Psychology of money and taxation

[Missileman]

OK....now back to the main story ... I still disagree with placing the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy....just because they are wealthy.

Some people are of the mindset that DC should grab up and spend all the money they want. I don't understand how they think that way. To them, cutting spending is an option of last resort when it should be the first option.

[Dante]

So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting.

huh?

Oh I get it.

[Partisan]

I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.



Are you aware that the third sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous two?


Then you need to explain how you're defining "inherent value."


So are you for or against a system of progressive taxation?



Are you a troll? I don't deal with trolls.


I never claimed otherwise.



Meaningless question. The "same money" never gets tracked as it goes through the treasury - it's all lumped together.

I'll give you a pass for now, but learn some manners before we talk more.

Funny, you questioning whether I am a troll, when you didn't address a thing from my post. Do you really not understand 'inherent value'? Get some education and then you will understand it. It is really quite simple for most folks, but you need an education to understand it.

Taxation: is that all you have to say? Whether I am for or against it? You couldn't address my points?

Troll? Ah, yes, the internet term for those that do not debate, and only parrot others words. I give you a full answer, and you question if I am a troll.

I think you need to look in the mirror.

[Palin Rider]

Funny, you questioning whether I am a troll, when you didn't address a thing from my post. Do you really not understand 'inherent value'? Get some education and then you will understand it. It is really quite simple for most folks, but you need an education to understand it.

Taxation: is that all you have to say? Whether I am for or against it? You couldn't address my points?

Troll? Ah, yes, the internet term for those that do not debate, and only parrot others words. I give you a full answer, and you question if I am a troll.

I think you need to look in the mirror.

Thanks for playing, troll. Gaffer will give you your booby prize.

OK....now back to the main story ... I still disagree with placing the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy....just because they are wealthy.

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

[SassyLady]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

A true flat tax, of say, 10% on all income, no exceptions. Imagine the money saved right off the bat.....No need to file tax returns and the IRS could be virtually dismanned.

Yes, the wealthy would be putting in the majority of the money, however, it would not be a discriminatory, or unfair, taxation.

[Missileman]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

[Palin Rider]

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

Everyone is equally in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases, regardless of tax rates or tax brackets.

A true flat tax, of say, 10% on all income, no exceptions. Imagine the money saved right off the bat.....No need to file tax returns and the IRS could be virtually dismanned.

Yes, the wealthy would be putting in the majority of the money, however, it would not be a discriminatory, or unfair, taxation.

I see no reason that the lowest 80% of incomes should be paying taxes at all.

Of course, this would mean higher rates on the other 20% to make the plan revenue-neutral.

[Dante]

I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.



Are you aware that the third sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous two?


Then you need to explain how you're defining "inherent value."


So are you for or against a system of progressive taxation?



Are you a troll? I don't deal with trolls.


I never claimed otherwise.



Meaningless question. The "same money" never gets tracked as it goes through the treasury - it's all lumped together.

I'll give you a pass for now, but learn some manners before we talk more.

yet again, they replied and do not answer you.

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

When extremely wealthy people who try to avoid as much taxes as they can line up behind the flat tax idea -- the smell is rotten enough to keep anyone with a sense of smell away.

[Palin Rider]

yet again, they replied and do not answer you.

I never worry about the obvious trolls. Eventually they get bored when everyone ignores them and they're reduced to just patting one another on the back.

[SassyLady]

I see no reason that the lowest 80% of incomes should be paying taxes at all.

Of course, this would mean higher rates on the other 20% to make the plan revenue-neutral.

So you think they should get a free ride? Why? Do they not benefit from the services paid for by the taxes? Why should they be expected to pay a lesser percentage of their earned income?

[Palin Rider]

So you think they should get a free ride? Why? Do they not benefit from the services paid for by the taxes? Why should they be expected to pay a lesser percentage of their earned income?

No one ever gets a free ride from taxes!

There's sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes... (Come on, everybody sing with me!) Income isn't the only taxable thing out there.

Also, the US went for quite some time levying income tax only on the top incomes. Is there a reason (besides some fallacy of "fairness") that it can't do so again?

[SassyLady]

No one ever gets a free ride from taxes!

There's sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes... (Come on, everybody sing with me!) Income isn't the only taxable thing out there.

Yep...sales tax ... is there a sliding scale for the poor vs rich on this one? Nope! But I would venture that the rich are putting more money back into the economy and the tax base than the bottom 20%

How about property tax .... only if you own property...which most of the bottom 20% don't.

Estate taxes? Gotta have an estate for this to happen....how many of the bottom 20% have an estate?

See, the wealthy are already paying more taxes right off the bat.

Also, the US went for quite some time levying income tax only on the top incomes. Is there a reason (besides some fallacy of "fairness") that it can't do so again?

Well, tell me the reason they originally quit doing it in the first place and I'll discuss it with you.

[Mr. P]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

The Fair Tax

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

A Flat tax is not fair and NOT the same as The Fair Tax.

Everyone is equally in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases, regardless of tax rates or tax brackets.

Simply NOT so under the current tax systems. Unless yer only referring to sales tax..which makes the OP even more bizarre.

[Palin Rider]

Yep...sales tax ... is there a sliding scale for the poor vs rich on this one? Nope! But I would venture that the rich are putting more money back into the economy and the tax base than the bottom 20%

How about property tax .... only if you own property...which most of the bottom 20% don't.

Estate taxes? Gotta have an estate for this to happen....how many of the bottom 20% have an estate?

See, the wealthy are already paying more taxes right off the bat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that they shouldn't be paying more.

Well, tell me the reason they originally quit doing it in the first place and I'll discuss it with you.

They didn't turn it off like a light switch. They kept pushing up the rate and/or lowering the bottom threshold in an effort to pay for little things like the two World Wars - until by 1950 the threshold was so low that just about everyone was paying income tax.

Simply NOT so under the current tax systems. Unless yer only referring to sales tax..which makes the OP even more bizarre.

I don't believe we're talking about the same thing here. When I used the term "in control," I was referring to how we control what we purchase and how much of it. Not that we control the tax rates themselves. My apologies if that was confusing.

[SassyLady]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that they shouldn't be paying more.

No, you are not wrong. I do not believe the wealthy should be forced to pay more than their fair share. They earned it just like the bottom 20% and I believe everyone needs to pay to support our infrastructure ......an equal percentage.....which, on income and profit, means the wealthy will be paying more anyway ... just not a larger percentage than anyone else.

As for the other taxes .... yes, they are paying more because they own more ... and that is as it should be. Sales tax is the same for everyone; property taxes is a percentage of value; and the estate tax just pisses me off right now. It jumped 10% and the exclusion amount went from $3.5 million to $1 million. 2011 is not a good year to die.

And yes, I do have a problem with a sliding tax scale on income and profit.




So, I gather from what you've been saying that you are a proponent of income redistribution?