than why do they work to prevent it? the tea movement is a prime example. its main goal is to shift the tax burden on to the lower classes away from the rich.
Paying Taxes: What is Fair?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
than why do they work to prevent it? the tea movement is a prime example. its main goal is to shift the tax burden on to the lower classes away from the rich.
Yeah the starving guy who can't go look for another job because he can't afford to not stop working really has liberty. You don't want liberty you want domination of the rich.
The question is how much of their income is disposable income? Ideally, we wouldn't want to cut into somebody's food budget. So, "ability to pay" really has more to do with how easily a person could survive without their money. Clearly the extremely wealthy people could live without a substantial portion of their incomes, and they'll still get enough to eat, and be able to heat their home in the Winter, but I think that starts being true somewhere around 50k.
The idea of anyone having to pay a tax that nears 50% of their income is just hideous to me. It just approaches slavery too much. After you cross that threshold, you're saying you own the person more than they own themselves.
Exactly what a progressive tax system can motivate. People don't feel a moral inclination to submit to something they perceive as unfair, and a sense of remorse is one of the strongest motivators to get people to obey a law sometimes.
Last edited:
I've noticed that most people who make a big deal out of "liberty" seem to only consider hypothetical liberty, rather than what people are actually able to do in the real world. Having a hypothetical right is of little use to someone who can't actually exercise that right for pragmatic reasons.
The tax rate on high incomes in the US once approached 90% - and yet the rich were not enslaved. Instead, the ordinary person could afford to pay for a middle class family life on the income from one full time job.kuroroti said:
If you are depending on remorse or a sense of "fairness" to persuade the rich to pay their taxes at any percentage whatsoever, you are being more than a little naive.kuroroti said:
The issue of a flat tax has nothing in particular to do with the complexity of the tax code, which is all about different deductions and loopholes.
When I was working, somewhere between 37k and 43k a year depending on the overtime.
My Grandfather once told me that my yearly income should be at least a thousand times greater than my age. Mind you, this was twenty years ago.
Of course.
My burden is fair but this can mean different things for different people.
-Between 10% and 40% of your gross income. -I think a sales tax is fair but, I despise the sin/luxury taxes (extra tax on things like tobacco, alcohol, automobiles and houses). -Your property tax should be based on the fair market value of said property be it commercial, residential or industrial. -I think inheritance tax is a form of double dipping. The deceased had already paid taxes on that income. So long as it stays in the family, I don't think the government should be able to tax my decendance inheritance. All together about 40% to 50% of my income goes to taxes.
The tax code needs to be reworked. In its present form it favors the wealthy. A penney or two on the dollar hurts the person making $500 a week a lot more than a person making $5,000 a week. Dollar for dollar the "rich" will always pay more but do they truly share the burden? . All in all I view taxes as a moral obligation. My only wish is for the government to spend what they do get wisely. I have always felt that those that have benefitted the most from the enviroments that allowed them to succeed should then give back to that system. They owe a debt to the society that allowed them to flourish. I would call it an act of betrayal if these entities moved their jobs and money to a foreign country.
So a flat tax, which would (in theory) eliminate deductions and loopholes, has nothing do with the complex tax code that has resulted in deductions and loopholes?
If we went to a flat tax system, how long do you think it would be flat? With all that special interest money working in Washington, a flat tax would probably never last more than a few moments.
As soon as it is passed (assuming it would get passed) there would be a special interest at work to get a break, an exception to the rule. That is why the consitution needs to be changed to limit the roll of money in elections and influence buying.
Why not amend the Constitution to replace our current tax system with a flat tax?
The flat tax doesn't "in theory eliminate deductions and loopholes" any more than a progressive tax does.
It's just one particular scheme for setting the income tax rates. One can eliminate loopholes - or not - independently of that.
And no politically feasible scheme - flat or otherwise - is going to do away with said loopholes, any time soon. And the advocates of a flat tax know this. That's why it's disingenuous of them to conflate the two issues: they know their suggestion is basically a give-away to the rich that harm everyone else, and so attempt to fool the rest of us into supporting it by conflating it with simplification of the tax code, which isn't on the table at all. If what they cared about was closing loopholes, they'd be suggesting that directly. But they aren't, because that would take money out of their pockets.
After all, if you aren't rich you must be stupid, right?
120k-250k / yr
Not predictable at this time.
No.
"Fair" literally means getting my way, so I can't give an objective answer to that.
"Fair" shouldn't play any role. What should be a role is a system that promotes a healthy bell curve of money... where most people are in the bell (which should be comprised of healthy values).
Angry. Its broken.
Your impression is accurate.
It's a very complex rats nest and I suspect nobody wants to do the work of understanding it.
You hit the old nail squarely on the head Quad!
What you need is to fix the consitutuion to eliminate special interest money (e.g. lobbyists) from influencing government. As long as special interests are allowed to influence the law and to work against the interests of the nation, there will be no change in Washington that benefits the nation (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug Plan).
In that case, you need to restrict the government's ability to enact legislation that affects the interests of gun owners, the automotive industry, etc. It's immoral to tell people and institutions that they are subject to laws, but then restrict their ability to fight for their interests. With that in mind, I take it you'll be voting Libertarian in the next election?
Actually, I'm in favor of closing loopholes and eliminating deductions. I believe that every American should be taxed a certain percentage of his or her income, period. By doing this, we could pretty much eliminate the IRS.
There is nothing in anything I wrote or proposed that would restrict people from making their cases and opinions known. Corporations and wealthy people would just not be able to excert more influence than anyone else. Decisions need to be made on merit, not money.
I probably will not be voting Libertarian as while I like their position on social issues. Their economic positions are way way out of bounds of science and rational discourse.
Good for you.
Okay. But that's a different thing than the simple elimination of loopholes. I don't see any valid reason to conflate the question of how rates are structured with the issue of overall tax code complexity and opportunities for tax avoidance.
By doing this, we could pretty much eliminate the IRS.
The IRS only costs about $12 Billion per year to operate - you're talking about a tax savings of $40 per year, supposing you actually did away with the IRS entirely. Which these suggestions wouldn't; it might make their operations simpler, but it isn't going to prevent people from trying to cheat on their taxes, nor the IRS from having to respond to that. Also any savings would be long-term, appearing only after the massive transition costs of reorganizing the tax code and the IRS have been paid out.
And let's note that a progressive tax structure isn't substantially more costly for the IRS to administer than a flat one - it's the tangle of exceptions and loopholes that make things complicated, not the rate structure itself.
Paying Taxes: What is Fair?
I have 2 rules on this issue...
1) The government must use a reasonable amount of money raise from taxes for the greatest fair benefit of the citizens (90% if taxes are the only method, 100% if there are other methods such as corporate donations)
2) Taxes must not be a burden on the citizens, must not be severely detrimental to lifestyles and the total collected taxes must help citizens to a reasonable degree (which means that richer citizens would need to pay quite a bit more, but they must still have a dollar amount left that is reasonably greater then the poorer population)
It's a tricky balance...
I have 2 rules on this issue...
1) The government must use a reasonable amount of money raise from taxes for the greatest fair benefit of the citizens (90% if taxes are the only method, 100% if there are other methods such as corporate donations)
2) Taxes must not be a burden on the citizens, must not be severely detrimental to lifestyles and the total collected taxes must help citizens to a reasonable degree (which means that richer citizens would need to pay quite a bit more, but they must still have a dollar amount left that is reasonably greater then the poorer population)
It's a tricky balance...