When I read Who, what, why: How can an American pay extra tax ? on the BBC News website tonight, I am impressed by this group of wealthy people. They really want to help the country in the difficult situation now by paying tax more. I believe this idea is very good.
The BBC news report that Mr Doug Edwards, wealthy former Google executive wants Washington to raise his taxes. If Americans want to pay more than the law is asking, what do you think? He urged Mr Obama to stay strong in pushing for tax increases. He joined billionaire Warren Buffett in a public call for the US Congress to raise income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.Very wealthy people are stepping up and saying they've been privileged to live in USA and they are willing to pay higher taxes.(P8) As you know that USA is facing budget deficit and national debt now. Mr Edward asked President Barack Obama, at a town hall-style meeting in Silicon Valley on Monday, "My question is, would you please raise my taxes? I would like very much to have the country to continue to invest in things like Pell Grants [an education programme] and infrastructure and job training programs that made it possible for me to get to where I am." In the other hand, Republican doesn't agree the proposal. If tax increase the people have to cut the spending. They believe if the rich people want to help, they can give donation.
In my opinion, the country is in trouble and need help. As a citizen who lives there have to help. This issue is not only solve by government but all. The country can't have loans anymore. You can imagine if you are using credit card and didn't pay finish. How can you start saving if you still have to pay your loans? If the situation getting worst, it will affect them soon. How the country get money ? Do you think they can get donation from other country around the world? USA is not poor country! Usually this country is the one who decide many issue in the world. USA is part of UN and have voice in it.
I believe this country is very strong in many things like education. You can see many international schools that have American curriculum or British. Parents are willing to pay much more because they believe that their children will have benefit from it. Many people from many background want to improve their language study in AUA
Honestly every time when they have to vote, I always in Republican side. But in this case I absolute in Obama side. if rich people want to pay more, they still rich and it's good for middle and lower people. This people need job! For example, worker can work if they have project to build. Many business give the opportunity for people to work. When they have money they can spend.
What is your input? do you agreed with me?
References
Who, what, why: How can an American pay extra tax ? ( 2011, September 28). BBC News.Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://www.bbc.uk.news/magazine-15084671
How did the US debt get so bad (2011, September 2). BBC News. Retrieved October 2,2011 from http://www.bbc.uk/news/world-us-canada-14760684
Jobs act: Obama plan eyes taxes on rich (2011, September 12). BBC News. Retrieved October 2,2011 from http://www.bbc.uk/news/world-us-canada-14886689
US jobs plan: Barack Obama unveils $450bn package (2011, September 9 ). BBC News. Retrieved October 2, 2011 from http://www.bbc.uk/news/world-us-canada-14841746
US economy: New Obama plan to tax wealthiest (2011, September 18). BBC News Retrieved October 2, 2011 from http://www.bbc.uk/news/world-us-canada-14962769
Hundreds of occupy Wall Street protesters arrested (2011, October 2). BBC News Retrieved October 2, 2011 from http://www.bbc.uk/news/world-us-canada-15140671
Wednesday 28 September 2011
12 comments:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to think about it a bit more before I comment.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think that people like Buffett, who is also one of the most selflessly generous philanthropists on this planet, are truly patriotic in the best sense when then make such calls.
Despite that, I think I disagree with Buffett's call, which is nonetheless noble and laudable. But I want to think through my ideas a bit more on this complex topic.
Mur,
Thanks for posting something challenging in multiple ways.
"I think I disagree with" (my previous comment) - fine in a response writing, but as you've now all seen from my review comments, and our discussion last week, it's not something you would want in your academic writing without a very good reason. There are times when this sort of thing is appropriate, but it's generally best avoided.
ReplyDeleteMur,
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the rich man's suggestion because it is thought from rich people's viewponts. Of course, we live in each county thanks to the government's much care, so we all have to pay taxes and I agree with it. However, I think the same percenage of taxes about income doesn't mean same value when the percentages are put dollars value.
Let's say there are two People. One's income is $1,000, the other's is 100,000, and they have to pay 10% taxes. Comparing just money, the later pays 100 times more than the former, but the money's values is not the same. $10,000 of the later is not a big burden because he still $90,000, but the former's $100 will be a big money because he gets just $900, which is much less than the later's.
Therefore,I think if the rich people want to pay more, they have to make new tax law which just applies to rich people or they can let the rich donate fixed percentage of their incomes.
Dear Sunny,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Let me explain to you with your example. The first man has $100.000 income and the second man has $ 1.000. They don't pay the same % from the income.
As you know, tax usually progresses.
The government will charge:
1. 10% for $ 1.000 to 10.000
The first man will pay 10% from 10.000= $1.000
The second man will pay 10% from $ 1000= $ 100
2.20% from above $10.000 to $ 50.000
So the first man still paying because he still have to pay 20% from $ 40.000= $8.000
and the second man is free already.
3.30% from above $ 50.000 to $ 100.000
The first man still have to pay more 30% from $ 50.000 = $ 15.000
So total that first man has to pay is $ 24.000
and the first man has to pay $ 100.
To pay more only for wealthy people is fair, because the first man still have money $ 74.000
I heard that some people who earn less than certain amount don't need to pay tax.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteActually I don't know this person background at all. I am impressed with the people who want to more pay tax. In my country, wealthy people always avoid paying more tax. They will have tax accountant to do the taxes reports for the company. How much that tax accountant can save for them? He will get some % from the saving that he can help. for example if the company should pay $100.000, he can manage to pay only $ 10.000, then he will get special % from $ 90.000.
That way my country is one of the higher corruption country in the world.
Peter, my relatives who has invested money in citibank in us dollars can't do anything. The value is less than before. I believe wealthy people also worry about their investments if the country is in trouble. Nobody never expect that USA will be like this.
ReplyDeleteSomebody has to come out and do action.
I still believe those people have to pay more tax in order to save them.
I think part of the problem is that the tax burden generally is much too high. The reason for that is that governments interfere far more than is justified in the economy and in people's personal lives.
ReplyDeleteThe best and fairest creator of jobs is not governments, but free markets that are creating goods and services that people actually want and are willing to pay for. If taxes were reduced for everyone, then people can decide for themselves how to spend their money, and that spending stimulates job creation because the things people buy have to be produced.
Governments make laws to control things like gambling, prostitution, drugs, health, and so on, and all of these laws are economically disastrous: it costs a lot of money to control people's personal decisions and actions, and that requires higher taxes; it means money is being diverted to go against creating economic value by stopping the creation of demanded goods and services; and it is a direct encouragement of corruption - most corruption is a direct result of government policy that actively encourages it. For example, first, the government makes gambling illegal - that costs money, and police have to be paid to enforce the law that is unjust and which many people obviously believe is unjust. Since people believe the law is unjust, they seek to break it. In order to break it, the people and businesses pay off corrupt police, who are happy to be corrupt becuase they also believe the law is immoral. This results in reducing respect for the law in society generally, and that is a bad thing. It is also an extremely expensive way to corrupt society, and that means the government needs more tax money from a reduced income base, since the incomes generated by teh personal living choices make illegal cannot be taxed. Thus, everyone has to pay higher taxes because governments make up laws that are unjust to directly encourage corruption and support high profits for gangsters and other nasty people that are not taxed. This does not seem either just or rational to me.
I strongly agree with Peter's last comment. For government action in this case, giving an offer would be better, may be more donations, more taxes deduction.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe authorities won't make anything better.
From my view as a law student(actually,I've just graduated with a bachelor's degree in arts, but still trying to earn another one) , sometimes I think law, itself is cause of many problems. lol
Peter and Job,
ReplyDeleteI still believe in this I will get back to you again later. I need to do other things first.
I have added more references to both of you.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine if you have infection in your body now and you must go to work tomorrow. You need to heal the symptoms that make you are suffering. You know that need antiobiotic in order to get well soon. As you know antiobiotic is not only kill the bad bacterias in your body, is including good bacteria in your intestines. Obama has no choice, people are angry and need job now. They can't wait until 14 months. Europe and middle east are suffering too. Country can not avoid natural disasters however with this issue, Obama need to decide and act faster, can't wait the economy recover bt itself. There is not enough time to wait.
Honestly I don't agree with other issues which in this party. I prefer republican since long time ago. It's not about Obama, if the president is from repulican and has this action I absolutely agree this decision.
ReplyDeleteMur, and everyone,
ReplyDeleteFor what reasons may a state justly tax citizens?
I think that the list of legitimate reasons for any taxation is very small, and that the problems the US has are caused not by insufficient income, but by seriously excessive spending.
My income is adequate for my needs not because it's particularly high, but because I spend little. If my income were ten times higher but I spend twenty times as much, I would also be in a serious problem - but largely because of the excess spending, not the high income.
I think that states have an obligation to provide defence from external threats (a minimally effective military that must not interfere in domestic issues), and a justice system domestically, which means courts, police, prisons and the like. And not much else.
And the police may only be paid with money taken from tax payers to deal with crimes that cause actual harm to others against their wishes.
These minimal obligations require that the state take very little from its citizens' hard earned property. Anything more seems morally dubious to me: charity is a good thing, but forcing people to engage in charity by holding a gun to their head is less obviously a good thing. Most tax is this sort of forced charity, or theft, and I don't think it's just.
But I'm open to persuasion. I think most people disagree with me (many of my friends do not like my ideas about human liberty and human rights) because they prefer the communist idea that the state should interfere in and control every area of everyone's life, and that people do not have any rights to decide for themselves what values matter to them.
If Obama ended laws that discourage business activity, that would immediately have two desirable effects: employment would increase and the just tax base would increase. Getting rid of bad laws that interfere with markets and people's lives seems to me a much more just, and far more effective, solution to the US's current economic problems than further increasing the control of the government over people's lives and property.