CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[320 Years of History]

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

I'm no authority either. Frankly, I try ardently to "stay out" of other folks' relationships. If some woman I meet tells me she's separated and gonna get divorced, I'm going to tell her, "Excuse me. I need to step away. It was nice chatting with you." (Same with guys, but occasion for men to tell me that is very, very rare.)

I think the child rearing was harder mostly on me, but mainly because two of the kids were at one school and the other at a different school. The challenges were more logistically driven than anything else, but those logistics can be really difficult when you make time to be with your kids and you work on a different continent than the one on which they live/go to school.

As goes being actual parents who taught our kids what they needed to know to be responsible and socially well adjusted kids, that wasn't harder or easier before or after the divorce. In fact, our kids didn't even know there was something wrong with our marriage and we never disagreed (not in any material ways) about how to raise our kids.

I agree that folks often get married too impulsively.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been flying solo?

Statistically, after a divorce, both people regret it after 5 years.

Eight years. I didn't come to regret getting divorced until about two years ago. I guess that's a tiny bit longer than the average, per your statistic.

Maybe I stayed pissed longer because we got divorced and I ended up with three big ass houses that she insisted "we" buy that I didn't want to begin with. I love the houses, but I could have just as well loved a different and smaller ones nearby from the get-go. It didn't make me "house poor," but I damn sure didn't enjoy five years of being "house less-rich" while she continued to enjoy her "jet set" lifestyle. (Yes, I know....first world problems.)

 

[Andylusion]

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

You know what the difference is between happily married couples, and unhappy couples that get divorced?

They have actually done research on this. Happily married couples have just as many fights and arguments, as happy couples. You know what they found the difference between the two? Happy couples don't consider divorce an option.

See, nearly everyone *can* work through differences, if they want to. They simply don't want to.

Dammit. I was hoping you'd say "Jesus".

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been flying solo?

Statistically, after a divorce, both people regret it after 5 years.

2 1/2 years

Ah ok.

You were hoping I would say "Jesus"? LOL.

You missed the word "rational" in RCC podcast, didn't you?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been flying solo?

Statistically, after a divorce, both people regret it after 5 years.

Eight years. I didn't come to regret getting divorced until about two years ago. I guess that's a tiny bit longer than the average, per your statistic.

Maybe I stayed pissed longer because we got divorced and I ended up with three big ass houses that she insisted "we" buy that I didn't want to begin with. I love the houses, but I could have just as well loved a different and smaller ones nearby from the get-go. It didn't make me "house poor," but I damn sure didn't enjoy five years of being "house less-rich" while she continued to enjoy her "jet set" lifestyle. (Yes, I know....first world problems.)

Ah you found a princess. Did you know she was spoiled before you married her?

 

[320 Years of History]

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been flying solo?

Statistically, after a divorce, both people regret it after 5 years.

Eight years. I didn't come to regret getting divorced until about two years ago. I guess that's a tiny bit longer than the average, per your statistic.

Maybe I stayed pissed longer because we got divorced and I ended up with three big ass houses that she insisted "we" buy that I didn't want to begin with. I love the houses, but I could have just as well loved a different and smaller ones nearby from the get-go. It didn't make me "house poor," but I damn sure didn't enjoy five years of being "house less-rich" while she continued to enjoy her "jet set" lifestyle. (Yes, I know....first world problems.)

Ah you found a princess. Did you know she was spoiled before you married her?

Of course I was aware of the lifestyle to which she was accustomed. Don't make the mistake of thinking that transpired events and circumstances I didn't enjoy are also ones of not of my own willful doing. Sometimes one must exhibit rectitude toward others even though doing so puts a strain on oneself and one doesn't particularly like doing "whatever."

As I've often written, I live a life whereby I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me. Once in a while, that means I get "the short end of the stick," but that's okay. I know that I've done the right thing; I don't have to wonder whether I "should have" done differently. Thus my conscience is clear and I can sleep well at night.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

FALSE
Many do not pay taxes.
Just one more reason taxes should be a locked in percent everyone pays. No exceptions.

 

[320 Years of History]

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

FALSE
Many do not pay taxes.
Just one more reason taxes should be a locked in percent everyone pays. No exceptions.

Red:
As far as I can tell, everyone pays taxes one way or another; buy just about anything and one will pay tax on it. So the idea that many people "do not pay taxes" is preposterous. One must live completely off the land and the charity of others to pay no taxes.

About 45% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes.

(click the image to access its source)
​

According to Market Watch:

An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.) Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.​

Given the above, just whom is it you are griping about their paying no federal (presumably) income taxes? The people who are too poor to owe taxes or the tiny handful of folks who are well off but can minimize their tax liability to zero?

I think there are bigger problems in our tax code than the one you've identified. I'm not saying that the matter isn't one we should interminably ignore. I'm saying that there are other ills in the tax code that deserve our attention well before we worry about that one in particular.

Foremost among them in my mind are tax advantages (deductions, exemptions, and/or credits) that individuals or organizations receive for doing things that aim to sooner or later earn a profit. In my mind, the profit to be gained is sufficient reason for doing "whatever." A tax break plus profit goes too far. Additionally, I think we should dispense with tax advantages for finding out how to profitably do X, Y or Z. That's part of the cost of doing business, and its a cost that the entire U.S. taxpaying population should not have to pay.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that one way for top earners to get some of that money back is to invest in industries and companies that receive and/or avail themselves of the tax advantages. I also know that that is an approach that well off folks can take to maximize their returns and minimize their net tax burden, but it's an approach not available to folks who aren't "top" earners.

Thus my proposal is one that levels the playing field such that taxes paid by all are equally "unrecoverable" by all. It's a matter of equitability more so than purely about the money.


Blue:
Let's assume that in one year, the following seven individuals living in San Francisco earn gross income as noted:

• Ted earns $8K gross income.
• Bill earns $40K gross income.
• Mark earns $90K gross income.
• Mike earns $175K gross income.
• Lucy earns $300K gross income.
• Clark earns $800K gross income.
• Avery earns $1.5M gross income.

What in your mind should be the federal income tax rate(s) applicable to them?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

FALSE
Many do not pay taxes.
Just one more reason taxes should be a locked in percent everyone pays. No exceptions.

Red:
As far as I can tell, everyone pays taxes one way or another; buy just about anything and one will pay tax on it. So the idea that many people "do not pay taxes" is preposterous. One must live completely off the land and the charity of others to pay no taxes.

About 45% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes.

(click the image to access its source)
​

According to Market Watch:

An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.) Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.​

Given the above, just whom is it you are griping about their paying no federal (presumably) income taxes? The people who are too poor to owe taxes or the tiny handful of folks who are well off but can minimize their tax liability to zero?

I think there are bigger problems in our tax code than the one you've identified. I'm not saying that the matter isn't one we should interminably ignore. I'm saying that there are other ills in the tax code that deserve our attention well before we worry about that one in particular.

Foremost among them in my mind are tax advantages (deductions, exemptions, and/or credits) that individuals or organizations receive for doing things that aim to sooner or later earn a profit. In my mind, the profit to be gained is sufficient reason for doing "whatever." A tax break plus profit goes too far. Additionally, I think we should dispense with tax advantages for finding out how to profitably do X, Y or Z. That's part of the cost of doing business, and its a cost that the entire U.S. taxpaying population should not have to pay.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that one way for top earners to get some of that money back is to invest in industries and companies that receive and/or avail themselves of the tax advantages. I also know that that is an approach that well off folks can take to maximize their returns and minimize their net tax burden, but it's an approach not available to folks who aren't "top" earners.

Thus my proposal is one that levels the playing field such that taxes paid by all are equally "unrecoverable" by all. It's a matter of equitability more so than purely about the money.


Blue:
Let's assume that in one year, the following seven individuals living in San Francisco earn gross income as noted:

• Ted earns $8K gross income.
• Bill earns $40K gross income.
• Mark earns $90K gross income.
• Mike earns $175K gross income.
• Lucy earns $300K gross income.
• Clark earns $800K gross income.
• Avery earns $1.5M gross income.

What in your mind should be the federal income tax rate(s) applicable to them?

Just because they pay a tax when they buy booze and cigs doesn't mean it's tax revenue going to the welfare system.

And B, 10% of $1 is just as fair as 10% of $1,000,000. Everyone has an equal vested interest in America, all should support it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

FALSE
Many do not pay taxes.
Just one more reason taxes should be a locked in percent everyone pays. No exceptions.

Red:
As far as I can tell, everyone pays taxes one way or another; buy just about anything and one will pay tax on it. So the idea that many people "do not pay taxes" is preposterous. One must live completely off the land and the charity of others to pay no taxes.

About 45% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes.

(click the image to access its source)
​

According to Market Watch:

An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.) Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.​

Given the above, just whom is it you are griping about their paying no federal (presumably) income taxes? The people who are too poor to owe taxes or the tiny handful of folks who are well off but can minimize their tax liability to zero?

I think there are bigger problems in our tax code than the one you've identified. I'm not saying that the matter isn't one we should interminably ignore. I'm saying that there are other ills in the tax code that deserve our attention well before we worry about that one in particular.

Foremost among them in my mind are tax advantages (deductions, exemptions, and/or credits) that individuals or organizations receive for doing things that aim to sooner or later earn a profit. In my mind, the profit to be gained is sufficient reason for doing "whatever." A tax break plus profit goes too far. Additionally, I think we should dispense with tax advantages for finding out how to profitably do X, Y or Z. That's part of the cost of doing business, and its a cost that the entire U.S. taxpaying population should not have to pay.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that one way for top earners to get some of that money back is to invest in industries and companies that receive and/or avail themselves of the tax advantages. I also know that that is an approach that well off folks can take to maximize their returns and minimize their net tax burden, but it's an approach not available to folks who aren't "top" earners.

Thus my proposal is one that levels the playing field such that taxes paid by all are equally "unrecoverable" by all. It's a matter of equitability more so than purely about the money.


Blue:
Let's assume that in one year, the following seven individuals living in San Francisco earn gross income as noted:

• Ted earns $8K gross income.
• Bill earns $40K gross income.
• Mark earns $90K gross income.
• Mike earns $175K gross income.
• Lucy earns $300K gross income.
• Clark earns $800K gross income.
• Avery earns $1.5M gross income.

What in your mind should be the federal income tax rate(s) applicable to them?

Just because they pay a tax when they buy booze and cig greeters doesn't mean it's tax revenue going to the welfare system.

And B, 10% of $1 is just as fair as 10% of $1,000,000. Everyone has an equal vested interest in America, all should support it.

Are you going to directly answer the questions I asked? I've emboldened them in the quote to make it easy for you to find them.

Blue:
Yes, well, you tell that to the guy who earns $1 and pays a dime of it in taxes. The dime-payer is without question going to think/feel, "I have damn near nothing and the government wants to take some of it and how am I supposed to get by on what's left?" That is simply not a consideration the guy who pays $100K has. The income tax makes the former fellow's life even harder to live. For the latter fellow, that's just not so.

You clearly think the tax model you described is fair. I can't say why, nor do I care why, for whatever the reason, it's either ignorantly considered, speciously arrived at, or avariciously heartless. Perhaps one day you'll understand the distinctions among regressive, proportional and progressive taxes, along with what it means for a tax to be regressive in application even though it's not strictly so in theory. (Hint: none of it has anything to do with politics, unless a person makes it be about politics and not about taxation.) The differences and similarities are subtle, yet they matter at the individual level, in people's lives. The nature of a tax -- progressive, regressive, proportional, regressive in application -- "is what it is" no matter why one prefers (or thnks one prefers) one taxation model over the other.

• http://content.ccsuvt.org/ehs/2010/09/tax-systems-worksheet-key.pdf
  
• https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les04/media/ws_ans_thm03_les04.pdf
  
• https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les02/media/ws_ans_thm03_les02.pdf

Red:
You just keep thinking that. I can assure you the "guy" who pays $100K in taxes knows damn well his vested interest in America is $99,990 more than that of "guy" who paid a dime in taxes.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

FALSE
Many do not pay taxes.
Just one more reason taxes should be a locked in percent everyone pays. No exceptions.

Red:
As far as I can tell, everyone pays taxes one way or another; buy just about anything and one will pay tax on it. So the idea that many people "do not pay taxes" is preposterous. One must live completely off the land and the charity of others to pay no taxes.

About 45% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes.

(click the image to access its source)
​

According to Market Watch:

An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.) Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.​

Given the above, just whom is it you are griping about their paying no federal (presumably) income taxes? The people who are too poor to owe taxes or the tiny handful of folks who are well off but can minimize their tax liability to zero?

I think there are bigger problems in our tax code than the one you've identified. I'm not saying that the matter isn't one we should interminably ignore. I'm saying that there are other ills in the tax code that deserve our attention well before we worry about that one in particular.

Foremost among them in my mind are tax advantages (deductions, exemptions, and/or credits) that individuals or organizations receive for doing things that aim to sooner or later earn a profit. In my mind, the profit to be gained is sufficient reason for doing "whatever." A tax break plus profit goes too far. Additionally, I think we should dispense with tax advantages for finding out how to profitably do X, Y or Z. That's part of the cost of doing business, and its a cost that the entire U.S. taxpaying population should not have to pay.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that one way for top earners to get some of that money back is to invest in industries and companies that receive and/or avail themselves of the tax advantages. I also know that that is an approach that well off folks can take to maximize their returns and minimize their net tax burden, but it's an approach not available to folks who aren't "top" earners.

Thus my proposal is one that levels the playing field such that taxes paid by all are equally "unrecoverable" by all. It's a matter of equitability more so than purely about the money.


Blue:
Let's assume that in one year, the following seven individuals living in San Francisco earn gross income as noted:

• Ted earns $8K gross income.
• Bill earns $40K gross income.
• Mark earns $90K gross income.
• Mike earns $175K gross income.
• Lucy earns $300K gross income.
• Clark earns $800K gross income.
• Avery earns $1.5M gross income.

What in your mind should be the federal income tax rate(s) applicable to them?

Just because they pay a tax when they buy booze and cig greeters doesn't mean it's tax revenue going to the welfare system.

And B, 10% of $1 is just as fair as 10% of $1,000,000. Everyone has an equal vested interest in America, all should support it.

Are you going to directly answer the questions I asked? I've emboldened them in the quote to make it easy for you to find them.

Blue:
Yes, well, you tell that to the guy who earns $1 and pays a dime of it in taxes. The dime-payer is without question going to think/feel, "I have damn near nothing and the government wants to take some of it and how am I supposed to get by on what's left?" That is simply not a consideration the guy who pays $100K has. The income tax makes the former fellow's life even harder to live. For the latter fellow, that's just not so.

You clearly think the tax model you described is fair. I can't say why, nor do I care why, for whatever the reason, it's either ignorantly considered, speciously arrived at, or avariciously heartless. Perhaps one day you'll understand the distinctions among regressive, proportional and progressive taxes, along with what it means for a tax to be regressive in application even though it's not strictly so in theory. (Hint: none of it has anything to do with politics, unless a person makes it be about politics and not about taxation.) The differences and similarities are subtle, yet they matter at the individual level, in people's lives. The nature of a tax -- progressive, regressive, proportional, regressive in application -- "is what it is" no matter why one prefers (or thnks one prefers) one taxation model over the other.

• http://content.ccsuvt.org/ehs/2010/09/tax-systems-worksheet-key.pdf
  
• https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les04/media/ws_ans_thm03_les04.pdf
  
• https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les02/media/ws_ans_thm03_les02.pdf

Red:
You just keep thinking that. I can assure you the "guy" who pays $100K in taxes knows damn well his vested interest in America is $99,990 more than that of "guy" who paid a dime in taxes.

I would agree with you, except that there should not be a Federal income tax at all.

But the argument that "well we can take whatever we want from people who have more".... no, you are wrong. That is immoral. I guarantee you have a ton more than I do. So by your logic, I should be able to demand our government take a ton more from you, and give it to me. Not because I earned it, or because you did anything to be punished.... but rather simply because you work harder, we should take what you have? By all means, I'll give you my address in private chat, and you can start sending me 5% of your income.

No. No, wrong. You are wrong. That is absolutely immoral.

Do you believe in equality, or not? Are all men created equal, and thus should be treated equally by the law, including tax law, or not? Greed is not a valid reason in my book. "He has more, so we should take more" is just flat out greed and envy.

Now beyond that, you started saying that all people pay taxes. I agree.

But it's not our side that is supportive of Social Security and Medicare, and all the taxes you people load on the backs of the poor.

Either Social Security is not a tax, and thus almost half the country doesn't pay taxes, and that's unfair to the other half that has to carry those who don't pay their fair share....... or......

Social Security, Medicare, and welfare, and food stamps, and on and on, is a tax, and it is the most anti-poor, pro-impoverishment, destructive program to the lower-class that has ever existed.

Which is it? You tell me.

 

[320 Years of History]

"well we can take whatever we want from people who have more

That isn't the argument I've made and I don't know what makes you think it is. I also don't care what makes you think it is, so don't construe that I'm asking you to tell me.

 

[Andylusion]

"well we can take whatever we want from people who have more

That isn't the argument I've made and I don't know what makes you think it is. I also don't care what makes you think it is, so don't construe that I'm asking you to tell me.

Well.... that certainly looks like the exact argument you made.

The dime-payer is without question going to think/feel, "I have damn near nothing and the government wants to take some of it and how am I supposed to get by on what's left?" That is simply not a consideration the guy who pays $100K has. The income tax makes the former fellow's life even harder to live. For the latter fellow, that's just not so.
​

What that says is, if *YOU*, decided that so-and-so will not be bothered with losing a larger percentage of his income because he has a larger income....... that it is morally right to take more.

He has more, therefore we can take more, because he has more. That's the argument you put forward.

If that isn't the argument you intended, then perhaps you should make your argument more clear.

Because as far as I'm concerned, you have a ton more than me, and.... I don't think you'll miss it if we confiscate some of it, and give it to..... well... me. Since I'm poorer and I have damn near nothing and the government wants to take some of it and how am I supposed to get by on what's left?

So please send your check, written out to "Andrew DBA RCCPodcast.org" Hilliard Ohio 43026. Time to start practicing what your preaching brother.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well.... that certainly looks like the exact argument you made.....If that isn't the argument you intended, then perhaps you should make your argument more clear.

The points I made were clearly stated; it's your comprehension, as illustrated by your inaccurate paraphrasing of what I wrote, that is amiss. That your reading/writing skills are such that they led to make that misrepresentation of my remarks is key to why I have no desire to continue discussing the matter with you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.
If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

Welfare - the community works together to ensure that the needy do not starve and have the basic essentials of life. A afety net for those who fall on hard times.

Noting here changes or mitigates anything I said.

The state FORCES the community to "work together".
The state FORCES the community to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation
The state FORCES the community to do this because someone believes it is morally necessary.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

The state is the community. If the community did not approve of these arrangements then they can vote for a party that would get rid of them. None of us live independently of our neighbours and we all need help now and then. Its the right and proper way to do things.

 

[Wilbur Right]

What that says is, if *YOU*, decided that so-and-so will not be bothered with losing a larger percentage of his income because he has a larger income....... that it is morally right to take more.

Can you point out where in any of the laws passed concerning the income tax, where morality was a basis of consideration concerning the tax brackets by income.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.
If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

Welfare - the community works together to ensure that the needy do not starve and have the basic essentials of life. A afety net for those who fall on hard times.

Noting here changes or mitigates anything I said.

The state FORCES the community to "work together".
The state FORCES the community to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation
The state FORCES the community to do this because someone believes it is morally necessary.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

The state is the community. If the community did not approve of these arrangements then they can vote for a party that would get rid of them. None of us live independently of our neighbours and we all need help now and then. Its the right and proper way to do things.

And, again, noting here changes or mitigates anything I said.
You support state-enforced involuntary servitude because you believe it is the right thing to do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.
If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

Welfare - the community works together to ensure that the needy do not starve and have the basic essentials of life. A afety net for those who fall on hard times.

Noting here changes or mitigates anything I said.

The state FORCES the community to "work together".
The state FORCES the community to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation
The state FORCES the community to do this because someone believes it is morally necessary.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

The state is the community. If the community did not approve of these arrangements then they can vote for a party that would get rid of them. None of us live independently of our neighbours and we all need help now and then. Its the right and proper way to do things.

And, again, noting here changes or mitigates anything I said.
You support state-enforced involuntary servitude because you believe it is the right thing to do.

I cant connect the word servitude to being provided with the means to keep your head above water.

 

[hauke]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

solution universal right to live money,enoutgh money to buy food, simple food enough to not starve. enought money to have a room. enough money or universal right for healthcare.

nobody needs to commit murder to survive.

not good enough for children.

people need to be allowed to walk naked as theres no money for cloth

 

[hauke]

there are laws in the USA forbidding to walk naked, but theres no laws ensuring people can have cloth

 

[hauke]

cloth don t grow on people you goto make or buy them, so if you make a law forbidding people to go naked which law supplies them with cloth ?