Author: senoritazhao

Should rich people pay more tax? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-3-8 03:27:27 |Display all floors
HailChina! Post time: 2017-3-7 02:09
It is not fair to make high income earners pay more tax plus it gives them an excuse to forever comp ...

Consumption taxes are GREATLY unfair. Rich people actually spend MUCH LOWER % of their income on consumption. Poor people spend ALL of their income on consumption. This is called the Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC). I'm rich myself; and that tells you I AM NOT LYING. Nobless oblige my rich friend! The way we all got rich was because of the law and order and infrastructure the TAXPAYERS GAVE US!
Without World Government we are DOOMED.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal of honor

Post time 2017-3-8 03:40:25 |Display all floors
Ted180 Post time: 2017-3-8 03:27
Consumption taxes are GREATLY unfair. Rich people actually spend MUCH LOWER % of their income on c ...

The wealthy may spend a lower percentage of their income on consumption and yes poor people have no real surplus but the fact is that the wealthy consume a lot more than the poor

In economics, the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is a metric that quantifies induced consumption, the concept that the increase in personal consumer spending (consumption) occurs with an increase in disposable income (income after taxes and transfers).

- wiki

Like I said, the wealthy consume more because they have more disposable income. As long as basic need essentials are exempt from the tax then a GST is all good. There are lots of ways people become wealthy and they should not be penalized for it. They should pay the same percentage of tax as everyone else.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-3-8 10:57:14 |Display all floors
it won't change a lot about the situation ..

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2017-3-8 13:26:14 |Display all floors
China has progressive tax regime, which means the rich already pay bigger percentage of tax than the poor. The question should be how much more the rich should pay than the poor.

There is no fixed answer to that - it depends on current state and expected development of society, including all of its aspects from quantity and quality of employees to investments needed in inftrastructure to military spending. As those change, so should details of tax regime change. And China is in constant change.

In China, the poor (Chinese) who earn less than 42000 a year (or 3500 a month) are now exempt from paying taxes.

To put this in perspective, we can look at average wages in China. I have data from 2012 available - for example in cities like Harbin, Zhengzhou, Jinan and Changsha, the average salary was less than 3500 RMB a month. This means that average person living in those cities did not pay any taxes.

Someone suggested than this threshold should be increased to 100 000 RMB.

In 2012 there was no city in China, where average annual salary was higher than 65 000 RMB. A threshold of 100 000 would mean that "average person" in China would never pay taxes, only a small minority would. And that's just for provincial capitals - add to that every smaller city, and you would have a really small minority paying taxes.

Even if the tax revenue from that minority would be enough to finance the state, it would obviously not be socially fair or sustainable - taxes should always come from majority of the population.

To this equation one must include regional disparity, which exists in all countries but especially in China. What could be fair, is if the national standard deduction of 3500 RMB was regionalized based on average income in each locality. Besides making it fairer between regions, it could even motivate people and their businesses to migrate out from big cities.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-3-8 20:47:26 |Display all floors
HailChina! Post time: 2017-3-7 14:40
The wealthy may spend a lower percentage of their income on consumption and yes poor people have n ...

1. The wiki definition you included does not consider the decrease in likelihood that each increased unit of money will be spent on consumption and the increase in the likelihood that the unit will be saved or invested.
2. Are you saying that the sheer number of poor people (and the lower number of wealthy) does not mean the poor contribute very substantially to effective consumer demand?
3. Why should not the "ability to pay" be the determonant of tax obligations? In both the pragmatic and moral sense?
Without World Government we are DOOMED.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal of honor

Post time 2017-3-9 07:27:31 |Display all floors
Ted180 Post time: 2017-3-8 20:47
1. The wiki definition you included does not consider the decrease in likelihood that each increas ...

You need $80,000 to be happy in the west and if people have it they will spend most of it. A person that earns $30,000 basically has no disposable income and they cant even afford to turn on a heater and an air conditioner. A person that earns $200-$300 k has enough disposable income to be able to afford a Sugar Baby and nice holidays etc. The very wealthy can have whatever they want and no they are not more thrifty than someone on $30,000-$80,000. And the 'saved' surplus of the wealthy is always put somewhere isnt it - whether it is investments, stock market, or just in banks - and like I said - I would tax capital gains tax but perhaps at a lower rate than income tax.

Todays capitalists think that bifurcation is the way to go and that we do not need the poorest to consume anything. The idea is that capitalists need very poor citizens so people will do things like become Sugar Babies and drive uber cars and shine shoes and give cheap massages and what not. These wealthy capitalists like going to third world nations and being treated like gods by third world peasants and they love that it costs almost nothing. So the idea is to create that in the west. Because of unions in the west it is very hard to find a cheap massage and someone to shine your shoes in many western nations. This is all well and good but it is not conducive to stability. It is better to let the peasants have at least some disposable income so that there can be real growth in the real economy driven by multiplier effect. The way to keep them poor is with inflation/raising the cost of living. If basic needs are covered and the peasants have a little cash in their pockets then it is better for everyone and this situtation makes it easier to increase disparity which means to the wealthy a massage and a shoe shine is cheap. They will shine a shoe if they think it is worth it. They will still work as Sugar Babies. We do need to ask ourselves if so-called 'professionals' that earn 200-300k should be able to afford Sugar Babies. If all of the nonsense is just for them then that needs a big rethink. These people are not 'elite'. There is no sense in risking it all for those idiots.

So I think I covered your 2. Poor westerners have no money. They contribute virtually nothing. The young ones listen to songs like 'Thrift Shop' and google news had a headline just yesterday saying that millennials are doing their shopping at 'one dollar shops' and discount stores. But right through to the middle class they have no money and this is why nobody will buy things like 3D televisions and VR headsets. The oculus rift is not expensive at all but it is to these western peasants because they have no money. Compare the price of the oculus rift to consuls that were coming out in the 90s/early 2000s. Only a povo would have complained about price but now they are all povo and they all know it. So this certainly is a problem because you need these low end consumers to take up stuff like this to make it popular/a success. Without these consumers there is no pyramid is there. Luxury items sales an economy does not make. You can use that. ( the general negativity of all this terror and war does not help economy either you know )

It doesnt cover very much at all to provide basic welfare is the idea is not to bankrupt western governments plus if these peasants get some money in pockets they will not need the welfare. A good percentage of the welfare is middle class welfare. The reality is that governments do not need to bring in a great deal of tax revenue and the capitalists can cover most things with commerce/private sector. So there is no need to penalize the wealthy for being wealthy. The only fair way is for all citizens to pay the same percentage of tax.

This is a time of great surplus.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2017-3-9 11:01:35 |Display all floors
yes, of course.
I'm a sociologist and writer. I have published books, such as "Rota de fuga, a história não conta ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.