Progressive taxation is IMMORAL! [W:635]

[Jayar]

It always has been. it is today. it always will be.

Immoral, that is. that means it is wrong. it's bad. naughty. no bueno...tu sabes?

"Progressive taxation", that's the noun represented by the pronoun "it" in my opening couple or three sentences. in case you missed the subject line.

What is that? well, the current federal income tax system right here in the USA is an example of a progressive tax structure. i would say most, if not all modern "western" democracies have progressive tax laws. Europe, Canada, Australia,etc. *No direct knowledge on that but I can surmise with more factual accuracy than can be found in the sworn testimony of US attorney general Eric Holder and his justice department staff on their best day*

...I digress. Like i was being paid to do so...ffs

Basically, I find it to be a total crock of ****. It's stealing. It is the opposite of most of things we are always told to strive for these days...fairness: the President is always going on about how he hates when things are not fair. Progressive taxation is not fair. It says one person should bear a greater burden than another. ...equality: politicians and tv journalists(fast and loose with the lingo) tell us we should take steps to increase equality in our society. Progressive taxation is based on the opposite of equality. It seperates people into groups and asks more from one group,less from another, and nothing at all from another.

...OMG. channeling my inner kindergarten teacher. ...Who gives a ****? Let me get down to it for real now.

For those of you out there who are democrats that were registered to vote in the last 6.5 yrs by a member of a labor union who arrived on a chartered bus from a neighboring state on the morning of the same day they registered you and especially if you wish that politicians in washington would just stop fighting and "get things done" , I am going to define progressive taxation for the purposes of this discussion in a very basic way using short simple words that sound pretty much the way they are spelled...mostly. :it is when the % of a persons income that they must pay in taxes increases,err, goes up (sorry) based on how much money they make. for example;
>a man making $10,000 per year might pay 0%. nothing
>but a man who makes $60,000 per year has to pay 5% or $3,000.00
>and yet another man makes $20,000,000.00 per year(20 million) has to pay 20% or $4,000,000.00

Got it? good.

So how is that "fair" or equal? Does the guy paying $4,000,000.00 have his own senator representing him in congress? No. Does he have a whole battallion of our army at his command? Does he have his own highway to drive on with no traffic?
If one guy pays nothing and another pays 1 grand and mitt romney pays 5 mill in taxes(or whatever) shouldnt the other 2 guys have to call Mitt Daddy? Thank him for carrying our weight? apologize for our lack of production?

Let me put it in a different context. Im sure many of you have, or have had roomates,right? Did you split the bills based on income. Or was it,all things being equal, rent is split evenly? So why is one person responsible for a larger portion of our national "bills" than another simply because he is better at making money?

A different question: What about estate taxes and capital gains taxes?

imagine this. A man works hard his whole life. he trades hours of his time to learn his trade and expends untold physical energy and sweat along with his time over the years doing his "job" in exchange for money. He willingly took that deal with no regrets, and he did his job well and paid his taxes dutifully without fail. To his credit, he managed to amass a nice little nest egg...a small fortune,if you will. Who here would deny that the money i speak of if his in every way imaginable. Surely no one here would take it from him or suggest that anyone else should tell him what he should do with it. Later, when he is old and nearing death, he thinks about his finances and looks to see that he still has a nice pile of cash left. He is gratified by this as he has 2 children with young families who could surely use the money. So as one of his final willful acts he gives the money that is undeniably his to his son and daughter.
... I ask you now leftists of the interwebs, where do you find the audacity to suggest that such a transaction as i just described is in any way shape or form the business of the federal govt, any govt bureaucrat, or you or me ?It isn't at all.it shouldn't be,that is. They have no legitimate case for why they need to be informed of such a transaction,never mind the presumptous authoritarian that believes the govt would be entitled to a cut of the action. a % off the top because,...because what? How so? Why? No way. I have kids, what i earn is for them before it is for me.

How can you (yes,you),no...how can anyone justify this?

yes, i do have a better idea. it would be tough to think of a worse one, now wouldn't it?
consumption tax. The Fair Tax works for me. FYI I favor a consumption tax over a flat tax for a couple reasons. primarily because i don't happen to believe it is any of the federal govts God Damn business how much money a person makes,without question it's none of their business how much someone has.


Jayar

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

A progressive tax is immoral?

.....as opposed to a regressive tax?

 

[SBu]

It always has been. it is today. it always will be.

Immoral, that is. that means it is wrong. it's bad. naughty. no bueno...tu sabes?

"Progressive taxation", that's the noun represented by the pronoun "it" in my opening couple or three sentences. in case you missed the subject line.

What is that? well, the current federal income tax system right here in the USA is an example of a progressive tax structure. i would say most, if not all modern "western" democracies have progressive tax laws. Europe, Canada, Australia,etc. *No direct knowledge on that but I can surmise with more factual accuracy than can be found in the sworn testimony of US attorney general Eric Holder and his justice department staff on their best day*

...I digress. Like i was being paid to do so...ffs

Basically, I find it to be a total crock of ****. It's stealing. It is the opposite of most of things we are always told to strive for these days...fairness: the President is always going on about how he hates when things are not fair. Progressive taxation is not fair. It says one person should bear a greater burden than another. ...equality: politicians and tv journalists(fast and loose with the lingo) tell us we should take steps to increase equality in our society. Progressive taxation is based on the opposite of equality. It seperates people into groups and asks more from one group,less from another, and nothing at all from another.

...OMG. channeling my inner kindergarten teacher. ...Who gives a ****? Let me get down to it for real now.

For those of you out there who are democrats that were registered to vote in the last 6.5 yrs by a member of a labor union who arrived on a chartered bus from a neighboring state on the morning of the same day they registered you and especially if you wish that politicians in washington would just stop fighting and "get things done" , I am going to define progressive taxation for the purposes of this discussion in a very basic way using short simple words that sound pretty much the way they are spelled...mostly. :it is when the % of a persons income that they must pay in taxes increases,err, goes up (sorry) based on how much money they make. for example;
>a man making $10,000 per year might pay 0%. nothing
>but a man who makes $60,000 per year has to pay 5% or $3,000.00
>and yet another man makes $20,000,000.00 per year(20 million) has to pay 20% or $4,000,000.00

Got it? good.

So how is that "fair" or equal? Does the guy paying $4,000,000.00 have his own senator representing him in congress? No. Does he have a whole battallion of our army at his command? Does he have his own highway to drive on with no traffic?
If one guy pays nothing and another pays 1 grand and mitt romney pays 5 mill in taxes(or whatever) shouldnt the other 2 guys have to call Mitt Daddy? Thank him for carrying our weight? apologize for our lack of production?

Let me put it in a different context. Im sure many of you have, or have had roomates,right? Did you split the bills based on income. Or was it,all things being equal, rent is split evenly? So why is one person responsible for a larger portion of our national "bills" than another simply because he is better at making money?

A different question: What about estate taxes and capital gains taxes?

imagine this. A man works hard his whole life. he trades hours of his time to learn his trade and expends untold physical energy and sweat along with his time over the years doing his "job" in exchange for money. He willingly took that deal with no regrets, and he did his job well and paid his taxes dutifully without fail. To his credit, he managed to amass a nice little nest egg...a small fortune,if you will. Who here would deny that the money i speak of if his in every way imaginable. Surely no one here would take it from him or suggest that anyone else should tell him what he should do with it. Later, when he is old and nearing death, he thinks about his finances and looks to see that he still has a nice pile of cash left. He is gratified by this as he has 2 children with young families who could surely use the money. So as one of his final willful acts he gives the money that is undeniably his to his son and daughter.
... I ask you now leftists of the interwebs, where do you find the audacity to suggest that such a transaction as i just described is in any way shape or form the business of the federal govt, any govt bureaucrat, or you or me ?It isn't at all.it shouldn't be,that is. They have no legitimate case for why they need to be informed of such a transaction,never mind the presumptous authoritarian that believes the govt would be entitled to a cut of the action. a % off the top because,...because what? How so? Why? No way. I have kids, what i earn is for them before it is for me.

How can you (yes,you),no...how can anyone justify this?

yes, i do have a better idea. it would be tough to think of a worse one, now wouldn't it?
consumption tax. The Fair Tax works for me. FYI I favor a consumption tax over a flat tax for a couple reasons. primarily because i don't happen to believe it is any of the federal govts God Damn business how much money a person makes,without question it's none of their business how much someone has.


Jayar

Good lord I hope you aren't a kindergarten teacher. A progressive tax system isn't bad so long as it doesn't put undue burden on the taxed. The real culprit is tax loopholes for the rich, and unreasonable "entitlements" for the poor. Generally, people that make a lot don't mind paying a bit more taxes so long as 1) it isn't an unreasonable amount and 2) they are reasonably confident that people who are benefiting or government programs being paid for are actually receiving the money and that money is necessary. What is reasonable is debatable, but the necessary component is pretty universal.

 

[Jayar]

No I'm not a kindergarten teacher. I agree on that.
...And nothing else

The only thing that is necessary is that we fund the government. Ideally it would be a minimal amount of government. As the list of things that the government is best suited for is very short. All government spending beyond that it's simply the result of people in power trying to consolidate and expand the scope of their power. So if we could fund our government through a consumption tax (and we can ) why not go that route?

You are making a lot of presumptions about what people find reasonable. And your notions of what they expect within reason are ridiculous. Paying taxes is not a charitable act. The federal government is not a benevolent organization. It is a necessary evil.

This post was written through voice to text on my phone so whatever

jayar

 

[SBu]

No I'm not a kindergarten teacher. I agree on that.
...And nothing else

The only thing that is necessary is that we fund the government. Ideally it would be a minimal amount of government. As the list of things that the government is best suited for is very short. All government spending beyond that it's simply the result of people in power trying to consolidate and expand the scope of their power. So if we could fund our government through a consumption tax (and we can ) why not go that route?

You are making a lot of presumptions about what people find reasonable. And your notions of what they expect within reason are ridiculous. Paying taxes is not a charitable act. The federal government is not a benevolent organization. It is a necessary evil.

This post was written through voice to text on my phone so whatever

jayar

You don't really expect us to tax the poor, do you? I think your argument would be better received if you made your stand on welfare vice taxes.

 

[Jayar]

Nobody said anything about taxing the poor. The Fair Tax, which i mentioned, has pre-bates equivalent to the poverty line. For example if the consumption tax is set at 23%, everyone would receive a quarterly check equivalent to 23% of the poverty line

Nevermind that though. I need to remember that I'm addressing someone who seems to believe that the federal government is entitled to as much of everyone's money as they can possibly stand to part with. Or have I misunderstood you? what I mean by asking that is: would you like to rephrase your previous comments to make your position seem less absurd?


jayar

 

[Steve Ja]

It always has been. it is today. it always will be.

Immoral, that is. that means it is wrong. it's bad. naughty. no bueno...tu sabes?

"Progressive taxation", that's the noun represented by the pronoun "it" in my opening couple or three sentences. in case you missed the subject line.

What is that? well, the current federal income tax system right here in the USA is an example of a progressive tax structure. i would say most, if not all modern "western" democracies have progressive tax laws. Europe, Canada, Australia,etc. *No direct knowledge on that but I can surmise with more factual accuracy than can be found in the sworn testimony of US attorney general Eric Holder and his justice department staff on their best day*

...I digress. Like i was being paid to do so...ffs

Basically, I find it to be a total crock of ****. It's stealing. It is the opposite of most of things we are always told to strive for these days...fairness: the President is always going on about how he hates when things are not fair. Progressive taxation is not fair. It says one person should bear a greater burden than another. ...equality: politicians and tv journalists(fast and loose with the lingo) tell us we should take steps to increase equality in our society. Progressive taxation is based on the opposite of equality. It seperates people into groups and asks more from one group,less from another, and nothing at all from another.

...OMG. channeling my inner kindergarten teacher. ...Who gives a ****? Let me get down to it for real now.

For those of you out there who are democrats that were registered to vote in the last 6.5 yrs by a member of a labor union who arrived on a chartered bus from a neighboring state on the morning of the same day they registered you and especially if you wish that politicians in washington would just stop fighting and "get things done" , I am going to define progressive taxation for the purposes of this discussion in a very basic way using short simple words that sound pretty much the way they are spelled...mostly. :it is when the % of a persons income that they must pay in taxes increases,err, goes up (sorry) based on how much money they make. for example;
>a man making $10,000 per year might pay 0%. nothing
>but a man who makes $60,000 per year has to pay 5% or $3,000.00
>and yet another man makes $20,000,000.00 per year(20 million) has to pay 20% or $4,000,000.00

Got it? good.

So how is that "fair" or equal? Does the guy paying $4,000,000.00 have his own senator representing him in congress? No. Does he have a whole battallion of our army at his command? Does he have his own highway to drive on with no traffic?
If one guy pays nothing and another pays 1 grand and mitt romney pays 5 mill in taxes(or whatever) shouldnt the other 2 guys have to call Mitt Daddy? Thank him for carrying our weight? apologize for our lack of production?

Let me put it in a different context. Im sure many of you have, or have had roomates,right? Did you split the bills based on income. Or was it,all things being equal, rent is split evenly? So why is one person responsible for a larger portion of our national "bills" than another simply because he is better at making money?

A different question: What about estate taxes and capital gains taxes?

imagine this. A man works hard his whole life. he trades hours of his time to learn his trade and expends untold physical energy and sweat along with his time over the years doing his "job" in exchange for money. He willingly took that deal with no regrets, and he did his job well and paid his taxes dutifully without fail. To his credit, he managed to amass a nice little nest egg...a small fortune,if you will. Who here would deny that the money i speak of if his in every way imaginable. Surely no one here would take it from him or suggest that anyone else should tell him what he should do with it. Later, when he is old and nearing death, he thinks about his finances and looks to see that he still has a nice pile of cash left. He is gratified by this as he has 2 children with young families who could surely use the money. So as one of his final willful acts he gives the money that is undeniably his to his son and daughter.
... I ask you now leftists of the interwebs, where do you find the audacity to suggest that such a transaction as i just described is in any way shape or form the business of the federal govt, any govt bureaucrat, or you or me ?It isn't at all.it shouldn't be,that is. They have no legitimate case for why they need to be informed of such a transaction,never mind the presumptous authoritarian that believes the govt would be entitled to a cut of the action. a % off the top because,...because what? How so? Why? No way. I have kids, what i earn is for them before it is for me.

How can you (yes,you),no...how can anyone justify this?

yes, i do have a better idea. it would be tough to think of a worse one, now wouldn't it?
consumption tax. The Fair Tax works for me. FYI I favor a consumption tax over a flat tax for a couple reasons. primarily because i don't happen to believe it is any of the federal govts God Damn business how much money a person makes,without question it's none of their business how much someone has.


Jayar

I've floated an idea thats till uses this icky naughty progressive system, but is much simpler then the current code and everybody pays
Get rid of all loopholes, exemptions, credits etc etc. what you see is what you get. also I took head of household and put them in the same category as married, why it's different now boggles my noodle.
single married/hoh
0-10,000 0-20,000 - 5%
10-25,000 20-50,000 10%
25,000-60,000 50,000-120,000 15%
60-120,000 120,000-240,000 20%
120,000+ 25% 240,000+ 25%
also lifting cap on SS and doubling Medicare tax-we have them properly fund them
Dividends taxed like income tax
Corporate tax- eliminate loopholes and credits etc etc
taxable income
0-100,000,000 10%
100,000,000- 1 bil 20%
1 bil plus 25%

 

[Jayar]

You don't really expect us to tax the poor, do you? I think your argument would be better received if you made your stand on welfare vice taxes.

I appreciate your concern:roll: My argument isn't an argument, it is a question. It is an attempt to challenge the idea of progressive taxation and expose the flawed ideology that underlies it. My point was to try to compel the reader,(in this case, you) to question your support for such a system. I posed questions that, if you were to attempt to answer them, might serve to nudge you toward coming to the same conclusion i have, which is the right one. The best part is that you would feel as though i had no influence in the matter, you figured it out all by yourself because you are a smart guy who knows right from wrong. Alas, it was not to be. You don't seem to think deeply enough, i'd like to think you could if you wanted to. atleast that would mean you might get there one day.

So go back to my original post and see if you can identify the questions, and then answer them as best you can.


Jayar

 

[Jayar]

i just edited a previous response that read as nonsense in some parts. voice to text failure
i was driving and posting on my phone with text to talk. should know better

*nevermind. it seems my window to edit has expired. admin did not allow my edit to be posted.
The sentence should have read "The Fair Tax, which i mentioned, has pre-bates equivalent to the poverty line" so....

 

[Jayar]

I've floated an idea thats till uses this icky naughty progressive system, but is much simpler then the current code and everybody pays
Get rid of all loopholes, exemptions, credits etc etc. what you see is what you get. also I took head of household and put them in the same category as married, why it's different now boggles my noodle.
single married/hoh
0-10,000 0-20,000 - 5%
10-25,000 20-50,000 10%
25,000-60,000 50,000-120,000 15%
60-120,000 120,000-240,000 20%
120,000+ 25% 240,000+ 25%
also lifting cap on SS and doubling Medicare tax-we have them properly fund them
Dividends taxed like income tax
Corporate tax- eliminate loopholes and credits etc etc
taxable income
0-100,000,000 10%
100,000,000- 1 bil 20%
1 bil plus 25%

Wow.

That is a horrible idea. Congrats


Jayar

 

[Steve Ja]

Wow.

That is a horrible idea. Congrats


Jayar

Awesome glad you like it

 

[Muhammed]

Nobody said anything about taxing the poor. The Fair Tax, which i mentioned, has pre-bates equivalent to the poverty line. For example if the consumption tax is set at 23%, everyone would receive a quarterly check equivalent to 23% of the poverty line

What you are describing is a form of progressive taxation.

 

[Canell]

I am with you. :thumbs:

 

[Your Star]

A progressive tax is the most moral tax system. It provides appropriate funds for the government and doesn't put undue burden on anyone.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That is a horrible idea. Congrats

Says the person who thinks the working class can afford a 23% consumption tax.

 

[Kobie]

The rich benefit more from what the government provides than the poor do.

 

[Aekos]

A progressive tax is the most moral tax system. It provides appropriate funds for the government and doesn't put undue burden on anyone.

This.

Besides, income tax progressivity helps to offset the regressivity of other taxes.

 

[Tim the plumber]

This money stuff, it's an invented mechanism to facilitate trade. It's not holy. It needs the state to back it up. It needs a society around it to work.

It's a social convention not some sort of God given independent intrinsically valuable natural thing.

One of the effects of making trade easy is the tendency for wealth to get concentrated at the top. This is due to both the abilities of the successful being better than most and the fact that they have more disposable money because we all need similar amounts to live on. And power makes getting more power easier.

If we don't tax wealth then we will end up with almost all of us utterly impoverished.

Personally I would like to see a strong death tax. Taxing the dead will allow a much more meritocratic society.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The idea of tax reform is good but the fair tax, or consumption tax, would require constitutional amendment. The fair tax prebate scheme is also troubling because to be "fair" each US adult (citizen?) would be eligible for it, regardless of income.

I favor keeping the federal income tax (FIT) but getting rid of almost all of its complexity. It should have only two numbers: a standard deduction (say at double the federal poverty level) and a flat taxation rate for all income above that level. For example a standard deduction of $20K and a 20% tax rate.

Such an income tax would be both flat (in rate) and progressive (in practice). A household making $40K would pay $4K in FIT or a 10% effective rate (on gross income), a household making $100K would pay $16K in FIT or a 16% effective rate and a household making $400K would pay $76K or a 19% effective rate.

 

[haymarket]

We do NOT really have much of a progressive tax system in the USA. This study shows that

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2013.pdf

 

[joG]

....

How can you (yes,you),no...how can anyone justify this?

....

Jayar

In the social sciences there is a hypothesis, whereby the additional utility to the owner of something will decline as he owns more of it. Applied to this question. if you tax a poor person the same as a wealthy person, you reduce total welfare of the society more than were you to tax the poor person less.

Now, there are other aspects that need to be thought through for an answer to your question. But on the face of it, that is an argument both economic and moral, if you like.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We do NOT really have much of a progressive tax system in the USA. This study shows that

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2013.pdf

Too much BS in this "study". It assumes too much about taxes paid other than the federal income tax. One can pay a far different state/local tax based on location and lifestyle choices.

 

[haymarket]

Too much BS in this "study". It assumes too much about taxes paid other than the federal income tax. One can pay a far different state/local tax based on location and lifestyle choices.

Any discussion which does not consider ALL of the taxes a citizen pays is by its very nature incomplete and not an accurate picture of taxation in America. As such, those should not be trusted and one should ask WHY they are only focusing on one tax rather than ALL taxes?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Any discussion which does not consider ALL of the taxes a citizen pays is by its very nature incomplete and not an accurate picture of taxation in America. As such, those should not be trusted and one should ask WHY they are only focusing on one tax rather than ALL taxes?

Why is obvious. A discussion of FIT reform can address only the FIT.

 

[MTAtech]

Oh the whining for the abused rich people who have to pay taxes, while poor people and the working poor, escape taxation. How? By not earning enough money. The poor would be grateful to reverse positions --earn lots of money and pay taxes on those earnings.

Bill Maher said it best a few years ago:

New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.
...

'Instead of complaining about your tax-rate that is lower than just about every other advanced nation, you should be down on your knees thanking God that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where you managed to find yourself in the top marginal tax bracket.'

The idea of the progressive tax system is based upon the valid assumption that the more you earn the more you can take on the burden of paying for running the nation. The tax-rates are marginal, meaning that up to certain amounts, you are paying the same rate as everyone else. Over that amount and only the additional amount is taxed at the higher rate. Apart from being immoral, that's fair.

Those that favor flat-taxes should know that the reason why that plan is favored by the richest people in the nation is because they did the math. Their taxes will decrease under a flat-tax system.

Bill Gates Sr. used to say this: 'Suppose you were given the choice of being born in America or in Ethiopia. What proportion of your eventual fortune would you be willing to give to be born in America? Given the great good fortune of getting to live and run a business in this country that has all the advantages an advanced country with a decent system provides, how can you think it’s all you? And then, how can you feel you don’t have any obligation to pay it back?'