Which country out of these three will be the best off?

[green]

There are three governments. All three have 100 residents. There is $1,000,000 in total income per year. 1 guy earns $400,000/year, the bottom 80 people earn $875/year each and the middle 19 earn $28,000/year each.

Each government decides to tax a little differently.

Government #1:

The top 1 is taxed at 15%.
The middle 19 are taxed at 35%.
The bottom 80 are taxed at 20%.

The top 1 pays $60,000 in taxes, and has $340,000 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.
The middle 19 pay $9,800 in taxes, and have $18,200 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.
The bottom 80 pay $175 in taxes, and have $700 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.

The government takes in $69,975 in tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, military, etc.

Government #2:

The top 1 is taxed at 35%.
The middle 19 are taxed at 20%.
The bottom 80 are taxed at 15%.

The top 1 pays $140,000 in taxes, and has $260,000 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.
The middle 19 pay $5,600 in taxes, and has $22,400 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.
The bottom 80 pay $131 in taxes, and has $744 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.

The government takes in $145,731 in tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, military, etc.

Government #3:

The top 1 is taxed at 50%.
The middle 19 is taxed at 15%.
The bottom 80 is taxed at 5%.

The top 1 pays $200,000 in taxes, and has $200,000 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.
The middle 19 pay $4,200 in taxes, and has $23,800 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.
The bottom 80 pays $44 in taxes, and has $831 left over as income/money to reinvest in their career.

The government takes in $224,631 in tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, military, etc.

Which country is best off?

Which economy is best off (this is the easy answer)?

Which country is the best educated?

Which country has the best infrastructure?

Which one will be rocking and rolling in 100 years, and which one will be in revolution?

 

[green]

Was my question too long and diluted, or is no one answering because they would have to admit the Right's tax ideas are ridiculous and "trickle down economics" has killed small businesses/the middle class?

I asked a question about a year ago if Reagan killed small business. A year later, I can't see anything saying he did not kill small business with his trickle down economics.

 

[One Brow]

Was my question too long and diluted, or is no one answering because they would have to admit the Right's tax ideas are ridiculous and "trickle down economics" has killed small businesses/the middle class?

I asked a question about a year ago if Reagan killed small business. A year later, I can't see anything saying he did not kill small business with his trickle down economics.

I thought the answer was obvious, and the question almost rhetorical.

 

[lauriandres]

Why should the person, who is more productive than others, pay for the lifestyle of those who do not want to work as much or be as popular so that the customers are willing to pay them as much as they pay for the top1 guy?

 

[Jamezz]

None of the above, bring the troops back home, stop getting involved in foreign affairs that are none of our business and you'll have plenty of money to cover all the country's internal needs.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I didn't reply because the question wasn't framed properly/completely at all. And, no, I will not be providing more detail. Have to go make some more money, shuffle it through various offshore companies/enterprises, and pay less as a % of my gross income than the poor class.

 

[bigb]

Just because country 3 has the money for infrastructure and education doesn't mean it's the best.

 

[green]

Why should the person, who is more productive than others, pay for the lifestyle of those who do not want to work as much or be as popular so that the customers are willing to pay them as much as they pay for the top1 guy?

Maybe for the same reasons the Jazz are kept afloat by the Lakers and Knicks. If not for the generosity of big markets, small markets can't exist.

The same reason that blue states end up propping red states up financially (another ironic twist).

For the greater good.

In scenario #3, the top 1% make over 800% more than the next 19%. Yet, they live in a society with more education, nicer roads, better technology, stronger military, etc.

It's pretty simple.

I never understand why the guy making $24,000 fights so hard for the guy making $200,000 (in my scenario). What blows my mind in real life is how the state's with the highest drain on federal tax dollars are so red. Don't those people realize if the two branches of govt were republican run, they'd lose their livelihood (federal aid)?

It's all very interesting.

 

[green]

Just because country 3 has the money for infrastructure and education doesn't mean it's the best.

Really? Better education, better infrastructure, better resources doesn't lead to better success?

An less educated, less equipped country has a higher chance of success?

I'm not buying it.

 

[green]

I didn't reply because the question wasn't framed properly/completely at all. And, no, I will not be providing more detail. Have to go make some more money, shuffle it through various offshore companies/enterprises, and pay less as a % of my gross income than the poor class.

That's great. Congrats.

 

[green]

None of the above, bring the troops back home, stop getting involved in foreign affairs that are none of our business and you'll have plenty of money to cover all the country's internal needs.

I agree with what your foreign policy is, but I don't agree that bringing everyone home solves all our problems. What about small business? How do you give small business a chance to compete? What about our educational rankings and how far we are falling?

Those are two huge issues we are dealing with.

 

[Gameface]

your scenario is so oversimplified that it's meaningless

 

[bigb]

Really? Better education, better infrastructure, better resources doesn't lead to better success?

An less educated, less equipped country has a higher chance of success?

I'm not buying it.

It's not the amount of money that leads too being better. It's how it's spent.

 

[green]

It's not the amount of money that leads too being better. It's how it's spent.

Sure. I agree with that. Wouldn't you agree that the more opportunity for good that is available, the better chance good will happen?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Sure. I agree with that. Wouldn't you agree that the more opportunity for good that is available, the better chance good will happen?

Or the better chance of corruption.

 

[green]

your scenario is so oversimplified that it's meaningless

Scenario #1 is a simple, yes, representation of the US tax code. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that those most able to pay taxes, pay the least % of their income as taxes? Shouldn't those with the least, pay the smallest % of taxes?

Wouldn't common sense tell you everyone's % should be equal, or if it isn't equal, shouldn't the higher earners pay a higher %, not the other way around?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Scenario #1 is a simple, yes, representation of the US tax code. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that those most able to pay taxes, pay the least % of their income as taxes? Shouldn't those with the least, pay the smallest % of taxes?

Wouldn't common sense tell you everyone's % should be equal, or if it isn't equal, shouldn't the higher earners pay a higher %, not the other way around?

Link?

 

[green]

The next questions are:

1- what role does public resources (police, fire, roads, post office, etc) play in private business. Since the 1% benefit the most from public resources (roads, infrastructure, etc), shouldn't their % be the highest?

And

2- if the consumer drives business (if no one buys anything, there is no business), why does the consumer get screwed in the tax code? Wouldn't lower taxes for the consumer be better for everyone? Consumers spend. Without spending, there is no consuming, there is no profit. Why does the smallest % of consumers get the biggest tax break? Wouldn't it be better to give the 80% more money to buy things than the 1%? Isn't 80 cars sold more than 1?

 

[Dr. Jones]

The next questions are:

1- what role does public resources (police, fire, roads, post office, etc) play in private business. Since the 1% benefit the most from public resources (roads, infrastructure, etc), shouldn't their % be the highest?

And

2- if the consumer drives business (if no one buys anything, there is no business), why does the consumer get screwed in the tax code? Wouldn't lower taxes for the consumer be better for everyone? Consumers spend. Without spending, there is no consuming, there is no profit. Why does the smallest % of consumers get the biggest tax break? Wouldn't it be better to give the 80% more money to buy things than the 1%? Isn't 80 cars sold more than 1?

This is awful questioning. Way too elementary government.. but...

"who" is responsible for sales taxes derived? You say the consumer, I say business. Who's right?
What if there is no business there at all? Then the consumer simply spends it elsewhere, right?
Why does the consumer not become the business owner?
Why would anyone, in their right mind, provide a venture (that benefits MANY) that involves employment opportunities, not to mention risk to themselves and their families?
Ugh.. I'm falling right into the same cesspool.

 

[bigb]

Sure. I agree with that. Wouldn't you agree that the more opportunity for good that is available, the better chance good will happen?

Ask the Yankees how that's working.