact that you have wealth or that you make a certain income per year doesn't entitle the government to come in and take more so that it can be given away to others who didn't work as hard, or take as many risks, or spend a lifetime building a business, or whatever the case may be. The attitude of the masses seems to be "Whoa, that company made how much? That's just wrong, we should take some of it back!"

If oil companies make a 3% profit margin, but that 3% ends up being billions of dollars a quarter, it just seems like more than any company should make, so let's steal some back. What about Nike, they pay some Indonesian kid $10 a day to make shoes and sell them for $150 each. That's way too much markup, we should take money from them too. And diamond companies, they sell rocks for what 1,000% more than they cost to mine. Let's raid their bank accounts too. If we keep digging, we could probably scrape up a pretty sweet stimulus check for all the middle class families from all the companies that make 'too much' profit!

I'm surprised at how many disagreed with that article. I'm far from rich right now (actually struggling more than I'm willing to say), but I don't feel that anyone who has made themselves rich owes me anything. If I'm in debt, I owe - if I accumulate wealth, I don't owe. Hopefully someday I can be rich - and not have to be punished for it.

Sudar,

Let me get this straight.... because someone has worked hard/smartly and saved their money and maybe invested some too - and - over the course of their life, they have become wealthy... just because they Now have more money, they somehow Owe some of this money to people who have not worked hard/smart nor invested over the course of their life.

Is that pretty well what you're saying?

Let's break it down another way...

I have a widget for sale. I offer this widget for $10. You buy it. I now have your $10 and you have a widget. Thus, my financial wealth has increased.

How do I then owe some of this $10 back to you?

I do NOT. The transaction was done. Completed.

But what you're saying is... just because I sell many of these widgets I must now give some of that money to people who bought my widget and those who didn't buy my widget but who you deem worthy of having some of my money.

Another way...

I work 60 hours a week while you work 40. We do this for many years. And now, years later, because I was willing to spend the time to work and have more money than you, I somehow Owe you some of this money?

How do I owe you money?

I do Not. I worked while you had leisure time. I owe you nothing.

But what you're saying is... just because I have more money I must now give some of that money to people who worked fewer hours than me and who worked for less money than me.

You advocate slavery.

Michael Ross