A modest proposal on taxes

[kaz]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income? Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else? That way we eliminate the whole tax half of the battle and make it easier for us both by just fighting about how much welfare they get? Brilliant? Eh?

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

 

[L.K.Eder]

as a last resort, you could eat your children.

 

[kaz]

as a last resort, you could eat your children.

What has that got to do with what I said?

 

[L.K.Eder]

as a last resort, you could eat your children.

What has that got to do with what I said?

that was an allusion to swift, jonathan.


use "a modest proposal..." and you will get that.

 

[kaz]

as a last resort, you could eat your children.

What has that got to do with what I said?

that was an allusion to swift, jonathan.


use "a modest proposal..." and you will get that.

What I don't get is to be a joke about my thread, shouldn't it have to do with both Swift and my point, not just Swift?

 

[L.K.Eder]

What has that got to do with what I said?

that was an allusion to swift, jonathan.


use "a modest proposal..." and you will get that.

What I don't get is to be a joke about my thread, shouldn't it have to do with both Swift and my point, not just Swift?

what can i say, i did not even read your post, just your thread title.

but now i jump-started your thread, and it will not die. maybe.

 

[Ariux]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income?

You want to increase the welfare payments to people who are already on welfare and you want to add to the welfare rolls low income people who currently are not on welfare. And, you want to **** people who, in spite of low income, would never accept welfare. With your big-government, welfare state mentality, don't ever try to fool yourself into think you're a conservative. You're a *******, worthless Liberal.

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

Other than taxes, is there anything else you think should be the "same" for everyone? Maybe wages? If not wages, why not? How about the price of cars? Why should some people get more welfare and government handouts than others, and don't say because they have less, else you'd just reveal yourself to be an idiot? Back to taxes, how about if everyone gets the same mortgage deduction or employee expense deduction, regardless of their actual mortgage or employee expenses?

 

[kaz]

don't ever try to fool yourself into think you're a conservative. You're a *******, worthless Liberal

I don't think I am a conservative, I think I'm a libertarian. Actually I'm pretty sure...

Other than taxes, is there anything else you think should be the "same" for everyone? Maybe wages?

I'm having a hard time with this one. Because I think government should treat everyone the same, I think private industry should? Why would I think that?

If not wages, why not? How about the price of cars?

Don't cars cost the same no matter how much you earn?

Why should some people get more welfare and government handouts than others, and don't say because they have less, else you'd just reveal yourself to be an idiot?

I said I'm not addressing the welfare system, not that I support it. I just said welfare should include consideration for taxes rather then our fighting the battle for both welfare and taxes. I am proposing cutting the problem in half. Now we fight the battle both on welfare and taxes.

Back to taxes, how about if everyone gets the same mortgage deduction or employee expense deduction, regardless of their actual mortgage or employee expenses?

Ditto on the tax side, I said I'm not addressing the tax side, just saying that it treats everyone the same. But your point is a bad one, government should not be manipulating home prices as they do. Personally I support the Fair Tax, but that's another debate.

 

[sarahgop]

sounds like a good idea

 

[auditor0007]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income? Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else? That way we eliminate the whole tax half of the battle and make it easier for us both by just fighting about how much welfare they get? Brilliant? Eh?

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

Sounds like a great idea. Of course we also would have to change local and state taxes to reflect a fair system of taxation, because as it stands now, the lowest income earners pay two to four times the percentage of taxes based on income as the highest income earners at the state and local levels. It would be necessary to increase taxes on the highest income earners and reduce taxes on the lowest income earners. It would mean a massive change of the way taxes are collected at the state level. So what say you?

 

[kaz]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income? Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else? That way we eliminate the whole tax half of the battle and make it easier for us both by just fighting about how much welfare they get? Brilliant? Eh?

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

Sounds like a great idea. Of course we also would have to change local and state taxes to reflect a fair system of taxation, because as it stands now, the lowest income earners pay two to four times the percentage of taxes based on income as the highest income earners at the state and local levels. It would be necessary to increase taxes on the highest income earners and reduce taxes on the lowest income earners. It would mean a massive change of the way taxes are collected at the state level. So what say you?

I'm not sure how changing the Federal system would change that exactly. If federal welfare accounted for federal taxes so it cancels out rather then fighting the same battle on two fronts, why would that necessarily require a change in State taxes coordinated with that?

 

[auditor0007]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income? Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else? That way we eliminate the whole tax half of the battle and make it easier for us both by just fighting about how much welfare they get? Brilliant? Eh?

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

Sounds like a great idea. Of course we also would have to change local and state taxes to reflect a fair system of taxation, because as it stands now, the lowest income earners pay two to four times the percentage of taxes based on income as the highest income earners at the state and local levels. It would be necessary to increase taxes on the highest income earners and reduce taxes on the lowest income earners. It would mean a massive change of the way taxes are collected at the state level. So what say you?

I'm not sure how changing the Federal system would change that exactly. If federal welfare accounted for federal taxes so it cancels out rather then fighting the same battle on two fronts, why would that necessarily require a change in State taxes coordinated with that?

This is the problem with those of you on the right. You want everything to be fair and equal at the federal level, but at the state level you are happy with the lowest income workers paying the bulk of the taxes while the wealthy pay next to nothing as a percentage of income. All the whining we hear about 47% of Americans paying no federal income tax, but nothing about how the rich only pay half to one quarter of the taxes that low income earners pay at the state level.

Basically what you want is a reduction in federal taxes for the wealthy while increasing taxes on those who can least afford it, and you want to leave everything the same at the state and local levels. This way, the poor would pay about 40% of their income in taxes and the wealthy would pay under 20%. It's absolutely hilarious.

 

[inALIENable]

Nah, we need to stop with taxing income, that's FORCED slavery, and that's immoral, and probably results in bad national karma too.

Tax spending instead. Tax all non-essentials to replace income tax. This shouldn't affect the poor that much, they can't afford discretionary spending anyhow. Just move the tax from the back-end to the front-end. Government could also temporarily reduce tax selectively to encourage spending in select industries (i.e. buy a car this weekend and pay only 20% VAT instead of 40%).

Income tax is forced slavery and that makes the US an immoral nation.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Sounds like a great idea. Of course we also would have to change local and state taxes to reflect a fair system of taxation, because as it stands now, the lowest income earners pay two to four times the percentage of taxes based on income as the highest income earners at the state and local levels. It would be necessary to increase taxes on the highest income earners and reduce taxes on the lowest income earners. It would mean a massive change of the way taxes are collected at the state level. So what say you?

I'm not sure how changing the Federal system would change that exactly. If federal welfare accounted for federal taxes so it cancels out rather then fighting the same battle on two fronts, why would that necessarily require a change in State taxes coordinated with that?

This is the problem with those of you on the right. You want everything to be fair and equal at the federal level, but at the state level you are happy with the lowest income workers paying the bulk of the taxes while the wealthy pay next to nothing as a percentage of income. All the whining we hear about 47% of Americans paying no federal income tax, but nothing about how the rich only pay half to one quarter of the taxes that low income earners pay at the state level.

Basically what you want is a reduction in federal taxes for the wealthy while increasing taxes on those who can least afford it, and you want to leave everything the same at the state and local levels. This way, the poor would pay about 40% of their income in taxes and the wealthy would pay under 20%. It's absolutely hilarious.

Just wanted to address your 'point' on State & Local taxes. If EVERYONE is paying the same percentage it seems to me that the problem is with incomes, not taxes. And that's the beauty of America, EVERYONE has the same opportunity to do something about their income. Doing something sure beats YOUR alternative, which is counting OTHER PEOPLE'S money and bitching that they make MORE than you.

 

[g5000]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income? Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else? That way we eliminate the whole tax half of the battle and make it easier for us both by just fighting about how much welfare they get? Brilliant? Eh?

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

I, too, first thought of Jonathan Swift when I saw the topic title. I guess some of us are more well-read than others.

As for your plan, it has a gigantic assumption in it. You assume all lower income people affected by a regressive tax are on welfare.

 

[Ariux]

I don't think I am a conservative, I think I'm a libertarian. Actually I'm pretty sure...

You're a libertarian, yet you want to dramatically expand the welfare state. What's libertarian about appealing to "fairness" (there's nothing fair about taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich)? Liberals trade in contrived fairness. Libertarians trade in reducing government. Of course, all good people (specifically true conservatives) value fairness, but it doesn't define libertarianism.

I'm having a hard time with this one. Because I think government should treat everyone the same, I think private industry should? Why would I think that?

Do you think a janitor and a CEO should be given the same pay? Or, a federal judge and a janitor in the courthouse should make the same pay? It looks like it. But, they're paid according to market conditions. Why not tax according to market conditions, such as ability to pay?

Don't cars cost the same no matter how much you earn?

The same model might cost approximately the same, but everyone gets different prices. Then there's the fact that people buy different models, and then the approximate same price is gone.

I said I'm not addressing the welfare system, not that I support it. I just said welfare should include consideration for taxes rather then our fighting the battle for both welfare and taxes. I am proposing cutting the problem in half. Now we fight the battle both on welfare and taxes.

Fair enough, but you did propose welfare increases to compensate for tax increases on the poor. Why don't you simply fight for smaller government, and the rest will follow. The only thing that will follow tax increases on the poor is the expansion of the welfare state.

Ditto on the tax side, I said I'm not addressing the tax side, just saying that it treats everyone the same. But your point is a bad one, government should not be manipulating home prices as they do. Personally I support the Fair Tax, but that's another debate.

Aw, so you support creating a new federal tax and putting everyone in the country on government handouts, all in the irrational hope that taxing sales will get the government out of the business of manipulating consumer behavior. Okay, Faust.

 

[Flopper]

Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else?

Does this make sense? If the government is going to give you a welfare check and take out taxes, it would be a lot simpler if they just reduced the welfare by the amount of the tax. Why give away money that you're going take back immediately.

 

[Wiseacre]

Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else?

Does this make sense? If the government is going to give them a welfare check and take out taxes, it would be a lot simpler if they just reduced the check by the amount of the tax. Why give them money that you're going take back immediately.

Because then it makes the politicians who sponsored the legislation to give them more money looks even better.

I must be missing something, why not start taxing at the poverty line? Start at 1%, gradually increase up to whatever your top rate is, and eliminate any and all deductions and exemptions. Cap gains counts the same as every other type of income.

Same deal for corp taxes, no breaks, no loopholes, no deductions. Big or little, you pay a flat rate, maybe give the first $100,000 as tax free to spur startups.

 

[Ariux]

I must be missing something, why not start taxing at the poverty line? Start at 1%, gradually increase up to whatever your top rate is, and eliminate any and all deductions and exemptions. Cap gains counts the same as every other type of income.

Same deal for corp taxes, no breaks, no loopholes, no deductions. Big or little, you pay a flat rate, maybe give the first $100,000 as tax free to spur startups.

Usually when I see such apparent naivete, it's an artifact extreme liberal bigotry. But, I don't think that applies to you.

With tax brackets, we could, and do, achieve a gradual increase in effective tax rates without the confusion that would be introduced by your idea of gradual tax rate increases.

The trouble with taxing capital gains at the full rate is that inflation already taxes long-term capital gains. If you put $100 into a stock and 15 years later, it's $200, you've not made a cent, yet you'll pay the full tax rate on $100, even though you didn't make a cent. Think of how this will shaft long-term investors saving for retirement. But, capital gains could be indexed to inflation and the full tax rate paid on the non-inflated profit.

Your big fail comes with your idea of no deductions for businesses. It would be impossible for any business to operate if there were no tax deductions. I won't go into why. But, we could eliminate deductions on all employee-related expenses, except on expenses where the employee will pay taxes, unless business-use is credibly 100%. "Employee expenses" is a monster-sized loophole used by the rich to avoid taxes by avoiding the reporting of income (thus giving a false impression that they're paying a higher percentage than they really are paying).

 

[Artevelde]

What if we taxed everyone the same? I know, the liberals are going to say low income people can't afford it. So, what if their welfare included consideration that they are paying taxes on their income? Rather then giving them low tax rates AND welfare then fighting endlessly over both, we just include their taxes in their welfare and tax them the same as everyone else? That way we eliminate the whole tax half of the battle and make it easier for us both by just fighting about how much welfare they get? Brilliant? Eh?

In this I'm not taking a position on what tax system we have. Just saying whatever it is we tax everyone the same. And I'm not taking a position on welfare, just saying whatever system it is includes consideration for their taxes.

Personally I feel that the income tax code should be as simple as possible. The simpler the tax code the fairer it will be. Basically this means getting rid of practically all tax exemptions and deductions and simply taxing all income with one, maximum two tax rates. This should allow for a much fairer and more efficient system.