What is a fair tax rate?

[AmyNation]

Oh... I thought that was a common phrase. Maybe not. It would help if people knew what it was if I'm referencing it... LOL

Living wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In public policy, a living wage or subsistence wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition.

Let them move into a "poor house": no drugs, no extra rooms, no extra TVs, no beauty treatments, no tatoos.

Well... I'd say that's prison but... Pretty sure all of those are there.

If they cannot get a job and get out, then after a set amount of time, give them a "modest" place, and let them eat in a common kitchen (they can use Michelle Obama's school menus) to keep them healthy. No one should want to stay on "handouts".

*blink*blink*

And you would pay for that with... Taxes?

Here's my stance point blank.

You have to not tax the living wage, because frankly all you'll be doing is take money from them, and then give them more back in the form of goods/services in which to live. But now you are also paying the fee's for the bureaucracy of it.

It's flat out cheaper not to tax people in poverty. And that's the logical view pure math and economics.... Without any bullshit right dominant brain help your fellow man out you rich bastards getting in the way of it.

I agree.

A flat tax on anyone living above the poverty line.

 

[DiamondDave]

No... I want a fair tax system. Not an equal one. You and I both agree that what we currently have is neither.

But I understand that you can't get blood out of a turnip. You obviously don't. Too complex for you for some reason.

So you want it subjective... and you support the progressive system
A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family's tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income.

You can't get tax from 0.. but you can get tax from 1, just as you can get tax from 100 or 1000 or 1000000... JUST LIKE A FLAT SALES TAX DOES.. regardless of income, personal situation, etc... blind.. treating each person and each dollar equally

We aren't talking about a sales tax. We are talking about a income tax. One which I don't think we should have at all, but frankly we have to have it at the moment. And likely for the rest of our lives.

You are taking it to such an extreme that it become idiotic. I don't know any other way to say it. You have to have a living wage, or you'll have government giving people money, through taxes, just to live. You are your own worst enemy on this by denying it.

No.. you FEEL that you WANT to have a 'living wage' that is mandated or pandered to by government... you do not HAVE to have a tax free wage buffer... big difference

And yes, we are talking about income tax... but as stated, just as a sales tax is blind and equal in treatment regardless of the person, personal situation, or amount, the income tax should be as blind and as equal

 

[DiamondDave]

$1,000,000 seemed like a good number at the time. PLeaes feel free to come up with another one and base it on something other than your good graces as I based mine on, after all, you do want to be more "informed" than me.

Another number??... ALL OF IT... no matter what the number is.. because the income used to build that up was already TAXED... and you are keeping it in the family... your wife, your kid, your grandkid is keeping that asset of the house, the collection, the cabin in the woods, the gun collection, the priceless early albums, the diner you slaved to pay off, the company you toiled in to build up from nothing, the dream car you found in a barn and spent money on to fix up... the list goes on.... I don't care if it is worth 10K or 10MIL or 10BIL

It wasn't necessarily taxed. Remember, no taxes on property, no taxes when you buy your house. When you are GIVEN a house, then it's income and you pay taxes.

As stated.. it is not cash, it is not income... it is an ASSET that was built with income that was already taxed

 

[DiamondDave]

Let them move into a "poor house": no drugs, no extra rooms, no extra TVs, no beauty treatments, no tatoos.

Well... I'd say that's prison but... Pretty sure all of those are there.

If they cannot get a job and get out, then after a set amount of time, give them a "modest" place, and let them eat in a common kitchen (they can use Michelle Obama's school menus) to keep them healthy. No one should want to stay on "handouts".

*blink*blink*

And you would pay for that with... Taxes?

Here's my stance point blank.

You have to not tax the living wage, because frankly all you'll be doing is take money from them, and then give them more back in the form of goods/services in which to live. But now you are also paying the fee's for the bureaucracy of it.

It's flat out cheaper not to tax people in poverty. And that's the logical view pure math and economics.... Without any bullshit right dominant brain help your fellow man out you rich bastards getting in the way of it.

I agree.

A flat tax on anyone living above the poverty line.

Which is by definition, and as shown in this very thread, a disguised progressive tax...

Jesus

 

[Shelzin]

So you want it subjective... and you support the progressive system
A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family's tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income.

You can't get tax from 0.. but you can get tax from 1, just as you can get tax from 100 or 1000 or 1000000... JUST LIKE A FLAT SALES TAX DOES.. regardless of income, personal situation, etc... blind.. treating each person and each dollar equally

We aren't talking about a sales tax. We are talking about a income tax. One which I don't think we should have at all, but frankly we have to have it at the moment. And likely for the rest of our lives.

You are taking it to such an extreme that it become idiotic. I don't know any other way to say it. You have to have a living wage, or you'll have government giving people money, through taxes, just to live. You are your own worst enemy on this by denying it.

No.. you FEEL that you WANT to have a 'living wage' that is mandated or pandered to by government... you do not HAVE to have a tax free wage buffer... big difference

NO... It's CHEAPER not to tax poverty. You are just too fuck'n stupid to understand that for some reason. I don't know why. I can't fix that.

 

[DiamondDave]

We aren't talking about a sales tax. We are talking about a income tax. One which I don't think we should have at all, but frankly we have to have it at the moment. And likely for the rest of our lives.

You are taking it to such an extreme that it become idiotic. I don't know any other way to say it. You have to have a living wage, or you'll have government giving people money, through taxes, just to live. You are your own worst enemy on this by denying it.

No.. you FEEL that you WANT to have a 'living wage' that is mandated or pandered to by government... you do not HAVE to have a tax free wage buffer... big difference

NO... It's CHEAPER not to tax poverty. You are just too fuck'n stupid to understand that for some reason. I don't know why. I can't fix that.

It is you who is stupid for putting feeling into governmental policy... It is cheaper for YOU to not tax 'poverty' or the 'living wage' part of your proposal... it gives you a more preferable rate

The government has no business handing out freebies anyway.. it has no constitutional charge to do such a thing... so if you are afraid about handouts costing more than what is derived from a no exception tax policy, support getting rid of welfare and entitlements

 

[Shelzin]

No.. you FEEL that you WANT to have a 'living wage' that is mandated or pandered to by government... you do not HAVE to have a tax free wage buffer... big difference

NO... It's CHEAPER not to tax poverty. You are just too fuck'n stupid to understand that for some reason. I don't know why. I can't fix that.

It is you who is stupid for putting feeling into governmental policy... It is cheaper for YOU to not tax 'poverty' or the 'living wage' part of your proposal... it gives you a more preferable rate

That's absolutely true. I would rather spend less money to get the same thing done. Most rational people are like that.

The government has no business handing out freebies anyway.. it has no constitutional charge to do such a thing... so if you are afraid about handouts costing more than what is derived from a no exception tax policy, support getting rid of welfare and entitlements

You are what give libertarians a bad name. If you are one or not is irrelevant... They'll look at the stupid crazy ... *shrugs*

 

[Care4all]

Any waste and abuse used with our tax dollars is 'unfair'....that both sides should be able to agree on....

I HOPE!

 

[Care4all]

The taxes collected in this Nation should be evaluated ON THE WHOLE in my opinion.....SS taxes, Medicare taxes, State income taxes, State sales taxes, Federal Income taxes, corporate taxes, Property taxes, Cigarette taxes, Booze taxes, Gasoline taxes for both State and federal, State and federal fees.....

all grouped together to see what kind of tax burden is put upon everyone....

Many things are regressive taxes, such SS taxes, Medicare taxes, State income taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, booze taxes, state sales taxes, taxes collected from playing the lottery....where they burden and hurt in some cases the poorest more than they hurt the wealthiest....

Then there are progressive income taxes, and taxes on things like Yaghts where they burden the wealthiest more than the lower income folks.....

It should be looked at on the whole....

Taxes paid, are taxes paid to run this Nation whether they are State or Federal.

 

[logical4u]

Oh... I thought that was a common phrase. Maybe not. It would help if people knew what it was if I'm referencing it... LOL

Living wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In public policy, a living wage or subsistence wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition.

Let them move into a "poor house": no drugs, no extra rooms, no extra TVs, no beauty treatments, no tatoos.

Well... I'd say that's prison but... Pretty sure all of those are there.

If they cannot get a job and get out, then after a set amount of time, give them a "modest" place, and let them eat in a common kitchen (they can use Michelle Obama's school menus) to keep them healthy. No one should want to stay on "handouts".

*blink*blink*

And you would pay for that with... Taxes?

Here's my stance point blank.

You have to not tax the living wage, because frankly all you'll be doing is take money from them, and then give them more back in the form of goods/services in which to live. But now you are also paying the fee's for the bureaucracy of it.

It's flat out cheaper not to tax people in poverty. And that's the logical view pure math and economics.... Without any bullshit right dominant brain help your fellow man out you rich bastards getting in the way of it.

How about boosting the economy so no one has to live in poverty? The more productive people that are working (and paying taxes), the more income the gov't will have to "invest" in the future.

 

[logical4u]

No... I want a fair tax system. Not an equal one. You and I both agree that what we currently have is neither.

But I understand that you can't get blood out of a turnip. You obviously don't. Too complex for you for some reason.

So you want it subjective... and you support the progressive system
A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family's tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income.

You can't get tax from 0.. but you can get tax from 1, just as you can get tax from 100 or 1000 or 1000000... JUST LIKE A FLAT SALES TAX DOES.. regardless of income, personal situation, etc... blind.. treating each person and each dollar equally

We aren't talking about a sales tax. We are talking about a income tax. One which I don't think we should have at all, but frankly we have to have it at the moment. And likely for the rest of our lives.

You are taking it to such an extreme that it become idiotic. I don't know any other way to say it. You have to have a living wage, or you'll have government giving people money, through taxes, just to live. You are your own worst enemy on this by denying it.

A "living" wage should be "earned". You go to work when you are still living with your parents. You learn some skills and a good work ethic. Then you make more money. If you want more money, you invest in an education, or become an apprentice.

Not taxing "poverty" is being abused by many that deal in cash. They do not claim what they bring in, and those of us that have "documented" incomes end up bearing the burden. If those in poverty have to pay a tax, they will not be "represented" without taxation (they will think about who they vote for and why. It will make it harder for our gov't to rob us blind.

 

[P@triot]

How about boosting the economy so no one has to live in poverty? The more productive people that are working (and paying taxes), the more income the gov't will have to "invest" in the future.

Gasp!!! How dare you suggest that people work and support themselves! This is an outrage! You can't ask dumbocrats to work - that's not fair! It's the conservatives job to provide for the dumbocrat - every idiot liberal knows that.

 

[Shelzin]

So you want it subjective... and you support the progressive system
A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family's tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income.

You can't get tax from 0.. but you can get tax from 1, just as you can get tax from 100 or 1000 or 1000000... JUST LIKE A FLAT SALES TAX DOES.. regardless of income, personal situation, etc... blind.. treating each person and each dollar equally

We aren't talking about a sales tax. We are talking about a income tax. One which I don't think we should have at all, but frankly we have to have it at the moment. And likely for the rest of our lives.

You are taking it to such an extreme that it become idiotic. I don't know any other way to say it. You have to have a living wage, or you'll have government giving people money, through taxes, just to live. You are your own worst enemy on this by denying it.

A "living" wage should be "earned". You go to work when you are still living with your parents. You learn some skills and a good work ethic. Then you make more money. If you want more money, you invest in an education, or become an apprentice.

I agree.

Not taxing "poverty" is being abused by many that deal in cash. They do not claim what they bring in, and those of us that have "documented" incomes end up bearing the burden. If those in poverty have to pay a tax, they will not be "represented" without taxation (they will think about who they vote for and why. It will make it harder for our gov't to rob us blind.

No system as of yet, real or imagined, that involves income tax has solved the "dealing in cash" problem. If you think you have it sovled ... Please... enlighten the rest of us.

 

[logical4u]

We aren't talking about a sales tax. We are talking about a income tax. One which I don't think we should have at all, but frankly we have to have it at the moment. And likely for the rest of our lives.

You are taking it to such an extreme that it become idiotic. I don't know any other way to say it. You have to have a living wage, or you'll have government giving people money, through taxes, just to live. You are your own worst enemy on this by denying it.

A "living" wage should be "earned". You go to work when you are still living with your parents. You learn some skills and a good work ethic. Then you make more money. If you want more money, you invest in an education, or become an apprentice.

I agree.

Not taxing "poverty" is being abused by many that deal in cash. They do not claim what they bring in, and those of us that have "documented" incomes end up bearing the burden. If those in poverty have to pay a tax, they will not be "represented" without taxation (they will think about who they vote for and why. It will make it harder for our gov't to rob us blind.

No system as of yet, real or imagined, that involves income tax has solved the "dealing in cash" problem. If you think you have it sovled ... Please... enlighten the rest of us.

No income tax, flat tax, across the board.

 

[Freewill]

Simple, fair is someone else paying more then you do.

 

[Shelzin]

A "living" wage should be "earned". You go to work when you are still living with your parents. You learn some skills and a good work ethic. Then you make more money. If you want more money, you invest in an education, or become an apprentice.

I agree.

Not taxing "poverty" is being abused by many that deal in cash. They do not claim what they bring in, and those of us that have "documented" incomes end up bearing the burden. If those in poverty have to pay a tax, they will not be "represented" without taxation (they will think about who they vote for and why. It will make it harder for our gov't to rob us blind.

No system as of yet, real or imagined, that involves income tax has solved the "dealing in cash" problem. If you think you have it sovled ... Please... enlighten the rest of us.

No income tax, flat tax, across the board.

I'm ok with that... Just as long as you don't somehow promote that to an income tax. Then it becomes outright illogical.

 

[Unkotare]

BriPat -

I never like the amount of abuse and name calling on this site and conider it most of it unjustified. .

Then get the fuck out. Who is asking you to stay?

 

[Londoner]

A big problem is that capitalism requires the cheapest possible labor in order to give investors the highest possible returns - this is how markets get incentives right.

BUT... this results in lower wages ...

AND... less purchasing power..

Which is fine...

Unless you have the world's largest consumption economy...which depends on massive middle class consumer demand.

There are two popular ways to fuel your consumption economy.

1. Progressive taxation, higher wages, higher benefits...and government programs all designed to boost the purchasing power of the middle class... like the system we had during the postwar years when employment and economic growth were at their highest. As a result of all the money in middle class wallets, investment capital poured into the USA to soak up the excess demand, that is, the capitalist had a massive incentive to create stuff consumers wanted BECAUSE consumers had so much money to spend. And since entitlements were so good, consumers worried less about saving for the future SO they had even more money to spend. All this money for consumption resulted in the greatest trickle-up wealth in history - that is, the capitalist couldn't produce goods fast enough.

Indeed, the capitalist was forced to make money by bringing cheaper more effective goods to market because consumption was where the money was (-this was before the über business/GOP partnership created the global labor market place and the Wall Street speculative casino, both of which unmoored investment capital from American workers and the American Main Street).

Or you could fuel domestic consumption with ...

2. Reaganomics, which did not favor high wages ... Because high wages ... lowers returns. Since Reagan lowered the labor costs in order to incentivize investment, he had a new problem. Workers now had lower wages and could no longer buy as much stuff, which hurt the domestic economy. Therefore, he moved middle class consumers from wage based consumption to credit based consumption.

Reagan did this by globalizing production and shipping jobs to cheaper Asian & 3rd world markets. This resulted in the USA spending 30 years inventing different ways to fuel consumption through debt, including the mother of all debt-based boondoggles: the subprime mortgage, which enabled the middle class to fuel the Bush economy by assuming more debt than ever before.

That is, under Reaganomis, we...

financialized the economy.. by loaning consumers the money they used to make in wages. But we also did something nice for investors, who were getting worried about the lack of consumption money. We let them make money NOT from investing in the Real economy of domestic goods and services but in the Wall Street phantom economy of high risk speculation, from things like derivatives and hedge funds which created profit when money and businesses were destroyed.

Conclusion: the wage based consumption of the liberal postwar years is preferable to the low-wage credit based consumption of Reaganimics, which promotes total austerity for disenfranchised labor markets. Credit (debt) based consumption is radically unstable and usually results in the systemic bankruptcy of the consumption classes, especially when you foreclose on the consumer but bail out his John Galt banker.

Oh, wait, one more thing.

Remember in the 80s when they first said "give us tax cuts and we'll give you jobs"... [?] Did anyone notice what happened after Reagan instituted the largest tax cuts in American History? The fucking job creators spent 30 years shipping their production to communist China.

We swallowed poison in 1980.

Turn off Rush Limbaugh. You've been lied to and we can no longer afford your stupidity.

 

[bripat9643]

A big problem is that capitalism requires the cheapest possible labor in order to give investors the highest possible returns - this is how markets get incentives right.

That's your first wrong statement.

BUT... this results in lower wages ...

Then why have wages steadily gone up?

AND... less purchasing power..

How can corporate profits increase if consumer spending decreases?

Which is fine...Unless you have the world's largest consumption economy...which depends on massive middle class consumer demand.

The term "consumption economy" is Marxist drivel. All economies are the result of production and consumption. Without production, there can be no consumption. The former drives that later.

There are two popular ways to fuel your consumption economy.

1. Progressive taxation, higher wages, higher benefits...and government programs all designed to boost the purchasing power of the middle class... like the system we had during the postwar years, when employment and economic growth were at their highest. As a result of all the money in middle class wallets, investment capital poured into the USA to soak up the excess demand. It was the greatest example of trickle-up wealth in history. The capitalist was forced to make money by bringing cheaper more effective goods to market because consumption was where the money was (-this was before the über business/GOP partnership created the global market place and the Wall Street speculative casino, both of which unmoored investment capital from the American Main Street).

One doesn't know where to begin dissecting this mass of bullshit. Where do "higher wages" come from in this "consumption economy," magic?

2. Reaganomics. Lower labor costs by globalizing production and shipping jobs to cheaper Asian & 3rd world markets. Transition middle class consumers from wage based consumption to credit cards... debt based consumption. Spend 30 years inventing different ways to fuel consumption through debt, including the prize innovation of the financial innovators: subprime mortgages.

That isn't what Reagan endorsed. It's just Marxist horseshit.

Financialize the economy.. by loaning consumers the money to survive and letting investor make money NOT from investing in the Real economy of domestic goods and services but in the Wall Street phantom economy of high risk speculation, loaded with hedge funds that profit most when money is lost and businesses are destroyed.

You're a vast fountain of Marxist platitudes, but you don't know jack shit about economics.

Conclusion: the wage based consumption of the liberal postwar years is preferable to the low-wage credit based consumption of Reaganimics, which promotes total austerity for disenfranchised labor markets. Credit (debt) based consumption is radically unstable and usually results in the systemic bankruptcy of the consumption classes, especially when you foreclose on the consumer but bail out his John Galt banker.

 

[percysunshine]

To this day, east and west Germany are an object lesson in failed socialist economic theory.