Author
|
Topic: What do you guys think about these tax percentages? (Read 9290 times)
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 245
|
I earn around € 42.000 a year, so from income tax I have to pay € 16.276. Which is around 39% income tax.
I believe the US system is the same, but with more brackets and less tax overall.
With my system you would pay something like: from 0 to 15000 -> 0 USD from 15000 to 35000-> 1000 USD from 35000 to 42000-> 1050 USD Total=2050 USD That is actually much less than you pay now....It is a bit inaccurate since my system is based on USD, not euro I think your country starts at a too high percentage, which is not very good for poor people. 
Poorer people get subsidized more for housing for example etc.
I think your system is bad because the 90% is way more than is paid in the rest of the world. Rich people will just leave to countries with less tax.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
so this is related to your other topics then?  . I should've known!
Sorry for not entirely reading your abstract. So with my wage I'm likely to be among the richest 5% of the world and have to pay a lot more tax then?
I'm not a huge fan of globalisation by the way. I am a fan of it when it makes people not hate eachother just because they are in a different country, but it is really easily abused by the powers that be and leaves little power in the hands of people like you and me to change local things. Your tax might go towards paying billions of african kids to be able to go to school but because of their beliefs they don't use birth control making them very dependant on us to keep them going to school and fed etc.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 08:51:20 pm by Scalare »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
so this is related to your other topics then? . I should've known! Sorry for not entirely reading your abstract. So with my wage I'm likely to be among the richest 5% of the world and have to pay a lot more tax then?
Maybe you should, but you ended up paying around 2050 USD in taxes, which is much lower than you pay now....so maybe I should change it a bit, so that only people that earn less than 10 000 USD / Year shouldn't pay any taxes, and maybe increase the lowest from 5% to 10% or something....
It is somewhat difficult to make a tax system for the entire planet, because prices are different in different countries. So maybe in Netherlands and USA people are poor if they earn less than 15 000 USD / Year, but not necessarily in China, India and Africa, where living and prices are cheaper.
But one think I am certain of, is that the 1% richest should pay a lot more taxes. Not necessarily you.
Edit: I have tweaked it now, so that I was able to increase your tax to 6500 in my system...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 11:16:05 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
A marginal rate above 90% just seems awfully high - earning more basically gets you nothing at all. 90% even is pushing it. 75% is pushing it a lot less. Like, to the tune of 2 and a half times less, while still being 3 parts going to the government for every 1 part kept.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Rich people are a diverse group, just like people in general are a diverse group. That may be, but their interests are not diverse in one particular way: they all have lots of money, so they don't benefit from any program that aims to reduce the cost of something except to the extent that this enables them to sell products at a cheaper price. Welfare, in particular, is completely useless to all of them, but education and health care are not all that useful to them either because they can easily afford the expenses of private insurance and private schooling. For these kinds of things, you're basically depending on charity from them.
Also, I was thinking to only allow them to decide what 75% of their taxes should be used for, which leaves some money for public sectors that aren't getting enough funding. So then, in other words, programs that the rich benefit from would get massively overfunded while programs that don't benefit the rich would get massively underfunded because the only people benefiting from them are paying little to nothing in tax. That they have some funding doesn't change the fact that this change would not benefit these programs at all.
And the poor people will also benefit from not needing to pay any taxes in my system. That is irrelevant to the question of whether giving taxpayers a say in how their taxes are spent makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Rich people are a diverse group, just like people in general are a diverse group. That may be, but their interests are not diverse in one particular way: they all have lots of money, so they don't benefit from any program that aims to reduce the cost of something except to the extent that this enables them to sell products at a cheaper price. Welfare, in particular, is completely useless to all of them, but education and health care are not all that useful to them either because they can easily afford the expenses of private insurance and private schooling. For these kinds of things, you're basically depending on charity from them.
This simply isn't true... in São Paulo (Brazil), rich people pay tons of money to have armed guards around their houses, because of all the poverty there. In Scandinavian countries, rich people don't need armed guards around their houses, because there isn't so much poverty there. Poverty makes a society more dangerous for rich people, and many rich people would prefer to have less poverty because of that.
Also, I was thinking to only allow them to decide what 75% of their taxes should be used for, which leaves some money for public sectors that aren't getting enough funding. So then, in other words, programs that the rich benefit from would get massively overfunded while programs that don't benefit the rich would get massively underfunded because the only people benefiting from them are paying little to nothing in tax. That they have some funding doesn't change the fact that this change would not benefit these programs at all.
Of the public sectors I showed you in my last post, which do you think will get massively overfunded? I think they benefit equally much from investing in all of them.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 03:47:07 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
in São Paulo (Brazil), rich people pay tons of money to have armed guards around their houses, because of all the poverty there. In Scandinavian countries, rich people don't need armed guards around their houses, because there isn't so much poverty there.
Then they have an incentive to support police.
Poverty makes a society more dangerous for rich people, and many rich people would prefer to have less poverty because of that.
That doesn't mean it's in their interest to put their money into solving poverty. If they put their money into reducing poverty and it isn't enough, it's entirely wasted from their perspective. So what's in their best interest is to have stronger police forces, or (as you mentioned) private armed guards, which I suspect they would be more likely to opt for given the choice.
Of the public sectors I showed you in my last post, which do you think will get massively overfunded?
Subsidies, mainly. To a lesser extent, military.
But the main point is that letting tax payers choose where their taxes go would be a disaster for a country's budgeting. You can't just have the budget get thrown around chaotically like that. The government needs to have the power to decide how to use those taxes or they may as well just be voluntary donations instead.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 05:37:44 pm by onpon666 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
I also want to have it so that rich people can decide which public sector most of their taxes goes to That can't work. The rich would only support initiatives that benefit them and their acquaintances. As in, nothing that's beneficial only to the poor. They probably don't even know what programs the poor need, even if they do care.. Of course, the rich shouldn't be allowed to invest their taxes in whatever they want. It has to be public sectors, and I do think all public sectors are good for society... (with the possible exception of military/police in a world without crime and violence).  Also, I was thinking to only allow them to decide what 75% of their taxes should be used for, which leaves some money for public sectors that aren't getting enough funding. It is quite unlikely that all rich people are going to invest in the same sector. Rich people are a diverse group, just like people in general are a diverse group. And the poor people will also benefit from not needing to pay any taxes in my system. Since you need to earn more than 10 000 USD / year to pay taxes according to my proposal. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 12:34:22 am by Scalare »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
That doesn't mean it's in their interest to put their money into solving poverty.
Well, some people might think it is in their self-interest to decrease poverty, while others might think it is their self-interest to increase the police. Both things might work, but I think the best solution is to decrease poverty. No matter how much police you have, you can never be completely safe if there is a lot of poverty and lots of people eager to rob you. It is also more good-hearted to invest in decreasing poverty, and not all people lack a heart...
But the main point is that letting tax payers choose where their taxes go would be a disaster for a country's budgeting. You can't just have the budget get thrown around chaotically like that. The government needs to have the power to decide how to use those taxes or they may as well just be voluntary donations instead.
So you think it is better that Donald Trump decides what your taxes should be invested in? I think similar concerns were raised when women's right to vote was introduced. People probably generalized women (like you generalize rich people) into something ill-intentioned. But women are in fact a diverse group of people, and diversity was actually increased when women were allowed to vote. And as we know from the diversity prediction theorem, a more diverse group is better at predicting.
Not all tax payers are complete retards. If the roads and infrastructure in a society is very bad, lots of people will probably realize that their taxes should be invested in roads and infrastructure. Similarly, if the education is very bad in a society, lots of people probably realize that their taxes should be used on education.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
