Why do we have a Progressive Tax System??

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

Why not a flat tax so everyone is treated equally? Why does Obama call it "fairness" when he is actually creating inequality in tax rates?? If people are in poverty then obviously they shouldn't be taxed, but other than that, why not everyone pay 20% or 30% or whatever is seen as covering govt costs?

 

[Toronado3800]

Why not a flat tax so everyone is treated equally? Why does Obama call it "fairness" when he is actually creating inequality in tax rates?? If people are in poverty then obviously they shouldn't be taxed, but other than that, why not everyone pay 20% or 30% or whatever is seen as covering govt costs?

On the extreme end imagine if half your population was substinance farmers and the other half the middle class. It would be difficult to tax the substinance farmers fairly to build a road to them.

Then imagine a man makes 40k. His 2k of taxes is considerably more painful than 50k from a man making 200k.

Also there is the socialist revolution we all live in fear of.

 

[francoHFW]

A) Morality, which asks that the richer people recognize their good fortune and pay back the country that made it possible, like the greatest generation believed, and earlier generations. Reaganism has made blaming the less fortunate respectable, a disgrace.

B) Cutting taxes always leads to higher fees and other taxes that hurt the nonrich harder. Today the middle class pays more %wise in all taxes and fees than the richest, and corporations pay a 12% effective rate. It all ends up ruining the nonrich and demand for product and the economy. Greedy idiocy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obama's 'Fairness' Doctrine

 

[OKTexas]

Because it the second of the ten pillars of communism. From those according to their abilities. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"On the extreme end imagine if half your population was substinance farmers and the other half the middle class. It would be difficult to tax the substinance farmers fairly to build a road to them."

If they are in poverty then they shouldn't pay any taxes. Of course I guess that makes it still a bit of a progressive tax system but much less so.


"Then imagine a man makes 40k. His 2k of taxes is considerably more painful than 50k from a man making 200k."

Ah, now this is what I'm getting at. The guy with 200k IS PAYING MORE. If the tax rate was 30% he is paying 60k versus 12k for the guy making only 40k. Furthermore, and more importantly, why only consider what is "painful" when it comes to inequality of money?? We don't say, gee there's an unattractive woman so let's let her pay lower taxes. In fact, here's an interesting comparison of two people to make my point.

Consider 2 women. One was born beautiful and as such has had favorable treatment throughout her life. She's spoiled and lazy. She works as a secretary because she never developed any skills and didn't want to work her way thru college. We'll call her Diva Babe.

Now compare her to an unattractive woman who kids made fun of in school and really wasn't very good at relating to other people. Kind of an MIT type geek. In any event, nobody handed anything to her. She earned it all by working hard in school, getting good grades in IT and ended up making 5 million dollars last year with the IT company she founded. According to progressive taxes, we need to TAKE FROM HER TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD??

Wait a minute, she's the one who started out with an unlevel playing field and may never have the easy life of Diva Babe. If anyone should have something taken it's Diva Babe. If the govt is really interested in equality, let them take something from genetic celebrities like Diva Babe rather than take it from someone who actually EARNED IT. The progressive tax system presupposes equality at birth, and we all know that is not the case. So in short, progressive taxes reinforce inequality.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"Morality, which asks that the richer people recognize their good fortune "

THe good fortune was generally EARNED while a guy born a great athelete didn't work for that. If you aren't going to acknowledge the good fortune of birth as well as money that is earned, you are reinforcing inequality. Shouldn't we reward those who earn it and penalize those who didn't earn it?? Progressive taxes do just the opposite...

 

[g5000]

We have progressive taxes because that is the way our Founder's wanted it. Progressive taxes were one means to prevent the unnatural concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

So forget all this "ten pillars of communism" crap. Some people hear "progressive" and have a pavlovian response.

Here is Thomas Jefferson (a favorite Founder of small government lovers everywhere):

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[jillian]

Why not a flat tax so everyone is treated equally? Why does Obama call it "fairness" when he is actually creating inequality in tax rates?? If people are in poverty then obviously they shouldn't be taxed, but other than that, why not everyone pay 20% or 30% or whatever is seen as covering govt costs?

why do you care? you aren't in the top bracket.

 

[bripat9643]

A) Morality, which asks that the richer people recognize their good fortune and pay back the country that made it possible, like the greatest generation believed, and earlier generations. Reaganism has made blaming the less fortunate respectable, a disgrace.

No it doesn't, moron. Furthermore, government isn't responsible for the wealth the rich have earned. Neither are its various ticks, parasites and other constituencies.

B) Cutting taxes always leads to higher fees and other taxes that hurt the nonrich harder.

Only because ticks like you are insatiable.

[/QUOTE]Today the middle class pays more %wise in all taxes and fees than the richest, and corporations pay a 12% effective rate. It all ends up ruining the nonrich and demand for product and the economy. Greedy idiocy.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Why do we have a Progressive Tax System??

Apparently because it costs some people more than it does others to be an American. In this country, nearly half of the population doesn't pay any federal income taxes at all. Why not tax everybody at the same rate? Every person in America should be taxed 10 to 15 percent of their income. No loopholes. No deductions. No need for tax lawyers. If your W-2 says you earned $18,000 last year, then your tax should be $1,800 if taxed at 10%. If you W-2 says you earned $1,000,000 then your tax would be $100,000. It's fair and equal across the board. The way taxes are set up in this country, it robs the wealthy yet lets half the population off of the tax dole. Nothing fair about it.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

'Progressive taxes were one means to prevent the unnatural concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

So should we have progressive treatment of attractive people? If a woman is deemed to be a 9 or 10 then she pays higher taxes or has to have more degrees to get the same job? When you only focus on money you are creating MORE inequality. And by the way, where is the evidence that a flat tax would create money in the hands of the few? Maybe it would be just the opposite because it would be easier for the average person to open a small business if taxes were not such a drag on profits...

 

[konradv]

Why not a flat tax so everyone is treated equally? Why does Obama call it "fairness" when he is actually creating inequality in tax rates?? If people are in poverty then obviously they shouldn't be taxed, but other than that, why not everyone pay 20% or 30% or whatever is seen as covering govt costs?

How about studying up before posting? Obama DID NOT create the progressive tax system. The reason for the progressive system? Because the first dollar is worth a lot more than the last.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"Every person in America should be taxed 10 to 15 percent of their income. No loopholes. No deductions. "

EXACTLY!! No mortgage deduction, no business deductions just a flat rate for anyone making over the poverty level of let's say 50k or whatever it's deemed to be

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"Obama DID NOT create the progressive tax system."

Of course not, but he wants to make it even more lopsided by having the, "rich pay their fair share." Talk about Orwellian doublespeak. The top 5% pay something like 50% of the taxes and the top 1% pay about 38% of taxes if my memory is correct. I may be wrong about the exact percentages, but one gets the feeling that Obama would have no problem with top rate being 90%...

 

[g5000]

'Progressive taxes were one means to prevent the unnatural concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

So should we have progressive treatment of attractive people? If a woman is deemed to be a 9 or 10 then she pays higher taxes or has to have more degrees to get the same job? When you only focus on money you are creating MORE inequality. And by the way, where is the evidence that a flat tax would create money in the hands of the few? Maybe it would be just the opposite because it would be easier for the average person to open a small business if taxes were not such a drag on profits...

A flat tax is an unfair burden on the poor. Do you not even understand the basics of the regressive nature of a flat tax? No wonder you made such a logical fallacy with your beauty tax!

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"the first dollar is worth a lot more than the last."

And a genetic celebrity has a huge advantage on the average person. Why not focus on THAT inequality? I suspect because you are not interested in equality, but only demonizing successful people.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"why do you care? you aren't in the top bracket. "

That's like saying, "Why should you care about rape -- you're not a woman." What's moral is moral. By the way, your response about only caring about where you are in the economic strata is a sort of corollary of Marx's economic determinism. That is, everyone's view is based on where they are in social class. That clearly has turned out to be false as have many of Marx's theories...

 

[g5000]

If a person is just making enough money to eke out their survival, removing 20 percent of that subsistence would be a much larger burden on them than a 20 percent tax on someone living far, far, far above a subsistence level.

If you don't even have this minimal amount of understanding, then you should not be participating in a tax debate.


I personally favor the Fair Tax. Income tax is a tax on production. We should be taxing consumption.

The Fair Tax provides a monthly prebate which offsets the regressive nature of the tax. That money you are taxed on the subsistence amount of your income is prebated to you.

Those who consume more therefore get taxed more. Those who consume just to survive do not get taxed at all.

 

[konradv]

"the first dollar is worth a lot more than the last."

And a genetic celebrity has a huge advantage on the average person. Why not focus on THAT inequality? I suspect because you are not interested in equality, but only demonizing successful people.

I thought we were talking about taxes. Where did I demonize anyone? Are you hearing voices, again?