Should tax policy be “fair”?

[BlindBoo]

So you think people should be treated differently based on the money they make rather than being treated equal before the law...

How is that at all consistant with the idea that all men are created equal?

Yep I think people should be taxed based on their income level.

Who ever says taxes need to conform with the ideals of equality?

I think men should be paid more based on having a dick. See how that works?

Well at least you're not claiming that everyone is equal in that department.

So that means if you have a dick you pay more in taxes too.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, that's not true. The tax code is full of deliberate carve outs and byzantine rules which lead to unintended results. We do not get taxed the same based on income. Even the rules of what constitutes income are complicated.

Our current tax code is the product of some social engineering, some legitimate means to fund the government, and a whole bunch of corruption in the process.

True. Our system is not as simple and ideal as I may have made it sound. There are plenty of loopholes, breaks and ways around the system that make it unfair. We need to clean up those loopholes and correct the system so the richest in our country can't continue to get richer and richer while the middle class get poorer and poorer.

Tax shelters are a thing of the past.
Tax deductions for children help everyone
Write off of mortgage interest help the less wealthy afford homes....and are invariably offset by the real estate taxes they have to pay
Tax deferred investments are income that are ultimately taxed.

I am curious what loopholes exist that you are referring to.

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

 

[Jarhead]

True. Our system is not as simple and ideal as I may have made it sound. There are plenty of loopholes, breaks and ways around the system that make it unfair. We need to clean up those loopholes and correct the system so the richest in our country can't continue to get richer and richer while the middle class get poorer and poorer.

Tax shelters are a thing of the past.
Tax deductions for children help everyone
Write off of mortgage interest help the less wealthy afford homes....and are invariably offset by the real estate taxes they have to pay
Tax deferred investments are income that are ultimately taxed.

I am curious what loopholes exist that you are referring to.

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

I think you may not get it.

Wealth is not taxed at all.

Wealth is the net after taxes

Income is taxed.

The ultra wealthy dont hide wealth. They may hide income, and that is against the law......, but they do not gain anything if they hide wealth as one is not taxed on wealth.

 

[Jarhead]

But that is not a loophole...it is a separate tax altogether and is really a tax on "unearned" income in theory..........and it is available to anyone...whether they are incested in one share of IBM or a million shares of Microsoft.

It's a loophole in that many of the wealthy derive their income in this manner, it's why Warren Buffet is able to have a lower overall tax rate than his secretary.

Buffett pays a lower rate than his secretary because he can afford to manipulate his income. If you removed the "loophole" as you call it he would just use some other means to accomplish the same end. Also, it's not necessarily bad that he pays a 17% rate on his personal income. If that rate doubled would he continue the same economic activity? Would the government receive more funding as a result?

it is not manipulating ones income.

It is actually intentionally minimizing ones income....he takes a salary and refrains from taking a distrtibution as well...

 

[kwc57]

True. Our system is not as simple and ideal as I may have made it sound. There are plenty of loopholes, breaks and ways around the system that make it unfair. We need to clean up those loopholes and correct the system so the richest in our country can't continue to get richer and richer while the middle class get poorer and poorer.

Tax shelters are a thing of the past.
Tax deductions for children help everyone
Write off of mortgage interest help the less wealthy afford homes....and are invariably offset by the real estate taxes they have to pay
Tax deferred investments are income that are ultimately taxed.

I am curious what loopholes exist that you are referring to.

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

You are aware that "wealth" as opposed to income has already been taxed when it WAS income, correct?

 

[Steelplate]

The left loves to try to make legislation to make us all the same. Only fools think that is possible or even desirable.

Go jack off somewhere else douchebag...that's the equivalent of that post...

You're mad, aren't you?

So, the left wants to redistribute wealth with taxation and that isn't an attempt to legislate some equality in wealth, right?

Not mad at all. You're just wrong. No one wants to make us "all the same". That's just your typical brainwashed bullshit that I hear all the time from the right. You ask ANY progressive on here that same question and I doubt you'd even get a positive response from ONE of them.

No one said the rich can't be so. That's just Rush Beckbaugh talking to your ignorant ass.

 

[Bern80]

True. Our system is not as simple and ideal as I may have made it sound. There are plenty of loopholes, breaks and ways around the system that make it unfair. We need to clean up those loopholes and correct the system so the richest in our country can't continue to get richer and richer while the middle class get poorer and poorer.

Tax shelters are a thing of the past.
Tax deductions for children help everyone
Write off of mortgage interest help the less wealthy afford homes....and are invariably offset by the real estate taxes they have to pay
Tax deferred investments are income that are ultimately taxed.

I am curious what loopholes exist that you are referring to.

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

That is simply taxing based on what you have rather than what you earn. I dont know that I would neccessarily have a problem doing it that way, but I think it would be a system even more open to cheating on.

 

[Bern80]

Still it seems many are looking at this wrong way. If you had to start a tax code from scratch for a society would you really decide how to fairly distribute the tax burden first? How about we first figure out how much money the government actually needs. Then worry about how to get it. I think of our government reigned itself in significantly, you may find that the tax burden would be so low as to render the concept of fair, irrelevent.

 

[Jarhead]

Tax shelters are a thing of the past.
Tax deductions for children help everyone
Write off of mortgage interest help the less wealthy afford homes....and are invariably offset by the real estate taxes they have to pay
Tax deferred investments are income that are ultimately taxed.

I am curious what loopholes exist that you are referring to.

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

You are aware that "wealth" as opposed to income has already been taxed when it WAS income, correct?

That was my point when I said to him/her that wealth is after tax net.

 

[Jarhead]

Tax shelters are a thing of the past.
Tax deductions for children help everyone
Write off of mortgage interest help the less wealthy afford homes....and are invariably offset by the real estate taxes they have to pay
Tax deferred investments are income that are ultimately taxed.

I am curious what loopholes exist that you are referring to.

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

That is simply taxing based on what you have rather than what you earn. I dont know that I would neccessarily have a problem doing it that way, but I think it would be a system even more open to cheating on.

So if you have assets valued at 1 million....the following year you are taxed on those same assets again?

Forget about people cheating on it.....how can you tax someone on the same thing year after year after year?

 

[bripat9643]

Actually they do...the plans call for taxing incomes of over 1 million dollars, not specific people. The legislation never says we want to tax, Bill Gates or Ruport Murdoch, etc, specifically.

And if I said I wanted to tax aerospace companies in Washington state that gross over $10 billion a year, that wouldn't be the same thing as creating a tax on Boeing Aerospace, would it?

 

[Bern80]

Go jack off somewhere else douchebag...that's the equivalent of that post...

You're mad, aren't you?

So, the left wants to redistribute wealth with taxation and that isn't an attempt to legislate some equality in wealth, right?

Not mad at all. You're just wrong. No one wants to make us "all the same". That's just your typical brainwashed bullshit that I hear all the time from the right. You ask ANY progressive on here that same question and I doubt you'd even get a positive response from ONE of them.

No one said the rich can't be so. That's just Rush Beckbaugh talking to your ignorant ass.

And that's always the lefts excuse for denying what they really are. Believe it or night most people on the right don't get weekly marching orders from Beck or Limbaugh. Do you see me accusing you of being a Michael Moore or Paul Krugman parrott?

The left wants equal outcomes. How do I know that? Look at the policies they push for. Giving more and more to the poor and taking more and more from the rich. Are you really trying to deny that? How can such policies result in anything but an equally mediocre society? Freedom and safety are opposites where government is concerned. The more you you gain of one the more you lose of the other and the simple fact is liberals value security more than freedom. We can all strive for risk free lives, but keep in mind that is going to curtail the ability of anyone person to succeed much beyond another and believe it or not there are benefits to members of society defining and achieving measures of success as defined by themselves rather than government.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually they do...the plans call for taxing incomes of over 1 million dollars, not specific people. The legislation never says we want to tax, Bill Gates or Ruport Murdoch, etc, specifically.

And if I said I wanted to tax aerospace companies in Washington state that gross over $10 billion a year, that wouldn't be the same thing as creating a tax on Boeing Aerospace, would it?

Not if Boeing opts to make pencil erasers instead....or have a bad year and gross less than 10 billion a year.

I believe THAT is the point RDD is making.

The tax wouldnt be on Boeing...it would be on any company that fits the criteria.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually they do...the plans call for taxing incomes of over 1 million dollars, not specific people. The legislation never says we want to tax, Bill Gates or Ruport Murdoch, etc, specifically.

And if I said I wanted to tax aerospace companies in Washington state that gross over $10 billion a year, that wouldn't be the same thing as creating a tax on Boeing Aerospace, would it?

Not if Boeing opts to make pencil erasers instead....or have a bad year and gross less than 10 billion a year.

I believe THAT is the point RDD is making.

The tax wouldnt be on Boeing...it would be on any company that fits the criteria.

He doesn't get it, he won't ever get it. Apparently it's too tough of a concept.

 

[Jarhead]

And if I said I wanted to tax aerospace companies in Washington state that gross over $10 billion a year, that wouldn't be the same thing as creating a tax on Boeing Aerospace, would it?

Not if Boeing opts to make pencil erasers instead....or have a bad year and gross less than 10 billion a year.

I believe THAT is the point RDD is making.

The tax wouldnt be on Boeing...it would be on any company that fits the criteria.

And that criteria is income earned. Nothing else.

He doesn't get it, he won't ever get it. Apparently it's too tough of a concept.

Or perhaps you are not nearly as talented at articulating a point as I am.
Thus why I referred to tou as a stupid head.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm glad you understand now. I expected you to insult me once you finally understood what I mean, so thanks for that.

I tried to discuss with you before about why a flat tax would hurt the lowest earners but you ignored my question. Did you not understand that one either? I really can't hold your hand through every post here. At some point, you're going to have to figure these things out on your own.

You don't like being insulted, but you never fail to use that condescending tone whenever you disagree with someone. That's why I seldom treat leftists with respect: they are all such colossal hypocrites.

WE were discussing how it's just for one person to pay a higher rate on his income than another, not whether a flat tax hurts low wage earners. However, one consideration you continually ignore is that every flat tax proposal exempts income up to a certain point. Normally that point is well above the poverty line, so none of that actual flat tax proposals would hurt low wage earners. That would still not be paying any additional tax.

Your buddy DiamondDave wouldn't have any exemption at all, even for people at or below poverty. It was he who I was talking to originally, when you decided to butt in.

What next?? Exemptions on sales tax because of someone who is poor in income this year or last year??

Every exemption and special circumstance opens it up for more and more corruption, social engineering, and frankly unequalized treatment in the name of subjective fairness... and that is fucking horse shit

Even the lowest bum gets taxed on his purchase of ripple, just as the richest blow hard gets taxed on their purchase of the luxury yacht... and if they buy it in the same state, it is subject to the same equal sales tax rate on every dollar spent... and that is how it should be in income tax as well... each dollar AND each person is treated the same and without difference... that is equality... progressive systems, BY DEFINITION, are not

 

[Bern80]

asterism has explained it very well but I would add ...

People still seem to think this is about INCOME tax. Its not. Never has been.

Ultimate loophole of all time is that WEALTH is taxed at a much lower rate than income. Ultra-wealthy hide wealth and therefore pay no tax on it.

GET IT?

That is simply taxing based on what you have rather than what you earn. I dont know that I would neccessarily have a problem doing it that way, but I think it would be a system even more open to cheating on.

So if you have assets valued at 1 million....the following year you are taxed on those same assets again?

Forget about people cheating on it.....how can you tax someone on the same thing year after year after year?

Look I'm not neccessarily advocating we do that. It's simply a different means of taxing people. Like maybe instead of income or wealth government could say every citizen owes a thousand dollars a year. Isn't that how they did it jolly 'ol England?

 

[RDD_1210]

Not if Boeing opts to make pencil erasers instead....or have a bad year and gross less than 10 billion a year.

I believe THAT is the point RDD is making.

The tax wouldnt be on Boeing...it would be on any company that fits the criteria.

And that criteria is income earned. Nothing else.

He doesn't get it, he won't ever get it. Apparently it's too tough of a concept.

Or perhaps you are not nearly as talented at articulating a point as I am.
Thus why I referred to tou as a stupid head.

We'll see. He has responded to you yet. I wouldn't go patting yourself on the back just yet. lol

 

[bripat9643]

Actually they do...the plans call for taxing incomes of over 1 million dollars, not specific people. The legislation never says we want to tax, Bill Gates or Ruport Murdoch, etc, specifically.

And if I said I wanted to tax aerospace companies in Washington state that gross over $10 billion a year, that wouldn't be the same thing as creating a tax on Boeing Aerospace, would it?

Not if Boeing opts to make pencil erasers instead....or have a bad year and gross less than 10 billion a year.

I believe THAT is the point RDD is making.

The tax wouldnt be on Boeing...it would be on any company that fits the criteria.

Don't be stupid. That's like saying I don't have to pay income tax if I want to starve in some cave somewhere, so the income tax is "voluntary." That has to be one of the most idiotic arguments ever posted on this board.

Of course it's a tax on Boeing. A federal court ruled exactly that when the state of Washington tried to impose exactly such a tax.

 

[Jarhead]

And if I said I wanted to tax aerospace companies in Washington state that gross over $10 billion a year, that wouldn't be the same thing as creating a tax on Boeing Aerospace, would it?

Not if Boeing opts to make pencil erasers instead....or have a bad year and gross less than 10 billion a year.

I believe THAT is the point RDD is making.

The tax wouldnt be on Boeing...it would be on any company that fits the criteria.

Don't be stupid. Of course it's a tax on Beoing. A federal court ruled exactly that when the state of Washington tried to impose exactly such a tax.

That's like saying I don't have to pay income tax if I want to starve in some cave.

That has to be one of the most idiotic arguments ever posted on this board.

NOT IF BOEING OPTS TO CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL and no longer be in the aerospace industry.

Regarding the proposed million dollar earner tax
A million dollar earner is taxed as a million dollar earner ONLY when he has an income of a million dollars or more. The following year he makes only 900K? He ios no longer being taxed as one earning a million bucks.

Now...I agree with your senmtiments about a tax on those earning a million bucks or more...

But I cant figure out why you cant see the point RDD and I are making.