Who should pay, and how much

[Iriemon]

However then you are taking the incentive to try harder away. While there are many who earn a lot that didn't actually work hard for it, there are just as many who do. Also many of the wealthy will donate to charities and privately operated charities, increasing their taxes will cause them to stop funding these, and let's be honest, these privately operated groups do tend to effect larger impacts than those run by the government with only a few exceptions. You would be taking the money from the poor and giving it to the government in this case, and since when has the government done well in handling our money? There is a larger effects to this that is largely ignored by the die hard "equalists", and these effects are what make it less than equal.

Taking incentive away from whom?

Conservatives argue that lowering tax rates incentivizes people to work harder. Who better to incentive to work harder than the poorer? Lower their taxes and they'll be working harder, which is just what we want, right?

The guy making $20 million must already be working hard; we don't need to incentivize them so much.

Why not try the middle of the road, I do agree with either extreme and so I have nothing else. Just a flat tax, based on the needs of the country as a whole. As I said, some rich do not work that hard, others do, but the rich are voluntarily supporting many of the poor by paying large amounts of money into charities that help (using their freedom to choose they can also control where that money helps better) and these privately run charities are historically more helpful to the poor than our government has been. Our government has been doing poorly with our money lately so why would you want to take away the money donated to the private charities by over taxing the rich?

I previously explained why not a flat tax. It is a tax paid by the poor with money they need for necessities while lowering the tax on the rich who pay taxes with money used for luxuries. A flat tax places an disproportionate relative burden on the poor.

 

[KittenKoder]

Taking incentive away from whom?

Conservatives argue that lowering tax rates incentivizes people to work harder. Who better to incentive to work harder than the poorer? Lower their taxes and they'll be working harder, which is just what we want, right?

The guy making $20 million must already be working hard; we don't need to incentivize them so much.

Why not try the middle of the road, I do agree with either extreme and so I have nothing else. Just a flat tax, based on the needs of the country as a whole. As I said, some rich do not work that hard, others do, but the rich are voluntarily supporting many of the poor by paying large amounts of money into charities that help (using their freedom to choose they can also control where that money helps better) and these privately run charities are historically more helpful to the poor than our government has been. Our government has been doing poorly with our money lately so why would you want to take away the money donated to the private charities by over taxing the rich?

I previously explained why not a flat tax. It is a tax paid by the poor with money they need for necessities while lowering the tax on the rich who pay taxes with money used for luxuries. A flat tax places an disproportionate relative burden on the poor.

On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.

 

[Iriemon]

Why not try the middle of the road, I do agree with either extreme and so I have nothing else. Just a flat tax, based on the needs of the country as a whole. As I said, some rich do not work that hard, others do, but the rich are voluntarily supporting many of the poor by paying large amounts of money into charities that help (using their freedom to choose they can also control where that money helps better) and these privately run charities are historically more helpful to the poor than our government has been. Our government has been doing poorly with our money lately so why would you want to take away the money donated to the private charities by over taxing the rich?

I previously explained why not a flat tax. It is a tax paid by the poor with money they need for necessities while lowering the tax on the rich who pay taxes with money used for luxuries. A flat tax places an disproportionate relative burden on the poor.

On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.

Of course.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ha! Who would have thought that rightist support for "the collective" would emerge in an attempt to deny the reality of varying marginal utility and according marginal contribution?

 

[KittenKoder]

Ha! Who would have thought that rightist support for "the collective" would emerge in an attempt to deny the reality of varying marginal utility and according marginal contribution?

Really? Which rightist would that be?

 

[Agnapostate]

Really? Which rightist would that be?

Economically, you're clearly a rightist. In fact, effectively every poster on this board is some degree of economic rightist inasmuch as they're merely capitalists of different breeds. The Anglo-Saxon capitalist may be different from the Rhine capitalist, but they're both capitalists.

 

[KittenKoder]

Really? Which rightist would that be?

Economically, you're clearly a rightist. In fact, effectively every poster on this board is some degree of economic rightist inasmuch as they're merely capitalists of different breeds. The Anglo-Saxon capitalist may be different from the Rhine capitalist, but they're both capitalists.

LOL ... me being conservative economically, given, but not a "rightist", there is a difference. I use to think like you, until I became REALLY poor (broke for that matter), then had to struggle my way back up. Want to know who helped and who made it harder? The rich helped (Bill Gates with his generous donations to the organizations which actually did help) and the other just whined and passed out peanut butter sandwiches telling us all "poor you, you can't help it, the rich have just ignored you". I ignored the sandwiches and instead worked in the programs, now I am back on my feet again in spite of being constantly told buy those against the rich that I can't get anywhere. The rich were instead reaching out a hand and saying "here, these are the tools, build yourself some steps". So perhaps I am biased, but my biasness in this part is supported by psychological facts and economic evidence, not just because I want to bring down some "other society". The simple fact, equality is not just a slogan, it's a way of life, and one which I believe. Taxing them more just because they are wealthy is wrong, it's not equality, and it will harm more than you can fathom.

 

[Agnapostate]

LOL ... me being conservative economically, given, but not a "rightist", there is a difference. I use to think like you, until I became REALLY poor (broke for that matter), then had to struggle my way back up. Want to know who helped and who made it harder? The rich helped (Bill Gates with his generous donations to the organizations which actually did help) and the other just whined and passed out peanut butter sandwiches telling us all "poor you, you can't help it, the rich have just ignored you". I ignored the sandwiches and instead worked in the programs, now I am back on my feet again in spite of being constantly told buy those against the rich that I can't get anywhere. The rich were instead reaching out a hand and saying "here, these are the tools, build yourself some steps". So perhaps I am biased, but my biasness in this part is supported by psychological facts and economic evidence, not just because I want to bring down some "other society". The simple fact, equality is not just a slogan, it's a way of life, and one which I believe. Taxing them more just because they are wealthy is wrong, it's not equality, and it will harm more than you can fathom.

I doubt you thought like me. For one thing, I don't bother with this sort of anecdotal "evidence." The spectrum of human experiences and behaviors is so widely varying that only legitimate statistical evidence can function as an element of an informed empirical analysis, not mere anecdotal speculation. Taxing the rich more is certainly not "equality" nor does it have the capacity to bring about "equality" in any sense. Its benefits are twofold: Firstly the diminishing rate of marginal utility ensures that the upper class can endure a significantly higher percentage of taxation than lower classes due to the lesser felicific utility provided by commodities rather than essential necessities. Secondly, marginal utility again ensures that the costs of the taxation imposed by the poor are lesser than the benefits provided through social programs funded by that taxation. Since social programs aid the poor in avoiding poverty traps and welfare ensures the physical efficiency of the workforce, capitalism and economic stability are thus sustained by the usage of funds gained from progressive taxation to fund welfare programs.

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL ... me being conservative economically, given, but not a "rightist", there is a difference. I use to think like you, until I became REALLY poor (broke for that matter), then had to struggle my way back up. Want to know who helped and who made it harder? The rich helped (Bill Gates with his generous donations to the organizations which actually did help) and the other just whined and passed out peanut butter sandwiches telling us all "poor you, you can't help it, the rich have just ignored you". I ignored the sandwiches and instead worked in the programs, now I am back on my feet again in spite of being constantly told buy those against the rich that I can't get anywhere. The rich were instead reaching out a hand and saying "here, these are the tools, build yourself some steps". So perhaps I am biased, but my biasness in this part is supported by psychological facts and economic evidence, not just because I want to bring down some "other society". The simple fact, equality is not just a slogan, it's a way of life, and one which I believe. Taxing them more just because they are wealthy is wrong, it's not equality, and it will harm more than you can fathom.

I doubt you thought like me. For one thing, I don't bother with this sort of anecdotal "evidence." The spectrum of human experiences and behaviors is so widely varying that only legitimate statistical evidence can function as an element of an informed empirical analysis, not mere anecdotal speculation. Taxing the rich more is certainly not "equality" nor does it have the capacity to bring about "equality" in any sense. Its benefits are twofold: Firstly the diminishing rate of marginal utility ensures that the upper class can endure a significantly higher percentage of taxation than lower classes due to the lesser felicific utility provided by commodities rather than essential necessities. Secondly, marginal utility again ensures that the costs of the taxation imposed by the poor are lesser than the benefits provided through social programs funded by that taxation. Since social programs aid the poor in avoiding poverty traps and welfare ensures the physical efficiency of the workforce, capitalism and economic stability are thus sustained by the usage of funds gained from progressive taxation to fund welfare programs.

The government funded ones NEVER aid the poor, they just keep them at bay. Personal experience trumps anything you have for me, but yes, I did think like that, that the poor were oppressed by the rich, it wasn't until I was completely broke that I saw the difference, then I saw what hands were reaching out and which were just handing out. To get any perspective on reality you have to immerse yourself in it, to understand the systems in place and what the players are doing you have to be in one of two extreme positions, I was in such a position. It changes you, teaches you, and you can grow a lot from it. They even have groups that take students from schools and have them experience being in such a situation for a week, spoke to a couple of groups myself (question and answer times in the shelters themselves with us who lived there). Though a week is not enough time to fully submerse yourself in that situation many of them learn a lot. I was there for almost 7 years (give or take a few months). It only takes a year to fully understand it, but if you did go through it, the loss of self respect, the loss of freedom, the complete lack of independence, you will see, the rich are the ones who give it back not the government. Taxing them more would only force them to be unable to fund these great privately run programs, and be honest, when have you ever seen the government do what's right or budget well enough to actually help anyone but themselves?

 

[manu1959]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

sales tax....everyone pays it and everyone pays the same rate....

 

[Cecilie1200]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

Everyone does pay taxes, if you work, you pay into Social Security no matter what your wage, sales taxes, if you drive taxes on gasoline and auto registration fees, misc sin taxes, those and others, even if you do not pay any income tax. But that is not the point of my original post, it is what some of you posting here would do if taxation and government spending decisions were up to you?

Why is Social Security being talked about in a conversation concerning paying the nation's bills and balancing the budget? Isn't that supposed to be all about people's retirements? It's not technically a tax, so they keep telling us. And sales tax? Since when does THAT go to the federal budget or national debt? Ditto gasoline and auto registration.

Think you could maybe stick to your own topic?

 

[Cecilie1200]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

You are positive that your proposal would get the country back on track and provide jobs and affordable housing, education, repair infrastructure, support the wars, etc? You offer no numbers to support your position, it is easy to eliminate agencies in theory, but what are the repercussions or advantages when this is done in realty? Talk is cheap, the needs of the American citizens are not. The wealthy need roads to move their products and supplies, it is alright for the rest of us to walk or drive on dirt trails, but how would you explain your failure to serve the needs of the wealthy in this and many other ways that require great amounts of tax dollars?

He did offer you a number: 60%. That's how much of our federal budget goes to things the federal government has no legal business doing in the first place. And one advantage of cutting them is immediately obvious: You don't have to tax people so damned much to pay for them.

How the hell did you get from entitlement spending to roads? Who suggested we cut road-building? Stick to the damned topic!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do those things.

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

Really? If that phrase was intended to give Congress unlimited power to do any damned thing they wanted, why did the framers bother to list all those very specific powers of Congress in that Article? What was the point?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't give the government the authority to do anything. The powers of the government are explicitly stated in the Constitution, not hidden in double meanings to be "found" by corrupt politicians.

what did they mean by the general welfare when they put that in?

Well, they linked it to paying debts and common defense in that sentence, and they placed it in the middle of an Article full of specific powers of Congress. You think they might have been trying to say, "These are Congress's duties. They have the power to collect taxes in order to fund those duties, which constitute the general welfare of the United States"? Is that at all in the realm of possibility?

It's called "reading for context". Try it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yet during the Clinton administration, when taxes were increased from 31% to 40%, 22 million new jobs were created. I guess work wasn't discouraged a heck of a lot by that tax increase.

But aside from facts completely undermining your assertion, it's a good point.

it was called the tech bubble.

Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.

But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.

Simply amazing.

Your history is not like our Earth history.

It's damned entertaining, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

That is NOT an enabling section of the Constitution, it means with in the confines of the SPECIFIC powers granted. Once again for you tools, IF this sentence actually means what you claim then there would be absolutely no reason to continue on and address the SPECIFIC Powers granted to Congress at all. In fact this sentence negates the very concept that the Constitution LIMITS the Government.

That's your interpretation.

"the Congress shall have the power to ... provide for the ... common welfare of the United States"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Of course it does . . . because you edited out the entire rest of the Article.

 

[Iriemon]

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

Everyone does pay taxes, if you work, you pay into Social Security no matter what your wage, sales taxes, if you drive taxes on gasoline and auto registration fees, misc sin taxes, those and others, even if you do not pay any income tax. But that is not the point of my original post, it is what some of you posting here would do if taxation and government spending decisions were up to you?

Why is Social Security being talked about in a conversation concerning paying the nation's bills and balancing the budget? Isn't that supposed to be all about people's retirements? It's not technically a tax, so they keep telling us. ....

Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.

 

[editec]

Why not try the middle of the road, I do agree with either extreme and so I have nothing else. Just a flat tax, based on the needs of the country as a whole. As I said, some rich do not work that hard, others do, but the rich are voluntarily supporting many of the poor by paying large amounts of money into charities that help (using their freedom to choose they can also control where that money helps better) and these privately run charities are historically more helpful to the poor than our government has been. Our government has been doing poorly with our money lately so why would you want to take away the money donated to the private charities by over taxing the rich?

I previously explained why not a flat tax. It is a tax paid by the poor with money they need for necessities while lowering the tax on the rich who pay taxes with money used for luxuries. A flat tax places an disproportionate relative burden on the poor.

On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.

Small compensation to the poor who cannot eat because of a FLAT TAX, I think.

And would the rich pay more?

I sort of doubt it.

Even the flat tax codes would be onerous tomes covering things like what is and what is not an expense of a business.

In fact MOST of the tax code that everyone complains about is comprised of those specifics.

As long as a rich man can write off his chauffer and body guards, and have the company pay for it, while the working stiffs have to pay to go to work and can't write any of it off, the idea of a flat tax being more FAIR is just so much neo-con bullshit.

 

[Iriemon]

Because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do those things.

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

Really? If that phrase was intended to give Congress unlimited power to do any damned thing they wanted, why did the framers bother to list all those very specific powers of Congress in that Article? What was the point?

What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.

If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Everyone does pay taxes, if you work, you pay into Social Security no matter what your wage, sales taxes, if you drive taxes on gasoline and auto registration fees, misc sin taxes, those and others, even if you do not pay any income tax. But that is not the point of my original post, it is what some of you posting here would do if taxation and government spending decisions were up to you?

Why is Social Security being talked about in a conversation concerning paying the nation's bills and balancing the budget? Isn't that supposed to be all about people's retirements? It's not technically a tax, so they keep telling us. ....

Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.

Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good. It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.