Taxation Unfairness Must Stop!

[danielpalos]

I agree in that as people get out of poverty they are more likely to save their money than spend - while it would increase income tax to get them out of poverty - it decreases amount of sales tax. Spending is a significant component of what makes poverty in the first place.

I am not sure what you mean. How would that apply with equal protection of the at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation, for example? We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and all those persons should be circulating capital since we subscribe to capitalism.

 

[screenwriter]

I am not sure what you mean. How would that apply with equal protection of the at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation, for example? We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and all those persons should be circulating capital since we subscribe to capitalism.

Poverty isn't the only driving force of homelessness. There isn't a single economic system that is a panacea. Unemployment compensation is nothing more than an insurance plan that people pay into "just in case" they find themselves unemployed - it's not some civil right or anything. Other than you have the "right" to accesses it since you paid into it. But, just as you can't intentionally wreck your car simply to cash in on your auto insurance - you can't wreck your job just to draw unemployment. So the "right" to access it is dependent on acting in good faith.

 

[danielpalos]

Poverty isn't the only driving force of homelessness. There isn't a single economic system that is a panacea. Unemployment compensation is nothing more than an insurance plan that people pay into "just in case" they find themselves unemployed - it's not some civil right or anything. Other than you have the "right" to accesses it since you paid into it. But, just as you can't intentionally wreck your car simply to cash in on your auto insurance - you can't wreck your job just to draw unemployment. So the "right" to access it is dependent on acting in good faith.

I may not have elaborated the other benefits to equal protection of our own laws. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can function as an automatic stabilizer for our economy to better ensure capital circulates more consistently.

The point about the Homeless is that we should be enforcing our own laws not trying to find ways to criminalize poverty under our Constitutional form of Government.

 

[screenwriter]

I may not have elaborated the other benefits to equal protection of our own laws. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can function as an automatic stabilizer for our economy to better ensure capital circulates more consistently.

The point about the Homeless is that we should be enforcing our own laws not trying to find ways to criminalize poverty under our Constitutional form of Government.

We don't have "the poor house" and the like anymore and, as far as I know, no one is trying to bring them back by criminalizing poverty. The only "criminal" activity of poverty is knowingly taking on debt without an intention to pay. It isn't even a crime to buy consumer goods instead of paying food, clothing, and shelter costs.

No one can make a law that someone must work or participate in the economy if they don't want to.

 

[danielpalos]

We don't have "the poor house" and the like anymore and, as far as I know, no one is trying to bring them back by criminalizing poverty. The only "criminal" activity of poverty is knowingly taking on debt without an intention to pay. It isn't even a crime to buy consumer goods instead of paying food, clothing, and shelter costs.

No one can make a law that someone must work or participate in the economy if they don't want to.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.

 

[rickc]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.

What has that got to do with unfair taxes

 

[danielpalos]

What has that got to do with unfair taxes

It is about using the scale economy of Government to help with general tax revenue generation. More people could be paying general taxes more consistently with equal protection of the laws.

 

[bave]

The US is also a very high income country (obviously). It's not possible to have a progressive tax system, and very high earners, and also to have low tax revenue per GDP. It just does not add up.

Sounds like someone doesn't understand how progressivity is measured.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The rich pay more in taxes than the bottom half of the nation and a large share of the populace doesn't pay hardly any taxes.
Yeah, maybe it's because the wealthy took all the money, pay off the politicians... to make sure the wealthy stay rich. You can't steal most of the wealth in a country and then whine and bitch about paying taxes.

Ridiculous zero sum logic.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Sounds like someone doesn't understand how progressivity is measured.

Progressivity is when higher incomes incur higher RATES of tax.

The US Federal income tax is progressive, particularly at the low end (credits). Luxury taxes (some states) are progressive. No other taxes are, and the FICA taxes are regressive. It all adds up to ... not that progressive.

France taxes investment income, so despite a VAT their tax system is more progressive.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Ridiculous zero sum logic.

Not really. Take a surgeon for instance: we can all agree they deserve to be highly paid. But they're paid BY someone, likely an insurer, who get their money from everyone insured with them (plus a bit for administration, and possibly plus a bit for profit). Does the surgeon "create" all their income, or get it from someone else?

 

[Ug make hammer]

I may not have elaborated the other benefits to equal protection of our own laws. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can function as an automatic stabilizer for our economy to better ensure capital circulates more consistently.

Certainly. People being entirely without income either live from their savings (fine if they have any), they borrow from friends or family (if they have any, and in any case this is destructive of relationships), or they turn to crime. This last option is the best justification for unemployment payments, as crime is extremely destructive. People who have been unemployed for 9 months are clearly disadvantaged in their local job market, and government should help with that.

You make the money circulating argument, it's valid as well. Also zero unemployment is not ideal for anyone: employers wouldn't like it if it ever happened: wages would increase even at the bottom end, and to attract particular skills they would need to poach from other employers (with even higher wages).

The point about the Homeless is that we should be enforcing our own laws not trying to find ways to criminalize poverty under our Constitutional form of Government.

Rather than empty promises of mental health care, we should be making long term investment in mental health with free or heavily subsidized degrees. It's not just that government won't pay for it. The professionals simply aren't available.

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand you are full of crap.

I understand the difference between earned and unearned income.

I know that to qualify for that 15% long term capital gains rate all you have to do is hold it for 1 year. That is ridiculous. It should be at least 5. And the truth is most don't even pay at that 15% long term capital gains rate.

The tax code was written by the wealthy for the wealthy. You can try to justify it any way you want to. In fact you may actually believe what you typed but that doesn't make it true.

If that was true, the wealthy wouldn't pay 40% of the income tax burden, and there wouldn't be the idiotic death tax

 

[rickc]

Ridiculous zero sum logic.

If that was true, the wealthy wouldn't pay 40% of the income tax burden, and there wouldn't be the idiotic death tax

They are working on it. Been very successful during republican administrations since Reagan.

They have done quite well at stopping Joe Biden from his tax raises. Joe had a plan for the wealthy to begin to pay their fair share. See how that worked out for him.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Inheriting money isn't reflective of the heir doing anything for society. If we can't tax death, what on earth can we tax?

 

[bave]

Progressivity is when higher incomes incur higher RATES of tax.

The US Federal income tax is progressive, particularly at the low end (credits). Luxury taxes (some states) are progressive. No other taxes are, and the FICA taxes are regressive. It all adds up to ... not that progressive.

France taxes investment income, so despite a VAT their tax system is more progressive.

This is 100% incorrect. You are simply talking about the level of marginal taxation and nothing to do with progressivity at all. The US has the most progressive tax code in the world according to the World Bank, OECD, FRB, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

The US taxes investment income as well. You might be interested in knowing that the average investment tax burden in the EU is actually a bit lower than it is in the US at the national level.

Inheriting money isn't reflective of the heir doing anything for society. If we can't tax death, what on earth can we tax?

Talk to the Constitution. In the US the federal government is only permitted to tax *income*. You can amend the constitution if you like.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Inheriting money isn't reflective of the heir doing anything for society. If we can't tax death, what on earth can we tax?

I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk) I'll tax your feet
(Taxman)

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm saying "the poorest 20% of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries"

I guess that needs to be translated into America's poor spends a crap ton of money. I merely pointed out America's poor do generate tax revenue - via their rampant spending.

It was a direct response to this remark.

danielpalos said:
The Poor should have to generate general tax revenue and should have to circulate capital as a result.

OK, but what allows that to happen is that federal “safety net” money is being used to generate state/local tax revenue. The poorest 20% cost the federal government money, but are making the states, counties and cities money. This is often pointed out by claims of maker vs. taker states.

 

[danielpalos]

Certainly. People being entirely without income either live from their savings (fine if they have any), they borrow from friends or family (if they have any, and in any case this is destructive of relationships), or they turn to crime. This last option is the best justification for unemployment payments, as crime is extremely destructive. People who have been unemployed for 9 months are clearly disadvantaged in their local job market, and government should help with that.

You make the money circulating argument, it's valid as well. Also zero unemployment is not ideal for anyone: employers wouldn't like it if it ever happened: wages would increase even at the bottom end, and to attract particular skills they would need to poach from other employers (with even higher wages).



Rather than empty promises of mental health care, we should be making long term investment in mental health with free or heavily subsidized degrees. It's not just that government won't pay for it. The professionals simply aren't available.

I agree to disagree under any form of Capitalism. Since Congress can command simple poverty be abolished through equal protection of our own laws, wages will rise to a new equilibrium and so will our standard of living. Government can help the private sector by upgrading infrastructure for scale economies.