Good or bad?

 

I'm personally outraged at the idea that I could achieve my aspirations of finishing medical school and then have to pay higher taxes than the uneducated moron who picks up my garbage.

 

 

 

Other thoughts? I'm not trying to start a firefight here. Let's all use something called the "veil of ignorance" here. Imagine you are ten years old, yet somehow with all the knowledge you need to debate taxes. How do you think this should work? The point of the "veil of ignorance" is that you don't know what you are going to become in two decades. You don't know where you'll be, so you are supposed to pick the side hat you believe is fair and just, unbiased.

Well do you think everyone should pay the same tax rates? Or do you think tax should be regressive?

 

 

 

If you picked the former, well either tax for the poorer goes up (which leaves them up [cabbage] creek without a paddle) so that the government gets to keep their lovely revenue, or the government loses their lovely revenue and public projects (e.g. hospitals) and the like receive less funding.

 

 

 

The latter, well you're asking people who can't pay to pay for those who can pay...which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Well do you think everyone should pay the same tax rates? Or do you think tax should be regressive?

 

 

 

If you picked the former, well either tax for the poorer goes up (which leaves them up [cabbage] creek without a paddle) so that the government gets to keep their lovely revenue, or the government loses their lovely revenue and public projects (e.g. hospitals) and the like receive less funding.

 

 

 

The latter, well you're asking people who can't pay to pay for those who can pay...which doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

In an ideal world, the poor should be taxed just as much as the rich.

Well do you think everyone should pay the same tax rates? Or do you think tax should be regressive?

 

 

 

If you picked the former, well either tax for the poorer goes up (which leaves them up [cabbage] creek without a paddle) so that the government gets to keep their lovely revenue, or the government loses their lovely revenue and public projects (e.g. hospitals) and the like receive less funding.

 

 

 

The latter, well you're asking people who can't pay to pay for those who can pay...which doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

In an ideal world, the poor should be taxed just as much as the rich.

 

 

 

Too bad so many people die then.

No, they'll just be forced to work more. No one will die.

Well do you think everyone should pay the same tax rates? Or do you think tax should be regressive?

 

 

 

If you picked the former, well either tax for the poorer goes up (which leaves them up [cabbage] creek without a paddle) so that the government gets to keep their lovely revenue, or the government loses their lovely revenue and public projects (e.g. hospitals) and the like receive less funding.

 

 

 

The latter, well you're asking people who can't pay to pay for those who can pay...which doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

In an ideal world, the poor should be taxed just as much as the rich.

 

All that would do is enlarge the poverty trap. The reason lower incomes are taxed at lower percents is because most (if not all) of their income goes to necessities: food, clothes, housing. There's little to no disposable income. But if someone's making $150k a year, after taxes and necessities, they still have a large amount of disposable income.

 

No, they'll just be forced to work more. No one will die.

 

Do you really think that the "uneducated moron" enjoys making next to nothing? Do you think that they love barely scraping by and not being able to go to the movies or driving their 1982 crapwagon? I'm sure if they could get another job, they would, but this isn't an economics text, this is the real world. Labor isn't as fluid as we would like to believe.

Not trying to be condescending or anything, but exactly how much do you know of economics? I'll admit I'm probably going to be talking out of my [wagon], but I'd be interested in your background.

 

 

 

How can you justify the poor getting taxed just as much as the rich? Why is that ideal? Exaplanations would be nice; one liners are hard to argue against.

 

 

 

If the poor are taxed just as much as the rich, I envision three scenarios;

 

 

 

1. Tax rates are lowered for the rich, so the government loses out on revenue. Government projects receive less funding; this will lead to the quality of government provided services declining, so healthcare, public education, public transport, etc. all suffer.

 

 

 

2. Tax rates are raised for the poor, so that the government doesn't lose any revenue (or at least very little). I'm not sure on the exact percentages of revenue are received from each tax bracket, so this'll branch out a bit.

 

a) The majority comes from higher earners; the poor get hit harder; if they're already struggling, well now they're screwed. imagine a lot of poor people becoming homeless, or in need of government assistance (e.g. welfare) - welfare I suppose wouldn't be too bad since essentially it'll be giving the poor some of their money back, but if they're homeless and such, the government needs to provide housing for them, etc.

 

B) The majority comes from lower earners; taxes won't need to be raised as much, so imagine the above scenario, but much lighter (depending on exact percentages, anyway). This is probably the best outcome.

 

 

 

3. Tax rates are raised for the poor, and lowered for the rich. Again, depending on which groups generate the most income for the government, this might not affect the poor too much.

 

 

 

Either way, this'll give the rich a break complements of the poor (unless the government bears it). I can understand that you're mad that you're paying more taxes, but why would you want to make others, who are unable to, pay for it?

My family loses about 50% of it's total income. We understand why and acknowledge that its a kick in the balls but we don't whine about it. In fact, hardly any Canadian whines as much as you do. Get realistic and stop whining.

No, they'll just be forced to work more. No one will die.

 

 

 

 

 

People are struggling to even get jobs now, and you are saying they should work more (I.E get another job, cause most jobs only allow so much time on the job.).

 

 

 

No, cry some more. I wanna either work with computers, or be a teacher (which actually pays pretty good money in Canada if you get good education), and if I make more then the average person, I wouldn't mind paying the extra taxes. What the hell else am I gonna spend that money on? [cabbage] for myself?

 

 

 

 

 

Now that said, taxes should be budgeted better, but thats not something I can fully control.

Our problem is not the tax system. It's the out-of-control spending our government does. We can't have a system like a flat tax unless the government learns how to be fiscally responsible.

 

 

 

Edit: Are we talking about Canadian system? If so, ignore my comment. I don't know much about Canada's system.

35% of a $12000 salary that also goes into raising two kids, is overkill for a single mother living in the suburbs. 35% of a $300,000 salary is normal because you still get all the benefits of society around you while being practically 'rich'. You will have no problem raising two kids even if you're left with ~$200,000 (which is almost 20x the salary of the typical single mother)

 

 

 

I don't know how much you've read up on income taxing and social equity theory, but your model is horrible. If you levied the same income tax on the poor suburban as the rich businessman, the poor person loses motivation to work, and will either turn to welfare checks or criminal activity. Almost all developed nations have progressive taxation for a reason, which is to encourage working at the lower echelons of society.

 

 

 

Of a $1,000 monthly salary, paying $350 in taxes means the world. It means multiple sanitation, food, clothing and other items you may not be able to afford as a result of steep taxation. Add rent and utility bills & that person is left with literally nothing after taxes. Of a $10,000 monthly salary, $3500 is less severe because $6,500 buys all possible necessities a family can possibly need in a month, with massive surplus (even if you only buy the best luxury clothing and foods, down payments on a mansion etc.).

A progressive income tax was one of the main tenets of Communism was put forth in the Communist Manifesto by Karx Marx. Just wanted to point that out.

 

 

 

Oh, and I'm a supporter of the Fairtax. It's all rather complicated to get into on here, but take a look. http://www.fairtax.org

 

 

 

Basically, it's a revenue neutral tax code, ie we take the same amount of cash as we do now, andit's a National Sales Tax that would replace all other forms of federal taxation.

Another one of Marx's proposals in that same text is "Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form." Clearly, calling something communist is not a decent rebuttal at all. Progressive tax rates are only fair.

Another one of Marx's proposals in that same text is "Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form." Clearly, calling something communist is not a decent rebuttal at all. Progressive tax rates are only fair.

 

 

 

No, they aren't fair, because they punish someone for doing something better. That isn't fair at all. That is penalizing someone for being better than someone at something. Hardly equal treatment under the law.

 

 

 

Also, the children's labor wasn't a main tenet of Communism. it was a proposal, but not a part of his proposed Communist system.

 

 

 

It still is a main pillar in Communism.

 

 

 

Not every point in Communism is wrong, communism as a whole is wrong, and this point of communism is wrong.

It's in the same 10 point list where progressive taxes are proposed too, and much of Communism was created as an answer to the exploitation of workers in that time. As for it being wrong or not, this topic isn't the place for that discussion; I just wanted to point that out.

 

 

 

To me, there is fairness in progressive taxation because it considers what people can actually afford to pay in taxes. The fact that people still strive to be successful shows its not penalizing and punishing success like you mention. Instead it uses that success for other societal needs.

 

On the contrary, I find flat taxes unfair because they punish people for being unsuccessful (which is already a punishment on itself), regardless of the reasons they have a lower income, while further reducing social mobility.

That's why I gave the link for the Fairtax. http://www.fairtax.org

 

 

 

You really should look at it sometime.

Clearly, calling something communist is not a decent rebuttal at all.

 

At all.

 

 

 

A progressive tax rate doesn't punish people for doing well. After all, they're still earning a profit of far more than a garbage man. The wealthy have a responsibility as a member of society to give back, and the best way to do so is with a higher tax rate; they can pay it easily and still not have to worry about necessities.

Clearly, calling something communist is not a decent rebuttal at all.

 

At all.

 

 

 

A progressive tax rate doesn't punish people for doing well. After all, they're still earning a profit of far more than a garbage man. The wealthy have a responsibility as a member of society to give back, and the best way to do so is with a higher tax rate; they can pay it easily and still not have to worry about necessities.

 

 

 

As a Communist, I'm sure you believe that. But yes it does punish them. Doing better means they have to pay more taxes. That's a punishment. If they make more money they have to pay more money. I mean, it sends the message of "Why do any better than you have to? People will just takle money anyways?" Money, by the way, you have have NO right to.

 

 

 

And that "responsibility to get back to society" nonsense is just a load of collectivist, anti-individual bullcrap.

Clearly, calling something communist is not a decent rebuttal at all.

 

At all.

 

 

 

A progressive tax rate doesn't punish people for doing well. After all, they're still earning a profit of far more than a garbage man. The wealthy have a responsibility as a member of society to give back, and the best way to do so is with a higher tax rate; they can pay it easily and still not have to worry about necessities.

 

 

 

As a Communist, I'm sure you believe that. But yes it does punish them. Doing better means they have to pay more taxes. That's a punishment. If they make more money they have to pay more money. I mean, it sends the message of "Why do any better than you have to? People will just takle money anyways?" Money, by the way, you have have NO right to.

 

 

 

And that "responsibility to get back to society" nonsense is just a load of collectivist, anti-individual bullcrap.

 

And that is just a load of anti-societal capitalist bullcrap. They may have to pay more in taxes, but in the end they'll still have a fatter wallet than those with lower paying jobs. They're still being well rewarded for their work. The way you're putting it, if one guy makes $40,000/year and another guy makes $200,000/year with a tougher job, elevated taxes mean both have an end pay of $30,000. But that's not how it works.

But as a capitalist, if I make 40,000 and the other guy makes 20,000 I won't be taking any of his money to pay for myself. The way I'm putting it, we shouldn't have a flat tax or a progressive income tax. We should have a the Fairtax.

 

 

 

I am not my brother's keeper. I never will be. I'm an Objectivist.

 

 

 

It's nice to know though that Communism fails. As does Socialism and Fascism. So does government run Capitalism, like we have here. The point? Government fails.

 

 

 

I'm not necessarily anti society. I am anti-collectivist. I am a whole-hearted individualist. The individual, the smallest minority on earth. The one who does not subvert himself to group nor state.

Again, dissing something as "collectivist, anti-individual bullcrap" just makes you sound pretentious. I can so easily talk about your egoistic libertarianism. But political tags don't help in a debate; they just create a "we vs. them" mentality.

 

 

 

With progressive taxes, one still has the incentive to earn more because, ultimately, the wealthy still keep more of their earnings than the middle class or the poor do.

 

 

 

Also, I'd say that by living in society and getting its protection and benefits implies you are bound to cede some of your individual rights. The State does have rights over the individuals.

 

 

 

I'll look into that FairTax website you linked to. It'd still be nice if you told us its main points. So far it sounds like a flat sales tax with a fixed exemption for basic survival. Am I wrong?

But as a capitalist, if I make 40,000 and the other guy makes 20,000 I won't be taking any of his money to pay for myself. The way I'm putting it, we shouldn't have a flat tax or a progressive income tax. We should have a the Fairtax.

 

All that would do is shift the tax burden to low to middle income families, rather than people who can actually afford higher taxes. The "Fair"tax is essentially a sales tax on steroids. What it would do is take a greater percentage of income from low income families, while allowing high income families to keep more.

 

As a Communist, I'm sure you believe that. But yes it does punish them. Doing better means they have to pay more taxes. That's a punishment. If they make more money they have to pay more money. I mean, it sends the message of "Why do any better than you have to? People will just takle money anyways?" Money, by the way, you have have NO right to.

 

 

 

And that "responsibility to get back to society" nonsense is just a load of collectivist, anti-individual bullcrap.

 

The bolded statement would be true if taxes took 100% of everyone's income, that's it. I doubt you can find anyone who is happy just scraping by. If they had the opportunity to get a more difficult job that paid more, I'm sure they would take it because it would mean more take-home pay, even though they might pay more in taxes.

 

 

 

Also, everyone does have a responsibility to society. The gov't employs a lot of services that we should have to pay for (military, environmental protection, protection in workplaces, etc.). They aren't taking our money and having keggers on the White House lawn.

Robert and I_Hate_Libs (haha) may be going about this somewhat the wrong way, and they may seem like flame baiting to a degree, but the responses I'm seeing on this thread to them are abhorrent. You "lol'd"? Please, be less of a [bleep].

 

 

 

I agree with their line of thinking, that overtaxing the rich is not a reasonable idea, but I also agree they're taking it a bit far. To allow for proper government functioning, at least in this day and age, the rich do need to pay a little more than the poor percentage wise (and I mean the literal definition of 'a little'). Maybe if this country was as laissez-faire as it used to be that wouldn't be needed, but nowadays sharply cutting tax rates for the upper income brackets would have an extremely negative effect on the country, and the world. Gradual change would be great, but the conservative ideas thusfar mentioned? They're not exactly feasible.

 

 

 

To quantify, I'd say lower income brackets should pay something like 10% and upper around 20%. Nowadays, as opposed to a few decades ago, taxes seem too heavy on the rich (totalling a taking of over half their incomes), and that should be changed. At the very least taxes shouldn't be increased on the rich, but Obama plans to do that. Why did we vote this guy in. Socialist. Aye.

The wealthier rate seems very high. I mean, sure they can afford it, but isn't 1/3 of your income a little high for taxes? I mean, I know after everything it probably won't be that much, but still. I want to be rich some day. I don't want all my money to leave me.I don't even plan on being one of those famous people that throws money at everything hoping it'll get me on Us Weekly. I just wanna be the next Tarantino and give everyone and everything one giant finger.

 

 

 

Ah well, I'm 15. I'm gonna go play videogames.

To allow for proper government functioning, at least in this day and age, the rich do need to pay a little more than the poor percentage wise (and I mean the literal definition of 'a little').

 

 

 

I agree with Reb. I lean more on the communist side myself, but I have a question. If you tax the rich way too much, doesn't that make people lose incentive on wanting to become rich in the first place? If so, the whole idea seems kind of counterproductive if this means there will be less rich people to pay taxes.