Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Skylar]

Its not what government services they use. Its what they can afford to pay. As a tax system based on one's capacity to pay is explicitly reasonable, sustainable and fair.

Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it. Including us.

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay

Irrelevant. As no other tax needs to. Income taxes work, are fair, reasonable, and sustainable. Which is why we use them and why we make them progressive.

if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

We're part of 'everyone'. We and everyone use them because they work. If you want fish, fish where the fish are.

And if its the capacity to pay taxes, go where there's far more money.

Anyone with an income has the ability to pay income tax just as anyone who buys a gallon of gas has the ability to pay the gas tax

But not nearly as much as someone with an unusually large income. The more you make, the more you can pay.

Again, if you want fish, go where the fish are. And the top quintile, especially the top 1% is where there's plenty of capacity to pay. The bottom quintile, not so much.

With a flat tax the more you make the more you pay

And with progressive taxation, even more so. Making far better and more reasonable use of the vastly increased capacity to pay of the really high income folks.

 

[RDD_1210]

n

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And by 'liberal tax plan', you mean the tax plan of virtually every nation on earth?

Everybody's doing it so we should too

Not a good reason to do anything

More accurately if 150 nations approach the same problem....and come up with an identical solution 150 of 150 times, there's likely some solid practical reasons behind that decision. Progressive taxation works. As when you want fish, you fish where the fish are.

Your proposal is based on several truck sized holes. First, your premise that subjective value judgments invalidate law. That's nonsense. Virtually every law we have involves subjective value judgments. In fact, our system of law couldn't exist without it. Negating your entire point.

And second, that there's no difference in need between a billionaire buying another super yacht.....and someone struggling to pay the rent. You insist that the needs are the same. A rational person could recognize a distinction.

And when rational people around the world are asked if they can recognize that distinction, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'. With virtually every nation on earth applying progressive taxation.

Actually it is. A roof over your head and food and water are ALWAYS going to be purchased first before a vacation home and a yacht. What do you think the first dollars anyone earns goes towards?

Are you really this dense?

Sorry income is income some income isn't worth more than other income because it is spent on different things

 

[Skylar]

For one it's unfair to tax some dollars at a higher rate than others
The tax code is millions of words long and even the legislators in DC can't understand it
It's rife with loopholes and special treatment
It's been used a tool for social engineering by the idiots in DC shall I go on?

And the flat tax isn't inadequate it's the very definition of fair and it would require very little to enforce it we could get rid of that American Gestapo, the IRS, and realize billions more in savings every year

Thanks for the answer. I don't disagree on the code .

Back to fairness . You make an assumption that we all get the same out of our tax dollars.

I contend that people wh more wealth , also benefit more from gov and should pay a higher rate .

how to people with more money benefit more from government when they use less government services than people with less money?

Its not what government services they use. Its what they can afford to pay. As a tax system based on one's capacity to pay is explicitly reasonable, sustainable and fair.

Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it. Including us.

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay
if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

It is fucking unbelievable that parasitic welfare recipients get to describe that marxist income tax as "reasonable, sustainable and fair".



.

A tax system based on your capacity to pay is thoroughly reasonable, sustainable and fair. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it.

If you disagree, tell me why.

 

[Skylar]

Its not what government services they use. Its what they can afford to pay. As a tax system based on one's capacity to pay is explicitly reasonable, sustainable and fair.

Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it. Including us.

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay

Irrelevant. As no other tax needs to. Income taxes work, are fair, reasonable, and sustainable. Which is why we use them and why we make them progressive.

if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

We're part of 'everyone'. We and everyone use them because they work. If you want fish, fish where the fish are.

And if its the capacity to pay taxes, go where there's far more money.

Anyone with an income has the ability to pay income tax just as anyone who buys a gallon of gas has the ability to pay the gas tax

Are America's rich suffering?

Irrelevant

Actually quite relevant. As taxing someone beyond their capacity to pay would be unreasonable. And the rich most definitely aren't being taxed beyond their capacity to pay.

 

[Timmy]

Let me ask. What's so bad about the current system ?

If you haven't figured that out yet then I can't help you

That's a non answer .

I'm being serious . What's wrong with the system now .? Cause everyone loves to float alternate versions that are quickly exposed as inadequate .

For one it's unfair to tax some dollars at a higher rate than others
The tax code is millions of words long and even the legislators in DC can't understand it
It's rife with loopholes and special treatment
It's been used a tool for social engineering by the idiots in DC shall I go on?

And the flat tax isn't inadequate it's the very definition of fair and it would require very little to enforce it we could get rid of that American Gestapo, the IRS, and realize billions more in savings every year

Thanks for the answer. I don't disagree on the code .

Back to fairness . You make an assumption that we all get the same out of our tax dollars.

I contend that people wh more wealth , also benefit more from gov and should pay a higher rate .

how to people with more money benefit more from government when they use less government services than people with less money?

And with a flat tax they would pay more if they make 10 times more than someone they pay ten times more why on earth should they pay 20 times more?

An example . Donald trump has a private jet. He uses public airports far more than me , FAA protection .

I imagine he has many copywrites and trademarks . I don't . Why am I paying for govt patent office and its protections ??

 

[Contumacious]

Thanks for the answer. I don't disagree on the code .

Back to fairness . You make an assumption that we all get the same out of our tax dollars.

I contend that people wh more wealth , also benefit more from gov and should pay a higher rate .

how to people with more money benefit more from government when they use less government services than people with less money?

Its not what government services they use. Its what they can afford to pay. As a tax system based on one's capacity to pay is explicitly reasonable, sustainable and fair.

Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it. Including us.

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay
if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

It is fucking unbelievable that parasitic welfare recipients get to describe that marxist income tax as "reasonable, sustainable and fair".



.

A tax system based on your capacity to pay is thoroughly reasonable, sustainable and fair. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it.

If you disagree, tell me why.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan first used by Louis Blanc in 1851[1] (although an earlier version of the saying appeared in Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's The Code of Nature[2]) and popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[3] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods and services.[4] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[5][6]

 

[Skylar]

how to people with more money benefit more from government when they use less government services than people with less money?

Its not what government services they use. Its what they can afford to pay. As a tax system based on one's capacity to pay is explicitly reasonable, sustainable and fair.

Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it. Including us.

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay
if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

It is fucking unbelievable that parasitic welfare recipients get to describe that marxist income tax as "reasonable, sustainable and fair".



.

A tax system based on your capacity to pay is thoroughly reasonable, sustainable and fair. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it.

If you disagree, tell me why.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan first used by Louis Blanc in 1851[1] (although an earlier version of the saying appeared in Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's The Code of Nature[2]) and popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[3] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods and services.[4] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[5][6]

So we *shouldn't* take into account someone's ability to pay taxes when applying a tax rate?

 

[Contumacious]

Its not what government services they use. Its what they can afford to pay. As a tax system based on one's capacity to pay is explicitly reasonable, sustainable and fair.

Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it. Including us.

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay
if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

It is fucking unbelievable that parasitic welfare recipients get to describe that marxist income tax as "reasonable, sustainable and fair".



.

A tax system based on your capacity to pay is thoroughly reasonable, sustainable and fair. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it.

If you disagree, tell me why.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan first used by Louis Blanc in 1851[1] (although an earlier version of the saying appeared in Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's The Code of Nature[2]) and popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[3] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods and services.[4] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[5][6]

So we *shouldn't* take into account someone's ability to pay taxes when applying a tax rate?

NO.

Bill Gates is as American as Joe Blow even though Blow only makes $9000 a year.

Why the fuck should Gates be forced to pay more?

A "fair" tax is UNconstitutional and UNamerican.

Move to Venezuela - quit inciting violence.


.

 

[Skylar]

Except no other tax is based on ability to pay
if they were then every tax schedule on everything would have multiple brackets

And the just because everyone is doing it reason isn't a reason at all

It is fucking unbelievable that parasitic welfare recipients get to describe that marxist income tax as "reasonable, sustainable and fair".



.

A tax system based on your capacity to pay is thoroughly reasonable, sustainable and fair. Which is why virtually every nation on earth uses it.

If you disagree, tell me why.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan first used by Louis Blanc in 1851[1] (although an earlier version of the saying appeared in Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's The Code of Nature[2]) and popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[3] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods and services.[4] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[5][6]

So we *shouldn't* take into account someone's ability to pay taxes when applying a tax rate?

NO.

Bill Gates is as American as Joe Blow even though Blow only makes $9000 a year.

Why the fuck should Gates be forced to pay more?

A "fair" tax is UNconstitutional and UNamerican.

Move to Venezuela - quit inciting violence.


.

So you're not talking about the same rate for both Bill and Joe Blow. You're talking about them paying the exact same *amount* in taxes?

If so, holy shit. I didn't know that flavor of right wing Kool-aid even existed.

 

[Centinel]

Is that why you want to end Medicaid and food stamps and housing assistance and energy assistance?

The reason I want to get rid of such programs is that I consider it unethical to take my neighbor's property in order to give it to other people. It's not right to take what belongs to others. Therefore, I can't very rightly ask someone to do so on my behalf.

What do you think the recipients of that help will do after it's gone?

Seek help from their neighbors. Form mutual assistance societies. Provide value to other people in order to receive income with with to buy medicine, food, and energy.

 

[Skylar]

Is that why you want to end Medicaid and food stamps and housing assistance and energy assistance?

The reason I want to get rid of such programs is that I consider it unethical to take my neighbor's property in order to give it to other people. It's not right to take what belongs to others. Therefore, I can't very rightly ask someone to do so on my behalf.

The difference being that the funds aren't yours once collected by the government. They belong to the government. And the idea that we should never have to pay for anything we don't agree with is a steaming load of Ivory Tower horseshit.

We all pay for shit we don't agree with. Its the nature of democracy. Almost no one agrees with every decision made by our elected officials. Or the folks that elected them. Its a grand compromise.

If you don't have kids, why should you have to pay for schools? If you had kids but they'[re grown, why should you have to pay for schools? If you don't drive, why should I have to pay for roads? If you don't think we should have invaded a particular country, why should you have to pay for the military? If you live in a safe neighborhood, why should you have to pay for police?

Because you're not the only person that lives here. Nor are you the only one who votes. Why then would you expect our laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies to reflect only your personal tastes?

 

[Centinel]

So you're not talking about the same rate for both Bill and Joe Blow. You're talking about them paying the exact same *amount* in taxes?

If so, holy shit. I didn't know that flavor of right wing Kool-aid even existed.

Individuals should pay for the federal services they use: Post offices, post roads, minting their gold/silver into coin, applying for a patent, etc. The navy should be paid for by a levy on the states, based upon population. For anything that is a general, public good, the states should be charged on basis of population.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you're not talking about the same rate for both Bill and Joe Blow. You're talking about them paying the exact same *amount* in taxes?

If so, holy shit. I didn't know that flavor of right wing Kool-aid even existed.

Individuals should pay for the federal services they use: Post offices, post roads, minting their gold/silver into coin, applying for a patent, etc. The navy should be paid for by a levy on the states, based upon population. For anything that is a general, public good, the states should be charged on basis of population.

Well, that isn't going to happen and is just nutz. I 100% disagree with you and I vote.

Stop living in the 18th century and get with the times.

 

[Skylar]

So you're not talking about the same rate for both Bill and Joe Blow. You're talking about them paying the exact same *amount* in taxes?

If so, holy shit. I didn't know that flavor of right wing Kool-aid even existed.

Individuals should pay for the federal services they use: Post offices, post roads, minting their gold/silver into coin, applying for a patent, etc. The navy should be paid for by a levy on the states, based upon population. For anything that is a general, public good, the states should be charged on basis of population.

So public education should be pay to play? All toll roads, even surface streets? A pay to play legal system? Non-professional cops and fire fighters? All volunteer army that brings its own equipment?

Is that the way it 'should' be?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Skylar,

The problem with loserterianism is it doesn't work in reality and there's no model of it ever working. The closes thing we ever had to it was pre-constitution(1780's)! Good luck maintaining a first rate nation on this bs.

 

[Centinel]

The difference being that the funds aren't yours once collected by the government. They belong to the government. And the idea that we should never have to pay for anything we don't agree with is a steaming load of Ivory Tower horseshit.

We all pay for shit we don't agree with. Its the nature of democracy. Almost no one agrees with every decision made by our elected officials. Or the folks that elected them. Its a grand compromise.

If you don't have kids, why should you have to pay for schools? If you had kids but they'[re grown, why should you have to pay for schools? If you don't drive, why should I have to pay for roads? If you don't think we should have invaded a particular country, why should you have to pay for the military? If you live in a safe neighborhood, why should you have to pay for police?

Because you're not the only person that lives here. Nor are you the only one who votes. Why then would you expect our laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies to reflect only your personal tastes?

I thought we were discussing what the laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies ought to be. Isn't that the point of a political debate forum?

My position is that if I don't have the right to do something (for example: take my neighbor's property in order to devote it to something I consider worthy), then I can't very well ask another person to do it on my behalf.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar,

The problem with loserterianism is it doesn't work in reality and there's no model of it ever working. The closes thing we ever had to it was pre-constitution(1780's)! Good luck maintaining a first rate nation on this bs.

Libertarian ism is a morally flawed pseudo-philosophy that is childishly naive and utterly unsustainable. Not to mention hideously exploitative and steeped in moral cowardice.

Its two most egregious flaws are its inept conception of 'consent' and its hopelessly naive ideas on concentrations of power. And these flaws always lead libertarian'ish societies down one of two roads: 1) adoption of stronger goverment to counter abuses of personal power, or 2) oligharchy. Where the abuses are simply institutionalized.

 

[Skylar]

The difference being that the funds aren't yours once collected by the government. They belong to the government. And the idea that we should never have to pay for anything we don't agree with is a steaming load of Ivory Tower horseshit.

We all pay for shit we don't agree with. Its the nature of democracy. Almost no one agrees with every decision made by our elected officials. Or the folks that elected them. Its a grand compromise.

If you don't have kids, why should you have to pay for schools? If you had kids but they'[re grown, why should you have to pay for schools? If you don't drive, why should I have to pay for roads? If you don't think we should have invaded a particular country, why should you have to pay for the military? If you live in a safe neighborhood, why should you have to pay for police?

Because you're not the only person that lives here. Nor are you the only one who votes. Why then would you expect our laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies to reflect only your personal tastes?

I thought we were discussing what the laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies ought to be. Isn't that the point of a political debate forum?

Why you expect our laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies to reflect only your personal tastes?

My position is that if I don't have the right to do something (for example: take my neighbor's property in order to devote it to something I consider worthy), then I can't very well ask another person to do it on my behalf.

You're not taking anything. The government is collecting taxes. Once collected, its no longer your money, or your neighbors. But the governments. And its the government that pays expenses.

So the premise of your argument is flawed to start. Well, unless you object to mandatory taxation at all. If so, then your argument is internally consistent. But still fatally flawed.

 

[Centinel]

So public education should be pay to play? All toll roads, even surface streets? A pay to play legal system? Non-professional cops and fire fighters? All volunteer army that brings its own equipment?

Is that the way it 'should' be?

I was talking about federal services: post offices, post roads, minting of coin, patents, etc.

Education, police powers, and fire fighters are state functions.

I don't see that we need a standing army since we have a very well organized militia, but if we do, as I said, the bill for the army and navy should be split among the states, based on population.

 

[Skylar]

So public education should be pay to play? All toll roads, even surface streets? A pay to play legal system? Non-professional cops and fire fighters? All volunteer army that brings its own equipment?

Is that the way it 'should' be?

I was talking about federal services: post offices, post roads, minting of coin, patents, etc.

Education, police powers, and fire fighters are state functions.

In terms of 'taking money from my neighbor and giving it to someone else', what would it matter if the Federal government was doing it or the State government? Its still everything you insist you don't support. Taking money from one person to benefit someone else. At least by the standards you've applied.