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

Anyone with money (enough for one share) can own shares in Haliburton

I have seen a whole lot of homeless people with cell phones....if they choose that phone over an investment opportunity then that is their choice

Same if they choose a few bottles of booze

Or a pistol

Nobody is GIVEN stock...you either buy it or earn it

Please leave the class envy out of the discussion...if I wanted that I would listen to Hillary:p
 
I have seen a whole lot of homeless people with cell phones....if they choose that phone over an investment opportunity then that is their choice
Click to expand...

You know, I was just about to retort that I've never seen a homeless person with a cellphone...which I haven't...when I decided to see what a quick internet search brings up.

Interesting.

It would appear that a cellphone (either a base plan or prepaid minutes) may actually be a fairly wise investment for a homeless person. Who knew.
 
As I understand it, the argument that the rich derive greater benefit from the military relates to the preservation of personal property. The question is who loses the most if an invading force were to take possession of the United States. Of course, if we were nuked everybody loses. But historically, conquering armies tend to deprive the native inhabitants of their property.

Therefore those who possess the most have the most that needs protecting. Since we rely on the government to enforce our property rights, we lose that protection if our government is deposed by an invading army.

I realize these are antiquated examples, but modern geopolitics is still a struggle for supremacy. It doesn't require an actual invasion to severely damage American interests. If the U.S. military disappeared and by implication the U.S. Government, Bill Gates and those similarly situated would suffer a far greater loss than the average American.

The benefits to capital owners is far more subtle and indirect, but no less real.

I don't enjoy paying taxes anymore than anyone else, but I sure don't want to swap places with someone on welfare. While the welfare system may be corrupt, it is an extremely small portion of federal spending.

Most retirees will draw far more in Social Security benefits than they ever paid into the system. Social Security benefits are entitlement payments (welfare) that forcibly redistribute wealth. I seldom hear of anyone willing to forgo their Social Security checks, even after they have received all they paid in plus interest.

Personally I find income tax abhorent more for its extraordinary violation of privacy than any concerns over fairness. "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

And finally, something I hope we all agree:

I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it.
-- Voltaire
 
Let It Bleed

"Most retirees will draw far more in Social Security benefits than they ever paid into the system. Social Security benefits are entitlement payments (welfare) that forcibly redistribute wealth. I seldom hear of anyone willing to forgo their Social Security checks, even after they have received all they paid in plus interest."
Click to expand...

If the nanny state would have allowed me to not contribute into Soc. Sec. over the years I could have invested the money on my own. Instead, the gov't forcibly took my money, for over 40 years, and made me a promise that I would get it back. It was their idea, not mine.
 
As I understand it, the argument that the rich derive greater benefit from the military relates to the preservation of personal property. The question is who loses the most if an invading force were to take possession of the United States. Of course, if we were nuked everybody loses. But historically, conquering armies tend to deprive the native inhabitants of their property.

Therefore those who possess the most have the most that needs protecting. Since we rely on the government to enforce our property rights, we lose that protection if our government is deposed by an invading army.
Click to expand...

So we should tax people based on what they stand to lose? This just different verse, same song. The benefit from the military is to repel invading forces. EVERYONE benefits from this. The rich person may lose his mansion while the poor person loses his apartment, but the end result is the same. When they are imprisoned, enslaved, or killed it won['t really matter what their median income was or what car they drove.

I wish you guys would just come out and say that the rich should be taxed more because they aren't going to feel it.
 
I wish you guys would just come out and say that the rich should be taxed more because they aren't going to feel it.
Click to expand...

I wish they had the cojones to say what they really mean.......
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
 
I wish they had the cojones to say what they really mean.......
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Last I checked progressive tax structures weren't preventing anybody from getting rich. The whole "Marxism Marxism olol" thing isn't going far with me. Progressive tax systems still let the wealthy have much more than their "needs."

So yeah. You fail. Hard.

EDIT: Or, put another way, if the progressive tax system we use right now is supposed to be some kind of Marxism, then I have to say that if old Karl saw it he'd be sorely disappointed in us.
 
Progressive tax systems still let the wealthy have much more than their "needs."
Click to expand...

And who is ever to decide what another man needs.

The very fact that you subscribe to the idea that there is a limit on what people "need" or that anyone else other than the particular individual is in a position to determine what they can spare is the essence of this debate.

There is absolutely no difference between the taxes you describe and the government passing a law stating that every american can only own 1 rifle, 1 shotgun and 1 pistol. After all, that is much more than any person would ever need.
 
Damn socialist yankee Republicans! :p

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1861-1865.htm

Additionally, the biggest, but certainly not the only, losers in the Confederate defeat were wealthy land owners. The southerner at wars beginning who had nothing was equally poor at the conclusion of the war. Therefore, the wealthy may actually have a greater interest in maintaining the status quo, even if it takes military force to accomplish. No guarantee of success though. :(

Second, from a completely selfish point of view, I am all for abolishing Social Security. After all, I'll never see any of it. If somebody has to get screwed, I'd just as soon it not be me. Regressive taxes? Sure, I want all the money I can keep, so lets increase these as much as possible. Gee, you don't think I'm being arrogantly conceited in believing that I received no benefit from the existence of an ordered society, or that I don't owe something to a system that provided me opportunities.

I suppose the best argument for the existence of progressive taxation on income is that it offsets some of the unfair burden imposed by other regressive taxes. :)

Me a socialist? Really? Even though I advocate the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the abolishment of the IRS? :confused:
 
Progressive tax systems still let the wealthy have much more than their "needs."
Click to expand...
And who is ever to decide what another man needs.

The very fact that you subscribe to the idea that there is a limit on what people "need" or that anyone else other than the particular individual is in a position to determine what they can spare is the essence of this debate.
Click to expand...

Well, while it might take a while to gather responses I suppose you could ask the people themselves. Pick a billionaire. Ask him if he "needs" $100. Maybe offer to give it to him. I'm guessing most would probably say no.

There is absolutely no difference between the taxes you describe and the government passing a law stating that every american can only own 1 rifle, 1 shotgun and 1 pistol. After all, that is much more than any person would ever need.
Click to expand...

So there's no difference between taxing somebody who makes several million dollars at 28% instead of 25% and limiting somebody to only three firearms? None at all? And that's before you get to the idea that one might need more than one kind of rifle, shotgun, or pistol for different purposes anyway.

If you honestly see no difference between the two, then you obviously live in a black-or-white world that bears no resemblance to my own, and thus talking to you about the issue is probably a waste of my time.
 
Pick a billionaire. Ask him if he "needs" $100. Maybe offer to give it to him. I'm guessing most would probably say no.
Click to expand...

Not only would you not have $100, you'd be missing a few fingers!

Seriously, if two of the wealthiest men alive think that they are not being taxed fairly, is the system really that oppressive to them?
 
JuanCarlos

Last I checked progressive tax structures weren't preventing anybody from getting rich. The whole "Marxism Marxism olol" thing isn't going far with me. Progressive tax systems still let the wealthy have much more than their "needs."

So yeah. You fail. Hard.
Click to expand...

Right. And some part of their wealth is gobbled up by "progressive tax systems" and re-distributed to the masses. I'm sure that you'll be in line to get your fair share of someone else's life blood.
 
Right. And some part of their wealth is gobbled up by "progressive tax systems" and re-distributed to the masses. I'm sure that you'll be in line to get your fair share of someone else's life blood.
Click to expand...

Right. "Some part." Which is what makes this different from Marxism, where somebody like Bill Gates would be stripped of a majority of their wealth and instead have their needs provided for by the collective.

See, no matter how much you try to reduce the world to black and white, you simply cannot get rid of those pesky shades of gray. And really, our current tax system (and keep in mind, I'm only talking about the tax portion, not welfare programs which I think are a separate discussion from progressive taxation) is pretty far from the Marxism end of the spectrum. If flat taxes where white, and Marxism is black, then our system is about the color of Bob Barker's hair.
 
See, no matter how much you try to reduce the world to black and white, you simply cannot get rid of those pesky shades of gray
Click to expand...

Wrong. The black and white of it is that it their money.......theirs, not yours, no matter how badly you want them to share it with you.

Our current system of taxation penalizes people for being successful and productive, and rewards those who sit on their arse and do nothing. That is black and white...........and WRONG !
 
Our current system of taxation penalizes people for being successful and productive, and rewards those who sit on their arse and do nothing. That is black and white...........and WRONG!
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's exactly what all poor people do. You're right.

Maybe if you just keep painting that with that broad brush of yours, you can get the grey to go away. Keep at it.

Wrong. The black and white of it is that it their money.......theirs, not yours, no matter how badly you want them to share it with you.
Click to expand...

Hey, a vast majority of the money I've lived on for the last 8 years or so has come directly out of your taxes. Thanks for the money, by the way.
 
So there's no difference between taxing somebody who makes several million dollars at 28% instead of 25% and limiting somebody to only three firearms? None at all? And that's before you get to the idea that one might need more than one kind of rifle, shotgun, or pistol for different purposes anyway.

If you honestly see no difference between the two, then you obviously live in a black-or-white world that bears no resemblance to my own, and thus talking to you about the issue is probably a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

The only thing that you got right there is your last sentence. As for the first part, no there is no difference between the two. In both cases the government is telling you what you need. What the specific items are makes no difference.

Your example about the millionare is also misleading. If you asked me whether I need $100 I would also say no. Having 100 taken out of my account would make practically no difference in my life and I make nowhere near a million dollars. HOwever, if you asked the millionare whether the government should tax him more because of how much he makes, his answer would simply be a definitive no.
 
Regardless of whether sasquatch was referring only to federal income taxation or not, he is still implying something not true. He said that:

[referring to "high school and college students", and "single mothers"], "A good many of whom pay zero taxes........none, nada, nil."

Well ok, actually, I don't know what he means by "a good many of whom", whether that means the majority, or what. But if he means the majority, he's mistaken. Even the very poor working mothers and students and other working poor working at low wages, make more money that $7,550 a year, and thus do not avoid federal income taxes. If you make measly $7 an hour (below a livable wage), and work 40 hours a week, that's $14,560 a year, about TWICE $7,550. At $10 an hour (also less than a livable wage), that's $20,800 a year, almost 3 times that! So where does anyone get that a lot of poor folks are not being taxed at the 15% rate over and above the $7,550?!
 
Also, to address the subject of the thread....the BEST idea for a real, fair, workable tax is not a flat tax on income; not any kind of tax on income, but a national sales tax, so that if you don't spend, you don't pay. This would encourage savings & thus capital investments and thus tremendously boost the economy. In order for the tax to be fair to the poor, so that they wouldn't have to spend a disproportionate share of their income on taxation, you'd have to exempt the following *necessity* items from taxation, as to individuals:

-Food (sold at retail in a store, not restaurant service or fast food)
-Clothing
-Housing (residential units & real estate only)
-Utilities
-Medical Care

All other goods and services are taxed at a very small rate - if you don't consume, you don't get taxed!

Problem solved. The Internal Revenue Code is reduced from many volumes of print, down to 5 or 10 pages. No tax returns to file by either corporate entities or individuals. You'll have to give some unemployment benefits to CPAs and other accountants for a year or so, to keep them from nosediving into homelessness and find other work, or find a way to make a transition in their business, to make a living helping business who sell goods & services comply with the new sales tax law.
 
In order for the tax to be fair to the poor, so that they wouldn't have to spend a disproportionate share of their income on taxation, you'd have to exempt the following *necessity* items from taxation, as to individuals:

-Food (sold at retail in a store, not restaurant service or fast food)
-Clothing
-Housing (residential units & real estate only)
-Utilities
-Medical Care

All other goods and services are taxed at a very small rate - if you don't consume, you don't get taxed!
Click to expand...

The question becomes whether all such items should be exempted. Obviously you wouldn't want to throw a 23% tax on Wonder Bread, but by exempting caviar (food, no?) now you're losing significant income on what is essentially a luxury item. Same goes for clothes. Wal-Mart clothes probably shouldn't be taxed, but should Louis Vuitton? Taking your kid in for strep probably shouldn't be taxed, but should breast enlargement? And so on.

Better to simply go with the system generally proposed with the Fair Tax, where you send a prebate to everybody to "refund" the taxes on whatever the government deems to be "necessities." That way if all you buy is Wal-Mart clothes and Wonder Bread, you end up paying little to nothing. You've created a small bureaucracy in order to determine this rate, but it'd still be much smaller than the IRS, and they've only got one number to deal with.

Well ok, actually, I don't know what he means by "a good many of whom", whether that means the majority, or what. But if he means the majority, he's mistaken. Even the very poor working mothers and students and other working poor working at low wages, make more money that $7,550 a year, and thus do not avoid federal income taxes. If you make measly $7 an hour (below a livable wage), and work 40 hours a week, that's $14,560 a year, about TWICE $7,550. At $10 an hour (also less than a livable wage), that's $20,800 a year, almost 3 times that! So where does anyone get that a lot of poor folks are not being taxed at the 15% rate over and above the $7,550?!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to actually hit zero federal income taxes. I managed it one time, but only because I wasn't working while going to school. What small amount I made over the summer and with the Guard didn't add up to much, and my exemption cancelled it out. But even that was largely only possible because of the GI Bill education benefits, which paid a majority of my bills during the year while not being taxed.

I think when you're talking about people with kids, at poverty-level wages (which means they probably qualify for the EIC and such) you can do it. But the lifestyle you live at wages low enough to manage this is definitely not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top