How much do you care about taxing income

[Zyphlin]

This is something that hit me while reading kandahar's interesting "how much do you care about the budget" post.

Conservatives...if faced with the choice of lowering lower and middle class taxes but raising the rich's taxes, or keeping everyone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

Liberals...if faced with the choice of lowering everyones taxes, or keeping eveyrone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

This is a general thing, not necessarily relating directly to your choic during the economic crisis.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This is something that hit me while reading kandahar's interesting "how much do you care about the budget" post.

Conservatives...if faced with the choice of lowering lower and middle class taxes but raising the rich's taxes, or keeping everyone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

Liberals...if faced with the choice of lowering everyones taxes, or keeping eveyrone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

This is a general thing, not necessarily relating directly to your choic during the economic crisis.

Decrease whenever possible. However, don't take on government debt to do it.

 

[MaggieD]

This is something that hit me while reading kandahar's interesting "how much do you care about the budget" post.

Conservatives...if faced with the choice of lowering lower and middle class taxes but raising the rich's taxes, or keeping everyone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

Liberals...if faced with the choice of lowering everyones taxes, or keeping eveyrone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

This is a general thing, not necessarily relating directly to your choic during the economic crisis.

If my taxes are raised, everyone's taxes should be raised. If my taxes are lowered, everyone's taxes should be lowered. Every single American should have a dog in the fight when it comes to Federal spending. Every single one.

 

[Slartibartfast]

One unfortunate aspect of tax policy is the unspoken debate between fairness and practicality.

People paying the same rates or amounts, is in a sense fair, but tends to be impractical in the face of economic reality. Generally when one takes those economic realities into account, a more progressive tax scheme begins to seem fair as well.

 

[Barbbtx]

If my taxes are raised, everyone's taxes should be raised. If my taxes are lowered, everyone's taxes should be lowered. Every single American should have a dog in the fight when it comes to Federal spending. Every single one.

I agree that everyone should have a dog in the fight. What if everyone was taxed at the same rate? The rich would still pay more, because they make more. The lower income people would still get their food stamps (maybe more than before) and would probably require more government help than before, but at least they would be paying something
We also need to make those who are able, work for their welfare checks. Too many free rides are given and I honestly believe people would be happier if they didn't feel like they were just getting handouts. So I say, taxes for everyone.

 

[Slartibartfast]

We also need to make those who are able, work for their welfare checks. Too many free rides are given and I honestly believe people would be happier if they didn't feel like they were just getting handouts. So I say, taxes for everyone.

I completely agree with this. There is always something to do, like pick up trash or work at the landfill.

 

[VF500]

Well, if you're in the lower 47% of households in this country, you don't care much about federal income taxes because you don't pay any, as in zip, nada, zilch. If you're in the bottom 40%, you actually make money at tax time because of "earned" tax credits. That's according to a 2009 IRS statement that was even published in the Huffinton Post, so it's gotta be true. That fact drives progressive liberals right up the wall and puts the lie to what Obama keeps pushing about "Fat Cats" not paying their "fair share". The truth is the top brackets pay a lot more than their fair share. But, don't take my word for it. Here it is from Miss Arianna herself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html

 

[Psychoclown]

If my taxes are raised, everyone's taxes should be raised. If my taxes are lowered, everyone's taxes should be lowered. Every single American should have a dog in the fight when it comes to Federal spending. Every single one.

I agree 100%. This whole mentality some folks have of "Raise someone else's taxes to pay for my entitlements" is very corrupting. As another poster mentioned, almost half of all households don't pay federal taxes and some of them actually profit from tax credits. When nearly half the population has no reason to worry about paying for the latest government expansion, it's almost impossible to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility. If I didn't pay any taxes, I'd be all in favor of the governmetn spending as much money as possible, especially on programs that would be benefit me! Afterall, I don't have to worry about the bill.

I'd make two major changes to our tax system. First, EVERYONE pays some form of federal income tax. When it's your money being spent, you tend to pay more attention to how its being spent. That way everyone has a vested interest in asking "How will we pay for this?" when someone proposes a new program or entitlement. Secondly, I'd require than any change in the tax rate be applied evenly to all brackets. None of this, we'll raise some folks taxes and cut other folks. We're all in this together, as a nation, and we should all be treated equally. I'm not opposed to progressive taxation, but I am opposed to using progressive taxation to wage class warfare.

 

[LizardofOz]

Where is the option about I don't care eitherway because I'm still going to get ****ed one way or the other?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

One unfortunate aspect of tax policy is the unspoken debate between fairness and practicality.

People paying the same rates or amounts, is in a sense fair, but tends to be impractical in the face of economic reality. Generally when one takes those economic realities into account, a more progressive tax scheme begins to seem fair as well.

A tax system can be progressive but also have the requirement that, if one bracket is raised, they are all raised (or lowered in the case of negative brackets.)

 

[Slartibartfast]

A tax system can be progressive but also have the requirement that, if one bracket is raised, they are all raised (or lowered in the case of negative brackets.)

I could go with that, but theres still a lot of work left in the details about how that would be implemented.

 

[MaggieD]

I could go with that, but theres still a lot of work left in the details about how that would be implemented.

The biggest thing that'd have to be worked out is how to get the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes TO PAY SOME!

 

[LizardofOz]

The biggest thing that'd have to be worked out is how to get the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes TO PAY SOME!

You know how you do that? Bring jobs back to the United States so people can make more money. Our #1 industry is the service industry, it used to be manufacturing. That's how you do it. It's that simple people!

 

[MaggieD]

You know how you do that? Bring jobs back to the United States so people can make more money. Our #1 industry is the service industry, it used to be manufacturing. That's how you do it. It's that simple people!

Baloney. Positively baloney. The way you do it is to make everyone who earns money pay taxes. Period.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The biggest thing that'd have to be worked out is how to get the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes TO PAY SOME!

That statement sounds good on its surface, but when I really think about it, I run into some questions.

1. Would those people be able to thrive without the additional support?
2. Are there primary, secondary, and tertiery benefits to social assistance that we should be considering?
3. What proof do we have that this arrangement is more or less optimal than a smaller government. Remember, pretty much all successful first world countries have a massive government and massive social programs.
4. If benefits had to increase to make up the short fall, would these people even notice?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I could go with that, but theres still a lot of work left in the details about how that would be implemented.

True, just tying everyone to some form of additional taxation puts a "skin in the game" feeling for everyone.
Even if we were to maintain the current negative tax rates, those people should still be required to sacrifice, like everyone else.

 

[Slartibartfast]

True, just tying everyone to some form of additional taxation puts a "skin in the game" feeling for everyone.
Even if we were to maintain the current negative tax rates, those people should still be required to sacrifice, like everyone else.

You cannot get something for nothing is a basic economic lesson that all adults know. So, I would support this on a social engineering level (and I am not against social engineering).

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You cannot get something for nothing is a basic economic lesson that all adults know. So, I would support this on a social engineering level (and I am not against social engineering).

I don't think it as social engineering.
Fairness is an innate trait in humans.

 

[MaggieD]

That statement sounds good on its surface, but when I really think about it, I run into some questions.

1. Would those people be able to thrive without the additional support?
2. Are there primary, secondary, and tertiery benefits to social assistance that we should be considering?
3. What proof do we have that this arrangement is more or less optimal than a smaller government. Remember, pretty much all successful first world countries have a massive government and massive social programs.
4. If benefits had to increase to make up the short fall, would these people even notice?

What?? #1 -- what additional support? I'm asking that people pay income tax. Ya' know, actually pay toward the infrastructure they use? #2 -- what does social assistance have to do with this? #3 -- what does the size of government have to do with people paying some income tax? #4 -- Huh?

I don't get anything you're saying, Mega. Not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand. 47% of people don't pay income tax. Everybody should pay income tax.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think it as social engineering.
Fairness is an innate trait in humans.

I tend to look at it from a creating the behavior on society that you think would benefit society perspective, which is social engineering.

You look at it from a fair perspective, which is not.

Its all about intent. My goal is to produce more productive members of society through government intervention, since looking back at history, nonintervention has lead to all sorts of misery.

Also, my idea of fair is different than yours. For me, to say that people should pay the same amounts is fair ignores the consequences, which can be very unfair. But I think that is a common argument between liberal and conservative/libertarian economic approaches.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What?? #1 -- what additional support? I'm asking that people pay income tax. Ya' know, actually pay toward the infrastructure they use? #2 -- what does social assistance have to do with this? #3 -- what does the size of government have to do with people paying some income tax? #4 -- Huh?

I don't get anything you're saying, Mega. Not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand. 47% of people don't pay income tax. Everybody should pay income tax.

See my post above (#20) to see what leads me to asking those questions.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I tend to look at it from a creating the behavior on society that you think would benefit society perspective, which is social engineering.

You look at it from a fair perspective, which is not.

Its all about intent. My goal is to produce more productive members of society through government intervention, since looking back at history, nonintervention has lead to all sorts of misery.

Also, my idea of fair is different than yours. For me, to say that people should pay the same amounts is fair ignores the consequences, which can be very unfair. But I think that is a common argument between liberal and conservative/libertarian economic approaches.

I'm tolerant to some amount of unfairness (as perceived by libertarians), as long as there is some amount of communal responsibility involved, that is required by all members of society.

 

[earthworm]

Neither.
Obama, stand up to those rich ******** and make them pay.
35% up to 300K
36% up to 500K
37% up to 700K
and 40% for the millionaires.
If they don't like this, then suggest the old 1949 tax rates, where the rate was 90% for the millionaires.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Neither.
Obama, stand up to those rich ******** and make them pay.
35% up to 300K
36% up to 500K
37% up to 700K
and 40% for the millionaires.
If they don't like this, then suggest the old 1949 tax rates, where the rate was 90% for the millionaires.

I wouldn't suggest the old tax rates as those numbers are not pegged to inflation.

 

[Coronado]

Neither.
Obama, stand up to those rich ******** and make them pay.
35% up to 300K
36% up to 500K
37% up to 700K
and 40% for the millionaires.
If they don't like this, then suggest the old 1949 tax rates, where the rate was 90% for the millionaires.

Yes, let's drive as much capital offshore as possible! Brilliant idea!!

:doh