Progressive Taxation

[glockmail]

Will some Liberal please tell me what is fair about progressive taxation? Why should the rich pay a higher percentage than others? Why should the poor pay none?

[DannyR]

Progressive taxation is supported by the marginal utility of money. The first dollar someone earns has a higher intrinsic value than the last. This isn't exactly a new idea. Its even biblical:
Luke 21: 1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.[a] 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

As you spend more money, you don't necessarily a linear value in utility: A car bought for $10,000 pretty much works the same as a car bought for $100,000. The more expensive car has some perks the cheap one does not, but at its basics it is still a car that gets you from point a to b within the speed limits.

A house bought for $100K provides the same shelter as a home build for a million. One might have a swimming pool and be a gated community, but at their basics both keep the rain and weather out.

A person earning $20K spends all their money on basic necessities. The loss of 10-20% drastically impacts their quality of life, causing major sacrifices. For someone below the poverty line, every penny is precious and could mean a meal. A millionaire however isn't going to go hungry even though they pay $200K in taxes.

So while progressive tax isn't necessarily "fair" in that everyone pays the same rate, it is fair in a sense because it doesn't handicap everyone with a higher tax than they can pay to support services. The rich basically absorb the burden from those who are poorer because they can pay the higher rate without sacrificing their quality of life. Its a continuation of feudal theory where the lord of the manor provided the most.

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, the leftists are carefully leaving out the principal reason they favor so-called "progressive" taxation. It's the same reason given by a famouns bank robber when someone asked him why he kept robbing banks. His answer: "Because that's where the money is!"

Leftists prefer "progressive" taxation because they can get more money from other people that way. It's the same reason the bank robber had... and the same morality.

The rest is window dressing.

[April15]

Danny R is correct in his explainetion.

[DannyR]

"Because that's where the money is!"Of course that's where the money is. I know I don't have money to pay more taxes in order to give some Beverly Hills Housewife a tax break. Using the Fairtax calculator, I know my taxes would go up significantly under that "fair" proposal.

Taxing the rich isn't necessarily a bad thing. The greater the distance between the rich and poor, the greater the chance of that nations collapse, sometimes violently. Its happened plenty of times throughout history.

[Little-Acorn]

It's quite remarkable what weird excuses the left will come up with, to justify forcibly taking more from some people than they will give back. Inevitably those people are the more wealthy among us, for the reasons given above. Their only mistake is finding themselves in a society where some people try to justify such theft.

It's actually a good measure of a government's excessive size, when it reaches the point that it must take more from some of its subjects than it gives back to them, merely to pay its bills. When a govenment does that, it is "too big".

[DannyR]

It's quite remarkable what weird excuses the left will come up with, to justify forcibly taking more from some people than they will give back.Totally different topic. Even under an absolutely equal taxation method government can take more than it delivers in services.


It's actually a good measure of a government's excessive size, when it reaches the point that it must take more from some of its subjects than it gives back to them, merely to pay its bills. When a govenment does that, it is "too big".We're stuck with this situation for quite sometime, thanks to the 400 billion plus per year interest payment on the debt we have. Until the debt is paid back, government will by necessity have to tax more than they offer in services. Perhaps if the government would stop deficit spending we could get back down to a reasonable size government.

[Silver]

Progressive taxation is supported by the marginal utility of money. The first dollar someone earns has a higher intrinsic value than the last. This isn't exactly a new idea. Its even biblical:

As you spend more money, you don't necessarily a linear value in utility: A car bought for $10,000 pretty much works the same as a car bought for $100,000. The more expensive car has some perks the cheap one does not, but at its basics it is still a car that gets you from point a to b within the speed limits.

A house bought for $100K provides the same shelter as a home build for a million. One might have a swimming pool and be a gated community, but at their basics both keep the rain and weather out.

A person earning $20K spends all their money on basic necessities. The loss of 10-20% drastically impacts their quality of life, causing major sacrifices. For someone below the poverty line, every penny is precious and could mean a meal. A millionaire however isn't going to go hungry even though they pay $200K in taxes.

So while progressive tax isn't necessarily "fair" in that everyone pays the same rate, it is fair in a sense because it doesn't handicap everyone with a higher tax than they can pay to support services. The rich basically absorb the burden from those who are poorer because they can pay the higher rate without sacrificing their quality of life. Its a continuation of feudal theory where the lord of the manor provided the most.

Well heres Luke 21a.
Jesus did not condone taking money from the rich by force so the poor old women would not have to give out of what little money she had...

Your bullshit is fine as a religious teaching and for its moral lesson, but it has no place in the real world of laws and government power....

A 10% tax on a $20,000 income is $2000
and a 10% tax on $200,000 is $20,000

....that is plenty progressive to any society and shows a fairness under the law that is clear....

A person earns 10x more and that person pays 10x more in tax....thats called equal treatment under the law....
For that earner that earns 10x more to pay 30x more in tax is nothing short of theft by the governing body....

[DannyR]

A 10% tax on a $20,000 income is $2000
and a 10% tax on $200,000 is $20,000

First of all, 10% is an unrealistic tax. Would be in the 20-30% range if it were even for everyone.

Do you believe taking tax money away from someone who can't even afford food? If someone is making just enough money to pay for food and rent, do you believe you should tax them and force them to stop eating meals?

If you believe the poor should get any sort of tax break, then you already believe the rich should pay more than others... you just set the bar at one step (poverty level), and group everyone else the same.

Not much different than those of us who prefer a bit more levels of differentiation.

[actsnoblemartin]

how is it compassionate to tax small businesses out of business?


First of all, 10% is an unrealistic tax. Would be in the 20-30% range if it were even for everyone.

Do you believe taking tax money away from someone who can't even afford food? If someone is making just enough money to pay for food and rent, do you believe you should tax them and force them to stop eating meals?

If you believe the poor should get any sort of tax break, then you already believe the rich should pay more than others... you just set the bar at one step (poverty level), and group everyone else the same.

Not much different than those of us who prefer a bit more levels of differentiation.

[DannyR]

how is it compassionate to tax small businesses out of business?I believe we're talking about giving small fry a tax break versus bigger fish. Flat tax people would tax small business at a greater rate than the current progressive tax system.

[Joe Steel]

Will some Liberal please tell me what is fair about progressive taxation? Why should the rich pay a higher percentage than others? Why should the poor pay none?

"Fair" is a word without absolute meaning. It is subjective. Progressive taxation is fair because most Americans say it is. So quit whining and pay-up.

[Silver]

First of all, 10% is an unrealistic tax. Would be in the 20-30% range if it were even for everyone.
Not the point
Do you believe taking tax money away from someone who can't even afford food? If someone is making just enough money to pay for food and rent, do you believe you should tax them and force them to stop eating meals?
not the point
If you believe the poor should get any sort of tax break, then you already believe the rich should pay more than others... you just set the bar at one step (poverty level), and group everyone else the same.
not the point, but simple math means the tax paid is dependent of amt. earned...per my example
Not much different than those of us who prefer a bit more levels of differentiation.

But I'll play your game...Yes, I believe EVERY WORKING PERSON in the country should pay a tax....a percentage of their income...whatever that % is determined to be..the same % for all..
At the same time, the working poor as they are called, that is, anyone at or below a certian level, receive whatever allowances needed for their health and well being.....food stamps, rent subsidies, etc....

If you think tax should begin at a certain level, ok with me....its the rate of tax paid I find objectionable....

[DannyR]

At the same time, the working poor as they are called, that is, anyone at or below a certian level, receive whatever allowances needed for their health and well being.....food stamps, rent subsidies, etcAll of which are a form of lowering the effective tax they pay.


If you think tax should begin at a certain level, ok with me....its the rate of tax paid I find objectionable....Again, if you believe in one step on the tax ladder, whats the big deal about multiple steps? If the poor deserve a break, then why don't the middle class deserve a lesser one?

[moderate democrat]

Again, if you believe in one step on the tax ladder, whats the big deal about multiple steps? If the poor deserve a break, then why don't the middle class deserve a lesser one?
brilliant reply.:clap:

[Silver]

All of which are a form of lowering the effective tax they pay.

That would effectively be the result but at the same time I think that by paying taxes first they would have a more realistic view of the responsibilities, duties, and rights of citizenship

Again, if you believe in one step on the tax ladder, whats the big deal about multiple steps? If the poor deserve a break, then why don't the middle class deserve a lesser one?
Is this like saying "if I believe in one level of health care that we should have more levels to accommodate "certain" people...??
I think not...that would obviously be unjust just as taxing one citizen at 15% and another at 45%....

[Silver]

"Fair" is a word without absolute meaning. It is subjective. Progressive taxation is fair because most Americans say it is. So quit whining and pay-up.

I do pay up Skippy....I'm a Republican :salute:

[April15]

Is this like saying "if I believe in one level of health care that we should have more levels to accommodate "certain" people...??
I think not...that would obviously be unjust just as taxing one citizen at 15% and another at 45%....But we do have a multi tiered health care system!

[DannyR]

Is this like saying "if I believe in one level of health care that we should have more levels to accommodate "certain" people...??No, there is a clear difference between one level and multiple levels.

One level means you tax everybody equally, no exceptions. If the poor can't pay, well tough.

Thats why I asked you if you thought the poor should get a break.

If you believe that they should, then you believe that someone should pay more than someone else. Thats a progressive tax. Then its only a matter of debating the number and level of such breaks. An entirely different question and you lose your moral ground when you say that its unfair to tax the rich more than others, because you still support a system that does just that when it gives the poor a break. Again, if the poor deserve a break, then why don't the middle class?

[Silver]

No, there is a clear difference between one level and multiple levels.

One level means you tax everybody equally, no exceptions. If the poor can't pay, well tough.

Thats why I asked you if you thought the poor should get a break.

If you believe that they should, then you believe that someone should pay more than someone else. Thats a progressive tax. Then its only a matter of debating the number and level of such breaks. An entirely different question and you lose your moral ground when you say that its unfair to tax the rich more than others, because you still support a system that does just that when it gives the poor a break.

Lets be clear....

People that have nothing, pay nothing....

Working people have something, and should pay something, as they do now with payroll taxes even income taxes

If you tax one guy at 20%, then tax every one at 20%

People that require help with the daily necessities of life obviously will receive that help...as they do right now....but NOT in the form of not paying taxes along with the rest.

and as aside...only the Koolade guzzlers believe we give less care to a gunshot illegal Mexican than we do to a gunshot millionaire, for example

[Mr. P]

Since an individual making $200,000 receives no more benefit from tax payer provided public services as an individual making $50,000 there is no logical justification to tax the higher earner more.

The FAIR tax would resolve this whole tax issue...you buy you pay regardless of income. Buy a lot pay a lot.

[Silver]

Do taxpayers really need to pay this bill ???

http://www.wdef.com/news/tennessee_offers_limited_free_cell_phone_service_t o_low_income_families/08/2008

[moderate democrat]

Do taxpayers really need to pay this bill ???

http://www.wdef.com/news/tennessee_offers_limited_free_cell_phone_service_t o_low_income_families/08/2008

do you live in Tennessee?

[DannyR]

People that require help with the daily necessities of life obviously will receive that help...as they do right now....but NOT in the form of not paying taxes along with the rest.Fair enough. Thats all I was asking you earlier.


only the Koolade guzzlers believe we give less care to a gunshot illegal Mexican than we do to a gunshot millionaire, for exampleHave to disagree there. While the level of immediate trauma care is the same, the millionaire (Dick Cheney's friend?) is going to be able to afford a much better plastic surgeon than the illegal mexican to get his face reconstructed, and in that field money does buy quality.

[Little-Acorn]

Totally different topic.
Same topic, in fact. The OP asked what was fair about a so-called "progressive" tax. I pointed out that it wasn't the least bit fair, but was simply a case of robbers going where the money was.


Even under an absolutely equal taxation method government can take more than it delivers in services.
Being government, and therefore inherently corrupt and inefficient, it will do that. But the question was, what is fair about a so-called "progressive" tax.

The only "fair" tax, is one where the government gives back the same amount in services, to each person it takes tax dollars from. Since (as you pointed out) that is impossible, the next best thing is for government to spread the inefficiency as equally as it can, and give back 70% of what each person paid, to that person in services (or 60% or whatever the number is).

That number, BTW, will provide an effective meter of HOW inefficient/corrupt/etc. the government is, and would be a very good thing to publish every April 14 or so. And again on the Monday before the first Tuesday in November, etc.

But government will never adopt that plan, for the reason I gave earlier: It prevents them from going where the money is and taking as much as they possibly can.

As long as you have a tax system that takes more from some individuals than it renders in services, you will NEVER arrive at a tax you can call "fair". And even if you have the second-best thing - a govt that spreads the screwing around equally - well, go ahead and try to call that "fair". I wish you luck.

Given how far the U.S. is today (miles!) from either of those two systems, there isn't even any point to discussing whether our present tax system is "fair". It's like a discussion of color between a group of men who have been blind from birth. You can't even begin to approach reality.

[emmett]

One question!

What exact amount of income should the "no tax" line be drawn at?

Just give me one number. Then add one dollar to it and rectify why that person making a dollar more should pay tax while the person making a dollar less does not.

This in itself makes the whole theory of progressive taxation ridiculous! All earners should pay something even if it is a much smaller percentage.

[Silver]

do you live in Tennessee?

Whats your point...???

If I didn't live in Germany in 1939 I shouldn't be concerned about Jewish concentration camps...???

Maybe thats you, but it ain't me......

[Little-Acorn]

Since an individual making $200,000 receives no more benefit from tax payer provided public services as an individual making $50,000 there is no logical justification to tax the higher earner more.

The FAIR tax would resolve this whole tax issue...you buy you pay regardless of income. Buy a lot pay a lot.

Sorry, but that would only shift the tax burden to a different distribution, no more fair than what we have today.

If I buy three times as much as you, am I using government services three times as much as you? If I had bought, say, a big diamond for my wife while you bought a smaller one?

Obviously not. The difference in govt services I used, versus what you used, is very small, perhaps nil. I certainly didn't use three times as much as you did. So the govt taxing me three times as much as you for this example, is obviously unfair, is it not?

The closest this country ever came to a "fair" personal-tax scheme, was in the country's infancy. Yes, the Framers did definitely try to come up with a truly "fair" scheme, and they didn't do badly. It was in the Constitution then, though it's not now. Anybody know what it was? And, for a bonus question: What made it "fair"? (I've already hinted at part of the answer to this last quesion, elsewhere in this thread).

[Yurt]

this fair taxation stuff is funny....i mean little acorn probably argues that with some fair tax all would be equal. so i guess little acorn suggest that equal tax would bring equal representation. is that right little acorn...

is this really about no taxation without representation? if it is not, then what is taxation about little acorn? is taxation to be fair across the board? if so, is the representation fair/equal across the board?

[Little-Acorn]

this fair taxation stuff is funny....

(vague, ill-defined "guesses" deleted)


It's hilarious.

As I said, we are so far from "fair" now, that other, nearly-as-unfair schemes (such as the misnamed "Fair Tax") actually look good by comparison. Sorta like saying leprosy is "better" than bubonic plague.

Anybody want to take a shot at what the closest thing to a fair tax the country has ever had, was? And why?

[Yurt]

It's hilarious.

?

deleted, boring, non responsive...blah, blah

dude, either answer or don't. your cute little responses do nothing to further the conversation or debate, which you so often bitch about getting derailed.

either respond to the post or don't. you whine constantly about people not responding, e.g., derailing threads.....

[sgtdmski]

One of the reasons that liberals love the progressive tax system is that it allows them to play the class warfare game. It is easy to tell the poor that their plight is due to the greedy rich. Since they have so much money and you have so little, it is only fair that we tax them more than we tax you.

And then they use the same reasoning in reverse. Whenever tax cuts are announced they are always tax cuts for the rich, while the poor do not get any. But the only problem is that the poor do not pay taxes as it is so how do you cut any additional percentage by zero. Zero times any number is and always will be zero.

When Bush passed his tax cuts upon being elected once again we heard the cry that they were tax cuts for the rich, well, unfortunately it is the rich that pay the taxes in this country. No one seemed to notice that part of the Bush tax cuts were to raise the Earned Income Tax Credit from $500 per child to $1000 per child. Which in effect means that Bush actually provide twice as much money for the poor.

The lastest statistics show that the top 10% of wage earners pay 80% of the monies made by the income tax. The Bottom 50% of wage earners pay 0% of the monies made by the income tax. That means that those in the 51% to 79% of wage earners are paying 20% of the income taxes.


The current system is inherently unfair. I breeds class disputes between those who have and the so-called have nots. The more money you make, the more ways you find to protect that money in tax-deferred accounts, by giving to charity to reduce you tax burden, and a whole host of other deductions. Which ultimately means that with all the methods available to reduce you tax burden the government is in a sense losing money.

That is why many people that I know like and would be happy with a flat tax system. I have heard recent discussions with claims that a tax at the 18% level would do adequately. In this case, the first $30,000 a person makes, is not taxed, and only the monies after that amount are taxed. With this system there would be no deductions, not for interest on loans for homes or schooling, no Earned Income Tax Credits, no nothing.

Also the payroll tax would be gone from the paycheck. Every person who earns a living would be taxed equally, 18% over any money above $30K.

A system like this would help the poor, by giving them more money, thanks to the payroll taxes being eliminated, and would welcome everyone to feel as they are part of the solution. Everyone would pay a fair share, and equal share. Those who made more would always pay more, but they would not feel as if they were being attacked for they would be paying an equal percentage as someone who makes far less.

dmk

[moderate democrat]

Whats your point...???

If I didn't live in Germany in 1939 I shouldn't be concerned about Jewish concentration camps...???

Maybe thats you, but it ain't me......

stupid analogy. comparing low cost cell phones to concentration camps is idiotic.

My point was: if the PEOPLE of Tennessee voted for a legislature that thought that there was a reasonable cost-benefit ratio for such a program, who are YOU to bitch about it if YOU don't live there?

[PostmodernProphet]

I'll be honest, I really don't have a problem with progressive taxation...I do have a problem with refundable taxes (giving a person who has paid no taxes, revenue funds)......I also have a problem with non-progressive spending.....such as distributing SS and Medicare to people with incomes of $150k in retirement.....or providing health care coverage or child care coverage to people who have a higher income than I do when I have to or had to pay for my own......

[Mr. P]

Sorry, but that would only shift the tax burden to a different distribution, no more fair than what we have today.

If I buy three times as much as you, am I using government services three times as much as you? If I had bought, say, a big diamond for my wife while you bought a smaller one?

Obviously not. The difference in govt services I used, versus what you used, is very small, perhaps nil. I certainly didn't use three times as much as you did. So the govt taxing me three times as much as you for this example, is obviously unfair, is it not?

The closest this country ever came to a "fair" personal-tax scheme, was in the country's infancy. Yes, the Framers did definitely try to come up with a truly "fair" scheme, and they didn't do badly. It was in the Constitution then, though it's not now. Anybody know what it was? And, for a bonus question: What made it "fair"? (I've already hinted at part of the answer to this last quesion, elsewhere in this thread).

Actually it doesn't shift the burden it relieves the burden by collecting from everyone who spends. Revenue will rocket when the millions that now operate on cash only and those who pay nothing begin paying.

And it's your choice to spend or not spend so what you pay in tax is totally in your control. That's Fair.

[glockmail]

"Fair" is a word without absolute meaning. It is subjective. Progressive taxation is fair because most Americans say it is. So quit whining and pay-up.No words have absolute meaning for you liberals. You just make the "new" definitions fit your ideology.

[glockmail]

...

If I buy three times as much as you, am I using government services three times as much as you? If I had bought, say, a big diamond for my wife while you bought a smaller one?... Actually, yes. Three times more widgets means three times more factories means three times more water, sewer, road, police, fire protection and road use. But right now the 3X guy pays 300X, and that ain't fair.

[Little-Acorn]

Actually it doesn't shift the burden
Huh?

Oh, so this "Fair tax" will collect the same amounts from the same people our present system does? That's certainly news to me.


it relieves the burden by collecting from everyone who spends. Revenue will rocket when the millions that now operate on cash only and those who pay nothing begin paying.
That's what I thought. So it DOES shift the burden after all. And in a way not much fairer than the present system does.


And it's your choice to spend or not spend so what you pay in tax is totally in your control. That's Fair.

I see. So instead of taxation being a disincentive to working and earning money, this new system creates a disincentive to spending that money.

BTW, what's the single biggest economic problem we have today? It's that people don't want to spend money... which has resulted in a significant crash.

GREAT plan.

As I said earlier, the system we presently have, is so burdensome and unfair, that even an almost-as-unfair system looks good in comparison. This so-called "Fair Tax" is one such.

Anyone want to take a shot at naming the system that was the closest thing this country has ever had to a "fair" tax system? And speculate why is was fair?

[Mr. P]

Huh?

Oh, so this "Fair tax" will collect the same amounts from the same people our present system does? That's certainly news to me.


That's what I thought. So it DOES shift the burden after all. And in a way not much fairer than the present system does.



I see. So instead of taxation being a disincentive to working and earning money, this new system creates a disincentive to spending that money.

BTW, what's the single biggest economic problem we have today? It's that people don't want to spend money... which has resulted in a significant crash.

GREAT plan.

As I said earlier, the system we presently have, is so burdensome and unfair, that even an almost-as-unfair system looks good in comparison. This so-called "Fair Tax" is one such.

Anyone want to take a shot at naming the system that was the closest thing this country has ever had to a "fair" tax system? And speculate why is was fair?

Thinking you don't know anything about the "Fair" tax solution.

It is a GREAT plan. Not only will it unchain us from being slaves to the politicians it gives us control of how much tax we pay and choice to do so.
It will also increase tax revenue beyond belief.

[glockmail]

Thinking you don't know anything about the "Fair" tax solution.

It is a GREAT plan. Not only will it unchain us from being slaves to the politicians it gives us control of how much tax we pay and choice to do so.
It will also increase tax revenue beyond belief.

I hope that it doesn't increase revenue, but what I like is the even playing field it gives American corporations overseas.

[Joe Steel]

I do pay up Skippy....I'm a Republican :salute:

You're only half way there, Punky. You have to quit whining, too.

[DannyR]

I also have a problem with non-progressive spending.....such as distributing SS and Medicare to people with incomes of $150k in retirementThis is a hangover from when both programs were instituted as basically investments or insurance.

The idea was that you were paying premiums into a policy that would pay back out to you someday and as such it was always your money. Problem is the funds you paid weren't ever actually invested, and extra benefits have been added over the years.


It will also increase tax revenue beyond belief.Not so certain about that. Maximum revenue would be closely linked to the GDP. Using a 23% tax on current GDP still only provides in the neighborhood of what we are spending currently.

And I still think industries like new housing would be crushed by the FairTax. Only long term buyers are going to want to buy a new home when they immediately have a major portion of the value vanish right at the sale. And what mortgage lender is going to want to finance 23% tax on a home they can't get back if there is a foreclosure? Thats a far riskier proposition than most of the risky home loans the past 5 years.

[Missileman]

This is a hangover from when both programs were instituted as basically investments or insurance.

The idea was that you were paying premiums into a policy that would pay back out to you someday and as such it was always your money. Problem is the funds you paid weren't ever actually invested, and extra benefits have been added over the years.

Not so certain about that. Maximum revenue would be closely linked to the GDP. Using a 23% tax on current GDP still only provides in the neighborhood of what we are spending currently.

And I still think industries like new housing would be crushed by the FairTax. Only long term buyers are going to want to buy a new home when they immediately have a major portion of the value vanish right at the sale. And what mortgage lender is going to want to finance 23% tax on a home they can't get back if there is a foreclosure? Thats a far riskier proposition than most of the risky home loans the past 5 years.

1. There are millions of citizens and non-citizens who pay no tax at all atm because they aren't on anyone's payroll. Prostitutes, drug-dealers, illegals, even tourists would add to tax revenues every time they spent any money.

2. I imagine that a huge portion of a home's value would be tax exempt. They have a "homestead law" here in Louisiana that makes the first $75K tax exempt for example.

[DannyR]

1. There are millions of citizens and non-citizens who pay no tax at all atm because they aren't on anyone's payroll. Prostitutes, drug-dealers, illegals, even tourists would add to tax revenues every time they spent any money. Note that I stated that the maximum income from the FairTax should be linked to the GDP, because by definition the GDP is calculated on the total value of goods and services produced by a nation. In other words, exactly what the Fairtax taxes. Ergo it should already include these people if they are buying things, even if they don't already pay income tax. I'm well aware that the pool of buyers is larger than the pool of those who pay income tax.

And somehow I don't see prostitutes and drug dealers asking their customers for a 23% sales tax that they intend to report to the government, so their "services" still won't be included.


2. I imagine that a huge portion of a home's value would be tax exempt. They have a "homestead law" here in Louisiana that makes the first $75K tax exempt for example.You start putting in exceptions, then how is the FairTax any different than the current system? Pretty soon you'll have so many exceptions it will be just as convoluted and easy to bypass as what we have now.

[Missileman]

And somehow I don't see prostitutes and drug dealers asking their customers for a 23% sales tax that they intend to report to the government, so their "services" still won't be included.

Take those blinders off...the money in their pockets will get taxed when they go to the store.


You start putting in exceptions, then how is the FairTax any different than the current system? Pretty soon you'll have so many exceptions it will be just as convoluted and easy to bypass as what we have now.

It would be different in that EVERYONE would contribute.

[DannyR]

Take those blinders off...the money in their pockets will get taxed when they go to the store.Blinders? You completely missed my point entirely. The GDP already includes this in its figures, because it measures what is produced, therefore what can be purchased. Its independent of income.

As such, we can already estimate the expected income a Fairtax would generate by multiplying the rate by the GDP.

[MtnBiker]

There are multitudes of taxes imposed on people, not just a progressive income tax.

Why not institute a progressive tax structure on other taxes as well? Such as gasoline tax, cigarette tax, cell phone tax, alcohol tax, a car purchase. If one agrees with a progressive income tax the same arguements can be applied to all of these taxes as well.

[Missileman]

Blinders? You completely missed my point entirely. The GDP already includes this in its figures, because it measures what is produced, therefore what can be purchased. Its independent of income.

As such, we can already estimate the expected income a Fairtax would generate by multiplying the rate by the GDP.

I was raising an argument of why a fair tax would be better than the current system.

If as you say 23% of the current GDP would cover current spending levels then get things started at 23% and reduce the rate over time as government spending is reduced to appropriate levels.

[actsnoblemartin]

danny youre a smart guy, and this is a reasonable debate to have.

what would your tax system look like exactly? or atlest an example if you would please


All of which are a form of lowering the effective tax they pay.

Again, if you believe in one step on the tax ladder, whats the big deal about multiple steps? If the poor deserve a break, then why don't the middle class deserve a lesser one?

[actsnoblemartin]

would someone please explain to my dumbass :poke: the difference between the current , flat , and fair tax plans?

[Little-Acorn]

I was raising an argument of why a fair tax would be better than the current system.


Lots of schemes can be better than the current system, and still be pretty bad.

A fair tax would be a great thing. If for no other reason than it would finally begin to show ALL voters just how burdensome our current rate of government spending actually is.

But the so-called "Fair Tax" (a very different thing) would improve things from "horrible" to merely "miserable".

[Mr. P]

Lots of schemes can be better than the current system, and still be pretty bad.

A fair tax would be a great thing. If for no other reason than it would finally begin to show ALL voters just how burdensome our current rate of government spending actually is.

But the so-called "Fair Tax" (a very different thing) would improve things from "horrible" to merely "miserable".

Miserable? How so?

[Little-Acorn]

See Post 38.

[DannyR]

the difference between the current , flat , and fair tax plans?
Current income tax is a graduated tax on income. As you earn more money, dollars earned over certain levels is taxed at higher rates. The current system also has thousands of various exceptions, deductions, and whatnot making it incredibly complex.

The "flat tax" is also a tax on income, but gets rid of the multiple tax rates and replaces it two. (a single rate for earners over a certain income, and none for those below a certain income). Some people prefer a flat tax without the low income exception.

The FairTax is a specific consumption tax proposal that replaces the tax on income with a sales tax on final goods and services.



what would your tax system look like exactly? or atlest an example if you would pleaseI prefer a graduated flat tax on income with no exceptions. Basically take the flat tax simplicity, but rather than 1 or 2 divisions, keep the current multi-level structure.

[Mr. P]

See Post 38.

Doesn't backup "miserable" can you be specific?

[moderate democrat]

I prefer a graduated flat tax on income with no exceptions. Basically take the flat tax simplicity, but rather than 1 or 2 divisions, keep the current multi-level structure.

I agree completely.

[Silver]

Current income tax is a graduated tax on income. As you earn more money, dollars earned over certain levels is taxed at higher rates. The current system also has thousands of various exceptions, deductions, and whatnot making it incredibly complex.

The "flat tax" is also a tax on income, but gets rid of the multiple tax rates and replaces it two. (a single rate for earners over a certain income, and none for those below a certain income). Some people prefer a flat tax without the low income exception.

The FairTax is a specific consumption tax proposal that replaces the tax on income with a sales tax on final goods and services.


I prefer a graduated flat tax on income with no exceptions. Basically take the flat tax simplicity, but rather than 1 or 2 divisions, keep the current multi-level structure.

Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

I am not a Marxist.
Karl Marx

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
Karl Marx

In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx
-----
Its so hard to pick only a few Marx quotes.. because so many fit the Democrat ideology :dev3:

[Mr. P]

Current income tax is a graduated tax on income. As you earn more money, dollars earned over certain levels is taxed at higher rates. The current system also has thousands of various exceptions, deductions, and whatnot making it incredibly complex.

The "flat tax" is also a tax on income, but gets rid of the multiple tax rates and replaces it two. (a single rate for earners over a certain income, and none for those below a certain income). Some people prefer a flat tax without the low income exception.

The FairTax is a specific consumption tax proposal that replaces the tax on income with a sales tax on final goods and services.


I prefer a graduated flat tax on income with no exceptions. Basically take the flat tax simplicity, but rather than 1 or 2 divisions, keep the current multi-level structure.

Negative incentive to earn more. Makes no sense.


The FairTax is a specific consumption tax proposal that replaces the tax on income with a sales tax on final goods and services.

Yep, on a new product, but the cost would be less than now do to the elimination of "embedded" taxes in a new product.

[moderate democrat]

Negative incentive to earn more. Makes no sense.


If a progressive income tax is really a negative incentive to earn more, why have SO many people kept doing it, even back when the top marginal rate was WAY higher than it is today?

[Kathianne]

If a progressive income tax is really a negative incentive to earn more, why have SO many people kept doing it, even back when the top marginal rate was WAY higher than it is today?

Seems the better question would be, how many more would or could have if not a punitive system?

[DannyR]

Negative incentive to earn more. Makes no sense.
See post #2. Money earned later doesn't buy as much as the first dollars one earns.

Its also easier to make money if you already have it.

And taxing the poor and middle class beyond their ability to pay makes no sense either. Every tax is a negative incentive. Those who know how to make money are self motivated enough to do so despite the tax. This is pretty well proven throughout history as the rich tend to get richer, despite high taxes.

[Silver]

If a progressive income tax is really a negative incentive to earn more, why have SO many people kept doing it, even back when the top marginal rate was WAY higher than it is today?

That question is much too stupid to deserve a response .....

Its like asking why those on SS and working don't work overtime even though they would lose their SS for earning too much...

Does that question really require an answer???

[emmett]

I repeat my question from #23

No one seems to be able to even attemot to answer it although I see all kinds of crap being offered up in supposed argument.


QUESTION: At what EXACT income level should no tax be set at?


Over Six Thousand Rep points to the person who answers (Well....Liberals only)

Just give me a number and then tell me why it isn't one dollar higher than that. The unanswerable question! Which I guess makes me the king of this debate.

EL DEBATOR STRIKES AGAIN WITH THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION!!!!!!!

[emmett]

Crickets chirping!!!!!!!

[Mr. P]

If a progressive income tax is really a negative incentive to earn more, why have SO many people kept doing it, even back when the top marginal rate was WAY higher than it is today?


Seems the better question would be, how many more would or could have if not a punitive system?

What she said.

And, we are now seeing flight from this tax system..off shore business, corps relocating, outsourcing and some folks working less to avoid more tax. Pretty cool incentive our tax system is, huh?..NOT.

[emmett]

Drops of water falling into pools on the Arctic north! Crickets still chirping!

[emmett]

Oh well......Good debate! Where's my trophy?


QUESTION: What EXACT dollar amount....Liberals...should the "no tax" bar be set?

[moderate democrat]

What she said.

And, we are now seeing flight from this tax system..off shore business, corps relocating, outsourcing and some folks working less to avoid more tax. Pretty cool incentive our tax system is, huh?..NOT.

why do you avoid answering my question by hiding behind someone who themselves avoided it by merely posing another questin instead?

[moderate democrat]

Oh well......Good debate! Where's my trophy?


QUESTION: What EXACT dollar amount....Liberals...should the "no tax" bar be set?


silly question.

that is a political decision much like what should the top marginal tax rate be set at.... there is no one answer... it depends on the political balance of power.

[DannyR]

QUESTION: At what EXACT income level should no tax be set at?

I'll give it a go.

I'd set the lowest tax bracket at the poverty level, which by definition I believe is the amount of money required to provide basic necessities of food and shelter for a family.

Once one's basic necessities are cared for, money earned (even that first dollar over that level) is spent on other items. At that point you start taxing to help pay for the government that provides the security that enables you to live your life without fear of foreign invasion, disease, or whatever other services the people feel are necessary.

Now of course the poverty level is just a national average, and might be too low or too high for any specific region. But in general its a good enough guide for me.

[emmett]

Still no exact numbers. Come on armchair legislators.....a number?


I guess I don't have to explain to such intelligent individuals as yourselves, which I do believe you to be, that I am looking for a number so as to ask:

Why shouldn't it be a dollar more? Ten Dollars more? A thousand? Ten Thousand?

Everyone who earns should pay something! Progressive percentages I can handle, but someone benefiting from the labor of another without having provided an input, but getting the same voting power I have when I pay more.....is unfair. How can we have an equal vote when we are not equal?

[Kathianne]

I'll give it a go.

I'd set the lowest tax bracket at the poverty level, which by definition I believe is the amount of money required to provide basic necessities of food and shelter for a family.

Once one's basic necessities are cared for, money earned (even that first dollar over that level) is spent on other items. At that point you start taxing to help pay for the government that provides the security that enables you to live your life without fear of foreign invasion, disease, or whatever other services the people feel are necessary.

Now of course the poverty level is just a national average, and might be too low or too high for any specific region. But in general its a good enough guide for me.
As Emmett posed, what if $1 dollar above? The difference?

[Kathianne]

why do you avoid answering my question by hiding behind someone who themselves avoided it by merely posing another questin instead?

Because the premise was a red herring?

[Mr. P]

why do you avoid answering my question by hiding behind someone who themselves avoided it by merely posing another questin instead?

Are you so dense you didn't get that was an answer to your question?

[Immanuel]

would someone please explain to my dumbass :poke: the difference between the current , flat , and fair tax plans?

Are you nuts!

You want someone to condense thousands upon thousands of pages of tax code into one post and then add the flat tax and the fair tax to boot? :poke:

Immie

[emmett]

Are you nuts!

You want someone to condense thousands upon thousands of pages of tax code into one post and then add the flat tax and the fair tax to boot? :poke:

Immie



:lol:

Choking on my chicken fried steak!

[actsnoblemartin]

whats wrong with a cliff notes version?

:coffee:


Are you nuts!

You want someone to condense thousands upon thousands of pages of tax code into one post and then add the flat tax and the fair tax to boot? :poke:

Immie

[DannyR]

Still no exact numbers. Come on armchair legislators.....a number?I mentioned the poverty line. Depending on the number of people in the family and location, that does correspond to specific amounts. (see chart on this page):

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml


As Emmett posed, what if $1 dollar above? The difference?The difference is that the poverty line is a number determined by actual formula using real life amounts - average costs of housing, food and clothing.

After you purchase those items, every dollar earned is for something beyond a basic necessity.

[Kathianne]

:lol:

Choking on my chicken fried steak!

and me on my tea!

[emmett]

Wait a minute Kathy.......will ya......... I got the plunger stuck in my throat!

[Kathianne]

I mentioned the poverty line. Depending on the number of people in the family and location, that does correspond to specific amounts. (see chart on this page):

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml

The difference is that the poverty line is a number determined by actual formula using real life amounts - average costs of housing, food and clothing.

After you purchase those items, every dollar earned is for something beyond a basic necessity.

So the guy with a dollar more, same circumstances? Sh*t out of luck? That's fair how?

[Mr. P]

I mentioned the poverty line. Depending on the number of people in the family and location, that does correspond to specific amounts. (see chart on this page):

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml

The difference is that the poverty line is a number determined by actual formula using real life amounts - average costs of housing, food and clothing.

After you purchase those items, every dollar earned is for something beyond a basic necessity.

Hey! That's just what the "Pre-bate" covers in the "Fair Tax". Cool Beans, huh?

[DannyR]

So the guy with a dollar more, same circumstances? Sh*t out of luck? That's fair how?He buys his necessities, has a dollar more, pays his dime or so tax, yes. He still has his 90 cents to buy something the other guy did not. Hows it not fair? Both are tax free on the things they MUST have to survive. Taxed only on things above and beyond that.

See below: Even the "Fair"tax thinks its a fair level.



Hey! That's just what the "Pre-bate" covers in the "Fair Tax". Cool Beans, huh?Yes, the Fairtax does supposedly refund taxes for necessities up to the povery level, just a shame they have to send out monthly checks to everyone to do so. Creates another system of potential abuse in my opinion and an feeling of entitlement.

[Kathianne]

He buys his necessities, has a dollar more, pays his dime or so tax, yes. He still has his 90 cents to buy something the other guy did not. Hows it not fair? Both are tax free on the things they MUST have to survive. Taxed only on things above and beyond that.

See below: Even the "Fair"tax thinks its a fair level.


Yes, the Fairtax does supposedly refund taxes for necessities up to the povery level, just a shame they have to send out monthly checks to everyone to do so. Creates another system of potential abuse in my opinion and an feeling of entitlement.

You really don't get it. The cut off is not at a dollar more. Whatever.

[DannyR]

You really don't get it. The cut off is not at a dollar more. Whatever.Apparently not. Explain what you are asking.

[emmett]

Here is Emmett's version of the needed Tax Code.

Ready?


Ready?


Set!


Go!


23% Flat! Across the board...........Period! Collected at the cash register. Tax all products, services and labor!

Poor people get vouchers usable for the exact things they need to equal poverty level. Food, fuel discount coupons and medical care discounts based on responsible behavior. If others are going to have to provide their care they have a right to have a say in their behavior. Interpreted: Get arrested....you are screwed!

Well....that;s it!

Come on Libbies and entitlement whores (general statement), tell me why someone who won't get a job should benefit from the labor of another. We can continue to coat it with something else. We can keep acting like Conservatives aren't compassionate but why don't we get real. No one wins when you reward someone who does not aspire! We ruin em.

Flat Tax is the only way to save our country!

[DannyR]

Kathianne: even Emmett chose the same level I did for the bottom tax level:

Poor people get vouchers usable for the exact things they need to equal poverty level.



tell me why someone who won't get a job should benefit from the labor of another

You're presuming that a system that taxes the wealthy at a higher amount than the poor must redistribute wealth? I would have to disagree. It doesn't HAVE to. Basic government services like military spending benefit the whole country equally. Advanced carriers and jets cost a lot of money. If a flat tax that the very poorest can afford doesn't provide enough funds, then even the rich suffer.

Of course in reality we don't spend that way. Just pointing out that a progressive tax doesn't have to redistribute wealth.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne: even Emmett chose the same level I did for the bottom tax level:

Different system he's suggesting. Well him and a bunch of others.

[PostmodernProphet]

whats wrong with a cliff notes version?

:coffee:

Cliff Notes version...

Fair Tax: you have money, you buy something, you pay tax
Flat Tax: you have money, you don't buy something, you pay tax
Progressive Tax: you have money, you pay tax, you pay tax, you pay tax.....

[Mr. P]

....

Yes, the Fairtax does supposedly refund taxes for necessities up to the povery level, just a shame they have to send out monthly checks to everyone to do so. Creates another system of potential abuse in my opinion and an feeling of entitlement.

Not "supposedly", it does. They could send the check annually I guess..ya know, like now? Or quarterly? Whatever.

What potential for abuse..example maybe?

[PostmodernProphet]

23% Flat! Across the board...........Period! Collected at the cash register. Tax all products, services and labor!


why?.....23% is too much....give the government considerably LESS than they take now and require them to get by on it.....

[DannyR]

Not "supposedly", it does. They could send the check annually I guess..ya know, like now? Or quarterly? Whatever.I don't get a check. I make certain not to lend the government money interest free.


What potential for abuse..example maybe?With the IRS gutted and no way to verify income anymore, I can see a number of cheats getting several "prebate" checks sent to them by creating fake tax id's or using numbers from dead or deceased individuals.

The very same way the EITC was abused would happen here too, with people filing as head of households and claiming deductions (and thus increased prebates) repeatedly.


Different system he's suggesting. Well him and a bunch of others.Yes, and under that system that first $1 the poor person earns is taxed at a massive 23% rate, compared to the 10% the current income tax has.

[Mr. P]

why?.....23% is too much....give the government considerably LESS than they take now and require them to get by on it.....

That is less than now..but more tax revenue because more will pay that aren't now.

As far as them getting by.. they'd have no choice. That's one of the great thing's about the "Fair" tax. WE have control NOT the politicians.

[Mr. P]

I don't get a check. I make certain not to lend the government money interest free.

With the IRS gutted and no way to verify income anymore, I can see a number of cheats getting several "prebate" checks sent to them by creating fake tax id's or using numbers from dead or deceased individuals.

The very same way the EITC was abused would happen here too, with people filing as head of households and claiming deductions (and thus increased prebates) repeatedly.

Yes, and under that system that first $1 the poor person earns is taxed at a massive 23% rate, compared to the 10% the current income tax has.

The IRS will be gutted but you can bet many will be employed to watch for just the abuse you suggest. Actually...I think there are measures to avoid such abuse in the plan..Another COOL BEANS thing, huh?

[emmett]

Kathianne: even Emmett chose the same level I did for the bottom tax level:





You're presuming that a system that taxes the wealthy at a higher amount than the poor must redistribute wealth? I would have to disagree. It doesn't HAVE to. Basic government services like military spending benefit the whole country equally. Advanced carriers and jets cost a lot of money. If a flat tax that the very poorest can afford doesn't provide enough funds, then even the rich suffer.

Of course in reality we don't spend that way. Just pointing out that a progressive tax doesn't have to redistribute wealth.

Danny, I respect your position. At least you seem to be in search of logical solutions.

I am a Libertarian! My beliefs are unwavering. The Republicans on here will attest to that. Especially around voting day.:laugh2:

My belief is you can't give someone something and inspire them to acheive for themselves. All you do is breed more entitlement. Let's face it. The biggest reason for high taxes on earners is welfare, medicare and the worthless ass Social Security system. I mean correst me if I am wrong but the SS system is a failure. Couldn't you take the money withheld from your check for SS and do more with it in a lifetime than the government. I'm sure we both agree that the answer is yes.

As for freebies. I know there are those who have a legitimate need. If my neighbor was in need, I'd help him and I think most everyone would. That is why I think the Federal government should stay out of the entitlement business. It's better dealt with by the local community, county and state. The federal government has never been successful in private enterprise. Certainly where we are going cannot benefit our society. Where will our incentive be to acheive in 50 years. How many people will resolve to invest everything they have to make an idea a business?

Look at Socialist countries and look at what they become. A land filled with clones who have no control over their lives. Only the inner privledged enjoy real life. Some don't even allow folks to become what they want. Their choices are restricted. Their pot at the end of the hard work rainbow is taken away. Why would you subscribe to philosophy that limits people who are successful. What do you think got us where we are? Imagine if every dollar that was ever taken from a taxpayer had been spent in creating more enterprise.

I know! How woulkd we build roads? Communities would hire their own laborers and it would be paid for by them. Collected in local tax or by flat taxing services etc,... Companies would provide road maintenance just like cable companies provide cable. Lightpoles by lightpole companies. If everything was privatised it would be better service because the companies providing the servicesw would be owners, not government beaurocrats who have their hand in every bid firm going. A company would have to perform or it would be replaced by another free market entrepreneur who would provide the service better or he would lose it. I can't for the life of me see how this does not resonate with every American in our country.

Power is the source of evil my friend. What made the early settlers of the American west get up in the morning? When they were cold what did they do? They cut wood. They didn't band together and take it from the woodpile of a family who had thought to cut theirs instead of hanging out at the Saloon or goofing off. When they needed a house built they slept in tents or lean-to's until they had cut down enough trees to build one. They started with one common room and went from there. If a neighbor needed help, they helped them knowing full well that the neighbor would return the deed when able. THAT is what built our country. It was only when our government began to make so many laws no one knew what was legal and what wasn't. It was only when a tax system was put ion place that it got worse and worse and worse. Where does it stop?

We all want to be compassionate! I believe there are those who mean very well in their belief to entitle the country's citizens to their basic needs regardless of their input, but I also know this is a practice that is self destructive. Like in nature, a wolf will fight to eat first if strongest but will stand guard while others eat when he is finished. As cruel as it sounds, humans aren't that much different.

Let me ask you this? If a man lived alone in the wilderness and had no job but lived off the land, paid no tax and needed nothing from the government, would he be entitled to food stamps and a welfare check?

A person must inspire to better than they are at the moment. Entitlements keep them from doing so, they actually hurt them. We aren't doing anyone any favors when we entitle them to their basic needs. Tis better to allow hunger pains to do that so as to know that they can prove to themselves they are capable.....like the young couple in the plains of kansas who have chosen to start a farm and must build their house or be cold. Say it's different but it isn't.

Entitlements hurt! They do not help!

Neighbors help each other. People who prosper will give. Frankly it is the job of the church to take care of the poor, not the government! Citizens groups, charities and donations.

Greed breeds greed! When government becomes so powerful as to control one aspect of life it seeks to control another. That is where we sacrifice our civil liberties one at a time. A health care system wouldn't take three years before it would letting people who smoke die because they have become a heavier burden than tnhey should be on the common good. What about people who do not eat healthy? Oh I get it, government will tell us what to eat! No choices necessary! Government will control it all. The common good! Right!

Liberals to me are well intended folks who just have it wrong!

Conservatives to me are those willing to compromise their souls to compete with them.

There is no middle! The middle has more elasticity than a pair of Hanes underwear.

[DannyR]

Danny, I respect your position. At least you seem to be in search of logical solutions.Thank you. I tend to agree with your opinions more often than not.


My belief is you can't give someone something and inspire them to acheive for themselves.I agree with that in part, but not completely. This was the topic in a different thread so I'll not rehash it all here, but I think a safety net isn't a bad thing to have. One can fail and recover and learn from the mistake. Sometimes without a net you fall so far recovery is impossible. Many times one already has learned from their mistake, but is in a death spiral that is impossible to break until their life is ruined. A safety net can stop the spiral and allow recovery to resume.


All you do is breed more entitlement.A risk for any treatment. I see many welfare programs much as I do pain killers. They are useful for treating a short term injury. Most people who need them use them only briefly. Occasionally a few folks get hooked. Quite a number of successful businessmen have needed help in the past. Even Rush Limbaugh once needed unemployment benefits. I don't think it held him back (at least when it comes to business... bad example when it comes to pain killers).


I mean correst me if I am wrong but the SS system is a failure. Couldn't you take the money withheld from your check for SS and do more with it in a lifetime than the government. I'm sure we both agree that the answer is yes.Possibly. Right now I know a lot of people who've had their life savings wiped out by current events. Private investment doesn't always work. Thus the purpose of a government safety net. But yes, I think we are spending more money than necessary to fund it than we should. SS has grown to be more than just a safety net to the primary vehicle for many people's retirement hopes, and that is not what was ever intended.


As for freebies. I know there are those who have a legitimate need. If my neighbor was in need, I'd help him and I think most everyone would. That is why I think the Federal government should stay out of the entitlement business. It's better dealt with by the local community, county and state. I might agree with you if I saw the system working well. I've worked with homeless shelters and the mentally ill, and the support thats available in Atlanta doesn't meet the need (or it didn't back in the early 1990's when I was involved) I don't see private enterprise or even state government, with their usual prohibitions against running a deficit, especially during a recession, matching the ability of the feds to offer aid.


Where will our incentive be to acheive in 50 years. How many people will resolve to invest everything they have to make an idea a business? I don't think I'm as old as you, but I see free enterprise as strong today as it was in the past. Places like Ebay have revolutionized the ability of a single person to conduct business on a world scale.


Why would you subscribe to philosophy that limits people who are successful. What do you think got us where we are? Tax rates in the past have been much higher, and yet historically those who make money have had little trouble increasing their wealth over the years, despite higher taxes. I think we can survive keeping our income tax.

A system of government that increases the gap between rich and poor however is dangerous, because if it grows too wide too quickly, governments collapse. While wealth isn't a zero sum game, resentment can still arise if the poor are heavily taxed beyond their ability to pay and see the rich tossing money around like it was nothing. Revolutions have been started because of this, and usually the government that results is far more socialist than a capitalist one that just has high taxes.


How woulkd we build roads? Communities would hire their own laborers and it would be paid for by them. Collected in local tax or by flat taxing services etcDo you realize this is how it used to be done (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/transport/how.html)? The result was that many roads were toll roads, as private communities and corporations sought to earn back the dollars necessary for building it. Toll roads however limit commerce, which slows the economy, thus the reason the government started building them instead.


It was only when our government began to make so many laws no one knew what was legal and what wasn't. It was only when a tax system was put ion place that it got worse and worse and worse. Where does it stop?I'm certainly not against simplifying the tax code or laws. I've often thought what it might be like to have a national clean slate day, where all laws on the books are wiped and Congress has to begin anew.


Let me ask you this? If a man lived alone in the wilderness and had no job but lived off the land, paid no tax and needed nothing from the government, would he be entitled to food stamps and a welfare check?If the man in question was injured and could no longer live off the land, he might just need that help. I believe welfare requires one to seek employment to qualify for service, so while the man would be eligible, if he is content living off the land and being his own boss, why would he want to lose that freedom?


A health care system wouldn't take three years before it would letting people who smoke die because they have become a heavier burden than tnhey should be on the common good. What about people who do not eat healthy? Oh I get it, government will tell us what to eat!I see private business making the same choices though. And without regulation, many insurance companies would do all they can to cheat their customers. I've experienced this directly in trying to get a valid claim paid.

Ah well, 3 in the morning. Don't have time for further comments. Look forward to your response.

[sgtdmski]

If a progressive income tax is really a negative incentive to earn more, why have SO many people kept doing it, even back when the top marginal rate was WAY higher than it is today?


Because of the deductions to a persons income. When the marginal rates were higher, there were also a lot more deductions that were available to be taken. Money could be given as a gift, and that money was then deductible, not too mention the cost of schooling, day care, home interest, and a whole other list of deductions.

When the marginal rates were lowered, as part of the lowering, some of the tax loopholes were eliminated, meaning that less deductions were available, but by having a lower rate to pay this more than made up for the loss of the deductions.

dmk

[sgtdmski]

I repeat my question from #23

No one seems to be able to even attemot to answer it although I see all kinds of crap being offered up in supposed argument.


QUESTION: At what EXACT income level should no tax be set at?


Over Six Thousand Rep points to the person who answers (Well....Liberals only)

Just give me a number and then tell me why it isn't one dollar higher than that. The unanswerable question! Which I guess makes me the king of this debate.

EL DEBATOR STRIKES AGAIN WITH THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION!!!!!!!


Okay you want a number, I will stand by my number from a previous post of $30,000.

Why $30K you ask? Well, according to the HHS the basic income needed for a family four to be above the poverty level is $21,200 a year. That means that if a person is earning this amount of money they will be just barely above the poverty line. The federal poverty line is based upon the idea that people and families spend 1/3 of their after tax salary on food. Therefore by multiplying that number by 3 you come up with the minimum for the person or family to be above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, the poverty line does not look at housing, medical care or other necessities. I have always been taught that when looking for my housing, my housing should cost around 30 - 35% of my salary.

So I took the poverty level for a family of four added 35%, and then added an additional 5% to assist in covering any other needs, including clothing, and as a little bit of a pad. That total came to $29,680 per year for a family of four. I simply rounded up to $30,000 for the ease of the math and declared that my untaxed limit.

The $30,000 is tax exempt for all people. You subtract the 30,000 from your salary and then you pay 18% tax on that number.

I don't know if that will sufficient for you as a valid explanation, but it is how I determined my number.

$21,200 for a family to be above the poverty line
35% factor in for housing
5% as a cushion

dmk

[moderate democrat]

Because the premise was a red herring?

Are you suggesting that there have NOT been oodles and oodles of people who have NOT seen progressive income tax as a "negative incentive to earn more" and who have, in fact, innovated and risked and worked hard and earned bunches and bunches of money in spite of the progressive income tax? Why is it a "negative incentive to earn more" for only SOME people and not others? Can you explain that? Really? Why do I NEVER hear about wealthy people saying, "Screw it...if the government is going to take 39% of this next pile of dollars I make, I am going to not bother to earn 61% of a pile of dollars I didn't have before"??

[moderate democrat]

Because of the deductions to a persons income. When the marginal rates were higher, there were also a lot more deductions that were available to be taken. Money could be given as a gift, and that money was then deductible, not too mention the cost of schooling, day care, home interest, and a whole other list of deductions.

When the marginal rates were lowered, as part of the lowering, some of the tax loopholes were eliminated, meaning that less deductions were available, but by having a lower rate to pay this more than made up for the loss of the deductions.

dmk

were there any folks getting rich in America in the 50's and 60's? Or were they all totally repulsed by the idea of making money because of the high marginal tax rate?

[glockmail]

I repeat my question from #23

No one seems to be able to even attemot to answer it although I see all kinds of crap being offered up in supposed argument.


QUESTION: At what EXACT income level should no tax be set at?


Over Six Thousand Rep points to the person who answers (Well....Liberals only)

Just give me a number and then tell me why it isn't one dollar higher than that. The unanswerable question! Which I guess makes me the king of this debate.

EL DEBATOR STRIKES AGAIN WITH THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION!!!!!!!

They can answer, they just don't wanna. :coffee:

[glockmail]

If a progressive income tax is really a negative incentive to earn more, why have SO many people kept doing it, even back when the top marginal rate was WAY higher than it is today? How do you know that they wouldn't have made more? YOU FUCKING DON'T.

[DannyR]

How do you know that they wouldn't have made more? YOU FUCKING DON'T.By the same measure, you likewise don't know they aren't.

I think its safe to say that people with money, unless it was given to them, usually know how to earn it and do so despite any obstacles placed in their path.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think its safe to say that people with money, unless it was given to them, usually know how to earn it and do so despite any obstacles placed in their path.

is that your justification for continuing to place obstacles in their path?........

[DannyR]

is that your justification for continuing to place obstacles in their path?........Its my justification for not shifting the burden of taxes onto the middle and poor class that the rich currently pay.

The rich can overcome the burden. The poor probably can't, and historically when taxed heavily become even poorer.

You want to lower taxes on the rich, lower spending first.

[PostmodernProphet]

Its my justification for not shifting the burden of taxes onto the middle and poor class that the rich currently pay.

The rich can overcome the burden. The poor probably can't, and historically when taxed heavily become even poorer.

You want to lower taxes on the rich, lower spending first.

I would be extremely happy if spending was lowered.....however, if you raise taxes you will never see it happen....you will only see INCREASED spending, since the government will think it has money to spend.....

[sgtdmski]

were there any folks getting rich in America in the 50's and 60's? Or were they all totally repulsed by the idea of making money because of the high marginal tax rate?

Yes, as I said, when the rates were higher there were more deductions that allowed those who were getting rich to deduct and maximize their profits. What part of that did you not understand?

However, the high tax rates also limited what some people did. Take Hollywood for example. Big time stars made less movies when the tax rates were high, to keep their taxes down. Why were they gonna work harder to make less money. The same holds true today.

I make about $975 a week. Three weeks ago someone at work was sick and I had to cover their entire shift, which means I worked 80 hours in that week. Forty hours regular time and forty hours overtime. When I got my check it was only for $1260. I worked twice as hard and should have made twice as much, I didn't. I will never do that again. NEVER. Why the frak am I gonna work hard if I don't get all my compensation.

dmk

[sgtdmski]

They can answer, they just don't wanna. :coffee:

Hey I answered!!!! And I detailed how I came to my figure.

:lame2:

dmk

[sgtdmski]

Its my justification for not shifting the burden of taxes onto the middle and poor class that the rich currently pay.

The rich can overcome the burden. The poor probably can't, and historically when taxed heavily become even poorer.

You want to lower taxes on the rich, lower spending first.

You'll get no disagreement from me. Remember 1986? Reagan was asked to raise taxes, he negotiated with Congress to do that, only if Congress would reduce spending. Guess what?? We are still waiting for Sen Kennedy to keep his frakking promise.

dmk

[DannyR]

I would be extremely happy if spending was lowered.....however, if you raise taxes you will never see it happen....you will only see INCREASED spending, since the government will think it has money to spend.....As I said, lower spending first.

Lowering taxes hasn't decreased spending, and thus has only gotten us more in the hole.

[Immanuel]

Yes, the Fairtax does supposedly refund taxes for necessities up to the povery level, just a shame they have to send out monthly checks to everyone to do so. Creates another system of potential abuse in my opinion and an feeling of entitlement.

Actually, they would not have to go to the expense of printing and sending checks out. Most people have checking or savings accounts. They could very easily deposit those funds into your checking accounts on the first of every month. Some people... like me... may fear the government having access to there account numbers so they could always wait for the check to arrive in the mail.

Oh, wait, I give the government my account number for an automatic deposit of my refund money every year, why would I be afraid of giving them my account number for a monthly deposit?

Personally, I like the Fair Tax. It seems to me to be the most equitable tax system developed to date. I do not think it will ever be implemented since Congress will never give up the control they have nor the funds provided by lobbyists who want their tax advantages.

Immie

[glockmail]

By the same measure, you likewise don't know they aren't.

I think its safe to say that people with money, unless it was given to them, usually know how to earn it and do so despite any obstacles placed in their path. That hasn't been the experience in Scandinavia. With punishing tax rates people simply stopped producing more:
The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.

And when Ireland decreased taxes productivity went way up.
Ireland has proved that a substantial lowering of the taxation level can become the motor for launching even the most slackish economy into full gear. A drastic reduction of the Irish tax rate, from 53% in 1986 to its current 35% , has led to a continuous boom of wealth creation at an average rate of 5.6% during the past two decades, while the number of jobs has grown by over 50%. In barely 18 years Ireland jumped from the 22nd to the 4th place in the OECD prosperity ranking.

http://workforall.net/ScandinavianModel.html

[glockmail]

Hey I answered!!!! And I detailed how I came to my figure.

:lame2:

dmk Musta missed it. *shrug*

[moderate democrat]

Yes, as I said, when the rates were higher there were more deductions that allowed those who were getting rich to deduct and maximize their profits. What part of that did you not understand?

However, the high tax rates also limited what some people did. Take Hollywood for example. Big time stars made less movies when the tax rates were high, to keep their taxes down. Why were they gonna work harder to make less money. The same holds true today.

I make about $975 a week. Three weeks ago someone at work was sick and I had to cover their entire shift, which means I worked 80 hours in that week. Forty hours regular time and forty hours overtime. When I got my check it was only for $1260. I worked twice as hard and should have made twice as much, I didn't. I will never do that again. NEVER. Why the frak am I gonna work hard if I don't get all my compensation.

dmk

so you are going to suggest that the loopholes available in the 50's and 60's made it such that the marginal tax rate of 90% was LESS of a disincentive to make more money then than the 39% top rate being proposed today? REALLY?

[emmett]

Okay you want a number, I will stand by my number from a previous post of $30,000.

Why $30K you ask? Well, according to the HHS the basic income needed for a family four to be above the poverty level is $21,200 a year. That means that if a person is earning this amount of money they will be just barely above the poverty line. The federal poverty line is based upon the idea that people and families spend 1/3 of their after tax salary on food. Therefore by multiplying that number by 3 you come up with the minimum for the person or family to be above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, the poverty line does not look at housing, medical care or other necessities. I have always been taught that when looking for my housing, my housing should cost around 30 - 35% of my salary.

So I took the poverty level for a family of four added 35%, and then added an additional 5% to assist in covering any other needs, including clothing, and as a little bit of a pad. That total came to $29,680 per year for a family of four. I simply rounded up to $30,000 for the ease of the math and declared that my untaxed limit.

The $30,000 is tax exempt for all people. You subtract the 30,000 from your salary and then you pay 18% tax on that number.

I don't know if that will sufficient for you as a valid explanation, but it is how I determined my number.

$21,200 for a family to be above the poverty line
35% factor in for housing
5% as a cushion

dmk


Good try! What about the family at 30,001?

You will say I suppose that they will pay 10% of the extra dollar. What about the other benefits not afforded them by being in the "no tax" bracket. Deductions, etc,..... It will mean basically that a family making 30,001 will have their available funds reduced to under what a family making 30,000 will. Fair? NO! Of course not.

[LOki]

One question!

What exact amount of income should the "no tax" line be drawn at?

Just give me one number. Then add one dollar to it and rectify why that person making a dollar more should pay tax while the person making a dollar less does not.

This in itself makes the whole theory of progressive taxation ridiculous! All earners should pay something even if it is a much smaller percentage.Income tax is economically and morally repugnant--it's simple wealth redistribution--it's institutionalized theft. No income should be taxed as income tax.

[Little-Acorn]

Income tax is economically and morally repugnant--it's simple wealth redistribution--it's institutionalized theft. No income should be taxed as income tax.

That's exactly my point. Taxes should be levied based on how much a govt does for the individual paying the tax. Hard to achieve that exactly, but we should try to at least be close.

The income tax (and the so-called corporate income tax even more) does nothing of the kind. Its only justification is the one that bank robber had: "Because that's where the money is!"... and no other. We're not taxing you more because we do more for you. We tax you more because you have more we can take... and that's the ONLY criteria. We'll try after the fact, to pretend you did something eeeeevil, and so justify our otherwise-rapacious treatment of you. But that won't be the real reason we took more from you. The real reason is simply that you had more we could take.

Anyone want to take a shot at specifying the closest thing this country ever had, to an actually fair tax? And what made it fair?

[moderate democrat]

The higher the tax rate, the less people in that rate produce. That's basic economics. Also, when you tax one person at a higher rate, he'll do whatever he can to hide income to reduce the injustice done to him. That's basic human nature.

Golly Gomer... I'm afraid I disagree with your clearly rudimentary "understanding" of basic economics. Why would someone want to reduce their standard of living by producing less simply because their marginal tax rate increased by a few percent? I would suggest that, under those circumstances, most affluent people would simply work a little harder, take on a few more clients, so that they would not be forced to reduce their standard of living... or more accurately, so that their rate of INCREASE in their standard of living would not significantly diminish.

[Little-Acorn]

I would suggest that, under those circumstances, most affluent people would simply work a little harder, take on a few more clients
What makes you think they weren't working to the max already?

The idea that people who are already working hard, have lots of spare time that they COULD be spending doing even more work, is one if the silliest - and least justified - ideas the leftists promote nowadays. Yet it forms the basis for their entire agenda. Ditto for the idea that they could "work smarter" or more efficiently - if they could do that, why would they not be doing it already?

In fact, most working people are already doing everything they can in the time they have available. And they have streamlined as much as it's possible to do... because they were interested in getting more done, or reducing the effot needed to get it doen... long before government ever decided to "urge" them to do so.

The reason I don't work harder than I do now, is because I would be too exhausted to play with my kids after work, if I did. Or because I wouldn't get home in time to play with them at all. Or have the time to greet my wife, or fix the broken board in the porch, or control my retirement and health care portfolios, or get my son a baseball uniform to replace the one he grew out of, or help him with his homework etc.

Sorry, lefties. My day is full, and so is my life. Your suggestion that I "work a little harder" just tell me that you are completely out of touch. I don't have time for such ignoramouses. And I certainly have no intention of letting them tell me how to run my life.

Go away.

[moderate democrat]

Most folks would do anything to avoid paying taxes, even if it means giving up the country club membership. It just ain't worth my time to have people like you sucking off the public teet. :laugh2:

Since I HAVE been there, I would suggest that most folks who belong to any country club I've ever belonged to were and are perfectly willing to do what they need to do in order to be able to continue to recreate in the style to which they have become accustomed, Gomer.

[moderate democrat]

What makes you think they weren't working to the max already?

The idea that people who are already working hard, have lots of spare time that they COULD be spending doing even more work, is one if the silliest - and least justified - ideas the leftists promote nowadays. Yet it forms the basis for their entire agenda. Ditto for the idea that they could "work smarter" or more efficiently - if they could do that, why would they not be doing it already?

In fact, most working people are already doing everything they can in the time they have available. And they have streamlined as much as it's possible to do... because they were interested in getting more done, or reducing the effot needed to get it doen... long before government ever decided to "urge" them to do so.

The reason I don't work harder than I do now, is because I would be too exhausted to play with my kids after work, if I did. Or because I wouldn't get home in time to play with them at all. Or have the time to greet my wife, or fix the broken board in the porch, or control my retirement and health care portfolios, or get my son a baseball uniform to replace the one he grew out of, or help him with his homework etc.

Sorry, lefties. My day is full, and so is my life. Your suggestion that I "work a little harder" just tell me that you are completely out of touch. I don't have time for such ignoramouses. And I certainly have no intention of letting them tell me how to run my life.

Go away.

I would never tell you how to run your life... I would merely suggest that you be sure to pay whatever taxes the Obama administration levies on you.

And I understand that you are maxed out... in my experience, many folks are... and, in my experience, many affluent people devote time, as you seem to, to recreating... my point was: even in the heyday of enormous marginal tax rates, affluent people found time for recreation and for enjoying the fruits of their labor... and they do today... and they will if their tax rate goes up by 3%... and they will NOT, in most cases, allow themselves to live any less affluently simply because their taxes have been marginally raised. They certainly will NOT produce less out of some twisted protest to the tax increase... like, "I'll show Uncle Sam... I will purposely reduce my standard of living just so he can't have more of my money". That is just silly.

[LOki]

Golly Gomer... I'm afraid I disagree with your clearly rudimentary "understanding" of basic economics. Why would someone want to reduce their standard of living by producing less simply because their marginal tax rate increased by a few percent?Because there's just no point in creating wealth beyond one's means to consume it, when it gets confiscated to the benefit of those who consume wealth beyond their means to create it.

You're just better off being a "beneficiary."


I would suggest that, under those circumstances, most affluent people would simply work a little harder, take on a few more clients, so that they would not be forced to reduce their standard of living... or more accurately, so that their rate of INCREASE in their standard of living would not significantly diminish.Why shouldn't (INSTEAD) the poor "simply work a little harder. . . etc." so that they support their standard of living in a manner commensurate with the value they provide in return for it?

My guess is that you are forced admit that if they should do this, their inherent worthlessness would lead them directly to starvation, and thet precise desperate situation is the political leverage you'd use to subjugate your more capable fellows.

[moderate democrat]

Because there's just no point in creating wealth beyond one's means to consume it, when it gets confiscated to the benefit of those who consume wealth beyond their means to create it.

You're just better off being a "beneficiary."



and my point was, I have never known an affluent American who did, in fact, reduce their standard of living by producing less simply because their marginal tax rate increased by a few percent. On the contrary, I have known a large number of affluent Americans who continued to increase their productivity AND their wealth regardless of the marginal tax rate.

[Yurt]

Because there's just no point in creating wealth beyond one's means to consume it, when it gets confiscated to the benefit of those who consume wealth beyond their means to create it.

You're just better off being a "beneficiary."

Why shouldn't (INSTEAD) the poor "simply work a little harder. . . etc." so that they support their standard of living in a manner commensurate with the value they provide in return for it?

My guess is that you are forced admit that if they should do this, their inherent worthlessness would lead them directly to starvation, and thet precise desperate situation is the political leverage you'd use to subjugate your more capable fellows.

it always amazes me how the liberals want the rich to work harder if they are taxed higher, yet, do not demand that those with less money work harder. no, those with less money should get money from those who have more money, you know "spread the wealth around".

imagine if this country was founded on such a notion, i highly doubt there would even be a USofA.

how it is fair or equal to expect those with more money to work more so that others who do not work as much can have their money?

[sgtdmski]

Good try! What about the family at 30,001?

You will say I suppose that they will pay 10% of the extra dollar. What about the other benefits not afforded them by being in the "no tax" bracket. Deductions, etc,..... It will mean basically that a family making 30,001 will have their available funds reduced to under what a family making 30,000 will. Fair? NO! Of course not.


What deductions? I offer no deductions. It is a flat $30 K deduction any thing over $30 K is taxed at 18%. The family making $30,001 has a tax liability of $0.18.

So lets see a family making $30,001 after taxes will be making $30,000.82.

A family making $29,099 will still be making $29,099.

You asked for an amount and for the reasoning, I provided just that. I gave you my formula, argue that not the minute details.

And it is fair for everyone has $30,000 deducted from their income and then they pay the tax at 18%. If you deduct the $30,000 from your income and the number is zero and you multiply that by 18% you get a zero liability. It follows perfect math.

It even allows those that earn $200,000 to reduce their tax liability by the same $30K. For them that would be a difference of paying $20,000 or only having to pay $17,000.


dmk

[sgtdmski]

Because there's just no point in creating wealth beyond one's means to consume it, when it gets confiscated to the benefit of those who consume wealth beyond their means to create it.

You're just better off being a "beneficiary."

Because each generation hopes to leave the next generation better off. I work hard to earn money to pay my bills and to save, and I hope one day to leave what I have left to my children, or if I don't have children to my nieces and nephews.

The unique thing about America is that we were the first country to ever believe in the notion of a person making wealth. Europeans believed that the amount money was fixed, if one person had x amount it was at the cost of another.

That is not true in this country. Therefore the government has no right to confiscate money from Peter in order to pay Paul.



Why shouldn't (INSTEAD) the poor "simply work a little harder. . . etc." so that they support their standard of living in a manner commensurate with the value they provide in return for it?

My guess is that you are forced admit that if they should do this, their inherent worthlessness would lead them directly to starvation, and thet precise desperate situation is the political leverage you'd use to subjugate your more capable fellows.

I have no problem with charity, however, it is not charity when one is compelled to do it. That is difference between conservative and liberals. Liberals believe that given to the poor via taxes is charity, it is not. Conservatives understand the need for helping the poor through charity, the voluntary giving of money as well as the government providing them a helping hand. Far too many people expect government to help them, rather than taking the reins in their own hands and helping themselves.

dmk

[DragonStryk72]

Of course that's where the money is. I know I don't have money to pay more taxes in order to give some Beverly Hills Housewife a tax break. Using the Fairtax calculator, I know my taxes would go up significantly under that "fair" proposal.

Taxing the rich isn't necessarily a bad thing. The greater the distance between the rich and poor, the greater the chance of that nations collapse, sometimes violently. Its happened plenty of times throughout history.

Yeah, I still don't get how you get 50k a year, and pay not a dime of tax on any of it.

[DannyR]

Yeah, I still don't get how you get 50k a year, and pay not a dime of tax on any of it.??? Who does that?

[LOki]

and my point was, I have never known an affluent American who did, in fact, reduce their standard of living by producing less simply because their marginal tax rate increased by a few percent. On the contrary, I have known a large number of affluent Americans who continued to increase their productivity AND their wealth regardless of the marginal tax rate.I'm not going to argue about, or even take issue with what you " . . . have never known."

I will point out however that your position that you are entitled to the life product of the affluent BECAUSE they are willing to to increase their productivity AND their wealth regardless of the marginal tax rate, places you squarely in the category of slave owner.

Your position becomes particularly clear as you take issue with the notion that the affluent produce less wealth when they divert their resources from creating wealth to protecting it from those who think they can just take it. The fact of the matter is that your assertion is right only insofar as you rephrased the point: the affluent don't lower their standard of living; the point made was they produce less wealth--the more bullshit measures folks like you enact to confiscate wealth that you did not earn, the more resources that are diverted to protecting wealth, and just as the wealthy are better at creating wealth than the incompetent mopes who steal it, they are also better at protecting it. This is how the affluent maintain their standard of living while producing less. You gripe that someone should resist the state of slavery you'd impose upon them.

Remember, the wealthy are are the ones who are capable of producing wealth in excess of their capacity to consume it--they will (and rightfully should) enjoy that excess capacity regardless; sooner or later, those who consume wealth beyond their capacity to create it must necessarily starve to death. It's inevitable

I'm all for sooner. Which is also why I'm all for abolishing the notion of income taxes for everybody. But since we have income taxes, the day we actually have actual tax cuts for the wealthy, I will happily support those cuts because the people those cuts hurt the most are the exact people I want to see hurt the most--mainly because those people are worse than worthless: they are thieves and murderers and they embrace slavery.

[emmett]

What deductions? I offer no deductions. It is a flat $30 K deduction any thing over $30 K is taxed at 18%. The family making $30,001 has a tax liability of $0.18.

So lets see a family making $30,001 after taxes will be making $30,000.82.

A family making $29,099 will still be making $29,099.

You asked for an amount and for the reasoning, I provided just that. I gave you my formula, argue that not the minute details.

And it is fair for everyone has $30,000 deducted from their income and then they pay the tax at 18%. If you deduct the $30,000 from your income and the number is zero and you multiply that by 18% you get a zero liability. It follows perfect math.

It even allows those that earn $200,000 to reduce their tax liability by the same $30K. For them that would be a difference of paying $20,000 or only having to pay $17,000.


dmk


Actually perfect math using your example would have the person making 200,000 pay 30,600 in flat tax.

200,000 less the 30,000 "allowance variable" = 170,000 X 18% = 30,600

Currently a person making that now pays much more. Your idea isn't bad but still requires a reporting agency and way too much oversight. A flat Tax could completely avoid this if orchestrated correctly.

A voucher system for low income families would be much simpler.

A Flat Tax system collected at the cash register for all money spent practically eliminates the need for the IRS. 23%! State's DEFACS agaencies would be charged with task of the voucher system. This would assure the money was spent for the basic subsistance items necessary....not crack cocaine! The vouchers could not be sold, they would be like checks, with names on them. This would assure that the "entitlements" or allowances being afforded them were being used for the things that their children needed.

A person who did not feel like they earned enough to get by the way they wanted would have to learn and earn more. This of course would contribute to a better nation of aspiring contributors.

States would decide sales tax additions. People who didn't like their states rate could move to other states, that simple. Why should folks in Kansas pay for the ridiculous amount of Interstates and infrastructure in a state where it would never benefit them? It's stupid!

Under this sytem, if a state or city wanted to be more liberal in their immigration policies and harbor illegal aliens, they could pay for it!

Take California.... here they are on the verge of being broke....BANKRUPT. All they have to do is look around to see why! It isn't rocket science! Just their health care for illegal aliens, that's right, they aren't immigrants, they are aliens. Encroachers that refused to enter our country using legal means, have taxed California to financial death! They can't pay their teachers...they can't pay their creditors, they can't afford asphault, their broke!!!! Now let's just imagine they had all the tax money ever wasted on every single alien in their bank account right now......... Nope..no rocket science necessary!

[LOki]

I have no problem with charity, . . .I don't know anyone who does.


. . . however, it is not charity when one is compelled to do it.I absolutely agree.


That is difference between conservative and liberals.No it's not.


Liberals believe that given to the poor via taxes is charity, it is not.No they don't. Liberals believe that giving to the poor via taxes is an effective lever to obtain and/or control political power; Conservatives believe that protecting old domestic wealth from new talent, technology or resources is an effective lever to obtain and/or contol political power--and they're both right; as long as we are all going to agree that one role the government should play is to distribute wealth resources--to define the limits of success and failure, and who succeeeds and who fails.


Conservatives understand the need for helping the poor through charity, . . .So do liberals.


. . . the voluntary giving of money . . . Yes . . .


. . . as well as the government providing them a helping hand.I now fail to see the difference you'd like to illustrate between conservatives and liberals.