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?

It most likely doesn't seem like a great plan to me, my take is it is an absurd mini rant by someone who hates taxes and doesn't understand that a flat tax is a paved road to a Plutocracy.

We got a Republic, and people like you don't understand a progressive income tax is today more important than ever before. The CU & McCutcheon 5-4 decisions have moved us to the tipping point of losing what our founders left us.

Why is a progressive tax more important than ever before?
Explain. Use your own words. Facts only.

It's more important than ever before because the current economic forces are shifting more and more of America's wealth toward the wealthy.

That would apply only if the Keyensian Theory of the Zero Sum Game were not a theory.
Fact is, that theory has been debunked. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. There is no magic pot of money from which we draw And there certainly is not system whereby one has a special ladle to use to draw from the magic pot.
Of course you people have convinced yourselves that if one has a dollar more, then another must have a dollar less.
There is no "share" of wealth. Wealth is created. And these alleged forces do not exist. If what you state were to be true, then there would be a steady flow of mysterious withdrawls, presumably from wealthy people with special access codes which permit them and ONLY them to take money from whomever they wish.

The nation generates a finite amount of wealth every year. Who gets it determines who gets richer, who gets poorer, who stays the same.

YEah if people only lived and worked one year then died

You can make more every year for decades without other people making less every year in those decades

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

 

[NightFox]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

Okay given the fact that we DO have and have had for a LONG time a progressive income tax, do you see the contradictions in your own statements ?

Maybe you should rethink your premise as to what is "necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people"? Might I suggest while you're doing your rethinking you experiment with doing a bit of it outside the box.

 

[Arizona Willie]

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?

==============

Your very first sentence reveals your agenda and ideology.

No need to read any further to know you are an anti-government / taxes are theft / hurray for me and fuck everybody else kind of person.

A typical Republican asshole.

As worthless as the drivel you vomit on our screens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

Okay given the fact that we DO have and have had for a LONG time a progressive income tax, do you see the contradictions in your own statements ?

Maybe you should rethink your premise as to what is "necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people"? Might I suggest while you're doing your rethinking you experiment with doing a bit of it outside the box.

Outside the box? Nice try, but an ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

I have considered what is in the tax code: Corporate welfare, a judgement that investment in American is noble, and work is less so (capital gains are taxed at a lower percentage than ordinary income).

The tax code is thousands and thousands of pages. The question is who benefits the most and who doesn't.

 

[NightFox]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

Okay given the fact that we DO have and have had for a LONG time a progressive income tax, do you see the contradictions in your own statements ?

Maybe you should rethink your premise as to what is "necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people"? Might I suggest while you're doing your rethinking you experiment with doing a bit of it outside the box.

Outside the box? Nice try, but an ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

Outside the box is not ad hominem, you should go look up what the phrase means; hint: it points to the fact that your premise suggests that a progressive income tax (which is what already exists) is indispensable which indicates an inability or unwillingness to consider alternatives (i.e. " think outside the box").

I have considered what is in the tax code: Corporate welfare, a judgement that investment in American is noble, and work is less so (capital gains are taxed at a lower percentage than ordinary income).

The tax code is thousands and thousands of pages. The question is who benefits the most and who doesn't.

If you have considered what is in the tax code how could you possibly be a supporter of a progressive income tax code? You want a progressive income tax you got a progressive income tax... love it or come up with an alternative that doesn't lead to a 75,000 page monstrosity like we have today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

So the only way to have a government by the people is to take more money from some than others?

Shit if that's the case why don't we have a government mandate that ALL income is confiscated and everyone is given the same exact amount to live on and the fucking government can keep the rest

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

==============

Your very first sentence reveals your agenda and ideology.

No need to read any further to know you are an anti-government / taxes are theft / hurray for me and fuck everybody else kind of person.

A typical Republican asshole.

As worthless as the drivel you vomit on our screens.

Stay tuned as I prove, using his words only, that he's blundered into arguing for a flat tax that will RAISE taxes on everyone.

I'll let him respond post by post. Starting with 427.

 

[Skull Pilot]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

 

[NYcarbineer]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

So the only way to have a government by the people is to take more money from some than others?

Shit if that's the case why don't we have a government mandate that ALL income is confiscated and everyone is given the same exact amount to live on and the fucking government can keep the rest

1. You said a tax on gross income, no deductions/exemptions.
2. You said the poor must have 'skin in the game'
3. You said a lower rate on the gross income of the rich would result in a higher tax than the progressive rate on their net incomes after current deductions.

In short, you're proposing a tax system that will raise taxes on everyone?

 

[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?

==============

Your very first sentence reveals your agenda and ideology.

No need to read any further to know you are an anti-government / taxes are theft / hurray for me and fuck everybody else kind of person.

A typical Republican asshole.

As worthless as the drivel you vomit on our screens.

Not anti government never have been

Not a republican never have been never have voted for a republican

The whole theory of marginal utility is subjective bullshit

 

[NYcarbineer]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A Progressive Income tax is necessary for a democratic republic to remain a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. As we have seen, the Republican Party has become the champion of the power elite who rule and our beholden to the wealthy to continue in public office.

We are too plutocratic for the good of what once was the greatest form of governance in history. Of course greed and the lust for power has been the motivator, not good will nor Christian Ethics created this new and vile movement by callous conservatives.

Think that's only my opinion? See the crowds who follow Trump and Sanders - the proof is in the ethical arguments in their stump speeches. In the former hate and fear and lust for money; in the latter an example of the teaching of J. Christ.

So the only way to have a government by the people is to take more money from some than others?

Shit if that's the case why don't we have a government mandate that ALL income is confiscated and everyone is given the same exact amount to live on and the fucking government can keep the rest

1. You said a tax on gross income, no deductions/exemptions.
2. You said the poor must have 'skin in the game'
3. You said a lower rate on the gross income of the rich would result in a higher tax than the progressive rate on their net incomes after current deductions.

In short, you're proposing a tax system that will raise taxes on everyone?

I gave you an example of how a lower tax on all income can yield a higher tax payment than a higher tax on a portion

I have also told you several times I'm not sure what the flat tax rate would be to guarantee at least a revenue neutral result

I haven't used the skin in the game term in any of my posts

You are whining that a flat tax means an automatic huge tax cut for the so called rich when in reality the real rich who have no earned income and live off investments will pay the same or maybe a little more it's the people with earned incomes in the 3 highest brackets that will probably see the largest tax reductions

 

[Skull Pilot]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I want taxes to be fair and am not targeting any one group

 

[Skull Pilot]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I didn't defend anything I merely told you your whining about the rich was unnecessary

 

[NYcarbineer]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

 

[Skull Pilot]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

I never once said what the flat tax rate would be

I gave you examples and illustrations of the concept you can't seem to understand the difference

 

[Skull Pilot]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

For the last fucking time I never said what the flat tax rate would end up being.

You are using numbers I used in illustrations of the concept as statements of fact

And so what if people with kids pay more?

Why on earth should someone who chose to have kids pay less tax than someone who earns the exact same income who chose not to have kids?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I want taxes to be fair and am not targeting any one group

Shall I repeat the question?