From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

[editec]

America is neither a communist or nor a socialist country and to keep pretending someone is trying to make it so is just a scare tactic of the right.

Not even the right, Ravi...the lunatic fringe of the right.

I think we can all agree that taxation is needed to maintain overall harmony for a country. Any form of taxation for the benefit of society is socialistic by definition.

By the definition of the lunatic fringe which doesn't understand the meaning of the word socialism, really.

We pander to these notwits when we use the word socialism incorrectly.

No society has a government of any type which costs nothing, so calling taxation socistist is preposterous.

It'd be an interesting experiment to do away with all taxation and spending for a year and see what becomes of our country.

A whole lot of former libertopians would be clamoring for more socialism, is what would happen.

 

[Bern80]

America is neither a communist or nor a socialist country and to keep pretending someone is trying to make it so is just a scare tactic of the right.

I think we can all agree that taxation is needed to maintain overall harmony for a country. Any form of taxation for the benefit of society is socialistic by definition.

It'd be an interesting experiment to do away with all taxation and spending for a year and see what becomes of our country.

It is indeed a question of degrees. I (a righty, but not fringe righty) believe there certainly is a need for taxes because there are things government should provide for it's citizenry (roads, police protection, military, etc.). At the same time don't you think government should be making a concerted effort to NOT spend the tax payers money? Such a concept sounds almost foreign to the way our government spends money. How much of what you make are you comfortable with government taking? Is half okay with you if you're a high income earner?

 

[Ravi]

It is indeed a question of degrees. I (a righty, but not fringe righty) believe there certainly is a need for taxes because there are things government should provide for it's citizenry (roads, police protection, military, etc.). At the same time don't you think government should be making a concerted effort to NOT spend the tax payers money? Such a concept sounds almost foreign to the way our government spends money. How much of what you make are you comfortable with government taking? Is half okay with you if you're a high income earner?

Is half okay...that's a good question. I'd say it is too much. Unless there was a clear need for it. And I agree that our government seems to bleed money.

 

[Bern80]

Is half okay...that's a good question. I'd say it is too much. Unless there was a clear need for it. And I agree that our government seems to bleed money.

Okay i kind of baited you with that one. so why (seemingly) does the left complain aobut tax breaks for the rich or makein them pay more in taxes when they already pay close to half what they make in taxes?

 

[Ravi]

Okay i kind of baited you with that one. so why (seemingly) does the left complain aobut tax breaks for the rich or makein them pay more in taxes when they already pay close to half what they make in taxes?

I can't speak for the left. But I will tell you, I don't believe the rich pay close to half of what they make in taxes. The income tax tables aren't that high to begin with, and they are able to take advantage of many loopholes that come with hireing accountants that specialize in serving them.

I am far from being rich, but when I did my taxes myself, I was paying more than I legally had to pay. Now, with an accountant, I easily save by writing off things I didn't know I could write off. And these are just average write offs, not sheltered or offshore accounts or foundations, etc.

And a lot of the wealthy don't earn income, they earn dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate.

IMO, it's dishonest to claim the wealthy are somehow getting screwed. They aren't...if they were, they'd stop earning so much money.

 

[Bern80]

I can't speak for the left. But I will tell you, I don't believe the rich pay close to half of what they make in taxes. The income tax tables aren't that high to begin with, and they are able to take advantage of many loopholes that come with hireing accountants that specialize in serving them.

currently 35% so yeah i was off. The question; is that too much?

And a lot of the wealthy don't earn income, they earn dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate.

it really isn't accurate to state that how is how most of the wealthy obtained there wealth. As I've said before, there really is a huge misconeption by people who aren't rich as to how the rich became so. And actually dividends are taxed twice.

IMO, it's dishonest to claim the wealthy are somehow getting screwed. They aren't...if they were, they'd stop earning so much money.

they are in the sense that they share a disporportionate amount of the tax burden in that a) obviously using percentages yields more money out of more income and b) we have a progressive tax system

 

[AllieBaba]

I can't speak for the left. But I will tell you, I don't believe the rich pay close to half of what they make in taxes. The income tax tables aren't that high to begin with, and they are able to take advantage of many loopholes that come with hireing accountants that specialize in serving them.

I am far from being rich, but when I did my taxes myself, I was paying more than I legally had to pay. Now, with an accountant, I easily save by writing off things I didn't know I could write off. And these are just average write offs, not sheltered or offshore accounts or foundations, etc.

And a lot of the wealthy don't earn income, they earn dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate.

IMO, it's dishonest to claim the wealthy are somehow getting screwed. They aren't...if they were, they'd stop earning so much money.

Er..you mean quit working because they're being taxed too much? Gosh, that sounds like a recipe for a healthy economy.

Attorneys typically pay about 50 percent of their income in taxes. I think that's criminal.

 

[Ravi]

=Bern80;742593]currently 35% so yeah i was off. The question; is that too much?

I don't think so. If you have an alternate to the progressive tax system, I'd love to hear it.

it really isn't accurate to state that how is how most of the wealthy obtained there wealth. As I've said before, there really is a huge misconeption by people who aren't rich as to how the rich became so. And actually dividends are taxed twice.

So, how do the very wealthy earn their income? Are you telling me it is mostly from salary? I have a hard time believing that.

And dividends are only taxed at 15%.

 

[Bern80]

I don't think so. If you have an alternate to the progressive tax system, I'd love to hear it.

Well how about a sales tax on everything. That would be fair across the board.

So, how do the very wealthy earn their income? Are you telling me it is mostly from salary? I have a hard time believing that.

And dividends are only taxed at 15%.

I recommend reading a couple of books: "Rich Dad/Poor Dad" and "The Millionaire Next Door" Both have no politcal bias to speak of and have good statistics as to what the make up of the wealthy is. But to answer your qestion the vast majority are self employed. Most of them figured out early it's hard to make lots of money working for someone else.

 

[Ravi]

A sales tax would still be unfair. The rich could just buy their stuff elsewhere. Unless it's a sales tax on food.

Like I said in another thread, there are also plenty of loopholes for the self-employed. It's possible to write off things like computers, property, etc. that others cannot.

 

[Bern80]

A sales tax would still be unfair. The rich could just buy their stuff elsewhere. Unless it's a sales tax on food.

No I mean a sales tax on EVERYTHING. I don't really see the rich en-masses buying everything overseas. It would be fair in that rich are going to buy more expensive items in general which will garner higher tax revenues and it's based strictly on consumption.

Like I said in another thread, there are also plenty of loopholes for the self-employed. It's possible to write off things like computers, property, etc. that others cannot.

I never understood the concept of the 'loophole'. It's either legal or it isn't. You have to pay in taxes what you have to pay. If you were in that position to reduce you tax burden you probably would.

 

[Ravi]

I have my doubts about the sales tax thing. If you could lay out the details...

Oh, I do take advantage of the loopholes. But it is hardly fair to those that cannot.

 

[Bern80]

I have my doubts about the sales tax thing. If you could lay out the details...

I guess you would have to explain why it's not fair to me. Numbers I've heard thrown around are anywhere from a 8-14% federal sales tax. I'm not sure how it can be more fair to be honest. What you pay in taxes is directly proportionate to how much you consume so in that sense it's still going to have a progressive element to it because the poor will spend less than the wealthy.

We get rid of some other things like payroll taxes which I don't see how anyone can legitmately justify. Why does anyone else, including governemeent have a right to what I worked for?

Oh, I do take advantage of the loopholes. But it is hardly fair to those that cannot.

I don't see it as unfair. The reason some can't take advantage of the loopholes is because they don't have the assetts in place that would allow such loopholes in the first place. Which to me all you're realy saying is that it is somehow inherently unfair that somone has more money than someone else. Besides even with the loopholes the wealthy still pay far more than the poor in taxes.

And it stll comes back to my orignal point. Our tax code is absolutely rdiculous, yes partially because of all the 'loopholes' but also because government has decided to spend time trying to come up with more and more ways to get your money. Shouldn't government be spending trying to figure out ways to not spend money, to get rid of some taxes, to priortize, and to do more with less?

 

[Charles_Main]

A federal Sales tax would have to be far higher than the proponents of it claim it would be to Bring in the same money the Taxes do now. Detrimentally High. IMO.

 

[Prefx]

Unfortunately, the income tax targets labor, when most of the wealth held by the top 1% comes from investments. You would be better off as a CEO of a major corporation making $200,000 a year in salary than a neurosurgeon making $400,000.

Coincidentally most of this wealth is social power that doesn't derive from productive labor.

 

[Bern80]

A federal Sales tax would have to be far higher than the proponents of it claim it would be to Bring in the same money the Taxes do now. Detrimentally High. IMO.

I don't think it would need to be as much as you think. There is no sales tax on pretty much all food and no sales tax on clothing. So you tax those right off the bat.

The other side of the plan is to for government to start taking some real fiscal responsiblity. I don't want them to be able to take in the same or more money. I want them to figure out a way to take in less by prioritizing and only funding what they need to.

 

[Ravi]

I don't think it would need to be as much as you think. There is no sales tax on pretty much all food and no sales tax on clothing. So you tax those right off the bat.

The other side of the plan is to for government to start taking some real fiscal responsiblity. I don't want them to be able to take in the same or more money. I want them to figure out a way to take in less by prioritizing and only funding what they need to.

Where do you live? We pay sales tax on clothes.

I can't really say why I think it would be harder on the poor, it just feels like that. I know that's a cop out so don't tell RGS.

In my state, sales tax is 6%. Add another 15% on that for federal sales tax and suddenly we pay 21% on everything. So people stop buying things that aren't absolutely needed, and while that might be a good thing for personal responsibility, it will wreak havoc on the economy. Our economy is capitalistic, remember, and thrives on greed and everyone spending, spending, spending. At least with income tax, you still earn more the more you work, even taxed at a higher rate.

You claim the government doesn't have a right to tax your income, why does it have a right to profit on me buying a new hd tv...especially when they aren't giving me a choice in the matter. And when companies start losing money because people aren't buying, they'll start charging more and making cheap stuff that needs to be replaced every year.

 

[AllieBaba]

ACtually, capitalism doesn't depend so much on spending as it does on earning. If you're in a recession, you're still spending every dime you make...but the economy sucks. In better financial times, you are able to spend...and to save as well, thus increasing your wealth.

 

[Ravi]

ACtually, capitalism doesn't depend so much on spending as it does on earning. If you're in a recession, you're still spending every dime you make...but the economy sucks. In better financial times, you are able to spend...and to save as well, thus increasing your wealth.

No, baby girl. You only spend on what's needed. And the economy stagnates.

 

[Bern80]

Where do you live? We pay sales tax on clothes.

I can't really say why I think it would be harder on the poor, it just feels like that. I know that's a cop out so don't tell RGS.

In my state, sales tax is 6%. Add another 15% on that for federal sales tax and suddenly we pay 21% on everything. So people stop buying things that aren't absolutely needed, and while that might be a good thing for personal responsibility, it will wreak havoc on the economy. Our economy is capitalistic, remember, and thrives on greed and everyone spending, spending, spending. At least with income tax, you still earn more the more you work, even taxed at a higher rate.

You claim the government doesn't have a right to tax your income, why does it have a right to profit on me buying a new hd tv...especially when they aren't giving me a choice in the matter. And when companies start losing money because people aren't buying, they'll start charging more and making cheap stuff that needs to be replaced every year.

You have to remember though that the increase in sales tax would be off set by not haveing any income tax. Getting rid of the income tax instantly raises everybodies disposable income. Wouldn't a 15% raise help you a lot.

I don't think your perception as to what would happen to buying habits is accurate either. Higher prices aren't going to be much of deterrant for people. The fact that so many Americans are in debt up to their eye balls is proof enough of that.

I will take my cop now then as well. As I said before I don't think anyone has a right to take what I have earned. I would feel better about someone taxing for the benefit of the entire naiton something that I 1) had a say in purchasing and 2) participated in the over all economy. How don't how much sense that makes but to me taxing for participation in our countries economy seems more fair than taking part of what I ahve earned.

P.S. I'm probably wrong about the clothers but you get the point about haveing a sales tax on more consumables.