NationStates Jolt Archive

What system of tax do you prefer? (poll coming)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I voted Flat Rate, but I'd like to specify that I endorse a flat rate retail sales tax, not a direct income tax. Also, the system I endorse would not tax necessetices.

www.fairtax.org

I voted Flat Rate, but I'd like to specify that I endorse a flat rate retail sales tax, not a direct income tax. Also, the system I endorse would not tax necessetices.

www.fairtax.org:confused: Okay, I understand completely.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I voted "other." National sales tax with food and medicine exempt. Those who consume the most pay the most.

Myrth :p
Seriously, flat tax

I voted "other." National sales tax with food and medicine exempt. Those who consume the most pay the most.
Do you really think an abolition of income tax is workable? I didn't think you were a minarchist.

Edit: I voted flat tax. It seems fairest.

I voted progressive. However, I'm aware that there are huge disadvantages to progressive taxes. There are disadvantages to ALL tax systems. I wish I could remember the exact disadvantages... (Econ major... years ago... don't remember... :rolleyes: )

I only remember that every tax system has flaws.

I voted "other." National sales tax with food and medicine exempt. Those who consume the most pay the most.

I voted other for the same reason. 21% sales tax or something would be much better.

I voted “Income Tax What’s that?”

I am for an abolition of all income taxes and a strict reliance on sales taxes and tariffs. A proper federal government only need provide for the military and inter-state affairs, after all.

Also, were ya’ll aware that the sixteenth amendment never passed? Turns out that ¾ of states didn’t all approve of the same language. Thus, income tax is unconstitutional!

I voted flat rate, but the system I'd really like to see is a bit progressive.

(Gross Income - Poverty Guidelines for family size) * flat rate = tax paid

No other deductions allowed. Simple, direct, and as fair as you're gonna get.

i favor a progressive tax not unlike the one the US has now. progressive but not punishingly progressive like it was before the regan tax cuts.

Also, were ya’ll aware that the sixteenth amendment never passed? Turns out that ¾ of states didn’t all approve of the same language. Thus, income tax is unconstitutional!
Did you also know that, if you read the tax code, it says that direct income tax is voluntary? The public has been brainwashed into thinking that it's mandatory...especially when you have the armed IRS secret police raiding businesses in full SWAT gear.

Did you also know that, if you read the tax code, it says that direct income tax is voluntary? The public has been brainwashed into thinking that it's mandatory...especially when you have the armed IRS secret police raiding businesses in full SWAT gear.

Actually, I was unaware of that. Does it mean its voluntary for states or individuals?

My uncle has a great bumper sticker on his car, “Ban the IRS!”
He forgot where he got it tough. :(

Flat rate all the way.

Why should the rich pay more to support social programs that they can't use because of their income.

Actually, I was unaware of that. Does it mean its voluntary for states or individuals?
Individuals, IIRC. I need to drag out my old research on that.

Progressive or flat tax? Does it have to be a choice? Why not have a progressive flat tax? A flat tax, but tax money equal to say 15% of GDP is equally distributed amoung all citizens. That way people won't have to feel bad anymore about not giving money to beggers. And you would have an excuse not to tip.

Why should the rich pay more to support social programs that they can't use because of their income.

because almost all of their wealth is a direct result not of their own labor, but of the society they live in (physical infrastructure, social institutions, legal system, etc). so they owe society. a lot.

fuck taxes on income. social ownership of the means of production and distribution.

because almost all of their wealth is a direct result not of their own labor, but of the society they live in (physical infrastructure, social institutions, legal system, etc). so they owe society. a lot.

And in a flat tax they still would be paying more then a lower income citizen. Lets face it 20% of a million is a whole heck of a lot more then 20% of twenty thousand.

Plus the lower income bracket take advantage of free education, wellfare, etc, etc, that those in the higher incomes are not elligable for.

How they make their money is irrelivant. (Assuming it's legal of course) Why sould we punish those that are successful?

Why sould we punish those that are successful?

Because Socialists and Commies are a bunch of jealous, immature, unrealistic cry babies. Either that, or they are rich, elitists who think they know how individuals should spend their own money better than they do.

20% of a million is $200,000 leaving the wealthy $800,000 to enjoy and invest.

20% of $20,000 is $4,000 leaving the poor $16,000.

When you have $800,000 you have necessities covered, luxuries to the extent you are comfortable with, and enough to invest for the future.

On $16,000 you are barely able to cover necessities if you have a family.

Flat taxes will always burden the poor more than the rich unless you make for certain provisions (not taxing necessities, giving tax rebates, etc).

Because Socialists and Commies are a bunch of jealous, immature, unrealistic cry babies. Either that, or they are rich, elitists who think they know how individuals should spend their own money better than they do.

That's ad hominem.

In a grown up debate we discuss facts and theory. We don't call each other poopy-heads.

m'kay?

I said flat rate because you said "percentage". I'm not sure if that's what you actually mean.

I'm in favour of a percentage, x. Say, x = 10%.

Therefore, if someone is making 10 000 a year, they pay 1000. Then, if someone is making 100 000, they pay 10 000. That's what I'm in favour of.

<<And in a flat tax they still would be paying more then a lower income citizen. Lets face it 20% of a million is a whole heck of a lot more then 20% of twenty thousand.>>

But the million leaves 800 000, twenty thousand leaves 16 000. That's a huge difference.

<<Because Socialists and Commies are a bunch of jealous, immature, unrealistic cry babies.>>

Yes, I'm such a crybaby. Just because capitalism is the perfect system only for those with a) the ancestors with the biggest axe (or equivalent) or b) unreasonable amounts of luck, to make money from my labour.

I might make a fiver an hour working in a supermarket. The owner who has been born into tis position makes millions. Tell me what is fair about that.

Take advantage of the education systems avilible to you. Get a idea you can make money on.



It can be done and takes hard work. I know, I did it. So I improved myself and now you think I should pay more? Why?

I have three kids to pay to keep clothes on food in their belly and general provide for. I am upper middle class. Why should I pay more then someone who has nine kids from six fathers and is leeching off of wellfare? Their kids will benifit from food stamps, go to school on government grants, get low parcentage houseing loans from the government, etc. I can't get those because I make to much. So in short I am not only paying my own bill but also theirs because I am paying a higher tax rate.

Where is that fair?

Take advantage of the education systems avilible to you. Get a idea you can make money on.



It can be done and takes hard work. I know, I did it.

You have my heartfelt congradulations.

I have three kids to pay to keep clothes on food in their belly and general provide for. I am upper middle class. Why should I pay more then someone who has nine kids from six fathers and is leeching off of wellfare? Their kids will benifit from food stamps, go to school on government grants, get low parcentage houseing loans from the government, etc. I can't get those because I make to much. So in short I am not only paying my own bill but also theirs because I am paying a higher tax rate.

This is an issue of where your tax dollars go not how they are collected. Flat taxes hurt the poor who do work but don't make much.

Flat rate of 15%, no exemptions. Here's why:

Under the current "Progressive" system, the top .01% doesn't pay jack-shit in taxes, there are enough pages of loopholes, conflicting regulations, exemptions, exceptions, etc etc. to enable the use of a Lawyer to prevent paying anything in taxes if you're rich enough, powerful enough, or slick enough.

Imagine replacing 18,000 pages of the U.S. Tax Code with ten words. Fifteen percent of four hundered dollars is sixty bucks. Looking at my pay-stub, at nine bucks an hour, I'm paying more than that right now. The United States built the Interstate highway system on a national average of only 3% income tax in the 1950's-while running a surplus.
That national average is significantly higher today, and we're running deficits.

fifteen percent of a hundered bucks is fifteen, leaving eighty-five behind, so... presuming a person on the top end of the income scale (bill Gates) is pulling down four billion a year, that's what... six hundered million bucks? he's not paying that much now-guaranteed he isn't. Meanwhile, John and Jane Doe are paying that right now in income tax with deductions at forty grand a year per (if they file separately) or more if they're filing jointly.

A true flat-rate tax would be far more likely to do what Taxes are supposed to do (generate income for the business of Government), would not include unfair advantages (Rich people have to pay the same percentage under a flat percentage-rate tax, same as corporations would have to...no exceptions) that reward some at the expense of others, and would be simple enough that just about anyone could do their own accounting-which cuts down on the number of tax-fattened hyenae necessary to process the returns, and it would cut down on the power the IRS has to harass people, because mistakes would be much, much, fewer in number and harder to either conceal, or invent.

Further, it would eliminate the use of the Tax-Code as a means to reward and punish individuals for their choices. If a married couple is paying fifteen percent, and a single person is paying fifteen percent, and domestic partners are paying fifteen percent, it's the same percentage. Single-no-kids pays fifteen percent, and married-with-children pays fifteen percent. No lifestyle is endorsed or punished, and the budget can be estimated based on the Census, rather than masses of arcane formulae designed to provide advantages to those with a lever on Congress...

This is an issue of where your tax dollars go not how they are collected. Flat taxes hurt the poor who do work but don't make much.

First lets cover one thing. Taxes hurt everyone. Rich, Poor, Needy and Well feed.

A Flat tax hurts everyone equally.

A progressivive tax hurts rich people more.

So yes, a flat tax hurts the poor. It hurts them just as much as it hurts everyone one.

Though, as a side note, a well set up flat tax system would not tax neccasaities of life, and thusly 'the poor' would be fine.

For those of you bemoaning the "plight of the working poor" in the US and thus supporting the progressive tax system here, I give you this (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040601.shtml). That should clear up your misconceptions about the “down trodden working man”, at least in the US.

Imagine replacing 18,000 pages of the U.S. Tax Code with ten words. Fifteen percent of four hundered dollars is sixty bucks.

YOU, SHUT UP.

I want job security damnit. JOB SECURITY. Add more pages.

Or at least thats what everyone who works for the IRS, tax agencies, many tax accountants, and most accountants (like my father and myself) will be screaming considering that there is an entire industry built up around those pages.

A Flat tax hurts everyone equally.

No that is what is under contention.

Who is hurt more? The person who, at the end of the day, is still finanically secure? Or the person who didn't start out finanically secure, and now has much less to meet the same obligations?

For those of you bemoaning the "plight of the working poor" in the US and thus supporting the progressive tax system here, I give you this. That should clear up your misconceptions about the “down trodden working man”, at least in the US.

The later two thirds of that article are the same conservative rhetoric I hear all the time. I don't care. It isn't on topic and so I won't respond to it.

The first third, while on topic, doesn't deny that the 'working poor' exist, just that they don't stay that way.

OK, in the long-run their lives imporve. Great, the system works, hurrah.

But that doesn't make flat taxes right. Because people eventually improve their stations in life, wouldn't it make sense to tax them less when they are just starting out and short on cash and then tax them more when they have made it and aren't struggling to get by?

<<And in a flat tax they still would be paying more then a lower income citizen. Lets face it 20% of a million is a whole heck of a lot more then 20% of twenty thousand.>>

But the million leaves 800 000, twenty thousand leaves 16 000. That's a huge difference.

<<Because Socialists and Commies are a bunch of jealous, immature, unrealistic cry babies.>>

Yes, I'm such a crybaby. Just because capitalism is the perfect system only for those with a) the ancestors with the biggest axe (or equivalent) or b) unreasonable amounts of luck, to make money from my labour.

I might make a fiver an hour working in a supermarket. The owner who has been born into tis position makes millions. Tell me what is fair about that.

Who said life was about fairness? Seriously. Think about your position as stated. How is it fair that Michael Jordan can make millions of dollars playing yard-ball for the teevee cameras? Or Tiger Woods? What's fair about the pretty girl being popular in school? or how some folks can make good money just for wearing a designer's clothes?

The closest to "Fair" you can get, is for the law to make no exceptions. 'Progressive' tax-systems inevitably grow loopholes for those with sufficient money and motive. The current system requires a huge agency that behaves much like a secret-police (conducting "Trials" in special courts where your Habeas-Corpus rights do not exist, rendering judgements in secret, and immune to oversight and review-or appeal. At least the Prisoners at GitMo have some kind of advocacy without being multimillionaires, middle-class and upper-working-class people have no such defenders,a nd are at the questionable mercy of the IRS.)
Each level of complexity adds to the ability to abuse the system. Abuses by the Administrators of the system (the IRS can do pretty much whatever it wants to you, once it decides it has a route in...and unless you're Bill Gates or George Soros, you've not got the resources to fight it.)
Abuses by the Wealthy Elite are facilitated by complexities. The more formulae you use, the more arcane numbers are employed, the greater the advantage for the friends of those in high office to protect themselves at the expense of the public good.

this isn't good for the box-boy who wants to own the store someday-because his route to that position is hampered with hurdles placed there to do one thing: keep him a boxboy.

A flat-tax means that even an idiot can plan his budget to handle the load, and seeing the money go out (rather than having it anonymously deducted before it reaches your hands) will certainly raise more interest in the doings (and misdeeds) of your elected officials, and the agencies they create. It also eliminates the ability to "Un-Tax" the friends and supporters of a given advocacy, and it eliminates the ability to punish-by-taxation. My state's governor-select wants to raise the Gas-Tax again. Why? because Cigarette Taxes aren't generating the same revenue they did when more people smoked!
Writing budgets dependent on "Sin Taxes" isn't limited to the states, it's a federal addiction too-the problem being, that as you raise taxes on "Sinful" behaviours (smoking, drinking, gambling) people stop doing them-or stop doing them in the prescribed manner, creating a need for enforcement. (on the State level, I've noticed State Cops camping outside the Reservations to bust Ciggy buyers who're dodging the state's Sales Tax on Tobacco... this costs money and removes said staters from their primary duties to detail them as roving tax-agents. On the Federal Level, Marijuana is a Treasury matter-you can grow it with the correct tax-stamp. Dope enforcement has been a high priority for the Feds for decades, absorbing thousands of man-hours a month pursuing evaders, rather than dealing with organized crime and Wire Fraud-on the whole, more money going out, than is being collected.)
with a Known Quantity based on a reduced number of variables, Federal budgets would lose a lot of the "Pork Shoulder" room they have now, forcing the Feds to live within their means. Likewise, a similar policy in the States with Income Taxes would encourage state governments to work harder to attract high-paying, steady jobs, which is good for the common man, but bad for Neo-Puritans on the right and Left who want to use the mechanism of Government to enforce their own view of Utopia on an unwilling victim.

Taxes are nothing but a brute necessity, they should be constrained like any other power of destruction. We have to have them, because we can't avoid the need to have a government-but, Taxes should not be a basis for the powerful to reward their friends and punish their opponents.

No that is what is under contention.

Who is hurt more? The person who, at the end of the day, is still finanically secure? Or the person who didn't start out finanically secure, and now has much less to meet the same obligations?



The later two thirds of that article are the same conservative rhetoric I hear all the time. I don't care. It isn't on topic and so I won't respond to it.

The first third, while on topic, doesn't deny that the 'working poor' exist, just that they don't stay that way.

OK, in the long-run their lives imporve. Great, the system works, hurrah.

But that doesn't make flat taxes right. Because people eventually improve their stations in life, wouldn't it make sense to tax them less when they are just starting out and short on cash and then tax them more when they have made it and aren't struggling to get by?

It's much harder to corrupt a short paragraph than eighteen thousand pages of exceptions, exemptions, and social-engineering that comprises the U.S. Tax Code.
Taxation should be about raising revenue without breaking the economy, not deciding at what point someone has become "The Rich" and therefore gets to be looted-more often than not, in REAL LIFE, the working poor are already paying the bulk of the tax-money that's actually collected rather than exempted, this is in combination with the Working Class (steady jobs), and the Small Business Owner (NOT super-rich, but pays more in real terms than the Super-Rich, because he can't afford his own pet congressman or Senator.)

Because people eventually improve their stations in life, wouldn't it make sense to tax them less when they are just starting out and short on cash and then tax them more when they have made it and aren't struggling to get by?
That is out and out punitive taxation. It's financially punishing someone for working hard and advancing their position in life.

Poor Guy: "Damn, I can barely make ends meet. I need to get more training and work harder so I can be better off financially."

Government: "Okay then. We'll make sure your tax rate is really low so you can make ends meet."

Poor Guy: "Thanks!"

*15 years later*

Ex-Poor Guy: "Wow, that hard work and sacrifice paid off. Yeah, I have $50,000 in student loans I have to pay off, but at least I own my own business and I'm self-sufficient."

Government: "Awesome! Now, hand over half of your profits. Even though you slaved away and sacrifced to get where you are now, you don't NEED all that money you're making."

Ex-Poor Guy: "WHAT THE F**K?!? Why the hell did I work so hard if I can't keep the fruits of my labor?!?"

Sorry, but I feel a FLAT TAX is the best for all really. It also makes it harder for the rich and rich corporations to wiggle themselves out of paying anything, or getting a refund for false deductions.

in REAL LIFE, the working poor are already paying the bulk of the tax-money that's actually collected rather than exempted

False, the IRS even admits it, if pressed. Unfortunately, that tyrannical organization only has their info available online in Excel, which I do not have. Luckily, Rush Limbaugh had provided us with the figures from 2000 here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html). And here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html) you can find his summary of the information, along with a very helpful pie chart.

No that is what is under contention.

Who is hurt more? The person who, at the end of the day, is still finanically secure? Or the person who didn't start out finanically secure, and now has much less to meet the same obligations?

As noted earlier, a well set up system doesn't hurt the poor because it doesn't tax things like food. At the same time, they both hurt the same. Money is the only thing that does not have a diminishing value as you acquire more.

But that doesn't make flat taxes right. Because people eventually improve their stations in life, wouldn't it make sense to tax them less when they are just starting out and short on cash and then tax them more when they have made it and aren't struggling to get by?

No. Because that punishes the success. And given that when you are 'poor and struggling' you are often getting more money from the government then you are paying in taxes. Meaning currently they pay a negative tax rate. A flat tax system would be able to leave the first 10-15k untaxable so that these 'working poor' would be at 0, rather than getting money from the government.

Also of note is that the 'working poor' are so utterly few in existence they can all starve for all I care.

Rush is only providing income tax, and his numbers are accurate (its actually become more skewed towards the rich since). But thats only income tax.

But then again, as your income goes up, so does the rest of your taxable spending. The rich pay for america. the poor just live here.

I voted other for the same reason. 21% sales tax or something would be much better.
Sales tax does not raise that much revenue. My country levies 21% sales tax and income taxes are still needed.

Why should the rich pay more to support social programs that they can't use because of their income.
Why are taxes always assumed to be for welfare? Every time people complain about taxes the word "welfare" is never far away, as if it's the government's only expenditure. :rolleyes:

i favor a progressive tax not unlike the one the US has now. progressive but not punishingly progressive like it was before the regan tax cuts.
If you thought the pre-Reagan American tax rates were bad, you should see Callaghan's Britain in the late 1970s. The top rate was 99%.

I voted progressive, not because the rich should pay more, but because there must be some progression to account for differences in income utility.

For those of you bemoaning the "plight of the working poor" in the US and thus supporting the progressive tax system here, I give you this (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040601.shtml). That should clear up your misconceptions about the “down trodden working man”, at least in the US.

I find this statement from that article interesting:

First of all, Census data show that most people who are working are not poor and most people who are poor are not working. The front-page headline on the May 31st issue of BusinessWeek says: "One in four workers earns $18,800 a year or less, with few if any benefits. What can be done?"

Buried inside is an admission that about a third of these are part-time workers and another third are no more than 25 years old. So we are really talking about one-third of one fourth -- or fewer than 10 percent of the workers -- who are "working poor" in any full-time, long-run sense.

Not that I disagree with the gist of the article, but the statement about one third being no more than 25 years old is non sequitur. When I was 25 years old, I was a divorced mother of two young children, desperately struggling to make ends meet. My oldest son who turned 26 in October has two daughters who were both born before he was 25 - a 5 year old and a 2-1/2 year old. My youngest son will be 24 next month and he has three children, ranging in age from 4 months to almost 4 years old. My sisters also had children before they were 25, as did my mother and some of my cousins. So what does being under 25 have to do with anything whatsoever - as if people under 25 couldn't possibly have families to support???

[Side note: In my family, we don't tend to put off having children until we need help from fertility specialists, or tests for Down's Syndrome when we finally do conceive. I've truly never understood this practice of waiting until you are practically too old to have children to have them - but to each her own, I guess.]

I think Salvondia said it best when he pointed out that taxes hurt everyone.

If you want to look at taxes as finanicial punishment, then merely paying them, no matter the rate, is punitive.

Tax the rich: You are punishing them for being rich.

Tax the poor: You are punishing them for being poor.

It's a senseless way to frame taxation, it doesn't get us anywhere.

All this talk about fairness is rather silly. Oh sure I've used that word, but only because it seems to be the popular mode in which to discuss the topic. But I think I'm going to stop now because there is no form of taxation that is fair. There are winners, there are losers, and what is fair to one is unfair to the other.

I am for progressive taxation because it is simply the most practical thing to do. The rich can easily afford to provide more tax dollars. They are the ones who, at the time of taxation, have benefited the most from the system as a whole.

It is simply impractical to expect the same contributions from a doctor and a janitor.

I also want to point out that this flat tax with exceptions that Texpunditistan, and others, is always on about is nothing more than a simplified, repackaged progressive tax.

If you set a flat sales tax, but make exceptions for necessities, then those, the poor, who don't buy much more than necessities are not going to be taxed as much as those who buy many non-necessities.

All that you are doing is removing a progressive income tax for a progressive sales tax. If that is more "fair" for you then fine, whatever, as far as I am concerned the function is still the same and so I am indifferant.

I believe that until a Communist society has been achieved there has to be a form of taxation and its aim must be to eliminate all inequalities while at the same time providing large revenues for public services and social welfare. At the moment a first step in the UK would certainly be to restore taxation to pre 1979 levels which was a graduated income tax with a top level of 83% for the highest earners (currently 40%) and with a 98% tax rate for unearned income.

Not that I disagree with the gist of the article, but the statement about one third being no more than 25 years old is non sequitur. When I was 25 years old, I was a divorced mother of two young children, desperately struggling to make ends meet. My oldest son who turned 26 in October has two daughters who were both born before he was 25 - a 5 year old and a 2-1/2 year old. My youngest son will be 24 next month and he has three children, ranging in age from 4 months to almost 4 years old. My sisters also had children before they were 25, as did my mother and some of my cousins. So what does being under 25 have to do with anything whatsoever - as if people under 25 couldn't possibly have families to support???

Well, you certainly can’t expect to start at the top, can you? His use of that information is so one can realize that poor people can and do eventually work themselves out of being poor if they are willing to work hard.

Side note: In my family, we don't tend to put off having children until we need help from fertility specialists, or tests for Down's Syndrome when we finally do conceive. I've truly never understood this practice of waiting until you are practically too old to have children to have them - but to each her own, I guess.]

People do this so they can get ahead in life first, so they are not trying to support a family on a entry level position (a path you have obviously taken).

a 98% tax rate for unearned income.

How exactly do you define “unearned income”. Last time I checked, by definition, income was earned.

Flat rate all the way.

Why should the rich pay more to support social programs that they can't use because of their income.

See it relies on seeing beyond the end of your nose.

In case we get into any discussion i'll put it on the table that i pay the higher rate of tax in Britain and don't mind.

Mainly because i benifitted directly from social welfare programs and i know that when others benifit i will to.

How exactly do you define “unearned income”. Last time I checked, by definition, income was earned.

I believe in the UK this included profits made from buying and selling stocks and shares.

A flat 100% tax.

I believe in the UK this included profits made from buying and selling stocks and shares.

So, how is this unearned? The investor risked losing their money in the process, where as a Wal-Mart checkout person risks hardly anything in their job. What entitles them to have lower taxes? And, how could you justify charging the people that keep the economy going (investors) such exorbitant taxes?

So, how is this unearned? The investor risked losing their money in the process, where as a Wal-Mart checkout person risks hardly anything in their job. What entitles them to have lower taxes? And, how could you justify charging the people that keep the economy going (investors) such exorbitant taxes?

People who invest in stocks and shares do nothing of any use and simply shift money around pointlessly for no reason other than to find a quick way of making large profits without doing much work or contributing to society.

I am glad no one has been stupid enough to suggest that everyone pay the exact same amount of money in taxes regardless of income. Last time this thread came up, someone argued that that was the only truly fair way to tax people. I wanted to stab my eyes out.

People who invest in stocks and shares do nothing of any use and simply shift money around pointlessly for no reason other than to find a quick way of making large profits without doing much work or contributing to society.
Investors play a big part in keeping companies going, which keeps people employed and provides goods and services, which the government takes oodles of taxes on.

How is that NOT contributing to society?

Investors play a big part in keeping companies going, which keeps people employed and provides goods and services, which the government takes oodles of taxes on.

Thanks. My thoughts exactly.

Still I don’t think that anyone will ever be able to convince the Socialists that they need the rich.

I give you the Fox News Business Editor ,Neil Cavuto:

Whose taxes would you hike if your government program is failing?
Whose benefits would you cut?
Whose program would you means test?
Who would you be mean to?
Who would you disparage?
Who would you dump on?
Whose largesse would you vilify?
Whose success would you rip?
Whose ingenuity would you blast?
Whose private sector smarts would you replace?
If you didn't have the rich to pay for your boondoggles, how would you continue to boondoggle?
How would you survive?
Without the rich, there'd be no one about whom you could bitch.
Which makes me suspect, you don't want the rich to go anywhere.
Not because you love the rich, but because you love their wallets more.

Investors play a big part in keeping companies going, which keeps people employed and provides goods and services, which the government takes oodles of taxes on.

How is that NOT contributing to society?

The majority of money used to keep companies going comes from their profits but it is only because of our capitalist economy which has one purpose, to make profits for a small minority to the detriment of the vast majority, that investors are ever required.

Thanks. My thoughts exactly.

Still I don’t think that anyone will ever be able to convince the Socialists that they need the rich.

I give you the Fox News Business Editor ,Neil Cavuto:

Whose taxes would you hike if your government program is failing?
Whose benefits would you cut?
Whose program would you means test?
Who would you be mean to?
Who would you disparage?
Who would you dump on?
Whose largesse would you vilify?
Whose success would you rip?
Whose ingenuity would you blast?
Whose private sector smarts would you replace?
If you didn't have the rich to pay for your boondoggles, how would you continue to boondoggle?
How would you survive?
Without the rich, there'd be no one about whom you could bitch.
Which makes me suspect, you don't want the rich to go anywhere.
Not because you love the rich, but because you love their wallets more.

You have to understand that under a socialist society the economy would be organised in a totally different way and the vast amounts of money created by the economy, which at the moment is concentrated in the hands of a few and which the goverment only gets a small proportion back in tax, would continue to exist but would automatically be evenly distributed to all members of society and would be used for the common good of all through public services and social welfare.

A flat 100% tax.

I totally agree. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

A flat 100% tax.
That is vastly more stupid than the "no taxes whatsoever!" platform. Why would anyone in an economy work if all of their money was being taxed away?

You have to understand that under a socialist society the economy would be organised in a totally different way and the vast amounts of money created by the economy, which at the moment is concentrated in the hands of a few and which the goverment only gets a small proportion back in tax, would continue to exist but would automatically be evenly distributed to all members of society and would be used for the common good of all through public services and social welfare.

So, socialism can only work in an unfeasible, unrealistic, untested and nonexistent society that defies human nature (which is greed)? Huh. You still haven’t managed to explain why somebody would go to all the trouble of managing a business if they thought they were only going to make as much as the guy who sweeps the floors.

That is vastly more stupid than the "no taxes whatsoever!" platform. Why would anyone in an economy work if all of their money was being taxed away?

They wouldn’t work. This has been the problem with every communist society ever wrought on this earth. Well, besides the fact that they were all run by dictators.

It's a public secret that the ruling class - the really rich or powerful, mostly inherited - don't pay any tax. While, those who have worked hard for their money have to pay progressive taxes. Progressive taxes are a method of preventing ordinary people to get wealthy, because it would threaten the position of the statist/leftist ruling class. "You shall not believe you are anything."

YOU, SHUT UP.

I want job security damnit. JOB SECURITY. Add more pages.

Or at least thats what everyone who works for the IRS, tax agencies, many tax accountants, and most accountants (like my father and myself) will be screaming considering that there is an entire industry built up around those pages.
Buggywhip makerss. Carters, Slave-Chasers... :D

Some industries just don't survive advances in technology, or changes to the social structure. There's a whole section of the economy dependent on the "War on Drugs" as well. Not to mention the Poverty pimps who rely on a social-welfare system that is inherently broken for employment.

Accountancy would still be useful in a Flat-Tax environment, however. it would simply lose some of its more lucrative facets. Considering that the Accountants generally don't care when Miners, Machinists, Farmers, etc. are either driven out of business, or laid off...

I fail to see the down side of eliminating a parasitic drain on the economy.

Aside from arguments about the feasibility of socialism, it is clear from at least the last century of development that a progressive system (welfare state, if you like), with a socialist mentality and skewed taxes, has been enormously positive for everybody concerned. You cannot deny that the U.S. is a fairly socialist country insofar as its institutions are concerned, so how do you explain the explosive growth in America over, say, the last 70 years since the New Deal?

The philosophy back then was that richer individuals were equal members of society, and as such, they had an equal interest in ensuring that nobody was left too far behind. So, they were expected to pay more (which they can, by definition, more easily afford), not in order to equalize incomes but to provide greater resources for the community at large.

Consider health care spending. It is NOT in the interests of the rich to have the workers suffering from illnesses and disabilities, which lower their productivity, because the national economy is heavily reliant on the number of hours an individual can contribute. Therefore, the extra taxes that richer people pay are not only good from a humanitarian perspective, but they help keep the economy vibrant, and that in turn makes rich people richer--even the ones who make only unearned income.

Taxation, if spent appropriately (namely on programs that have universal benefit), raises the standard of living for all, which at least somewhat offsets the extra "burden" of rich people insofar as taxation is concerned. It might not necessarily be true that 70% tax rates generate an equivalent, indirect economic return for the rich individual, but as long as society on the whole benefits, the principle of progressive taxation is faulty neither from an economic or a humanitarian standpoint.

I also ask this question: Since it is usually the Republicans who complain about taxes (which I find ironic since there are roughly the same number of poorer Republicans as there are poorer Democrats), but they are also the ones who tend to support extraordinarily expensive wars, business support mechanisms (are subsidies not examples of socialism?), and faith-based welfare--all of which arguably have less direct societal benefits than, say health care--do they not ever find themselves in the awkward position of feeling like hypocrites? How DO they advocate flat taxes and increased spending when fewer people would benefit from those expenditures but more people would experience an increase in their overall tax burden?

I realize the subject of this thread are forms of taxation, but having worked for government in a manner of speaking, I for one find it difficult to disconnect taxation and spending; the philosophy of the spending naturally influences the philosophy of the taxation system. Interesting discussion topic nonetheless.

>income tax :sniper: <me

Aside from arguments about the feasibility of socialism, it is clear from at least the last century of development that a progressive system (welfare state, if you like), with a socialist mentality and skewed taxes, has been enormously positive for everybody concerned. You cannot deny that the U.S. is a fairly socialist country insofar as its institutions are concerned, so how do you explain the explosive growth in America over, say, the last 70 years since the New Deal?

It has thrived despite the New Deal, not because of it. The reason for the economic growth is that we were the only large developed capitalist country left that wasn’t burned half-way to hell. We also thrived because we avoided the Socialistic ideas adopted by Europe. Look at their economies, look at the US’s and you will see that the US is doing quite a bit better in terms of growth and unemployment.

Consider health care spending. It is NOT in the interests of the rich to have the workers suffering from illnesses and disabilities, which lower their productivity, because the national economy is heavily reliant on the number of hours an individual can contribute. Therefore, the extra taxes that richer people pay are not only good from a humanitarian perspective, but they help keep the economy vibrant, and that in turn makes rich people richer--even the ones who make only unearned income.

That is why companies offer health care benefits. People shouldn’t have to pay the medical bills of people they don’t even know. If some guy smokes his whole life and gets lung cancer, why should I have to pay for his medical bills, if I have no connection to him what so ever? As to your last statement, if you earned an income legally, you earned it, end of story.

It might not necessarily be true that 70% tax rates generate an equivalent, indirect economic return for the rich individual, but as long as society on the whole benefits, the principle of progressive taxation is faulty neither from an economic or a humanitarian standpoint.

With these high taxes, you erase the incentive to work hard and move ahead, thus hurting the economy and ultimately the social welfare. The main problem with socialism is that it denies the fact that basic human nature revolves around greed. To deny this is foolish.

Since it is usually the Republicans who complain about taxes (which I find ironic since there are roughly the same number of poorer Republicans as there are poorer Democrats), but they are also the ones who tend to support extraordinarily expensive wars, business support mechanisms (are subsidies not examples of socialism?), and faith-based welfare--all of which arguably have less direct societal benefits than, say health care--do they not ever find themselves in the awkward position of feeling like hypocrites? How DO they advocate flat taxes and increased spending when fewer people would benefit from those expenditures but more people would experience an increase in their overall tax burden?

Republicans that authorize high social welfare or subsidies are worse than hypocrites. They are dangerous and push the country into an ever increasing deficit.

realize the subject of this thread are forms of taxation, but having worked for government in a manner of speaking

Plenty of people that have worked in government have been incompetent imbeciles.

I for one find it difficult to disconnect taxation and spending; the philosophy of the spending naturally influences the philosophy of the taxation system.

All the federal government should spend money on is the military, inter-state affairs and basic infrastructure. The States should focus primarily on preserving civil order and leaving most edicts to individual communities. The government should stay out of people’s private lives unless they are causing harm to others.

Undelia said: "Plenty of people that have worked in government have been incompetent imbeciles."

I have worked for government--and for good, efficient government at that--but I have not worked in it so to speak. That aside, your (Undelia’s) statement is true, but I hope you do not extend your criticism to all government employees. It is very easy to be pessimistic about government, but one should never lose sight of the fact that we are all better off because of government, even with all its faults.

It is clear that you are a libertarian, and I certainly don't condemn you for it. In fact, I would welcome a greater libertarian political presence in government, especially in the realm of social affairs. However, I will say that your economic views are highly biased and not particularly open to alternatives.

For example, you say that companies provide health care benefits, and people should not have to pay for other people (you use smokers as an example). Okay, by virtue of your libertarianism and your final statement that government should be strictly limited in its scope, do you also believe that 1) smokers should be left to suffer and die, or less personally, smokers should be allowed to become less productive citizens to the detriment of society; 2) the government should not regulate the insurance industry to prevent abuse of policy holders; and 3) the government should not provide assistance to those who cannot reasonably afford insurance and/or health care? If you answer yes to these questions, as I expect you would (I apologize if I am incorrect), you implicitly deny the interconnection between all citizens. However, any capitalist libertarian subscribes to some form of macroeconomic theory, which explicitly states that we are all interconnected at some level. Therefore, your reasoning, while in principle genuinely heartfelt, I'm sure, has an inherent contradiction of virtually universally accepted economic theory.

I should also point out that economic statistics clearly suggest that Europe has recovered quite nicely since World War II. I will not deny the enormous contribution of the United States to the reconstruction process, but let's keep in mind that Marshall Plan aid did not extend for fifty years. That means that a lot of the European growth in recent years has been entirely their own doing, even with very high tax rates. Let's not also forget that tax rates were much higher in the United States, too, but we managed considerable growth, anyway. Japan has high taxes as well, as do many other countries that nevertheless experience high rates of growth. Historically, then, high taxation--and certainly not the progressive system--alone has not been an impediment to growth. I will concede that in combination with other factors, high taxes may not help, but those other factors (like corruption, waste, inefficient and excessive regulations, etc.) should be the first target.

In brief continuation, the human work ethic has not seemed particularly hindered by high taxes in all the countries with significant socialistic programs. Sure, there are plenty of deadbeats who require a vigilant eye, but most people are hard-working and honest. Greed does not help, and I do not deny its ubiquitous presence in our lives, but it is not the end-all of human integrity. Additionally, in an efficient system, the return on taxes in the form of government spending and programs would make taxation seem more like an investment (health care included--an investment in oneself), which is why I would not be opposed to paying higher taxes, regardless of whether I were rich; it would all depend on how the money were being spent (which is why I say there is a link between spending and taxation philosophy).

I thank you for your time.

Flat rate but everybody get's their first $10k tax free.

It's not hard on the poor, it's fair, and it's not an idiotic progresive rate.

I have worked for government--and for good, efficient government at that--but I have not worked in it so to speak. That aside, your (Undelia’s) statement is true, but I hope you do not extend your criticism to all government employees. It is very easy to be pessimistic about government, but one should never lose sight of the fact that we are all better off because of government, even with all its faults.

Blanket statements rarely apply to anything. However, most government is corrupt and filled with power hungry politicians.

Okay, by virtue of your libertarianism and your final statement that government should be strictly limited in its scope, do you also believe that 1) smokers should be left to suffer and die, or less personally, smokers should be allowed to become less productive citizens to the detriment of society; 2) the government should not regulate the insurance industry to prevent abuse of policy holders; and 3) the government should not provide assistance to those who cannot reasonably afford insurance and/or health care?

1.) When a person gets lung cancer they don’t exactly continue working, thus they become a drain on society whether you give them free medical attention or not.

2.) The states should regulate any in-state business that a representative legislature feels is appropriate. If the business is in more than one state, let Congress decide.

3.) Once, again, why should I be forced to pay someone else’s medical bills and why should anybody else have to pay mine? There is always charity for that sort of thing.

I should also point out that economic statistics clearly suggest that Europe has recovered quite nicely since World War II. I will not deny the enormous contribution of the United States to the reconstruction process, but let's keep in mind that Marshall Plan aid did not extend for fifty years. That means that a lot of the European growth in recent years has been entirely their own doing, even with very high tax rates. Let's not also forget that tax rates were much higher in the United States, too, but we managed considerable growth, anyway. Japan has high taxes as well, as do many other countries that nevertheless experience high rates of growth.

The unemployment rate is much higher in Europe and their growth has been stagnant in recent years. Also, Japan is on the verge of a major labor crises.

In brief continuation, the human work ethic has not seemed particularly hindered by high taxes in all the countries with significant socialistic programs. Sure, there are plenty of deadbeats who require a vigilant eye, but most people are hard-working and honest.

The average work week is significantly lower in Europe than in the US. The fact is that Americans are the hardest working people in the developed world. They are also the least socialistic. I wonder if there is a connection?

Additionally, in an efficient system, the return on taxes in the form of government spending and programs would make taxation seem more like an investment (health care included--an investment in oneself), which is why I would not be opposed to paying higher taxes, regardless of whether I were rich; it would all depend on how the money were being spent (which is why I say there is a link between spending and taxation philosophy).

Yeah sure an investment. An investment we are forced to make! I will simply never feel good about paying income taxes. Maybe in a perfect world where there was no corruption in government and I could feel confident that my money was going to be used for something productive. Unfortunately, I get no such guarantee in the real world.

Flat rate but everybody get's their first $10k tax free.

If we are going to pay income tax inevitably, this is the best system I have seen yet. Let’s see the bleading hearts argue with this one.

If we are going to pay income tax inevitably, this is the best system I have seen yet. Let’s see the bleading hearts argue with this one.

Preston Manning wrote a newspaper article in which he advocated this stance. He was the leader of the late Reform party in Canada. It makes good sense it has the benefits of both progressive and flat rates without most of the drawbacks.

I don't much care for income tax, but a small income tax is necessary to have funds to run a government and government programs.

The majority of money used to keep companies going comes from their profits but it is only because of our capitalist economy which has one purpose, to make profits for a small minority to the detriment of the vast majority, that investors are ever required.

Which is exactly why Google did an IPO to create a nice inflow of cash to expand their business beyound what their profits would supply.

Which is exactly why US Steel needed to borrow money from thousands of people, and multiple brokerage firms, to get set up and running. And even with that massive inflow of cash to form US Steel is wasn’t able to continue turning profits for years (though when it did, those investors you held to it were richly rewarded).

If you want to open your mouth about financial matters. Learn about it first. Until then you do nothing but make yourself look like an idiot.

You have to understand that under a socialist society the economy would be organised in a totally different way and the vast amounts of money created by the economy, which at the moment is concentrated in the hands of a few and which the goverment only gets a small proportion back in tax, would continue to exist but would automatically be evenly distributed to all members of society and would be used for the common good of all through public services and social welfare.

In a socialist system 90% of the wealth goes to the government (and as a consequence to government employees and politicians), and the rest of society gets by waiting in lines to receive moldy bread.