Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Centinel]

So that's a no then on traffic laws? They shouldn't ever exist.

In my opinion, it should be a matter of contract between the road owner and the customer, and then normal contract law would apply.

 

[Centinel]

See 1/2 the black lives matter cases . Regular traffic stops , then dead!

Uuuum. Whaaa?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Well, there are 196 countries in the world of which 44 have a flat tax. Having said that, 44 out of 44 came up with identical solution and there is likely some solid practical reason behind it.

If progressive taxation, as you say, works, how come that class gap is getting bigger every year?

And by the way, most of western European countries have regressive tax code thanks to the VAT taxes in the place. And VAT is consumption tax that is hitting poor more than any other tax. Is it? If so, why are they using it? Go figure.

 

[Ame®icano]

of course not, but that is exactly what has happened over the last 7 years under obozo the Kenyan clown prince.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

^^^^talking point ^^^^^

What's factually incorrect, or irrelevant?

1. that the GOP blocked letting the bush rates expire. Dems controlled congress for Obama's first two years
2. that Obama left them because of "economic forces". He left them because even he realized that raising taxes on everyone who pays taxes would hurt the economy.

Democrats did not control Congress in 2010 at the end of which most of the tax cuts were due to expire.

They had more then enough time to do something about it. Why haven't they?

 

[Ame®icano]

And by a 'little bit', you mean increasing their tax rate by 400% or more?

How much is 400% of nothing?

 

[Ame®icano]

So? He also believed in public schools.

And that too is a Marxism.

Great. So you believe that anyone who doesn't want to abolish the public school system is a Marxist.

Interesting. I guess that means Marx won...

...because practically every place on earth supports having public schools.

Marx has accomplished word domination!!!!!!!!!!

lol, retard.

"So you believe..."

Where have I said that? You sure like to put words in other people mouth. Shitstain at his best.

You said it when you said that public education is Marxism.

Nope, you said Marx believed in public schools. I said that public schools are in fact form of Marxism. I said nothing of the crap you wrote after that, you lying piece of shit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, there are 196 countries in the world of which 44 have a flat tax. Having said that, 44 out of 44 came up with identical solution and there is likely some solid practical reason behind it.

If progressive taxation, as you say, works, how come that class gap is getting bigger every year?

And by the way, most of western European countries have regressive tax code thanks to the VAT taxes in the place. And VAT is consumption tax that is hitting poor more than any other tax. Go figure.

Great logic. 44 countries have the same type of tax so it must be good. Er... perhaps those 44 countries are just countries that like to make it easier for the rich.

Then you don't give a figure for how many countries have progressive taxation, probably because it's more than the 44 with a flat tax, and therefore would blow your own argument away that if 44 countries have something it must work.

Why is the gap getting bigger each year? Because of the recession. Recessions are good for some rich people, money doesn't just disappear, it goes somewhere, and it's not in the pockets of the poor. This isn't to do with taxation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So? He also believed in public schools.

And that too is a Marxism.

Great. So you believe that anyone who doesn't want to abolish the public school system is a Marxist.

Interesting. I guess that means Marx won...

...because practically every place on earth supports having public schools.

Marx has accomplished word domination!!!!!!!!!!

lol, retard.

"So you believe..."

Where have I said that? You sure like to put words in other people mouth. Shitstain at his best.

You said it when you said that public education is Marxism.

Nope, you said Marx believed in public schools. I said that public schools are in fact form of Marxism. I said nothing of the crap you wrote after that, you lying piece of shit.

Public schools aren't a form of Marxism, that's just ridiculous. Marx might have been in favor of public schools, that doesn't make them Marxist. That's like saying that breathing is Marxist as Marx was probably in favor of breathing.

 

[Ame®icano]

Public schools aren't a form of Marxism, that's just ridiculous. Marx might have been in favor of public schools, that doesn't make them Marxist. That's like saying that breathing is Marxist as Marx was probably in favor of breathing.

Where have is said its Marxism because Marx was in its favor? Nope, nowhere.
It's Marxism because not all of people that are using public school services are paying for them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

We're never going to agree

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

If you have an income you by definition can pay an income tax
People live on their net not their gross and I have already shown that a very low percentage tax on dollar 1 of income will result in the same revenue

It's time we stop using the tax code for coercing the public by getting rid of all the deductions and giveaways in the tax codes

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

People like you think no one's income is their own but what the government leaves them after they take what they want

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Then why not let bands of roving thugs take people's property to give it away?

It's no different than the government doing it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lets abolish all taxes . The country will run on smiles and sunshine !

Let's confiscate everyone's income and then divide it equally among everyone

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Well, there are 196 countries in the world of which 44 have a flat tax. Having said that, 44 out of 44 came up with identical solution and there is likely some solid practical reason behind it.

If progressive taxation, as you say, works, how come that class gap is getting bigger every year?

And by the way, most of western European countries have regressive tax code thanks to the VAT taxes in the place. And VAT is consumption tax that is hitting poor more than any other tax. Go figure.

Great logic. 44 countries have the same type of tax so it must be good. Er... perhaps those 44 countries are just countries that like to make it easier for the rich.

Then you don't give a figure for how many countries have progressive taxation, probably because it's more than the 44 with a flat tax, and therefore would blow your own argument away that if 44 countries have something it must work.

Why is the gap getting bigger each year? Because of the recession. Recessions are good for some rich people, money doesn't just disappear, it goes somewhere, and it's not in the pockets of the poor. This isn't to do with taxation.

But the recession is over

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, there are 196 countries in the world of which 44 have a flat tax. Having said that, 44 out of 44 came up with identical solution and there is likely some solid practical reason behind it.

If progressive taxation, as you say, works, how come that class gap is getting bigger every year?

And by the way, most of western European countries have regressive tax code thanks to the VAT taxes in the place. And VAT is consumption tax that is hitting poor more than any other tax. Go figure.

Great logic. 44 countries have the same type of tax so it must be good. Er... perhaps those 44 countries are just countries that like to make it easier for the rich.

Then you don't give a figure for how many countries have progressive taxation, probably because it's more than the 44 with a flat tax, and therefore would blow your own argument away that if 44 countries have something it must work.

Why is the gap getting bigger each year? Because of the recession. Recessions are good for some rich people, money doesn't just disappear, it goes somewhere, and it's not in the pockets of the poor. This isn't to do with taxation.

But the recession is over

And? As if the recession ends and all of a sudden everything just goes back to how it was. It doesn't. Sorry, things aren't that simple.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

People like you think no one's income is their own but what the government leaves them after they take what they want

Maybe people think that stuff has to be paid for.

Rich people generally make more use of government services than poor people do.

A poor person will make use of their education and their children's education, of the roads they use and other infrastructure.

Businesses make use of the educations of many people, being able to pick and choose from many educated people, they use roads a lot more, using it to get their workforce to work, to get their goods around the country and so on and on.

Why shouldn't rich people pay for what they use?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Well, there are 196 countries in the world of which 44 have a flat tax. Having said that, 44 out of 44 came up with identical solution and there is likely some solid practical reason behind it.

If progressive taxation, as you say, works, how come that class gap is getting bigger every year?

And by the way, most of western European countries have regressive tax code thanks to the VAT taxes in the place. And VAT is consumption tax that is hitting poor more than any other tax. Go figure.

Great logic. 44 countries have the same type of tax so it must be good. Er... perhaps those 44 countries are just countries that like to make it easier for the rich.

Then you don't give a figure for how many countries have progressive taxation, probably because it's more than the 44 with a flat tax, and therefore would blow your own argument away that if 44 countries have something it must work.

Why is the gap getting bigger each year? Because of the recession. Recessions are good for some rich people, money doesn't just disappear, it goes somewhere, and it's not in the pockets of the poor. This isn't to do with taxation.

But the recession is over

And? As if the recession ends and all of a sudden everything just goes back to how it was. It doesn't. Sorry, things aren't that simple.

It's been over for years

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

People like you think no one's income is their own but what the government leaves them after they take what they want

Maybe people think that stuff has to be paid for.

Rich people generally make more use of government services than poor people do.

A poor person will make use of their education and their children's education, of the roads they use and other infrastructure.

Businesses make use of the educations of many people, being able to pick and choose from many educated people, they use roads a lot more, using it to get their workforce to work, to get their goods around the country and so on and on.

Why shouldn't rich people pay for what they use?

I hear the claim that so called rich people use government services more

Yet no one has ever proven that

It's obvious that the poor use government services more than the rich

Rich people don't send their kids to public schools, don't get financial aid or default on government guaranteed student loans don't default on government backed mortgages don't use welfare or food stamps don't use public transportation etc etc and they pay the lion's share of taxes

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, there are 196 countries in the world of which 44 have a flat tax. Having said that, 44 out of 44 came up with identical solution and there is likely some solid practical reason behind it.

If progressive taxation, as you say, works, how come that class gap is getting bigger every year?

And by the way, most of western European countries have regressive tax code thanks to the VAT taxes in the place. And VAT is consumption tax that is hitting poor more than any other tax. Go figure.

Great logic. 44 countries have the same type of tax so it must be good. Er... perhaps those 44 countries are just countries that like to make it easier for the rich.

Then you don't give a figure for how many countries have progressive taxation, probably because it's more than the 44 with a flat tax, and therefore would blow your own argument away that if 44 countries have something it must work.

Why is the gap getting bigger each year? Because of the recession. Recessions are good for some rich people, money doesn't just disappear, it goes somewhere, and it's not in the pockets of the poor. This isn't to do with taxation.

But the recession is over

And? As if the recession ends and all of a sudden everything just goes back to how it was. It doesn't. Sorry, things aren't that simple.

It's been over for years

Yeah, let's pretend that this whole thing is really simple, and that when it finishes everything reverts back to normal, shall we?

Or maybe you could look into past recessions and see when the impact of the recession actually stops.

Unemployment is down. However someone decided that "real unemployment" is what matters now, for the first time ever, and that people who choose not to work are somehow "unemployed".

On the other hand there are issues which will never be solved, not because Obama or any other sucker is in the White House, but because politicians, in both the two leeching parties are unwilling to deal with such problems.