clubhouse54.com

I'm all for less government, lower taxes, and greater freedom. I'm also in favor of what's fair. And regardless of what people like mo'ron say, it's not fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor. And what's more, this guy's proposing to tax the wealthier citizens more than double what everyone else would pay (25% vs 10%). How you perceive fair tax rates astounds me.

You want fair? Tax people the same amount. Pick it. per capita rate? flat income tax? go nuts. But it's just not fair to give someone a free ride by bleeding the government while expecting others to work hard to pay for it.

mo'ron, I think your actual mental block has nothing to do with tax rates. You seem to be convinced that we need to keep pouring money into the federal government, and you're more interested in turning stones to shake down the public for more cash than you are in responsible financial policy. Bailouts don't work for banks, they don't work for tax payers, and they don't work for the federal government.

Why is it only fair to tax people the same amount? There doesn't seem to be anything unfair about taxing rich people more to me; they still make more money.

C. Ives wrote: While I have done absolutely no research on the subject (which qualifies me as an internet expert) I would imagine a flat tax could actually work if there were no reductions given at any level. That would probably break the people in the lowest income group, but fuck them, the sooner we starve them out the sooner we can move the middle class down the bottom of the food chain where they belong.

That can be solved by granted all citizens a single deduction that is equal to the poverty line. Say $20k. The first $20k that any citizens earns is tax free. Everything after that is taxable at the decided upon rate.

so what? you're only going to subsidize free health care for employed people? that'll never fly.

No, I'm thinking that you are. You're talking about subsidizing health care for folks who don't pay taxes.

I'm not talking about OBOIs I'm talking about your article!

aubrey wrote:

roo wrote:

aubrey wrote: Why is it only fair to tax people the same amount? There doesn't seem to be anything unfair about taxing rich people more to me; they still make more money.

I'm willing to use a percentage as the fixed amount. Then a rich person pays X% just like a poor person pays X%. 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000; 10% of $20,000 is $2,000.

It's the same rate for each person. How is that unfair? Or maybe cut to the chase: why is it fair to tax the people who are successful? Should we make star athletes wear weights during games?

It's fair because money is less necessary when you have a lot of it. It's not like we're taxing the rich into poverty. There are still increased rewards for making more money, the rewards just diminish as you make more. This seems to me to be a net positive.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm of the belief that stifling someone's achievement tends to keep them from achieving. Try writing your action script without using parens and let me know what your net positive is.

roo wrote:

aubrey wrote:

roo wrote:

aubrey wrote: Why is it only fair to tax people the same amount? There doesn't seem to be anything unfair about taxing rich people more to me; they still make more money.

I'm willing to use a percentage as the fixed amount. Then a rich person pays X% just like a poor person pays X%. 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000; 10% of $20,000 is $2,000.

It's the same rate for each person. How is that unfair? Or maybe cut to the chase: why is it fair to tax the people who are successful? Should we make star athletes wear weights during games?

It's fair because money is less necessary when you have a lot of it. It's not like we're taxing the rich into poverty. There are still increased rewards for making more money, the rewards just diminish as you make more. This seems to me to be a net positive.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm of the belief that stifling someone's achievement tends to keep them from achieving. Try writing your action script without using parens and let me know what your net positive is.

You’re entitled to your opinion too, but the problem with your opinion is that it’s not reflected in reality. We’ve had significantly higher tax rates than we do now, and still underwent a massive period of new “achievement.” Much like a high school physics problem, in a closed-system, you’d expect to see a simple cause-effect between supply/demand of wages. In the real-world, much like actual physics, there are too many variables to break it down to such a simple equation. There are a myriad of factors that relate to what the marginal benefit of work will be. In the US, you will ALWAYS make more money by working harder. Regarding taxes, “wealth" and “money" are different. You can model a progressive tax systems as a flat tax on wealth, because the value of money happens to increase, the more of it you have. In the past 15 years or so, my parents together have easily netted a $million in salaries but they don’t have that much in the bank because it only “trickles” in. If someone had given them that exact same amount of money in a lump sum 15 years ago, not only would they have that $$$, they would likely have much more, because the “wealth” they had at any point in time is greater with the lump sum than the payments.

A regressive tax (which “flat" taxes are, which is NOT what the plan posted in the original post is) causes wealth to pool at the top, and eventually leads to a de facto oligarchy. It’s why we have anti-monopoly laws, it’s why progressive taxes were instituted in the first place. You’ll never have a flat tax that won’t eventually evolve naturally through the free-market of ideas to a progressive tax. Progressive taxes just make more sense, and are more logical.

It also doesn’t make sense to tax what people earn to pay for the basic necessities people need to live (food, clothes, housing), which is why practically all “flat tax” plans include a “prebate” of some sort, which makes them more progressive. Once you accept that tenant, it’s just a matter of how progressive do you want to be? A “flat” tax is then irrelevant at that point (which is why no sensible person harkens for a “flat” tax, but the “Fair Tax™”).

If you reject the idea of a prebate, then you live in an ideological cave, and reject reality anyway, and your opinion is a mere quaint novelty at that point.

The argument that our current tax structure is TOO progressive, is a different argument than why we need a “fair tax,” which is a different argument from why the original tax structure in the first post is lighter on corporations than it is on people.

With all that said, I would be willing to give the Fair Tax™ a try, but I just don’t see any main-stream politician being able to sell it. I don’t see enough politicians on the left or right supporting it, and I don’t see corporations supporting it either because they have it pretty good as it is now.

roo wrote: You might think of it as stifling if it were your income, and we've already got an oligarchy, the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that, nor have they done anything to promote a sense of responsibility of equity.

I think social security (which is more or less flat) is stifling, and it needs to at least be means-tested.

Quote: the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that

Of course they have. Things could have been much worse, much like they were at the turn of last century. Yes, the top 1% of people held a whopping 20% of the income. What a wonderful world that must have been with such a more “fair” less progressive tax system back then...


This should be an interesting read: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf

But I know facts have a tendency to harden some people in their incorrect beliefs

roo wrote: You might think of it as stifling if it were your income, and we've already got an oligarchy, the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that, nor have they done anything to promote a sense of responsibility of equity.

You're right, they haven't, but I believe they're definitely helping to repel that. We do live in an oligarchy. So let's break it up. This is a big part of how you do that.

And I do have income which is taxed, and I don't feel stifled by it. As I said before, people who make more money... still make more money. Diminishing returns are not necessarily a bad thing; they exist in nearly every system.

mo' ron wrote:

roo wrote: You might think of it as stifling if it were your income, and we've already got an oligarchy, the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that, nor have they done anything to promote a sense of responsibility of equity.

I think social security (which is more or less flat) is stifling, and it needs to at least be means-tested.

Quote: the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that

Of course they have. Things could have been much worse, much like they were at the turn of last century. Yes, the top 1% of people held a whopping 20% of the income. What a wonderful world that must have been with such a more “fair” less progressive tax system back then...


This should be an interesting read: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf

But I know facts have a tendency to harden some people in their incorrect beliefs

Here's a fun fact: if the top 1%'s earnings continue at the rate it did from 1986 to 1998 (the latest available data), then the top one percent will be earning 24% of all the income by the year 2010!

What does the Boston Globe say about that?

mo' ron wrote:

roo wrote: You might think of it as stifling if it were your income, and we've already got an oligarchy, the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that, nor have they done anything to promote a sense of responsibility of equity.

I think social security (which is more or less flat) is stifling, and it needs to at least be means-tested.

Quote: the progressive tax rates and estate taxes haven't curbed that

Of course they have. Things could have been much worse, much like they were at the turn of last century. Yes, the top 1% of people held a whopping 20% of the income. What a wonderful world that must have been with such a more “fair” less progressive tax system back then...


This should be an interesting read: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf

But I know facts have a tendency to harden some people in their incorrect beliefs

Facts are facts. When glam rock goes away, the richest 1% make more money and exploit the middle class. Motley Crüe is the CHANGE we can believe in!

No, you do!

more or less wrote: FOCUS ON TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY

fix'd

Quote:In 2007, the lowest quintile averaged $18,400 in pretax income, the second quintile averaged $42,500, the third quintile $64,500, and the fourth $94,100.

The Bush era saw its ups and downs, though.

In 2000, the top quintile paid 66.6 percent of taxes, a share that dipped to 64.8 percent in 2002 and then rose, peaking at 69.3 percent in 2006 and settling at 68.9 percent in 2007.

The Tax Policy Center earlier this year calculated that 47 percent of households owed no income tax altogether in 2009, kicking off another debate over who should pay. [...]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... nder-bush/

its an interesting and short article

the last time I checked the real tax rate for those in the top 2% - was actually an avg of 24%.

So says the substitute opinion columnist for the NY Times!

I believe the proposed spending cuts are not only feasible, but necessary in some form. It seems it hard for democrats/left wingnuts to realize to lower the deficit you need to lower the spendy.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/ ... where.html

As usual Nate Silver is very convincing.

dude sounds like you missed the point of that post