When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Care4all]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

i don't think that income should be taxed AT ALL. It shouldn't be any of the government's business to know how much I make.

I support a national sales tax. Tax what I spend, not what I earn.

too many ways for the wealthiest to avoid the sales tax.....they can buy their big ticket items overseas in this global market.

What would be taxed is another issue....would purchases of stock on the Wall street market be considered a purchase being taxed? Would the purchase of ones house be taxed? would any purchases of anything overseas be taxed? Will ones purchase from the electric company be taxed, or the oil for heating be taxed?

Will food and necessities be taxed by this national sales tax?

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me.....

 

[blastoff]

Anyone who buys into the notion there should be any earnings limit is an idiot incapable of earning very much in the first place.

A limit would only make sense if there was a finite amount of money wherein the more I made the less available for others to make. Only stupid people think it works that way, and I truly hope their angst over what I've got doesn't affect their burger flipping duties.

 

[Bern80]

sure they do, for the very highest bracket of income, they do pay more....for ALL THE MONEY THEY EARNED in the other 3-4 tax brackets below the highest, they pay THE SAME tax rate as EVERYONE ELSES taxable money earned in those brackets.

When the middle class person starts earning enough money to move up a bracket, that income in that bracket with be taxed equally, for him and for the wealthiest guy, with income in that tax bracket range.

I do not see it unfair at all....for a progressive system.

It could be sooooooooooo much worse....it could be that when you enter a higher bracket, that they tax ALL of your money earned at that high tax rate!

care

I understand how it works. It doesn't change the FACT that as a percentage of what they make they pay more in taxes. No one can explain this to me, it seems. Why is it fair to tax you more because you make more? How is that FAIR in any way shape or form? As pointed out before, no one seems to understand what that word even means. For something to be FAIR, there needs to be a moral justifcation for doing it. Because they have it is not a moral justifcation. Because you think you need it and the rich are the only place to get it, as another alluded to, is not a moral justification. There are more fair systems that could be used, and that no one wants to talk about them shows that you may not want the system to actually be fair in the first place. But this line of BS that the current system is fair or it's the best we can do, is just that, BS.

it is as fair as it can be....you can NOT get blood out of a turnip.

In the early years of our country, the middle class and below, paid no income tax at all and ONLY the wealthiest were income taxed.

You want to go back to that....?

you can not tax a couple making $20,000 to live off the same amount as you tax the couple making $2,000,000....unless of course you are in to starving them to death....

That's just the way it is....

I could probably agree to a flat tax, but ONLY IF the first 20k-30k or so for EVERYONE, is TAX EXEMPT.....

As it stands now, with the standard deductions, no couple pays taxes on that amount....on the first $20k, not even the wealthiest couple pays taxes on their first $20k earned....

Then you are one of the close minded who has resided themselves to this silly notion that taxes can ONLY be derived by taxing income. Claiming that the current system in place is as fair is it can possibly be is complete and utter silliness. USE YOUR GOD GIVEN BRAIN AND THINK MAN.

 

[blu]

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me.....

under every plan proposed for a sales tax like the person you quoted brought up, people under a certain income level get pre-imbursed for the year with all the money they could possibly spend in taxes (meaning their full salary)

 

[Frank]

too many ways for the wealthiest to avoid the sales tax.....they can buy their big ticket items overseas in this global market......

Take that "loop hole" out so that it can be taxed.

What would be taxed is another issue....would purchases of stock on the Wall street market be considered a purchase being taxed? Would the purchase of ones house be taxed? would any purchases of anything overseas be taxed? Will ones purchase from the electric company be taxed, or the oil for heating be taxed?

Will food and necessities be taxed by this national sales tax?

That is something that can be determined. I mean, I'm already taxed when I bought my house...and am taxed every 6 months for it. I was taxed when I bought my car....and am taxed every year on it. I am taxed on all those items you just mentioned already, but either by the state or my municipality. Why not add another 1-2% national sales tax on those purchases and let people keep what they earn. This way, they have money to spend, even on necessities, which will increase consumer spending, which in turn, creates more jobs, ect, ect.

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me....

Again, because it's not on what they make.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok, if you want to lower corporate taxes, who do you want to pay the taxes that the corporation wouldn't then be paying?

Unbelievable how narrow minded you guys are. Of course we need every tax dollar we're collecting right now and it would be absolutely ludicrous to get government to take hard look at itself and spend less and more efficiently. Or, if insist on allowing government to continue its wasteful ways, we come up with a fairer system capable of generating similar tax revenue.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Care4all]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

No... it is immoral to have an involuntary redistribution system... it is immoral to have unequal treatment...

And it is simple to see you are indeed another for selective equal treatment... the far left mantra lives on... and remains a huge problem

I don't see it as unequal treatment....I see it as equal treatment, on taxable income earned....it meets constitutional muster of equal treatment under the law.

 

[Bern80]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

No it isn't. Rich or poor we are all citizens of this country who ALL derive benefit from taxes. That some, regardless of income, have to contribute to paying for those benefits and others do not, is what is immoral.

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

Some incentive to better your position in life huh?

This meets the constitutional muster OF EQUAL treatment..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The constitution doesn't get to define what the word equal means. What everyone pays, dollar for dollar, is not equal and what everyone pays as a percentage of income is not equal. What other defintion of equal might you be referring to?

 

[Foxfyre]

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me.....

under every plan proposed for a sales tax like the person you quoted brought up, people under a certain income level get pre-imbursed for the year with all the money they could possibly spend in taxes (meaning their full salary)

The fallacy of that idea is that it doesn't simplify the system and in fact would complicate it. How do you prove that you earned under a certain income level without having to keep all the records and provide all the paperwork that we do now? Why not just charge a lower tax and skip the pre-imbursement?

And the money to pre-imburse folks has to come from somewhere. I don't have to think very hard to see how much that would tempt folks to find ways to get that preimbursement whether they were entitled to it or not.

If we're going to tax income, I much prefer a flat percentage tax that everybody pays which would be the least regressive of all tax systems and would be fair.

If we're going to have a sales tax, then everybody pays it period which would be the most regressive system even though it would be fair.

 

[DiamondDave]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

i don't think that income should be taxed AT ALL. It shouldn't be any of the government's business to know how much I make.

I support a national sales tax. Tax what I spend, not what I earn.

too many ways for the wealthiest to avoid the sales tax.....they can buy their big ticket items overseas in this global market.

What would be taxed is another issue....would purchases of stock on the Wall street market be considered a purchase being taxed? Would the purchase of ones house be taxed? would any purchases of anything overseas be taxed? Will ones purchase from the electric company be taxed, or the oil for heating be taxed?

Will food and necessities be taxed by this national sales tax?

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me.....

No... for what a person spends is up to them... a person making 20K is not forced to spend all 20K... just as a person making 20MIL is not forced to spend all 20MIL.. whether some do is irrelevant

Funny that we have import taxes and taxes on items being shipped back into the country that are bought elsewhere... I know.. I have paid it.. and not on huge items...

I am not one for a sales tax as the only means for federal taxation... for that leads to more political manipulation... those pandering to certain groups to have more things exempted.... now having a separate tax (for example the gas tax) that is used to pay for the creation and upkeep of federal roads is something that is doable... the problem is government getting 'creative' and finding a way to tax each and every thing as a way to gather more power and control and expand itself continually

There will be 'inequality' in outcomes for people.. in a free society there will always be people all over the spectrum between rich and poor... but each citizen is still a citizen... and each citizen should be blindly treated the exact same way... whether it be in taxation, in criminal court, in representation, in voting, etc

Tax the dollar earned and stop having the system revolve around touchy-feely subjective bullshit

 

[blu]

too many ways for the wealthiest to avoid the sales tax.....they can buy their big ticket items overseas in this global market......

Take that "loop hole" out so that it can be taxed.

how? instead of reporting all income are you going to make each person keep every receipt? are you going to force international carriers to report every shipment to the government?

personally I would buy as much as possible outside the country if a sales tax went into effect. avoiding being robbed by a bunch of assholes who are going to waste your money on deadbeats and illegal wars is patriotic.

 

[Bern80]

Ok, if you want to lower corporate taxes, who do you want to pay the taxes that the corporation wouldn't then be paying?

Unbelievable how narrow minded you guys are. Of course we need every tax dollar we're collecting right now and it would be absolutely ludicrous to get government to take hard look at itself and spend less and more efficiently. Or, if insist on allowing government to continue its wasteful ways, we come up with a fairer system capable of generating similar tax revenue.

You didn't answer the question.

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

 

[blu]

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me.....

under every plan proposed for a sales tax like the person you quoted brought up, people under a certain income level get pre-imbursed for the year with all the money they could possibly spend in taxes (meaning their full salary)

The fallacy of that idea is that it doesn't simplify the system and in fact would complicate it. How do you prove that you earned under a certain income level without having to keep all the records and provide all the paperwork that we do now? Why not just charge a lower tax and skip the pre-imbursement?

And the money to pre-imburse folks has to come from somewhere. I don't have to think very hard to see how much that would tempt folks to find ways to get that preimbursement whether they were entitled to it or not.

If we're going to tax income, I much prefer a flat percentage tax that everybody pays which would be the least regressive of all tax systems and would be fair.

If we're going to have a sales tax, then everybody pays it period which would be the most regressive system even though it would be fair.

damn I need to wake up more before posting, it is actually that *everyone* gets preimbursed up to the poverty level or some small multiple of it. then you don't track people's income and the poorest of poor don't really pay taxes and still get by barely

sorry about that...

 

[Newby]

There is no real MORAL justification for such confiscatory income tax rates. The argument for such as being moral is Orwellian.

Why, you make no argument moral or otherwise, you only label, even Simon thinks the figure is too high and says why. You merely sloganize.

You are making an argument in favor of creating poverty. Shame on you. It's no sin to be impoverished, but it is a sin to make someone that way. Following your formula with have millions impoverished.

Why? Why do you have this insatiable need to impoverish people? You should see someone about that.

I am ???? You seem to miss the point that is so LARGE anyone with eyes or ears or mind could see - We already have poverty on a scale that is absurd. And if you naively think the wealthy will create utopian riches, you know no wealthy people.

In America today you are normal - maybe always normal. Self centered idiocy is a cognitive bias. Thus the slow progress thus the world.

(Weirdly I was just reading this morning about how Truman had a hard time convincing the republicans and conservatives of his day to support Europe so more turmoil would not unfold.)

For those with open minds - read the piece.


"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...&em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070


You may need to create an account - sometimes it goes right in, others it does not.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Would-Never-Ever-Republican/dp/1419697595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Why Jesus Would Never, Ever Vote Republican (9781419697593): Richard…[/ame]

You should take both of your posts to this point and imagine them addressing the abortion issue and see how they sound. And I'd bet a million dollars that you're pro-abortion. Why can you have the stance that you do in this thread about human life, but completely turn it around on another topic. Does your definition of the value of human life change depending on the topic?

Why are morals suddenly imposable on others whenever it's other people's money we're talking about? Yet you'd argue that morals have no place in government enforcement on how a person should live their life? How do you rationalize in your mind that it's okay for some things but not for others? Amazing.

 

[Foxfyre]

under every plan proposed for a sales tax like the person you quoted brought up, people under a certain income level get pre-imbursed for the year with all the money they could possibly spend in taxes (meaning their full salary)

The fallacy of that idea is that it doesn't simplify the system and in fact would complicate it. How do you prove that you earned under a certain income level without having to keep all the records and provide all the paperwork that we do now? Why not just charge a lower tax and skip the pre-imbursement?

And the money to pre-imburse folks has to come from somewhere. I don't have to think very hard to see how much that would tempt folks to find ways to get that preimbursement whether they were entitled to it or not.

If we're going to tax income, I much prefer a flat percentage tax that everybody pays which would be the least regressive of all tax systems and would be fair.

If we're going to have a sales tax, then everybody pays it period which would be the most regressive system even though it would be fair.

damn I need to wake up more before posting, it is actually that *everyone* gets preimbursed up to the poverty level or some small multiple of it. then you don't track people's income and the poorest of poor don't really pay taxes and still get by barely

sorry about that...

But this doesn't strike you as really silly? Why not just lower the amount of the tax assessed and skip the pre-imbursement?

 

[Newby]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster OF EQUAL treatment..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

Care, I'm really sensitve to the 'moral' argument. All I've heard for years ad nauseum is that the so-called 'right wing' has been trying to push their morals on everyone else through government fiat (which isn't even true). Why is it now suddenly okay for the government to determine what is 'moral' and what is not and enforce that on me? Tell me how this is any different than some saying that abortion is immoral and should be a criminal offense? If those that are wealthy chose of their own free will to give their money to the poor or to help financially in any way they can, isn't that up to them to determine? Just like it's up to the woman to determine whether or not she aborts her child?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unbelievable how narrow minded you guys are. Of course we need every tax dollar we're collecting right now and it would be absolutely ludicrous to get government to take hard look at itself and spend less and more efficiently. Or, if insist on allowing government to continue its wasteful ways, we come up with a fairer system capable of generating similar tax revenue.

You didn't answer the question.

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A progressive tax makes sense because the higher the bracket the money is made in, the less of it represents money to be spent on necessities.

 

[Foxfyre]

You didn't answer the question.

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

The Bush tax cuts were effective in generating revenue that was bringing the deficit down significantly each year despite financing two wars and a Congress that was spending like druniken sailors. Had the housing bubble not burst in late 2008, and that trend continued, the budget would have eventually balanced at least in the near term. The more sinister culprits of massive entitlements continue to grow however and sooner or later will have to be addressed.

The Reagan tax cuts were effective in generating revenue that would have brought the deficits down significantly every year had the Congress not increased spending more than the amount of new monies that were coming into the treasury.

Some tax cuts would certainly reduce national revenues. Those tax cuts, however, did not.

The right kind of tax cut does generate economic acivity and increases revenues in most areas of the economy. At some point the increase levels out and the tax cuts are no longer a factor in increased GDP, but when it levels out it is always at a higher level than it was when it started.

Tax cuts are not the answer for everything. But they are not necessarily deficit producers either.

 

[Frank]

A progressive tax makes sense because the higher the bracket the money is made in, the less of it represents money to be spent on necessities.

And how do you define necessities?