The Graduated Income Tax

[frigidweirdo]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

You say a per capita income tax would be the fairest. I disagree. Often people who are richer make more use out of the spending of tax money than poorer people do.

A rich person's money will be coming out of a business that is making them a lot of money, whether they own it or not, and as the govt seems not to want to charge businesses at the rate they are using services, it falls to individuals who make a lot of money to do so.

The best examples are Russia in the 1990s and Somalia.

Russia in the 1990s because while there was a government, it was useless. People had to pay their taxes, but there were mafias running amok. Businesses or individuals had to pay something like 30% of their income for Mafia protection. And even then it didn't mean you weren't going to get take out by another competitor's mafia.

Now, most companies pay less than 30% for all services. If a company were forced to pay for everything as they used it, they'd be paying far, far more than they currently pay.

Somalia is a good example because people in Somalia don't earn much money. The stability in the US allows people to earn money. And this isn't on a per capita basis. It's not like Mr Smith earns $200 dollars more per month in the US on top of his $20,000 salary, and Mr Jones earns $200 dollars more per month in the US on top of his $200,000 per month salary. No, the reality is that Mr Jones will be earning a lot more than Mr Smith because of the security, infrastructure, govt resources, when in Somalia they might be earning similar wages.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.

Average Expenditures by income before taxes

In 2015, the percent of pre-tax income spent only on food and housing was as follows:
Income less than $15,000: 162.3%
$15,000 - $29,999: 72.8%
$30,000 - $39,999: 55.4%
$40,000 - $49,999: 45.6%
$50,000 - $69,999: 40.2%
$70,000 - $99,999: 35.2%
$100,000 - $149,999: 30.4%
$150,000 - $199,999: 27.4%
$200,000 and over: 20.1%

So who would be more adversely affected by a capitation tax or a flat income tax?

When the poor have money, they spend it. When they spend it, the economy is boosted because businesses will be able to sell more goods. The more goods they sell, the more profit they make.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.

Average Expenditures by income before taxes

In 2015, the percent of pre-tax income spent only on food and housing was as follows:
Income less than $15,000: 162.3%
$15,000 - $29,999: 72.8%
$30,000 - $39,999: 55.4%
$40,000 - $49,999: 45.6%
$50,000 - $69,999: 40.2%
$70,000 - $99,999: 35.2%
$100,000 - $149,999: 30.4%
$150,000 - $199,999: 27.4%
$200,000 and over: 20.1%

So who would be more adversely affected by a capitation tax or a flat income tax?

When the poor have money, they spend it. When they spend it, the economy is boosted because businesses will be able to sell more goods. The more goods they sell, the more profit they make.

so we should give the poor even more welfare??? if we had done that in the stone age we could have developed 100 times as fast?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

You say a per capita income tax would be the fairest. I disagree. Often people who are richer make more use out of the spending of tax money than poorer people do.

A rich person's money will be coming out of a business that is making them a lot of money, whether they own it or not, and as the govt seems not to want to charge businesses at the rate they are using services, it falls to individuals who make a lot of money to do so.

The best examples are Russia in the 1990s and Somalia.

Russia in the 1990s because while there was a government, it was useless. People had to pay their taxes, but there were mafias running amok. Businesses or individuals had to pay something like 30% of their income for Mafia protection. And even then it didn't mean you weren't going to get take out by another competitor's mafia.

Now, most companies pay less than 30% for all services. If a company were forced to pay for everything as they used it, they'd be paying far, far more than they currently pay.

Somalia is a good example because people in Somalia don't earn much money. The stability in the US allows people to earn money. And this isn't on a per capita basis. It's not like Mr Smith earns $200 dollars more per month in the US on top of his $20,000 salary, and Mr Jones earns $200 dollars more per month in the US on top of his $200,000 per month salary. No, the reality is that Mr Jones will be earning a lot more than Mr Smith because of the security, infrastructure, govt resources, when in Somalia they might be earning similar wages.

if you have any idea what your point is please tell us

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

The Pulpit Is for Bullies

Omissions, stawmen, biases, apples and oranges, self-obsession, pots and kettles, outrageous pandering, narcissism, irresponsibility. You don't want to debate, you want to preach. Your choir congegrates in some nutjob nook with good acoustics for its echo chamber.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

how do they make so much money , off the working man

Of course they gave the "working man" a job in the first place, but don't let that enter your feeble brain.

Giant Sucklng Sound

Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.

 

[pinqy]

That's not an income tax, that is a capitation or poll tax. The Constitution specifically mentions this as a direct tax that must be apportioned among the states.

and do you favor the Constitution's tax?

Just because it is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's the Constitution's tax...We've never had a national poll tax in this country. It doesn't appear anyone has ever favored it.

 

[rightwinger]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

One of the most ridiculous posts I have read in months

You tax money not people

 

[rightwinger]

how do they make so much money , off the working man

Of course they gave the "working man" a job in the first place, but don't let that enter your feeble brain.

Nobody "gives" you anything. Employer makes a profit on every one of those jobs

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We have always had a progressive income tax and its fair. Like it or not the elites have to pay more, but in reality they can certainty make a hell of a lot less money and pay less. We have multimillionaires and billionaires and how do they make so much money , off the working man. They obviously do not spend it either as they wouldn't be multimillionaires,

so yes they can pay more, and if the lower the top bracket 15% to 25% then the 15% should be to 0. We do not need a tax overhaul.

Scrooge Shrugged

If you want to imitate his bossy way of faking debate, you could tell him and his idols that if they wanted to be in a lower bracket, they can always get a job that pays less.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

how do they make so much money , off the working man

Of course they gave the "working man" a job in the first place, but don't let that enter your feeble brain.

No one "gives" you a job. I know that how we say it in the common lexicon, but the reality is if an employer has a need that employer has a shortage of labor. In order for the employer to meet their full potential, they desire to have someone come and do work for them so they can increase the size, scale, and profits of the company.

So please, don't make it sound like employers offer people jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. If I get a job, it's because I worked my ass off to become good enough at what I do, that an employer wants to so badly he's willing to pay me the salary I make. I earn my job being good at what I do and the relationship between my employer and I are as peers, not as owner - lackey. If my employer doesn't treat me with respect and pay me what I'm worth, I'll go and work for his/ her competition.

the point is some people create new jobs and products and some don't. Those who do should pay little or no tax in recognition of the their huge contribution to our survival and to encourage them to do more of what they do ie, provide the jobs and products we need to survive rather than perish as lowly libcommunists.

Well, if I wanted to debate like the billionaires' bootlickers do, I could say that if these Big Shots are so vital to the economy, we can get them to work more in order to get the same take-home they got before we raised their taxes. If we cut their taxes, they'd quit earlier and we'd lose the benefit of their workoholic genius.

 

[Slyhunter]

There is nothing fair about taxing someone who needs 100% or more of his money to survive. You should only tax discretionary money. Those who can afford a minimum American lifestyle should not be taxed unless they make more than that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.

so the poor create jobs? Biggest employer in America is Walmart.
. The WalMart family is poor??? See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Just because it is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's the Constitution's tax...

for third time: do you oppose taxation as its contemplated in the Constitution by our Founders?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is nothing fair about taxing someone who needs 100% or more of his money to survive.

survival in Africa is often about $83/month. So we can then tax an American who makes more than that!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is nothing fair about taxing someone who needs 100% or more of his money to survive. You should only tax discretionary money..

then obviously everyone would say they have no discretionary money!! If you don't tax people then they become liberal leeches encouraging others to do the same. Pretty soon nobody works. This is how 120 million slowly starved to death in USSr and REd China. Do you really want to see that happen here?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, we can get them to work more in order to get the same take-home they got before we raised their taxes. .

you're going to install a lib Nazi govt to get say Musk/Bezos to work more?? How?? threaten them with prison if they don't work as hard as the Naziwork bureau thinks they should?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. If we cut their taxes, they'd quit earlier and we'd lose the benefit of their workoholic genius.

totally stupid since they are already rich enough to quit. if we cut taxes though they might have enough to invest in more inventions and jobs. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if these Big Shots are so vital to the economy,.

if ??? you don't think Musk Brin Bezos Gates are vital to economy?? See why we are positive that liberalisms is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We have multimillionaires and billionaires and how do they make so much money , off the working man. .

so if billionaires make it off the working man then we should get the billionaires off the working man so the working man can earn what he really should??