Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, let's all give three cheers for Plutocracy, when the 1% make all the laws won't this be a great and wonderful utopia?

Newsflash professor; they already do.

Wait.....you're not one of those people that still think that "We the People" are in charge are ya? Do you still believe in Santa Claus too ?

We the people can but don't take charge. Most don't vote, those that do generally don't think (as in sagacious thinking) about the people they vote for or the issues facing our country; they vote by party line or vote by whatever talking points evokes an emotional response.

Well said.

BTW might as well learn to enjoy the current plutocracy because there is no indication that the electorate is getting any smarter or more perceptive (quite the opposite).

Sad but true, or so it seems when reading the posts on this message board. We may laugh or ignore the more outrageous posts - bigoted, racist, ignorant, hateful, etc. - but others around the world read and must wonder if such opinions are representative of most Americans. I make an effort to disabuse them of this notion.

We may know they are the idiot fringe (IF) IMO, but others may not, so we have a duty to expose them for what they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

Ny was talking about government 'of the People', which is a reference to unlimited democracy.

How do you limit democracy?

 

[pinqy]

And you fail right there.

explain

MArginal utility of money is based on the premise that after you have X dollars that every other dollar is worth less to you so therefore you don't need it

No, it's not. It's not that you don't need the money, but that the additional money doesn't carry the same usefulness. Giving $500 to a minimum wage worker gives him more benefit than giving $500 to someone who makes $100,000/year. He might still NEED the extra $500, but the impact will still be lesser than to the min wage worker.

It is known and demonstrable that the higher your income, the lower the percent of your income is spent on food, shelter, health care. So a poorer person who spends 90% of their salary on food, rent, clothes etc will be hurt more by a 15% tax than a richer person who only spends 75% on necesseties (though his necessities are nicer).

And the determination of that usefulness is purely subjective

No, it's not.
If person A is spending 90% of his income on Food, Clothing, Shelter, and Medical expenses, and person B is spending 75% of his incom on those, and then saving 10% and investing 10%, then it is not subjective to say that a 20% tax will more adversely affect person A. That is NOT saying it won't affect B at all, but that the effect will be objectively less severe.

We don't worry about that with any other tax so income should be no different

We don't worry about that with any other tax because it's not true for any other tax. The marginal utility of money can't come into effect for any other type of tax. Although some states with sales tax do not apply sales tax to food or clothing etc.

 

[jc456]

A lefty talking about "imaginary" Classic.

Compared to the idiot in the thread who thinks the progressive income tax is Marxism ?

So answer the question.

Why not apply the so called progressive tax to everything?

Why not lower the speed limit to 1 mile per hour in school zones?

You're an idiot. You prove it here every day.

That's apples and orangutans

But you don't understand the difference you prove it here every day

The speed limit here in school zones is 15 mph. Is that a good thing? Yes? Then why not lower it to 10, or 5, 1?

Isn't that even better?

why have a school? you wouldn't need the zone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

 

[jc456]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side?

You love the progressive tax system don't you?

Why not apply it everywhere?

Because I'm smarter than you are.

So it's not a good tax scheme

It's a better tax system than a flat tax because in relative terms the flat tax reduces taxes on the rich and raises taxes on the not rich.

Flat tax would be perfect if our government wasn't so fuckin big.

flat tax is perfect. makes no difference the size of the government.

 

[dblack]

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

Ny was talking about government 'of the People', which is a reference to unlimited democracy.

How do you limit democracy?

A constitution is one way.

 

[Care4all]

The 4 bedroom house in the same neighborhood as the 2bedroom house pays a higher property tax.

The reason the federal income taxes are fair is because near all other taxes are REGRESSIVE TAXES, and hits those with less income MORE than the person with a lot of money....

Flat state income taxes,

all gvt fees and licensing uses more of a lower income family than a higher income family

State sales taxes also hurt the lower incomes at a higher rate of their income used,

And fed and state gas taxes hit those with less at a higher percentage of their income t Han the wealthiest as well

And then add mandatory health insurance which hits the middle class income more than the wealthiests income....

Then there is cigarette taxes and liquor taxes that hit the wealthiest in the least compared to those with less income....

SS TAXES hit all of the middle class and below incomes while not hitting all of the wealthiest.

The progressive income tax helps compensate the regressive tax burdens elsewhere.

This post is example of what happens when someone jumps into discussion knowing nothing about it. The other day i was discussing with colleague of mine about electrical motor that we're using on the conveyor line. She joined conversation where we were talking about "horse power". That's all she needed to start talking about her Ford that has 170 HP.

We're talking about progressive income tax, you jump in with something like this: "State sales taxes also hurt the lower incomes at a higher rate of their income used."

FYI, income tax is a tax on all money earned. Sales tax is a tax on money spent. Those are two different things. Those who spend less, pay less. Simple as that.

He asked why a progressive income tax, and I answered why... you can't look at each tax in a vacuum, we don't live in a vacuum....

Taxes are looked at on the WHOLE....most of us pay way more in State initiated taxes than in fed income taxes, as a share of our total taxable income. A Progressive income tax at the federal level, helps lower that burden on the middle class and lower class income earners, overall....and I see nothing at all wrong with that...

It's not me that jumped in midstream...it's me, that took some time to answer the 'why' question in the op....


AND on another NOTE:
The person making a million bucks a year in taxable income, pays the exact same tax rate as the person making $100k a year, for that first 100k that the millionaire earns.... he's not paying a higher tax rate on that sum than the next guy.

when and if the $100k earner makes a million bucks a year, for his first 100k earned as a millionaire he will pay the exact same rate as he did when he only made $100k.

What's unfair about that? nothing imo.

There was a long period of time that the middle class and those lower had to pay no income tax at all....when income taxes were introduced, the Standard Deduction for each person was the equivalent to $68,000 a person in today's dollars, (the Standard deduction today is something like only $6k a year that is exempt from taxation per person) MOST Americans paid no income tax at all back then, only the very wealthiest because they could afford to support the country that made them wealthy....AND the wealthiest, for the most part, NEVER had a problem with it.

 

[jc456]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

 

[NYcarbineer]

You say the rich use attorneys to wring "every advantage" out of a progressive tax. What advantage does a progressive tax have for the rich that a flat tax does not?

In a flat tax system you cannot buy political favoritism to incorporate loop holes that benefit you directly, one would think that would be self evident given the monstrosity that the "progressive" tax system in the U.S. has become. It also doesn't allow for rampant experimentation in social engineering by the morons in Washington that can't even figure out how to balance their check book.

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

What the tax accountants do is exploit the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures in the tax code.

And those tax expenditures have NOTHING to do with the fact we have a progressive tax. Those very same tax expenditures would be carried right over into the flat tax system.

Even with a progressive income tax, you could fill out your taxes on a post card today if there were no such thing as tax expenditures.

It's tax expenditures which make our system so inequitable, not progressive taxation.

And without tax expenditures, almost every tax attorney and accountant in the country would be out of business. As would legions and legions of lobbyists.

There is no such thing as a "tax expenditure" it's a fairy tale invented by people that think government has rightful claim to the entirety of every citizens income, thus your entire premise is invalid.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think levying an income tax on the working poor is counterproductive.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

 

[jc456]

The 4 bedroom house in the same neighborhood as the 2bedroom house pays a higher property tax.

The reason the federal income taxes are fair is because near all other taxes are REGRESSIVE TAXES, and hits those with less income MORE than the person with a lot of money....

Flat state income taxes,

all gvt fees and licensing uses more of a lower income family than a higher income family

State sales taxes also hurt the lower incomes at a higher rate of their income used,

And fed and state gas taxes hit those with less at a higher percentage of their income t Han the wealthiest as well

And then add mandatory health insurance which hits the middle class income more than the wealthiests income....

Then there is cigarette taxes and liquor taxes that hit the wealthiest in the least compared to those with less income....

SS TAXES hit all of the middle class and below incomes while not hitting all of the wealthiest.

The progressive income tax helps compensate the regressive tax burdens elsewhere.

This post is example of what happens when someone jumps into discussion knowing nothing about it. The other day i was discussing with colleague of mine about electrical motor that we're using on the conveyor line. She joined conversation where we were talking about "horse power". That's all she needed to start talking about her Ford that has 170 HP.

We're talking about progressive income tax, you jump in with something like this: "State sales taxes also hurt the lower incomes at a higher rate of their income used."

FYI, income tax is a tax on all money earned. Sales tax is a tax on money spent. Those are two different things. Those who spend less, pay less. Simple as that.

He asked why a progressive income tax, and I answered why... you can't look at each tax in a vacuum, we don't live in a vacuum....

Taxes are looked at on the WHOLE....most of us pay way more in State initiated taxes than in fed income taxes, as a share of our total taxable income. A Progressive income tax at the federal level, helps lower that burden on the middle class and lower class income earners, overall....and I see nothing at all wrong with that...

It's not me that jumped in midstream...it's me, that took some time to answer the 'why' question in the op....


AND on another NOTE:
The person making a million bucks a year in taxable income, pays the exact same tax rate as the person making $100k a year, for that first 100k that the millionaire earns.... he's not paying a higher tax rate on that sum than the next guy.

when and if the $100k earner makes a million bucks a year, for his first 100k earned as a millionaire he will pay the exact same rate as he did when he only made $100k.

What's unfair about that? nothing imo.

There was a long period of time that the middle class and those lower had to pay no income tax at all....when income taxes were introduced, the Standard Deduction for each person was the equivalent to $68,000 a person in today's dollars, (the Standard deduction today is something like only $6k a year that is exempt from taxation per person) MOST Americans paid no income tax at all back then, only the very wealthiest because they could afford to support the country that made them wealthy....AND the wealthiest, for the most part, NEVER had a problem with it.

you need to learn math. you guys really listen to much to the libturd stupid. So your examples are errored. but why do you care.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

 

[jc456]

You say the rich use attorneys to wring "every advantage" out of a progressive tax. What advantage does a progressive tax have for the rich that a flat tax does not?

In a flat tax system you cannot buy political favoritism to incorporate loop holes that benefit you directly, one would think that would be self evident given the monstrosity that the "progressive" tax system in the U.S. has become. It also doesn't allow for rampant experimentation in social engineering by the morons in Washington that can't even figure out how to balance their check book.

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

What the tax accountants do is exploit the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures in the tax code.

And those tax expenditures have NOTHING to do with the fact we have a progressive tax. Those very same tax expenditures would be carried right over into the flat tax system.

Even with a progressive income tax, you could fill out your taxes on a post card today if there were no such thing as tax expenditures.

It's tax expenditures which make our system so inequitable, not progressive taxation.

And without tax expenditures, almost every tax attorney and accountant in the country would be out of business. As would legions and legions of lobbyists.

There is no such thing as a "tax expenditure" it's a fairy tale invented by people that think government has rightful claim to the entirety of every citizens income, thus your entire premise is invalid.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

 

[jc456]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The progressive tax taxes brackets at different rates, therefore, by itself, it is a tax system that is the same for everyone.
The money the billionaire earns in the lowest bracket is taxed the same as the person who only has taxable income in the lower bracket.

If lowest and highest brackets are paying different rate, then it's not the same for "everyone". Only for the people within that bracket. Categorizing people into earning brackets is no different then categorizing people based on race. Neither one is right.

People with no income pay no income tax, and yet they have access to the same government services as anyone else.
How do you propose to fix that?

 

[jc456]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

You realize that most states employ progressive property taxes. Where I live we have an exemption which is limited to X dollars. That means that lower income homeowners get a much larger tax break than their larger-home owning brothern...

Sales taxes are based on market assessments not merely the acreage of land and the number of bedrooms in a home you know that don't you?

that's considered property taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a flat tax system you cannot buy political favoritism to incorporate loop holes that benefit you directly, one would think that would be self evident given the monstrosity that the "progressive" tax system in the U.S. has become. It also doesn't allow for rampant experimentation in social engineering by the morons in Washington that can't even figure out how to balance their check book.

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

There is no such thing as a "tax expenditure" it's a fairy tale invented by people that think government has rightful claim to the entirety of every citizens income, thus your entire premise is invalid.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

 

[jc456]

The progressive tax taxes brackets at different rates, therefore, by itself, it is a tax system that is the same for everyone.
The money the billionaire earns in the lowest bracket is taxed the same as the person who only has taxable income in the lower bracket.

If lowest and highest brackets are paying different rate, then it's not the same for "everyone". Only for the people within that bracket. Categorizing people into earning brackets is no different then categorizing people based on race. Neither one is right.

People with no income pay no income tax, and yet they have access to the same government services as anyone else.
How do you propose to fix that?

well the rich don't require welfare yet they pay into it?

 

[TNHarley]

You love the progressive tax system don't you?

Why not apply it everywhere?

Because I'm smarter than you are.

So it's not a good tax scheme

It's a better tax system than a flat tax because in relative terms the flat tax reduces taxes on the rich and raises taxes on the not rich.

Flat tax would be perfect if our government wasn't so fuckin big.

flat tax is perfect. makes no difference the size of the government.

I don't necessarily agree. Unless its high as ****

 

[jc456]

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?