Is it moral to have this much of the world's resources?

[DiamondDave]

Why do you think charities can do better than government? I haven't seen that work out so well over time.

hmmm... charities run more efficiently and do much better than our red-tape infested bureaucracy crap that is forced upon us by our corrupt system... more of your and my money is wasted in these governmental handouts... research some great charities, and you will see the efficiency... support those that do things the right way over those that waste more

 

[Ravi]

The people who would get really screwed in a FLAT TAX system would be those people making just over the minimum incomes to pay taxes, I suspect.

I never thought of that.

What do you think is the fairest and most logical way to tax people?

 

[Ravi]

hmmm... charities run more efficiently and do much better than our red-tape infested bureaucracy crap that is forced upon us by our corrupt system... more of your and my money is wasted in these governmental handouts... research some great charities, and you will see the efficiency... support those that do things the right way over those that waste more

They all are special interest groups, though, and the government isn't. Well, except the government's special interest being we the people and our economic well being.

There is also no or less accountability with private charity.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well it would be obvious a fair tax system if everyone paid the same amount of taxes out of their same incomes.

But since that system has proven time and again to be ineffective and unworkable (that system is called communism) then I do not think that that's a very likely development, thank god.

So since we have a system in place where income distiribution is wildly dissimilar, I'm afraid we're stuck with a system of taxation where some people end up paying MOST of the taxes, and some people don't pay a damned thing.

The people who would get really screwed in a FLAT TAX system would be those people making just over the minimum incomes to pay taxes, I suspect.

That would be the upper middle class and lower upper classes.

You know engineers, doctors, lawyers, congressmen and so forth.

The billionaires would probably love it, since they can shlter (read hide) most of the real incomes as investments and expenses.

But the working class (which includes ALL professionals) would get truly screwed, I suspect.

The devil is always in the details, which is why I ask for details when people bring up this idea.

no.. that is not communism

communism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

What I support is equal burden... not equal distribution... each and every tax paying citizen should get the same thing from government.... support of the creation and enforcement of laws, and national defense and national security

The government, since they should give the same service to all (in terms of the limited services I stated), should extract the same percentage from each person to provide it's leadership, law enforcement, etc... yes, those who make more pay more, but in terms of their total earnings (like tithing in a church) the same share of their earnings is paid as the person making 35K.... I do not complain that I pay more in total... I complain of the punishment system put in place that says since I achieve and earn more, I owe more of a share or more of a percentage than Joe Schmoe, so it can be handed out to Joe Crackpipe or Suzy Ninekids-Neverworkedadayinherlife....

With the advocation of equal burden... I am also a HUGE advocate of the elimination of most deductions and all loopholes... income is income.... simplify the system... hell, even save money because the IRS bureaucracy need not be so big if the calculations are standard and simple

 

[busara]

They all are special interest groups, though, and the government isn't. Well, except the government's special interest being we the people and our economic well being.

There is also no or less accountability with private charity.

you sure that's what government officials care about?

 

[DiamondDave]

They all are special interest groups, though, and the government isn't. Well, except the government's special interest being we the people and our economic well being.

There is also no or less accountability with private charity.

Efficiency.... the government is a proven inefficient entity...

And lest ye forget.... the government is not responsible for your well being... YOU are (A.K.A. they are not ACCOUNTABLE for you... I don't know where you are putting accountability into this).... the government is responsible for PROMOTING (not providing) the GENERAL WELFARE of the country as a whole... not the personal welfare of individuals...

 

[busara]

no.. that is not communism

communism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

What I support is equal burden... not equal distribution... each and every tax paying citizen should get the same thing from government.... support of the creation and enforcement of laws, and national defense and national security

The government, since they should give the same service to all (in terms of the limited services I stated), should extract the same percentage from each person to provide it's leadership, law enforcement, etc... yes, those who make more pay more, but in terms of their total earnings (like tithing in a church) the same share of their earnings is paid as the person making 35K.... I do not complain that I pay more in total... I complain of the punishment system put in place that says since I achieve and earn more, I owe more of a share or more of a percentage than Joe Schmoe, so it can be handed out to Joe Crackpipe or Suzy Ninekids-Neverworkedadayinherlife....

With the advocation of equal burden... I am also a HUGE advocate of the elimination of most deductions and all loopholes... income is income.... simplify the system... hell, even save money because the IRS bureaucracy need not be so big if the calculations are standard and simple

yes, only crackheads and promiscuous people advantage from paying lower taxes.

the tax code is crazily complicated and needs to be simplified. if there is a flat tax, it would need to only apply for people earning over a certain income. otherwise the poor will be paying more than they can afford. the problem i have with a flat tax is that it would likely raise payments by middle class and lower those by the wealthy. the middle class is the backbone of the economy, it is their consumption that keeps us moving. if they have less money, they stop spending. and the wealthy, who are supposed to invest their extra money so it trickles down, dont. because why would you enhance production capacity and hire more workers if sales are down? (if you cant tell, i believe supply side economics is a load of dung).

 

[Charles_Main]

How many of you are aware that Technically Income taxes are unconstitutional.

 

[midcan5]

I clawed my way up from NOTHING...

And so did I, so why do you not have some sense of empathy because for sure you didn't do it all on your own, a social situation needed to exist first.



"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

 

[DiamondDave]

yes, only crackheads and promiscuous people advantage from paying lower taxes.

the tax code is crazily complicated and needs to be simplified. if there is a flat tax, it would need to only apply for people earning over a certain income. otherwise the poor will be paying more than they can afford. the problem i have with a flat tax is that it would likely raise payments by middle class and lower those by the wealthy. the middle class is the backbone of the economy, it is their consumption that keeps us moving. if they have less money, they stop spending. and the wealthy, who are supposed to invest their extra money so it trickles down, dont. because why would you enhance production capacity and hire more workers if sales are down? (if you cant tell, i believe supply side economics is a load of dung).

try reading... I did not say Suzy Ninekids or Joe Crackpipe were benefiting from paying lower... I was saying that I am paying more of a share than Joe Schmoe earning 35K a year TO HAVE HANDOUTS TO PEOPLE LIKE SUZY NINEKIDS OR JOE CRACKPIPE


Government's job is not to be your mommy and worry whether you are achieving enough, or earning what you need to earn for yourself (as stated SO many times.. .you are the only one responsible for you and your well being.... I am not, Kurt in Michigan is not, Beth in Florida is not, and the government is not)... justice is blind, as the tax system should be.... just as the sales tax is blind that it don't care if it is a millionaire or a bum crackhead buying a soda... the tax is still 6% or whatever on that soda.... income tax should be blind as well... only focusing on you owe 17% (or whatever rate), and you owe 17%, and you owe 17%. Show us your income and derive your total and that is that....

 

[DiamondDave]

And so did I, so why do you not have some sense of empathy because for sure you didn't do it all on your own, a social situation needed to exist first.



"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

Yes... I did do it on my own... I made my choices... I earned my $$$... I studied my subjects.. .I practiced my trade... I chose my jobs... I made myself a commodity... society did not... you did not do it for me either...

You want something... EARN it... do what you have to do... I, and every other American citizen, do not OWE it to you just because you exist

 

[busara]

try reading... I did not say Suzy Ninekids or Joe Crackpipe were benefiting from paying lower... I was saying that I am paying more of a share than Joe Schmoe earning 35K a year TO HAVE HANDOUTS TO PEOPLE LIKE SUZY NINEKIDS OR JOE CRACKPIPE


Government's job is not to be your mommy and worry whether you are achieving enough, or earning what you need to earn for yourself (as stated SO many times.. .you are the only one responsible for you and your well being.... I am not, Kurt in Michigan is not, Beth in Florida is not, and the government is not)... justice is blind, as the tax system should be.... just as the sales tax is blind that it don't care if it is a millionaire or a bum crackhead buying a soda... the tax is still 6% or whatever on that soda.... income tax should be blind as well... only focusing on you owe 17% (or whatever rate), and you owe 17%, and you owe 17%. Show us your income and derive your total and that is that....

you know what i was saying.

and do you really think the economy would not be hurt at all if a flat tax were introduced?

 

[editec]

yes, only crackheads and promiscuous people advantage from paying lower taxes.

the tax code is crazily complicated and needs to be simplified. if there is a flat tax, it would need to only apply for people earning over a certain income. otherwise the poor will be paying more than they can afford. the problem i have with a flat tax is that it would likely raise payments by middle class and lower those by the wealthy. the middle class is the backbone of the economy, it is their consumption that keeps us moving. if they have less money, they stop spending. and the wealthy, who are supposed to invest their extra money so it trickles down, dont. because why would you enhance production capacity and hire more workers if sales are down? (if you cant tell, i believe supply side economics is a load of dung).

The poor ALREADY pay more taxes than they can afford.

I'd love to see an easily understood fair system of taxation too.

I simply have yet to see one advanced that would actually work.

 

[DiamondDave]

you know what i was saying.

and do you really think the economy would not be hurt at all if a flat tax were introduced?

Honestly.... no I do not... short term it may be effected because of less government spending and waste in areas that they have no business sticking their heads in to... but in the long term, the simpler system based on blind equality would be a good thing for our economy

 

[LOki]

It's all about ME, ME, ME!! Selfish git...

Selfish is the expectation to receive valuable goods and services without having to provide reciprocal value in return.

 

[DiamondDave]

The poor ALREADY pay more taxes than they can afford.

I'd love to see an easily understood fair system of taxation too.

I simply have yet to see one advanced that would actually work.

No... you simply have not seen one work that still punishes success and coddles those who do not take care of themselves, or the lazy, or the envious

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do you think charities can do better than government? I haven't seen that work out so well over time.

Charities have always been more efficient than government. Government run assistance programs are unweildy, and dependent upon whatever money they get from government only.

Charities can and do successfully but the bite on patrons for more money when they need it, and patrons usually will respond. With money and manpower. The money is more efficiently spent, so more of it goes to the people who need it.

 

[Ravi]

you sure that's what government officials care about?

No, but we do. And we elect them.

 

[Ravi]

Efficiency.... the government is a proven inefficient entity...

And lest ye forget.... the government is not responsible for your well being... YOU are (A.K.A. they are not ACCOUNTABLE for you... I don't know where you are putting accountability into this).... the government is responsible for PROMOTING (not providing) the GENERAL WELFARE of the country as a whole... not the personal welfare of individuals...

I don't think they're all that inefficient. The military, VA, medicare, social security, roads, sanitation, schools, police, etc....it all works pretty well.

Promoting the general welfare of individuals does promote the general welfare of the country.

 

[Ravi]

Charities have always been more efficient than government. Government run assistance programs are unweildy, and dependent upon whatever money they get from government only.

Charities can and do successfully but the bite on patrons for more money when they need it, and patrons usually will respond. With money and manpower. The money is more efficiently spent, so more of it goes to the people who need it.

That's the conventional wisdom, but I have no idea if it is true and you probably don't either.