- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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!
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!
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.
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).
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?
I don't think it as social engineering.
Fairness is an innate trait in humans.
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.
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.
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!!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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?