Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd rather we move away from taxes on production (income) and move toward taxes on consumption (sales).

so you want to tax welfare moms on baby diapers? interesting coming from lib.

Who says I'm a "lib". You? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Well, I dunno.. you do seem to defend all things progressive and/or Obama and Democrat. But I guess you could be a conservative.

 

[dblack]

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?

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.

That's true, but probably not something to brag about. A pair of old gym socks are smarter than him.

So you won't answer the question either

This is called a debate so tell me why progressive taxes are good for income but not for example sales taxes?

There's already a bit of that in the "luxury tax" concept.

I doubt you'll get an answer from anyone on this. I suspect that's because an honest answer would be rather ugly. The real reason we tax income progressively is more like - "because that's where the money is."

 

[TNHarley]

Marxism 101

O'rly?

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.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.


BOMBSHELL BREAKING: CONSERVATIVE HERO THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS JUST BEEN UNMASKED AS A MARXIST!

It isn't surprising, coming from him lol

That's nothing. You should see some of the stuff Thomas Paine wrote. It would make Bernie Sanders glow with pride.

I have.

Marxism 101

O'rly?

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.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.


BOMBSHELL BREAKING: CONSERVATIVE HERO THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS JUST BEEN UNMASKED AS A MARXIST!

It isn't surprising, coming from him lol

That's nothing. You should see some of the stuff Thomas Paine wrote. It would make Bernie Sanders glow with pride.

I have. And yes.
I remember him saying this Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
Couple centuries later, over a hundred million people(by some estimates) died at the very thing he preached. At least that is what they claimed.

 

[TNHarley]

Always funny when lefties ***** about re-distribution to the top, but don't realize they vote for that bullshit every election

Do you not understand that income inequality has repercussions.

Like our poor and middle class getting fucked? Yea, I know.
Try voting with sense; instead of your empty birth control container or fake dick

Emotion based word salad ^^^

Repercussions can be large or small:

List of revolutions and rebellions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You realize I am completely against institutionalized income inequality, right?

Define "institutionalized income inequality",

I have posted a couple examples earlier
Robert rubin was one

 

[NightFox]

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.

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. What the rich do is exploit the so called "progressive" income tax on the one hand (by baking in their own self interests into the code) and make up for any taxes they pay on the back end via distribution effects of inflation, subsidies and cronyism. The current system is so fucked that anybody but an ultra wealthy, well connected citizen that defends it is for all intents and purposes a fool crying for his/her own economic slavery.

 

[g5000]

I especially like sales taxes (or the Fair Tax) because you can't hide a tax increase. Everyone knows immediately when their taxes have gone up.

I bet if you asked 10 people how much they paid in federal income tax last year, all 10 would draw a blank. Unless they paid no taxes.

But they would be able to tell you how much of a refund they got. That's a nasty trick the government does to keep you from paying attention.

Raise the sales tax a penny, though, and that does not go unnoticed.


Another advantage of a sales tax is that EVERYONE pays for government. You want us to give free puppies to hookers? Okay. We'll raise the sales tax to pay for it.


"Oh. Hey. Wait a minute!"

 

[dblack]

I'd rather we move away from taxes on production (income) and move toward taxes on consumption (sales).

I'd rather just do a real estate tax. But that has problems too. Coercive taxation always will.

 

[g5000]

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.

 

[dblack]

I especially like sales taxes (or the Fair Tax) because you can't hide a tax increase. Everyone knows immediately when their taxes have gone up.

I bet if you asked 10 people how much they paid in federal income tax last year, all 10 would draw a blank. Unless they paid no taxes.

But they would be able to tell you how much of a refund they got. That's a nasty trick the government does to keep you from paying attention.

Raise the sales tax a penny, though, and that does not go unnoticed.


Another advantage of a sales tax is that EVERYONE pays for government. You want us to give free puppies to hookers? Okay. We'll raise the sales tax to pay for it.


"Oh. Hey. Wait a minute!"

I don't like sales tax because it's fundamentally intrusive, suggesting that we need to report our every trade transaction to the government.

 

[dblack]

... An 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.

Exemptions and deductions are essentially mandates.

 

[bendog]

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.

 

[g5000]

I'd rather we move away from taxes on production (income) and move toward taxes on consumption (sales).

so you want to tax welfare moms on baby diapers? interesting coming from lib.

Who says I'm a "lib". You? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Well, I dunno.. you do seem to defend all things progressive and/or Obama and Democrat. But I guess you could be a conservative.

No, I defend the Truth. Rubes like you confuse the truth with liberalism, which is a never ending source of amusement for me.

RUBE: I know Obama is Muslim because he doesn't eat pork. I want to believe it, so it must be true!

G5000: Here's a story about Obama eating pork ribs in a Washington DC restaurant, with a photo.

RUBE: You're a Libtard!!!

 

[pinqy]

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"

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.

 

[NightFox]

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.

If you're applying deductions then you don't have a flat tax system (the only exemption that makes any sense is for those below the poverty line) and it's A LOT more obvious and FAR EASIER to fiddle with a complex, bracketed income tax system than it is with a flat tax system, just think about it for a minute and I'm sure it will come to you.

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.

It's not an expenditure (you're not spending anything you're just not taking as much of somebody elses money by force) and redistribution of wealth up the income ladder is not the province of the existing tax code; the upper echelons don't need the tax code for that, they have far more subtle and effective means to do it (which I pointed out in my last post).

 

[Redfish]

I'd rather we move away from taxes on production (income) and move toward taxes on consumption (sales).

so you want to tax welfare moms on baby diapers? interesting coming from lib.

Who says I'm a "lib". You? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Well, I dunno.. you do seem to defend all things progressive and/or Obama and Democrat. But I guess you could be a conservative.

No, I defend the Truth. Rubes like you confuse the truth with liberalism, which is a never ending source of amusement for me.

RUBE: I know Obama is Muslim because he doesn't eat pork. I want to believe it, so it must be true!

G5000: Here's a story about Obama eating pork ribs in a Washington DC restaurant, with a photo.

RUBE: You're a Libtard!!!

Let us know when you post something true. all we have seen from you is over used lib talking points and lies, and a few juvenile attempts at insults.

 

[g5000]

The very reason a complete incompetent buffoon like Obama has beaten the GOP, twice, is precisely because the Right manufactures so much bullshit that they completely obliterate their integrity.

Obama could easily have been taken down with the truth and by putting better solutions on the table. The Right utterly failed at both.

And they still have not learned. Hillary Clinton would be in the single digits if they had.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The progressive tax was made up from foolish bleeding emotion, it has made this government into a banana republic. Lol

Tax, spend and print... Wash, rinse and repeat.

The progressive tax in this country was first used by Lincoln to help pay for the Civil War,

back when, I guess, Republicans recognized the merit of actually paying for the wars they had to fund.

...And where has it gotten us??
Epic fail...

We don't pay for wars anymore. That, combined with the penchant for getting into unnecessary wars, are the only explanation needed to the question of where our massive debt comes from.

 

[Davros]

A flat tax on all income above X makes sense to me, where X is a variable standard deduction proportional to the number of dependents you have (1 being yourself). Your income would not be decreased if you made X +1 because only the 1 dollar would be taxed.

Replacing the income tax with a sales tax is inadvisable because it would discourage spending and hence harm the economy.

 

[bendog]

The very reason a complete incompetent buffoon like Obama has beaten the GOP, twice, is precisely because the Right manufactures so much bullshit that they completely obliterate their integrity.

Obama could easily have been taken down with the truth and by putting better solutions on the table. The Right utterly failed at both.

And they still have not learned. Hillary Clinton would be in the single digits if they had.

And the result is .... Trump. Who arguably is less conservative than Hillary. The gop establishment has only itself to blame for this, though.

 

[dblack]

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"

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 income 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.

How useful something is is clearly a subjective assessment. Not sure how you can deny that.