Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Skull Pilot]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

You realize that most states employ progressive property taxes. Where I live we have an exemption which is limited to X dollars. That means that lower income homeowners get a much larger tax break than their larger-home owning brothern...

Sales taxes are based on market assessments not merely the acreage of land and the number of bedrooms in a home you know that don't you?

that's considered property taxes.

Sorry I meant property taxes

 

[jc456]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

well first you need to know what money is available to tax don't you think that that would be important? If someone has 1 million dollars in a bank that person pays no tax on that money. You know this right? So when you say a millionaire you only get to tax that dude on profits you should really learn what income is to discuss the subject, it's obvious you don't know.

Nobody is proposing an annual tax on all assets. You're arguing against a strawman.

sure that's exactly what you all are discussing here. you have no idea what a millionaire makes a year in profits do you? He may only have a million in the bank and be living off of capital gains money as his income to which they pay a higher percentage today. You know this right?

 

[Davros]

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

what the fk does that mean? If the poor person buys cigarettes you know they spend more on taxes for those then they do on income today?

Cigarette tax is designed to stop people from smoking. It is a noxious habit, and nobody should whine about the price of cigarettes when they are the ultimate example of unnecessary and harmful spending.

 

[bendog]

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

That and we can't afford to lose the demand effect of the spending by lower earners. They are very useful in terms of demand. The more tax, the less they can spend.

A straight flat tax also has problems on the upper end. If it results in a net tax cut on the very wealthy, the effect is simply to push tax burden (deficts) downward. And, having 1% control virtually all the wealth was not healthy for society 120 years ago. So, there's no law against them paying a greater % of income in taxes than others, and provided that it doesn't cause them to use their money in ways that are inefficient for the overall economy, I don't see a reason to be against it - Provided that it's done to benefit them in terms of govt services just as it benefits the rest of us.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

I haven't proposed a rate at all

I've said I'm not sure what the rate would be but yes those paying no tax would have to pay tax why do you have a problem with that?

 

[jc456]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

well first you need to know what money is available to tax don't you think that that would be important? If someone has 1 million dollars in a bank that person pays no tax on that money. You know this right? So when you say a millionaire you only get to tax that dude on profits you should really learn what income is to discuss the subject, it's obvious you don't know.

Nobody is proposing an annual tax on all assets. You're arguing against a strawman.

how much property tax do you pay? capital gains, sales, county local taxes do you pay? You realize we are the most taxed country on the planet right?

 

[jc456]

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

That and we can't afford to lose the demand effect of the spending by lower earners. They are very useful in terms of demand. The more tax, the less they can spend.

A straight flat tax also has problems on the upper end. If it results in a net tax cut on the very wealthy, the effect is simply to push tax burden (deficts) downward. And, having 1% control virtually all the wealth was not healthy for society 120 years ago. So, there's no law against them paying a greater % of income in taxes than others, and provided that it doesn't cause them to use their money in ways that are inefficient for the overall economy, I don't see a reason to be against it - Provided that it's done to benefit them in terms of govt services just as it benefits the rest of us.

again, talking out your ass and have no idea what it is you're arguing. fair, define it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

Tell me If A gallon of gas for one person was 10 times less than the tax on a gallon of gas for another person would you call that fair?

 

[bendog]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

well first you need to know what money is available to tax don't you think that that would be important? If someone has 1 million dollars in a bank that person pays no tax on that money. You know this right? So when you say a millionaire you only get to tax that dude on profits you should really learn what income is to discuss the subject, it's obvious you don't know.

Nobody is proposing an annual tax on all assets. You're arguing against a strawman.

sure that's exactly what you all are discussing here. you have no idea what a millionaire makes a year in profits do you? He may only have a million in the bank and be living off of capital gains money as his income to which they pay a higher percentage today. You know this right?

JFC

Income Tax Changes 2015 - 2016

 

[jc456]

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

you do know the poor pay sales tax right. Many on cigarettes and alcohol, sin taxes? You know this correct? you know they get food stamps right and sell stamps for cash to buy cigs and alcohol.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

That and we can't afford to lose the demand effect of the spending by lower earners. They are very useful in terms of demand. The more tax, the less they can spend.

A straight flat tax also has problems on the upper end. If it results in a net tax cut on the very wealthy, the effect is simply to push tax burden (deficts) downward. And, having 1% control virtually all the wealth was not healthy for society 120 years ago. So, there's no law against them paying a greater % of income in taxes than others, and provided that it doesn't cause them to use their money in ways that are inefficient for the overall economy, I don't see a reason to be against it - Provided that it's done to benefit them in terms of govt services just as it benefits the rest of us.

I've done this before but here we go

Lets say you make 10 million off of your investments every year
In the current tax system you can deduct donations, mortgage interest etc and so your taxable income is 7 M

The cap gains rate is 15% so you pay (.15)7 or 1.05M in taxes

Now if the flat tax rate was 11% ans you had no deductions you would pay 1.1M in taxes

The rate was lowered but you didn't get a tax cut did you?

 

[Davros]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

well first you need to know what money is available to tax don't you think that that would be important? If someone has 1 million dollars in a bank that person pays no tax on that money. You know this right? So when you say a millionaire you only get to tax that dude on profits you should really learn what income is to discuss the subject, it's obvious you don't know.

Nobody is proposing an annual tax on all assets. You're arguing against a strawman.

how much property tax do you pay? capital gains, sales, county local taxes do you pay? You realize we are the most taxed country on the planet right?

Most taxed in what way? I highly doubt that claim.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage intended by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

You don't understand tax brackets you only pay the rate on a million for those dollars you earn over a million not on ALL your income

 

[Little-Acorn]

A famous bank robber was once asked why he kept robbing banks. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!"

The same philosophy is at work among politicians who favor the progressive income tax. Both the robber and the politicians want to take things from people, not because those people did anything to owe them, but simply because it's there and the people haven't done a good enough job defending against the politicians (or robbers).

The only differences between the bank robber and the politicians are:

1.) The robber doesn't pretend that what he is doing is morally right.

2.) The robber doesn't pretend he is doing anybody any favors.

3.) The robber doesn't pretend the people he's taking the money from, are somehow "bad" for having that money.

Aside from those things, there is no difference between the bank robber and the progressive politicians.

 

[Davros]

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

I haven't proposed a rate at all

I've said I'm not sure what the rate would be but yes those paying no tax would have to pay tax why do you have a problem with that?

So we have people hardly making ends meet. And you want to take more money away from them, increasing the demand for welfare and charity, decreasing consumer spending, creating more poverty. .. all in the name of fairness to the fat cats?

Absurd.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

Yes churches are nothing but businesses I'll add charities to that list too

I thought you'd all giggly about getting rid of deductions for charity after all it's how all those rich assholes pay less in taxes

well that will really kill off the poor and needy.

I doubt that

 

[Davros]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage intended by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

You don't understand tax brackets you only pay the rate on a million for those dollars you earn over a million not on ALL your income

By percentage I mean whatever that percentage is when figuring all tax brackets. E.g. if the tax is 10% on the first 1 million and 20% on the second, someone making 2 million would have an overall percentage tax of 15%. And so his fair share would be 15%, not say 7% because of the complex tax breaks his accountant finds.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

I haven't proposed a rate at all

I've said I'm not sure what the rate would be but yes those paying no tax would have to pay tax why do you have a problem with that?

So we have people hardly making ends meet. And you want to take more money away from them, increasing the demand for welfare and charity, decreasing consumer spending, creating more poverty. .. all in the name of fairness to the fat cats?

Absurd.

I'm thinking we could be revenue neutral with a flat tax of 10% sorry but no one is going to have a huge lifestyle change if they take home 90 cents on the dollar

 

[jc456]

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

That and we can't afford to lose the demand effect of the spending by lower earners. They are very useful in terms of demand. The more tax, the less they can spend.

A straight flat tax also has problems on the upper end. If it results in a net tax cut on the very wealthy, the effect is simply to push tax burden (deficts) downward. And, having 1% control virtually all the wealth was not healthy for society 120 years ago. So, there's no law against them paying a greater % of income in taxes than others, and provided that it doesn't cause them to use their money in ways that are inefficient for the overall economy, I don't see a reason to be against it - Provided that it's done to benefit them in terms of govt services just as it benefits the rest of us.

I've done this before but here we go

Lets say you make 10 million off of your investments every year
In the current tax system you can deduct donations, mortgage interest etc and so your taxable income is 7 M

The cap gains rate is 15% so you pay (.15)7 or 1.05M in taxes

Now if the flat tax rate was 11% ans you had no deductions you would pay 1.1M in taxes

The rate was lowered but you didn't get a tax cut did you?

dude the libturds don't have a clue on how to do economics, math or percentages. it's hilarious and sad at the same time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage intended by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

You don't understand tax brackets you only pay the rate on a million for those dollars you earn over a million not on ALL your income

By percentage I mean whatever that percentage is when figuring all tax brackets. E.g. if the tax is 10% on the first 1 million and 20% on the second, someone making 2 million would have an overall percentage tax of 15%.

The average net tax in this country is about 11%