'Taxing the Rich'

[Bern80]

That part of it is. But to tax a group of people simply for having more is not. It's a also a little scary that use the phrasing 'allows'. The government of this country was not set up to define what it would 'allow' the citizenry to do or what property it would allow them to keep. The government was set up to PROTECT our property, not tell us how much of it they're going to let you keep and decide that arbitrarily on how much you have.

It's just a word, Bro'. How much does the government 'allow' you to earn before lowering the tax boom now? For me it's every paycheck.

If it will make everyone happy, we could do 7% on every dime for everyone in addition to the 7% general sales tax. That just gives the government more to spend and gives "those most likely to spend it" less.

I'm easy - I can certainly afford it.

Here's a thought... How about we allow citizens to earn their first $30,000 tax free and make citizenship worth something again?

I'm easy too. I just want a tax code that treats everyone the same. If it's a national sales tax, fine. If it's a flat income tax, fine. If it's a tax on wealth, fine. If it's a combination of the above, fine. It just has to treat everyone the same. No breaks for the rich, no breaks for the poor, no breaks for corporations, no more sin taxes, no more tax subsidies. The tax code of this country really doesn't need to be more than a page long and I bet we could still get government plenty of money to do what it needs to do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

" According to right wing thinking, college students, career workers between jobs, young people, and retirees are almost all leaches. "


Not true, I'd say most rigntwingers see these people as temporarily on the dole and are okay with that, although 2 years is long enough IMHO.

LOL! 2 years is long enough to graduate college, got it.

Retirees earned their checks, nobody is claiming they are leaches and it's really bogus for you to say that.

Sure. Most of them receive more in benefits from the government than they pay in taxes - but not leaches. Certainly not part of the 40 some odd percent figure that don't pay taxes that righties quote all the time, I'm sure.

I think the problem the right has is with the career welfare types who don't look for a job and don't want one, ever.

The fact your job pays you little money doesn't mean you don't ever want a job. That's fucking stupid. If you have 3 kids and make $25 an hour you don't pay net taxes - does that mean you'd rather not work just because you have 3 kids and only make $25 an hour?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of course there are "many ways for people to be fair". Y'know why? Because there are many definitions of "fair". As many definitions as there are people trying to use the word to justify their own particular agenda.

What's "fair" to you is almost certainly not what's "fair" to me, but we can each make an equally valid argument for our own particular perspective on it . . . which is why it's an utterly subjective word.

It's only subjective until two or more people find common ground, then 'fair' becomes an agreement. It helps if the parties enter the discussion with an actual goal of coming to an agreement. That's what makes politics so fun!

An agreement doesn't make it any less subjective, aka "a matter of opinion".

Look at huge mergers being blocked by antitrust lawsuits. The people planning the mergers both agree that it's fair and equitable TO THEM, but the people bringing the lawsuits beg to differ. THEY consider it completely unfair. Totally a matter of opinion.

That's a good point with a reasonable example for back up.

Doesn't change my personal understanding of the word 'fair', and defining fair was never more than a side-bar to this discussion, but a good point none the less.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's just a word, Bro'. How much does the government 'allow' you to earn before lowering the tax boom now? For me it's every paycheck.

If it will make everyone happy, we could do 7% on every dime for everyone in addition to the 7% general sales tax. That just gives the government more to spend and gives "those most likely to spend it" less.

I'm easy - I can certainly afford it.

Here's a thought... How about we allow citizens to earn their first $30,000 tax free and make citizenship worth something again?

I'm easy too. I just want a tax code that treats everyone the same. If it's a national sales tax, fine. If it's a flat income tax, fine. If it's a tax on wealth, fine. If it's a combination of the above, fine. It just has to treat everyone the same. No breaks for the rich, no breaks for the poor, no breaks for corporations, no more sin taxes, no more tax subsidies. The tax code of this country really doesn't need to be more than a page long and I bet we could still get government plenty of money to do what it needs to do.

How much would we save in bureaucracy costs alone if we taxed ourselves at the wholesale level instead of the retail level? The IRS is not a cheap organization to maintain after all, and having to chase down each and every individual wage earner in America for paperwork to reconcile against the paperwork sent in by their employers has got to be costing a few million every year, as well as making us look pretty stupid as a country.

Not to mention the billions every year that Americans now spend at H & R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty, etc. just to do the fucking paper work required to work in this 'land of opportunity'.

So what do you think of giving bonafide citizens some sort of break on the income tax part? The consumption tax will have to be all or nothing to keep the paperwork of implementing it from causing small businesses tasked with collecting the tax to suffer, but allowing citizens to earn up to a designated amount free of any income tax would be pretty easy and would give much needed value to citizenship again. Even a token amount would put a certain spring back into the step of the average American worker, I do believe.

 

[Bern80]

Here's a thought... How about we allow citizens to earn their first $30,000 tax free and make citizenship worth something again?

I'm easy too. I just want a tax code that treats everyone the same. If it's a national sales tax, fine. If it's a flat income tax, fine. If it's a tax on wealth, fine. If it's a combination of the above, fine. It just has to treat everyone the same. No breaks for the rich, no breaks for the poor, no breaks for corporations, no more sin taxes, no more tax subsidies. The tax code of this country really doesn't need to be more than a page long and I bet we could still get government plenty of money to do what it needs to do.

How much would we save in bureaucracy costs alone if we taxed ourselves at the wholesale level instead of the retail level? The IRS is not a cheap organization to maintain after all, and having to chase down each and every individual wage earner in America for paperwork to reconcile against the paperwork sent in by their employers has got to be costing a few million every year, as well as making us look pretty stupid as a country.

Not to mention the billions every year that Americans now spend at H & R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty, etc. just to do the fucking paper work required to work in this 'land of opportunity'.

So what do you think of giving bonafide citizens some sort of break on the income tax part? The consumption tax will have to be all or nothing to keep the paperwork of implementing it from causing small businesses tasked with collecting the tax to suffer, but allowing citizens to earn up to a designated amount free of any income tax would be pretty easy and would give much needed value to citizenship again. Even a token amount would put a certain spring back into the step of the average American worker, I do believe.

I wouldn't have a problem with that I don't think. Not sure how it incentivizes citizenship though. Sure citizens wouldn't pay income tax on that first 30k, but illegals already aren't paying that.

 

[bripat9643]

But, but, buttt they worked harder to earn that money, so they should get to keep more of it.

Everything they have was acquired through voluntary transactions. What entitles anyone else to it?

 

[bripat9643]

That's a good point with a reasonable example for back up.

Doesn't change my personal understanding of the word 'fair', and defining fair was never more than a side-bar to this discussion, but a good point none the less.

ah . . right. Your entire economic agenda rests on the concept, but you think defining the term is a "side-bar?"

 

[rdean]

Why not tax the rich. If they won't make jobs here and only make jobs in China, let them help this country. After all, this is where they live and keep their money.

 

[Bern80]

Why not tax the rich. If they won't make jobs here and only make jobs in China, let them help this country. After all, this is where they live and keep their money.

Because it is not their responsibility to make jobs. Job creation is simply a by product of their success. Nor does where they choose to set up shop have any bearing on a fair distribution of taxes. And the rich aren't nearly as concerned with how cheap labor is as how productive it is.