I think a progressive rate of 10-25% is perfectly reasonable. But that's not the problem really, it's how the government spends it. The current military, for example, is a huge waste of money. We're spending billions on research which a good portion of it is unessential like robotics, smart bombs, and smart "things". Billions on maintenance and construction of equipment, which really, we don't need THAT many tanks and infantry gear.

 

 

 

We can still have a powerful army but without the unnecessarily expensiveness. Now that's just one of many projects that waste our tax dollars. Instead of border security technology and personnel, pay minimum wage office workers to verify and investigate incoming immigrants. Pose stricter education spending; it's disgraceful, flat out disgracefull, that the Californian Dept. of Education has no money whatsoever for worksheet copies but it has enough paper to print out booklets of the school's rules and other useless information to every student? Christ!

 

 

 

Governments don't give a flying crap about their budget because it's not theirs. Privatize, directly or indirectly, hire some businessmen, hell do something about that fact and our tax troubles would decrease dramatically.

 

 

 

 

 

I have a similar train of thought of Me_Hate_Libs, but you gotta realize that a progressive tax curve IS far better than a flat rate to advance through the wealth classes. Government has to be responsible enough to know when to stop and when to regulate. The rest is up for the individual.

 

 

 

And Robert, I suggest you read two books I'm sure you have in your house: a history book and a Bible.

I can understand that the wealthy can take taxes better since they have more money to pay, but as Lent said, I don't want to be taxed out of a large portion of my income just because I make a large amount of money. I support a standard tax rate to all incomes, like a 15% income tax on the wealthy, middle class, and poor. It may be communist, but it works. It allows the poor to pay a part of the income, but not be overtaxed. It also allows the rich to pay more for their higher income, but not too much that they are shelling out 30%-35% of their earnings.

I don't mind different tax brackets for the rich and poor, so long as they're not outragously different. I've never really taken the time to reason out exactly what I'd be happy with in terms of tax brackets, though.

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 can tell you from experience that people in the top tax bracket almost never pay the standard bracket amount - a good accountant can make a ten million dollar profit look like a ten million dollar loss to the IRS legally. On average, you can expect to pay ~10% less then the advertised rate if you are in the top bracket, and if you do certain things (own a business for example) you can cut your taxes much, much further. Still, the tax system is highly unfair - a flat rate sales tax would be significantly easier to collect, it would not involve the invasions of privacy income taxes do and most importantly it would be fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

This is something that should be obvious, but many people don't seem to get it. Time and time again, states have raised taxes (to soak the rich as they call it) only to find their tax revenues from the top brackets going down. Why? people switch their official residences to places where they have vacation homes in order to exploit the lower taxes there.

In my opinion, we should get control of the illegal immigrant problem. We have tons of them, and absolutely none of them pay taxes. Second, wiser spending. A bail out? Fail. Universal healthcare is amazingly fail. Obama fails in general.

Differing tax brackets for the poor and the wealthy are fine as long as they are fair. You can't expect a CEO of a multinational corporation to pay the same percentage of tax as a regular working single mother because their needs are radically different - a CEO can survive comfortably with a 10% tax hike while the single mother would find it virtually impossible to get by with a similar increase (we're speaking in steotypes here I know).

 

 

 

The problem I have with people (both on TIF & in RL) in these sorts of topics is the lack of care for other people's predicaments. Now you can look at that statement and say "hey, we live in a capitalist system" but I just don't get how people can be as selfish as to actively want to not help people who need it. It isn't uncommon to see/hear the phrase "why should I pay for it" in these threads when the question should be "why shouldn't you contribute and help people in your community/city/country?" The basic idea of social responsibility is lost on so many people, it is like we're living in such a greedy age. Now saying that, I don't resent the wealthy at all, I don't discourage success either but it baffles me how greedy some people can be - you only need so much to get buy and live comfortably, after that money is only an irrelevant number. Don't get me wrong I'm not a communist (I say for the sake of accuracy not because people try to use it as an insult) but I do believe we atleast should try to help others where possible.

 

 

 

I'm not just referring to this thread but it is relevant[/on my sopbox]

I think the tax rates are just fine how they are. I don't pay taxes though so I'm probably not qualified to say that. Nor can I even imagine being that rich then pissing and moaning about how I might have to settle for a $50k car while 1/5 of the worlds population lives in acute poverty and can hardly afford enough food to survive or maybe not even enough to do that.

The assumption from people who want a "fairtax" is that when someone earns twice as much as someone else, they must have worked twice as hard. Hence, everyone should pay the same percentage of tax, because every $1 that anyone earns involves the same amount of effort so they should be taxed at the same rate. In other words, they assume that dollars are directly equal to effort.

 

 

 

This assumption is wrong. Do you really think that a garbage guy on $20k is working only a fifth as hard as a marketer on $100k? Do you really think that for the garbage guy to get another $10k, it would take him the same amount of effort as it would take the marketer to go from $100k to $110k?

 

 

 

The reason that 30% or 40% tax for people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars is fair, is that it's far easier for them to earn an extra $20k compared to someone who is currently only earning $20k to start with.

 

 

 

It's possibly hard to imagine for most people here that a rich person would bother to earn an extra $10k when they're going to lose $3k of it. But that's because for most of you earning $10k would require a lot of effort - you're probably earning $7/hour or something. But put yourself in the place of an executive earning $500/hour, and an extra $10k might only need a tiny bit of extra work, so even with the higher rate of tax it's still worth doing it. There are very few executives earning $500/hour who work 3 hour days because any longer and they'd reach the higher tax band.

Good point Dusqi. A great example would be Hannah Montana and teachers. Teachers, in the US, get paid a horrible wage for a job that is quite tiresome and essential to society. Now compare that to Hannah's "career".

Good....Bad....idk, i don't pay taxes. :thumbsup: My paychecks are swole.

Good....Bad....idk, i don't pay taxes. :thumbsup: My paychecks are swole.

 

 

 

Military pay is completely tax free? I thought only the allowances were?

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.

 

Adam Smith supported progressive taxation (I'm pretty sure you know who he is).

 

 

 

How the hell is taxing people based upon how much they earn "communist"? How can taxing people on higher incomes by a larger percent be compared to the state having ownership of the means of production? Do you even know what communism is?

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

 

Ugh, come back when you actually have some knowledge of economics/ some common sense, it really isn't as simple as that - class mobility is rather low (and getting lower) - chances are the "Uneducated moron who picks up your garbage" simply didn't have the oppurtunity to get a good education/ a skilled job.

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.

 

Adam Smith supported progressive taxation (I'm pretty sure you know who he is).

 

 

 

How the hell is taxing people based upon how much they earn "communist"? How can taxing people on higher incomes by a larger percent be compared to the state having ownership of the means of production? Do you even know what communism is?

 

 

 

There is a difference between what Marx wanted and what people have called communist. Obviously, if you want to give everyone the same amount of money, and you don't want to kill everyone you would use something like a progressive tax.(no that doesn't mean I think the US is going communist)

I'd just like to show you guys how good you have it in the States', compared to backwater Australia.

 

 

 

Lookee this.

 

 

 

Taxable income

 

Tax on this income

 

 

 

$1 $6,000

 

Nil

 

 

 

$6,001 $35,000

 

15c for each $1 over $6,000

 

 

 

$35,001 $80,000

 

$4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000

 

 

 

$80,001 $180,000

 

$17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000

 

 

 

$180,001 and over

 

$55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

 

 

 

See. Progressive systems are as [if not more [developmentally delayed]ed than the flat rate you people want]

 

 

 

Also, it doesn't help that our dumb[bleep] of a goverment spends around 40% of it's surplus on transfer payments.

 

 

 

But still, you [uSA] progressive system is so unnecessarily complicated. Capital rates, seperate filings. Different laws in different states. Five brackets [Which in a way is good].

 

 

 

Still, [anyone know about the Gini Coeffecient] is unnaturally high [around 0.4] for a developed nation. Damnit Canada is miles ahead of you !

 

 

 

EDIT : With all your standards and exemptions after about $60,000 if you're not blind, deaf and single -- well.

 

 

 

Also, your taxation system sounds like - Vrooooooom, then ouch it hurts. Give me my nitrostat.

 

 

 

Requesting a graphing image thing for Tip.It

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.

 

 

 

I'm not coming to the OP's rescue here as I don't really like this topic, but this needs to be addressed.

 

 

 

The lower income brackets spend more money on fancy smartphones, accessories for their cars, movie tickets, concert tickets, fast food (expensive food), and other "luxury" spending items than both the middle and upper classes. There have been psychological studies done that this is do to wanting to feel more affluent than they are, and with all that work for little pay, they need entertainment. This is why a huge chunk of advertising for said products is done to this socio-economic section.

 

 

 

It's called the poverty trap, and is generally grossly defined by the powers that be. If we were to start discouraging frivolous spending and encourage putting even small amounts of money in savings, many people would be able to rise out of poverty. It's not a complete fix, but it would help millions of people.

 

 

 

"Then they will just need to work more."

 

 

 

Sorry, you're an idiot. Generally these people work 40+ hours a week (everyone over the age of 16) and then are so bummed out they need to spend the money on entertainment and crap.

The lower income brackets spend more money on fancy smartphones, accessories for their cars, movie tickets, concert tickets, fast food (expensive food), and other "luxury" spending items than both the middle and upper classes. There have been psychological studies done that this is do to wanting to feel more affluent than they are, and with all that work for little pay, they need entertainment. This is why a huge chunk of advertising for said products is done to this socio-economic section.

 

 

 

Makes sense, but then what the heck do rich people spend their money on? Nothing?

 

 

 

And I still don't know why you call fast food expensive... :?

I eat for less than $4 a day and some people state that I eat like a king. That's less than a Big Mac. And much healthier.

Also I'd like to point out, that those who have higher incomes have higher marginal propensitys' to save.

 

 

 

Meaning that they may consume the same amount, work the same hours, but one will be much better off than the other.

You sound like my economics textbook :P

 

 

 

I don't see why you think progressive systems are as bad as flat rate systems. Unless you mean Australia's specifically, in which case I agree (somewhat).

Good....Bad....idk, i don't pay taxes. :thumbsup: My paychecks are swole.

 

 

 

Military pay is completely tax free? I thought only the allowances were?

 

 

 

 

 

When deployed to a zone considered to be in combat EVERYTHING is tax free, base pay and allowances.

Don't forget. Everything you steal is tax free.

 

 

 

Hell, they couldn't get Capone on all the alcohol they made, but they got him for not paying taxes on the money on the alcohol they couldn't prove he was making.

 

 

 

Classic. :roll:

When deployed to a zone considered to be in combat EVERYTHING is tax free, base pay and allowances.

 

 

 

That's one thing I'll applaud America for, soldiers not having to pay tax. The issue just came up this week in the UK when a soldier questioned Gordon Brown aabout why they have to pay tax. I have a feeling that he may get punished for it though just because it was so off the cuff (although the guy was right to do so in my opinion).

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Don't forget. Everything you steal is tax free.

 

 

 

Hell, they couldn't get Capone on all the alcohol they made, but they got him for not paying taxes on the money on the alcohol they couldn't prove he was making.

 

 

 

Classic. :roll:

 

 

 

...and then he became the only person convicted of tax evasion to be sent to Alcatraz. The idea of the government during those times was that even if we can't convict you of your real crimes (murder, racketeering etc) we'll convict you on something smaller and give you a sentence befitting your major crimes. I like Capone's quote on taxes;

 

 

 

They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money.

 

Oh how wrong he was.

I hope I don't get in trouble but here's the truth: They'll tax your nuts off.

 

 

 

And not even give you anything worthwhile for your money.

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.

And yet, you sit here today, surronded by technology created by a collective. Almost everything you own, everything you use, evertything you eat, can be traced to the organization of the collective and the knowledge aquired by said collective. You're at the pinnacle of an evolution of a collective society - several collective societies really - and you criticize the collective that got us here.

 

 

 

Or to be blunt; You're perfectly free to praise the power of the lone individual, but if you think we'd have gotten where we are today without the organizing into religious, national, cultural or even hunter-gatherer collectives you're sort of missing something vital along the way.

 

 

 

 

 

Having said that, I think Bari provided an excellent technical reason for progressive taxes, and 1_man provided an excellent philosophical dito.