Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Redfish]

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?

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side?

A lefty talking about "imaginary" Classic.

Compared to the idiot in the thread who thinks the progressive income tax is Marxism ?

"to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" Marx.

 

[Redfish]

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

Does that include the first 20k on someone who earns 5 million dollars?

no it does not

 

[Redfish]

Always funny when lefties bitch about re-distribution to the top, but don't realize they vote for that bullshit every election

Do you not understand that income inequality has repercussions.

sure it does and it has gotten greater under obozo the socialist clown prince. The gap between rich and poor is larger now than when your hero took office.

socialist societies always have all power and money concentrated in a very small group of super elites and everyone else is EQUALLY miserable.

you idiots demand exactly what you bitch about

 

[TNHarley]

Always funny when lefties bitch about re-distribution to the top, but don't realize they vote for that bullshit every election

PERFEXT example
Robert Rubin was Clintons treasury secretary. He LOVED him some GLBA. Those two made perfect partners. Rubin then left the Clinton administration, and went to work for CITI. Shortly after the bailout, he retired with a 125 million dollar bonus.
Obama bailed out GM. It ended up costing EVERY AMERICAN 4K+ dollars in the end. For what? They employ double the employees in OTHER NATIONS. They only employ around 70K Americans.
Weird huh?

 

[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.

Then explain why the "progressive" tax is great for income but not for anything else?

Why not pay more sales tax on your second third and fourth giant flat screen TVs than you do on the first?

ANd I don't mind paying taxes I just don't like unfair taxes

It has been pointed out that Real Estate Taxes are higher for more expensive homes than for lesser expansive homes, except in CA where prop. 13 screwed new home owners and created a wonderful system for corporations, Apt. House owners, Rail Roads and other large property owners who rarely if ever turn over their property.

And that's my point. Prob 13 treats all Real Property the same, but when sold the property is reassessed to its current market value. Hence my wife and I own a 3/2 home we bought in 1980 and pay less in taxes than my son and his wife who live half a mile away in a 3/1 home 400 s

So again he answer here is a flat tax

tax every acre no matter where it is exactly the same tax every square foot of homes exactly the same and then if you sell a house then every dime of the profit you made would also be taxed at a flat income tax rate

So an acre in Manhattan is taxed the same as an acre in the middle of the Sonoran Dessert

View attachment 59074

States and municipalities set property taxes

The rates can vary from state to state obviously

I thought you could have figured that out on your own

 

[Skull Pilot]

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

 

[pinqy]

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"

And you fail right there.

explain

MArginal utility of money is based on the premise that after you have X dollars that every other dollar is worth less to you so therefore you don't need it

No, it's not. It's not that you don't need the money, but that the additional money doesn't carry the same usefulness. Giving $500 to a minimum wage worker gives him more benefit than giving $500 to someone who makes $100,000/year. He might still NEED the extra $500, but the impact will still be lesser than to the min wage worker.

It is known and demonstrable that the higher your income, the lower the percent of your income is spent on food, shelter, health care. So a poorer person who spends 90% of their salary on food, rent, clothes etc will be hurt more by a 15% tax than a richer person who only spends 75% on necesseties (though his necessities are nicer).

 

[bendog]

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?

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

Perhaps we should tax genetically engineered humans more than non-genetically engineered humans. discuss.

 

[g5000]

Marxism 101

O'rly?

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.


BOMBSHELL BREAKING: CONSERVATIVE HERO THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS JUST BEEN UNMASKED AS A MARXIST!

 

[Skull Pilot]

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

 

[g5000]

More from Comrade Tom:

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

 

[bendog]

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

 

[Wry Catcher]

Always funny when lefties bitch about re-distribution to the top, but don't realize they vote for that bullshit every election

Do you not understand that income inequality has repercussions.

Like our poor and middle class getting fucked? Yea, I know.
Try voting with sense; instead of your empty birth control container or fake dick

Emotion based word salad ^^^

Repercussions can be large or small:

List of revolutions and rebellions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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"

And you fail right there.

explain

MArginal utility of money is based on the premise that after you have X dollars that every other dollar is worth less to you so therefore you don't need it

No, it's not. It's not that you don't need the money, but that the additional money doesn't carry the same usefulness. Giving $500 to a minimum wage worker gives him more benefit than giving $500 to someone who makes $100,000/year. He might still NEED the extra $500, but the impact will still be lesser than to the min wage worker.

It is known and demonstrable that the higher your income, the lower the percent of your income is spent on food, shelter, health care. So a poorer person who spends 90% of their salary on food, rent, clothes etc will be hurt more by a 15% tax than a richer person who only spends 75% on necesseties (though his necessities are nicer).

And the determination of that usefulness is purely subjective

We don't tax the gallon of gas you use to drive to work less than the gallon of gas you use to drive to a strip club

We don't assess lesser sales tax on the first TV you buy and more on each additional TV after all the subjective analysis of marginal utility says you those additional TVs have less value to you
As far as I'm concerned every dollar has the same usefulness if not now then for the future

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

The tax code is as large as it is do to the influence of lobbyists representing special interests, and biddable members of Congress.

 

[TNHarley]

Marxism 101

O'rly?

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.


BOMBSHELL BREAKING: CONSERVATIVE HERO THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS JUST BEEN UNMASKED AS A MARXIST!

It isn't surprising, coming from him lol

 

[g5000]

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

It's not a fantasy as It's already the case; go look up the distribution effects of inflation and then see what it does to a person making $16K a year buying power then go ahead and add in all the other hidden taxes that person pays and see what you come up with. That's the great "benefit" of current system of progressive taxation you seem to love so much, the "rich" get to claim "See how much we pay in taxes!" while at the same time using their legions of attorneys and accountants to wring every advantage out of it, the poor and the middle class get royally screwed and aren't even aware of it.

At least moving to a flat income tax levels the playing field from both a practical and moral perspective, of course the "rich" and well connected will never allow a flat tax system because it's not in their best interests.

You say the rich use attorneys to wring "every advantage" out of a progressive tax. What advantage does a progressive tax have for the rich that a flat tax does not?

I will tell you. None.

What the tax accountants do is exploit the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures in the tax code. And those tax expenditures have NOTHING to do with the fact we have a progressive tax. Those very same tax expenditures would be carried right over into the flat tax system.

Even with a progressive income tax, you could fill out your taxes on a post card today if there were no such thing as tax expenditures.

It's tax expenditures which make our system so inequitable, not progressive taxation.

And without tax expenditures, almost every tax attorney and accountant in the country would be out of business. As would legions and legions of lobbyists.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not to mention, most flat tax proposals I have read exempt a certain level of income, usually the federal poverty level. So, the tax doesn't kick in until about $20k or so.

I disagree with that

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then tax every earned dollar

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

The tax code is as large as it is do to the influence of lobbyists representing special interests, and biddable members of Congress.

One more reason to ditch the tax code and replace it with a flat tax