Flat Taxes and Fair Taxes and Income Taxes, oh my!

[SecDef]

It appears that re-distribution of wealth is what you consider "fair". I don't.

Neither is the fact that the poor send an inordinate percentage of troops to face combat.

I understand your position. I think looking at it in a vacuum and decrying it as evil is a little harsh.

Unfortunately, the option of taxing everyone equally will result in a situation where there will be desperate people breaking laws in order to survive. That would make it lots harder for those 1% to be able to continue to make what they makes that puts them in that 1%. It's all intertwined, and it ain't pretty.

We haven't even thought about the impact of health care costs and how those that can't afford health insurance impose a larger burden upon the rest of us since they cannot afford preventative checkups, etc.

 

[WeedWacker]

It's funny to think that as a government employee over the summer I was taxed at a rate slightly lower than that of the top 1% of moneymakers in the US

 

[sasquatch]

I understand your position. I think looking at it in a vacuum and decrying it as evil is a little harsh.

Evil??

 

[STAGE 2]

Of course I still think that's fair, considering the utility of each dollar for somebody in the bottom quartile compared to the top quartile...but I'll let SecDef answer for himself.

This is socialism and this is why its getting harder and harder for people to be successful.

You are looking at taxes as some kind of social equalizer. Thats fine if your last name is Marx, Lenin or Trotsky. However if you live in the good ol US of A, taxes are money you pay to the government to allow it to function.

Everybody has the SAME obligation to the government. In fact poor people probably have a much larger obligation since they are overwhelmingly the greatest users of governmental programs. As a result, whatever is fair for poor people to pay is fair for the rich to pay. Taxes are not penalties.

For those of you supporting a higher tax rate for the rich, give me a valid reason for it other than "they can afford it". Either that or come out and say that you support government theft because thats exactly what it is.

 

[JuanCarlos]

This is socialism and this is why its getting harder and harder for people to be successful.

You are looking at taxes as some kind of social equalizer. Thats fine if your last name is Marx, Lenin or Trotsky. However if you live in the good ol US of A, taxes are money you pay to the government to allow it to function.

Everybody has the SAME obligation to the government. In fact poor people probably have a much larger obligation since they are overwhelmingly the greatest users of governmental programs. As a result, whatever is fair for poor people to pay is fair for the rich to pay. Taxes are not penalties.

For those of you supporting a higher tax rate for the rich, give me a valid reason for it other than "they can afford it". Either that or come out and say that you support government theft because thats exactly what it is.

Did you read that webpage I linked? It goes into more detail beyond "they can afford it."

Also, pointing out that the utility of the first $10,000 of somebody's income is greater than the utility of the last $10,000 isn't socialism, it's common sense.

EDIT: Also, it's an incredibly slippery slope that leads from having exemptions built into the tax code to Marxism/Leninism.

 

[Warbow]

Neither is the fact that the poor send an inordinate percentage of troops to face combat.

Source?

I remember reading a recent report that the majority of military recruits are from the middle class, and recruits from poverty levels are actually underrepresented.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I remember reading a recent report that the majority of military recruits are from the middle class, and recruits from poverty levels are actually underrepresented.

Maybe if officers are counted. Among enlisted, no. In nearly every socioeconomic indicator*, enlistees come in below the average for the country, though often not dramatically so.

Largely, however, this is due to under representation from the upper quartile, not over representation from the lower quartile. But the lower quartile is slightly over represented, specifically in the Army.

Also, the data that you're hearing regarding poverty levels being under represented is probably from minorities (specifically blacks); in general minority enlistees come in above the median for for their race. If I had to guess I'd say this is due to the fact that somebody who is a minority and coming from a poverty-level household is probably statistically more likely to have a criminal record that bars them from enlistment. That, combined with a statistically higher number of households at that level for most minorities would make this unsurprising.

The numbers I was looking at were, IIRC, from 1998...straight from the DOD. I'll go see if I can dig them up again.

* - Socioeconomic indicators ranging from income level of the household they came from, education level of parents, one parent or two parent household, etc.


What does this amount to? It means that if we compare "rich" to "poor" (not middle class to poor...keep in mind that few here are actually in the upper quartile) then the "poor" do most definitely send a disproportionate number of troops into combat compared to the "rich."

 

[FirstFreedom]

A good many of whom pay zero taxes........none, nada, nil.

At best, absolutely false. At worst, a lie.

-Sales taxes
-Car excise taxes
-Federal income taxes (you get your standard deduction & personal exemption, and possibly some child tax credits and earned income credit, but still the vast majority of the poor pay SOME income taxes under the 15% bracket, which is roughly 14.9% more than they ought to pay - rich, poor, anyone)
-State income taxes, in most states

Hardly anyone can escape this taxation - you are just flat-out misinformed, sasquatch.

This is not complicated. The federal income tax was passed without proper ratification in 1916, and politicians at that time promised that it would never exceed 1% of income, and would END at the Great War's end!

EVERYONE pays TOO MUCH in federal income taxes. The federal government ought to be roughly 1/5th to 1/4th of its current budget/size. The STATE governments then in turn could tax at a HIGHER rate than they do, and keep the money close to home and actually spend it on stuff that counts, like education, roads, police & fire, etc. And we could then access our legislators and hold them more accountable.

Rich, poor, in between - we all pay way, WAY too much in federal taxes - we work our butts off for 5 months of the year just to fund the jackasses in washington and bridges to nowhere in alaska (thanks ted!).

 

[SecDef]

Hardly anyone can escape this taxation - you are just flat-out misinformed, sasquatch.

Come on, now. I think it was pretty clear Sasquatch was only talking about federal income tax. In which case he is referring to people that make less than $7,550 AGI who will pay zero, zilch, nada.

Now as to whether it is fair that they pay zero, zilch, nada, zip, nothing, well, that's ok to ask, yes?

 

[Let it Bleed]

I have yet to see anyone address or refute what was contained in the website I sited in another thread and Juan Carlos re-introduced.

Here it is again: http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html

I would guess Juan Carlos and I disagree on many things, but on this issue I suppose we agree.

Additionally, wealth is not created in a vacuum and property rights don't give an individual absolute dominion over that property. It might also be remembered that republicans supported the largest governmental give away of all time - western land. Exactly how did the US government get ownership of that land?

Private ownership of land is an artificial construct that provides the landowner with certain rights over that piece of land at the exclusion of others. Owning property doesn't give anyone absolute and inviolate control over it. Second how do you excercise your right to any property? How do you keep others from taking it as theirs?

Without governmental authority, your property rights disappear. That is why the government has the legitimate power to impose restrictions on land use, exercise eminent domain, and levy taxes on property. Without governmental power no one would enjoy the right to personal property. The only reason there is such a concept as private property is because the government has created it.

If Antartica were to suddenly become habitable or have natural resources extracted, who gets it? Can I just go claim it? Buy it? Buy it from whom? I realize there are treaties in existence that govern [the Antarctic Treaty, which took effect in 1961, whose signatories agreed to make no future claims to Antarctica so long as the treaty is in effect]. But if it were not a frozen wasteland, explorers would be planting flags in the ground and claiming it for king and country.

My point is that people need to better understand what it means to have a right to land and personal property. Societal rules and governmental laws evolve over time to reflect whatever we deem important or whatever those in power deem to be important.

The right to personal property is a cornerstone to our way of life and is codified in the Constitution, but no right is absolute. Owning something simply means that you have a greater right to that thing than someone else. Without taxpayer funded government to enforce my right to what I consider my property, then the whole concept of personal property collapses. Without government enforcement, what anyone claims as theirs is limited to what they can forcibly maintain. Therefore, those who possess the most are also the same ones who benefit the most by governmental enforcement of "property rights."

Whether it is fair to expect those who have more to pay a proportionately higher tax is debatable. Whether they benefit more from enforcement of property rights is indisputable.

 

[Warbow]

Maybe if officers are counted. Among enlisted, no. In nearly every socioeconomic indicator*, enlistees come in below the average for the country, though often not dramatically so.

I found this which only looks at enlisted demographics. The income section finds that the distribution of enlistees almost mirrors that of the general population, with the middle class being very slightly overrepresented compared to the poor and wealthy.

A DoD article from 2005 about enlistee demographics reports the same findings.

An excerpt from the DoD article:

On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military, Gilroy said.

 

[RedneckFur]

I personally dont think people should be taxed on what they earn, but taxed on what they spend. I think that would be most fair to everyone.

When you consider how much of your money goes into federal taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, county taxes, car taxes, land taxes, property taxes, ect, really what percent of your money does the goverment take? Its alot more that any 30% I bet...

I dont know all the details of my parents financial situation, but last time i spoke to them, they were talking about their taxes. Both my mother and father are nearing retirement age, and are just now entering what most people would consider "middle class" yet they are being taxed so heavily on their income that they would make more money if my father quit his job. Its pretty obvious that there is something gravely wrong with our tax system.

The first and obvious is that we pay too much. The goverment has no right to cost as much to run as it does today.

 

[STAGE 2]

Did you read that webpage I linked? It goes into more detail beyond "they can afford it."

I did an it doesn't give any justification. The only thing I saw was some lame comparison that poor folks benefit from roads, but rich benefit from the FBI and wars. Thats not even coherent enough to respond to.

Also, pointing out that the utility of the first $10,000 of somebody's income is greater than the utility of the last $10,000 isn't socialism, it's common sense.

Based on what? The last 10k of my income gets use just as much and on equally important stuff as the first 10k. Furthermore to state that there is a "first" and "last" part of income is ridiculous.

EDIT: Also, it's an incredibly slippery slope that leads from having exemptions built into the tax code to Marxism/Leninism.

No its not. I want YOU to give me a valid reason to tax the rich more other than because they can weather the cost.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Based on what? The last 10k of my income gets use just as much and on equally important stuff as the first 10k. Furthermore to state that there is a "first" and "last" part of income is ridiculous.

So you're telling me that if you were forced tomorrow to take a $10K paycut, you'd have no idea where to start cutting? There'd be no priorities you could set? Personally, I'd probably cancel things like cable and/or high-speed internet, while still spending nearly the same on things like food or gasoline.

Much the same way if a somebody making a million dollars a year made $10K less, it would probably come out of either savings (provided we're talking about an intelligent businessman) or Cristal consumption (provided we're talking about somebody in the entertainment/sports sector).

And no, I realize there's not really a "first" and "last" part of income...I figured you'd be smart enough to realize what I was talking about. So maybe this has made it easier for you. If you make $40K a year, the "first" $10K of income is what you'd have to spend if you took a $30K pay cut, and the "last" is what you wouldn't have to spend if you took a $10K pay cut. Wow, that was a lot of words to explain a fairly simple concept. I'd almost think you're just being intentionally argumentative.

No its not. I want YOU to give me a valid reason to tax the rich more other than because they can weather the cost.

Yes, it really is. There is a world of difference between exempting some portion of income from tax (a flat amount for everybody) and trying to redistribute wealth so that everybody is more or less equal. Last I checked we let people get pretty darn rich here. Last I checked they even let people get pretty rich in places like Canada or England. So yeah, that's a pretty slippery slope you're suggesting.

As to an argument as to why the rich should pay more not based on "they can afford it," I already have given one. They benefit more. A large part of the reason many of the wealthy people in our country are even able to amass any wealth is because of the benefits of living here. Not the least of which has already been mentioned.

The right to personal property is a cornerstone to our way of life and is codified in the Constitution, but no right is absolute. Owning something simply means that you have a greater right to that thing than someone else. Without taxpayer funded government to enforce my right to what I consider my property, then the whole concept of personal property collapses. Without government enforcement, what anyone claims as theirs is limited to what they can forcibly maintain. Therefore, those who possess the most are also the same ones who benefit the most by governmental enforcement of "property rights."

Do you ever wonder why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs in places like Uganda? Or even much of a middle class?

 

[SecDef]

Based on what? The last 10k of my income gets use just as much and on equally important stuff as the first 10k. Furthermore to state that there is a "first" and "last" part of income is ridiculous.

What's the bare minimum that someone needs to earn to survive on their own?

$2 a day? $50 a day? What?

Pick a number. X. X is the very minimum that a person needs to survive in the United States. Not prosper, not do anything but survive.

I think X has to also be the bare minimum wage. (not the $5.50 / hr, the actual amount of money you need to earn in order to survive such that income exactly equals expenses)

If you tax X and below, you are guaranteeing that they do not have enough money to survive. These people therefore will either die or impact other people's rights (trespass, stealing, etc).

(I think we are a civilized enough society to agree that THAT action is not civilized!)

Anybody making more than X will thus get taxed more than someone making X or less. It isn't jut about fairness, it is about living in a society.

 

[SecDef]

I can't find evidence supporting my statement that there is an inordinate representation of troops among the poor so I'll retract it. From the context of my statement, by poor we were talking about the lowest 50% that only pays on average 2.9% taxes. Of course, once you enlist, if you start at E1, you make $14,136 / year (not including some housing and clothing stipends) Poverty line for a family of four is $16,660 and family of three is $13,003 (1998 numbers) so that would put them above the poverty line but definitely not middle class.

Anyone know what the average pay grade for troops running around in hummers getting blowed up by IEDs is right now?

They should be getting paid more is all I can tell you.

 

[Warbow]

I don't know about pay grades, but they aren't included in the income level calculations anyway.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Anyone know what the average pay grade for troops running around in hummers getting blowed up by IEDs is right now?

Since you asked, I'm always willing to inform people (and most people really don't seem to have any idea).

During my year deployed, I made approximately $43,000. I was an E-4 with 6 years in, so a fairly midlevel rank (for the Army, at least). Now, that $43,000 is including hazardous duty pay, family separation pay, BAS (which, in theory, I should not have been getting...it's supposed to be for the soldier's food only and suspended for deployment but apparently the Army doesn't bother anymore), BAH (which for my ZIP code worked out to over $800 a month), etc.

Also, when looking at that pay you have to consider that it was tax-free (though I believe I may have been paying medicare/SS taxes...I'd have to go look). Also figure I'm getting medical/dental covered for my family (not entirely free if off-post, but roughly equivalent to most civilian policies).

So really, it wasn't horrible. However, when you factor in what were probably 80-hour workweeks on average (and without even bothering to account for such frivolities as "overtime") I was making somewhere around $10-$11 an hour. To, you know, risk death. [EDIT: And only see my wife for two weeks out of a year.] It also starts to suck when you look at what civilians doing jobs eerily similar to your own were making, also tax-free.[/tangent]

But yeah, arguing that the poor contribute more to military enlistment than the middle class is a non-starter. It's not a significant amount. Arguing that the rich contribute less than their share can be done, but only if you break it down farther than quintiles. I'd be interested to see some numbers regarding the poorest quintile as far as how many are barred from enlistment due to criminal records or lack of diploma/GED...not that they should be allowed in, just that it could account for the slight under-representation on that end.[/other tangent]

 

[Redworm]

I don't have much to contribute to the conversation but I feel the need to point this out: much of Bill Gates wealth was aquired by NOT playing by the rules of a free market. He did many, many unscrupulous and unethical things during the development of Windows that was tantamount to opening a new hardware store and setting fire to all the other competitors in town.

Yes, he's wealthy because he was innovative and a damn good businessman but he also broke many laws and did many unethical things that much of the IT field recognizes as utterly dishonest.

 

[sasquatch]

SecDef

Come on, now. I think it was pretty clear Sasquatch was only talking about federal income tax. In which case he is referring to people that make less than $7,550 AGI who will pay zero, zilch, nada.

Now as to whether it is fair that they pay zero, zilch, nada, zip, nothing, well, that's ok to ask, yes?

Thanks for that clarification on my behalf. You are correct, we were talking about income taxes.

I guess my opinion is that everyone in this country utilizes government provided services of some kind, no matter their income level. It only seems appropriate that they pay at least some token amount in income taxes.