RE: Rich people should pay more taxes. Do you agree or disagree?
germany also has some of the lowes paid jobs as well ...
define rich
define "more" ... its an old question and a recurring topic
rich people will tell you they already do, and they do, in sheer numbers
where i live basically the percentage depends on your category of income, if you have minimum wage you pay about 30% (i think) if you have a normal wage that goes over to the 40% range, now if you have a small business, ... hairdresser, baker, butcher, gardening, laying driveways, putting up fences, independent as they say you basically start earning for yourself in august (yea, i know but it is like that) all the rest goes to the state. Corporation work differenlty because they not only have income, they also have corporate tax (main reason why giants like apple and facebook would have their seat in ireland, and definitely not here)
but that's only for working class level really, if you go above i have no clue but whatever it is they got lots and if you're in politics, you don't pay anything at all, politicians are exempt from tax.
So its hard to answer, do you draw a straight line based on numbers like "if you have x a year you're rich" ... and how much more would that be, germany is a powerhouse because it still has industry and it basically had to be re-built from scratch after world war 2, that's why they're on top, they got a headstart in the golden years, not cos they got more taxes lol
i think the need for ubi is more pressing than taxing the rich, convincing them ubi is basically an investment in the survival of capitalism should take precedent than forcing them to re-distribute
forcing is never good, evolution over revolution if something doesn't evolves there's always a pushback, every revolution has a lashback
so im not sure because that would need strict numbers and plans
...
I'm generally exploring the concept of taxation. The prompt is not my general opinion and should be considered as a rather "vague" statement that allows for extensive interpretation. I think that taxation should not be progressive in nature. Forcing is never good but taking Germany as an example, the population, generally speaking, has great access to basic healthcare and excellent infrastructure, mostly paid for using tax revenue. I think it's in the best interest of all individuals to live a life with a minimum level of human dignity.
absolutely but you can't just put all countries on the same line, where i live there's virtually no industry anymore, no natural resources (as opposed to for instance norway where people get a "share" from the oil) germany is one of the powerhouses , i think they could technically do a lot better than they do now, not like switzerland or luxembourg. One or two years ago switzerland proposed a ubi for every citizen of somewhat above €2000, that's unheard of really and it didnt pass for some reason (probably because a lot of people confuse it with wellfare while it is a basic income for EVERYONE, young old, man woman working or not)
belgium here also has what's considered great healthcare, which is fine if you come down with the flu or a common cold, you want your blood tested or you want a scan done it won't cost you an extra mortgage but if you get really ill it still comes down to who's rich and who's not because poor people still can't afford extensive prolongued treatmens, and with the ageaing population nurseries and hospitals have become "industry" not public sector, they're like factories rolling and rolling out. And also because ageing populace there's less to share and more gets spent. Which they try to cover by telling people to get more kids which i think in 20 years will result in doubling the problem as automation and a.i. takes over a lot and manufacturing jobs (among others) and classic industray all but fled the country for cheaper places. SO they'll have lots of potential workers to work for the pension funds the government "misplaced" but there won't be any jobs so that's potentially two or three times the people they have now on wellfare, and 40 years later, thats 2 or 3 times the ageing population they have now.
I don't know who does their math or maybe i'm too simple to get it seeing as i dont have paper degrees but i think my version is more realistic and they just want the votes NOW because 40 years from now
they won't be here anymore. . .
population stop, ubi and all efforts towards space mining / colonization is the only solution i fear, barring world war 3 or a pandemic but the last options don't sound too alluring ... my cat doesnt like loud booming noises :)