Why punish people for earning more money?~/b` It's a dumb system. With progressive income tax, we are literally building in systemic disincentives to earn more.
Besides labor should not be taxed at all. We should tax only consumption. After all, consumption is what ruins things, not labor.
Taxes are not suppose to be fair. Taxes are there to pay for stuff that society has agreed to do together. It is all about , and that is why you have a tax system where the rich should pay relatively more in % than the poor or middle classes.
Why is to create a system where those that earn less are rewarded for being "victims". Trying to convince congress critters that a system which gets them re-elected at rate of over 90% needs to be changed is futile. The OP starts by trying to tell us that income tax policy is the problem but that "free" college, rather than tax "reform", is the solution.
The goal should be to encourage everyone to earn more, save for retirement and their own medical needs, do not penalize them for buying food and shelter but tax the hell out of purchasing luxury items. Hence, I favor a high tax on consumption--taxing consumer goods and services, maybe allow exemptions for unprocessed foods, the first X dollars on shelter, major medical and other necessities---and zero taxes on income.
The system we have now punishes success and rewards failure, punishes savings and rewards consumption. When people are better off financially to not work than they are working a low-wage job: high payroll taxes, cost of medical insurance and expenses to get to work versus receiving food stamps, rent vouchers, Medicaid and cash subsidies; you know the system is jacked.
The purpose of an economic system is not the myopic accumulation of capital per se. It is (or should be) the well-being of ALL the people within the nation who share the benefits of their hard-earned work. And it should be a national objective to assure - not equal shares of the abundance - but equitable shares. Which is what taxation was intended to do, but amply fails at doing presently.
And what Americans know (but fail to acknowledge) is that the primary purpose of taxation today is to assure that the accent is solely upon accumulation of Wealth (and Net Worth, which is Wealth minus Debt). Meaning, in a pie-chart rendition, this:
How did it all go so wrong, so wrong, so wrong?
We started to get taxation wrong with JFK who had his Dem-congress reduce taxation (it was LBJ who signed it into law). Reckless Ronnie finished the job. The history of upper-income taxation reduction from above 90% to around 30% is plain enough for anybody to see - Here. Which substantiates the two general movements downward in upper-income taxation since the 1960s.
Note in the above infographic that it was Reckless Ronnie who hacked upper-income taxation down to the ridiculous level at which it finds itself today. That historical fact is evident in the infographic linked above. (When a Milt Romney can pay 14% on income of $13.6M and brag about it, one knows that something is very, very wrong. See here.)
What do both of those degradations in upper-income taxation mean to us as a nation today? That a very small class of plutocrats are very privileged in their taxation and spend-like-crazy to assure that Congress does not change the situation!
Zucman and Saez (UCal, Economics) show well enough the awful consequences of unfair taxation here:
This above characterizes the world we live in today. Notably, the top 0.1% of the population obtain the same amount of Wealth generated by the other 90% of us.
And people may think that is fair and honest? When its an income-taxation rip-off that was planned and executed by the Replicants. You THINK you are fooling somebody?
Not anybody with the factual evidence, they're not foole for even one nanosecond ...
NB: There is a reason why 14% of the American population are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold (of $23K income per family). It is because not enough is being done to prevent them from "falling through the cracks". Meaning having the educational perquisites that would permit them a better job. Which Bernie had suggested and Hillary offered were she elected PotUS. But, no, the election was manipulated to make Donald Dork the winner!
Hmm... what, other than labor, is a service?
What is your prescription, then? Do you want to tax these folks to the point at which they all move elsewhere?
The problem with trying to outsmart people like the 1%'ers who are obviously smarter than those of us who are the 99%-ers is that we're not as smart as they are.
They will always be smarter and richer than the rest of us. If we chase them away, who is going to pay the part of the tax bill that they are paying right now?
The goal should be to encourage everyone to earn more, save for retirement and their own medical needs, do not penalize them for buying food and shelter but tax the hell out of purchasing luxury items. Hence, I favor a high tax on consumption--taxing consumer goods and services, maybe allow exemptions for unprocessed foods, the first X dollars on shelter, major medical and other necessities---and zero taxes on income.
The system we have now punishes success and rewards failure, punishes savings and rewards consumption. When people are better off financially to not work than they are working a low-wage job: high payroll taxes, cost of medical insurance and expenses to get to work versus receiving food stamps, rent vouchers, Medicaid and cash subsidies; you know the system is jacked.
Perhaps true of the Danish system. Our system doesn't get us to agree to do anything together. Your country may have been founded on the principle of fairness but ours was founded on the principle of equality. Equality means that the government should treat everyone the same. When someone gains at the expense of others because of government action, it is no longer equal.
The problem with our tax system is that it is supposed to fund overspending. Bring spending under control and taxation becomes much easier to design and enforce.
LOL no it was not. The US was in no way founded on the principle of equality... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It was founded by white slave owning landowners, where everyone else were 2nd class citizens and in no way equal. What you are pushing is a right wing bull**** theory that does not work in the real world.. much like the communist ideal does not work either. Taxes are not suppose to be fair, or equal. And of course even US society has agreed on certain things we do best together.. military, police, law/justice and so on.. and that requires funding.
The problem with your tax system is that you dont collect enough taxes for you spending and that the burden is on the poor and lower middle classes and not so much on the upper classes.
Because people do not exist in a vacuum. When CEO's earn much more money, relative to their workers, than they used to that means workers end up earning less because the pot of money being distributed is the same. Taxation isn't a punishment for success. In many cases it is a punishment for greed. Taxes subsidize workers paid at poverty wages, and go to thing like roads and fire departments that companies depend on. If people at the top of these companies earned a little less, and their workers earned a little more, I think that would be a good thing.Why punish people for earning more money? It's a dumb system. With progressive income tax, we are literally building in systemic disincentives to earn more.
Besides labor should not be taxed at all. We should tax only consumption. After all, consumption is what ruins things, not labor.
Let's reinstitute "real" taxation at 92% (as it was before 1963) and see how many fat-cats jump ship with their billions. Shall we?
Think they'll fly-off to tax-havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands? Good riddance! The Replicant Party will sink without their money. (So, of course, that won't happen. Even with higher tax-rates, they will live very comfortably in the US. It's in Estate Taxation that the government gains back real fortunes, obtained due to the lack of real-taxation in the past!
Then we'll use the money gained from Enhanced Estate Tax-Revenue for some badly needed national services, two of which come to mind: National Healthcare Insurance and Free Tertiary Education ... !
Since when did smarts have anything to do with taxation? It's a game, is it?
The purpose of taxation is to level the playing field. As it stands now, the playing field looks like the two graphics I put in the initiating comment on this forum.
Anybody who does not recognize the lack of fairness needs his head examined ...
We have already some of the lowest tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) comparable internationally:
Just how much more do you want to give the FatCats on a free-ride from real taxation ... ?
Taxes are not suppose to be fair. Taxes are there to pay for stuff that society has agreed to do together. It is all about burden, and that is why you have a tax system where the rich should pay relatively more in % than the poor or middle classes.
Let's reinstitute "real" taxation at 92% (as it was before 1963) and see how many fat-cats jump ship with their billions. Shall we?
Think they'll fly-off to tax-havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands? Good riddance! The Replicant Party will sink without their money. (So, of course, that won't happen. Even with higher tax-rates, they will live very comfortably in the US. It's in Estate Taxation that the government gains back real fortunes, obtained due to the lack of real-taxation in the past!
Then we'll use the money gained from Enhanced Estate Tax-Revenue for some badly needed national services, two of which come to mind: National Healthcare Insurance and Free Tertiary Education ... !
Since when did smarts have anything to do with taxation? It's a game, is it?
The purpose of taxation is to level the playing field. As it stands now, the playing field looks like the two graphics I put in the initiating comment on this forum.
Anybody who does not recognize the lack of fairness needs his head examined ...
We have already some of the lowest tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) comparable internationally:
Just how much more do you want to give the FatCats on a free-ride from real taxation ... ?
That is how our tax system works here in the US. The rich pay the absolute lion's share of the tax burden, the poor pay nothing, and the middle class gets hammered. In Europe, the middle class and poor get absolutely hammered, and the rich get off cheap.
And this whole "93% tax rate was just hunky dory", is propaganda nonsense. Nobody paid that rate. NOBODY. Just for fun, why don't you tell us exactly how this "93% taxation rate" worked.
envy is a stupid basis for taxation. the top one percent should not pay more than their share of the income. even better, one percent should pay one percent of the taxes. Rich people actually use less government services than those who are not paying their share
envy is a stupid basis for taxation. the top one percent should not pay more than their share of the income. even better, one percent should pay one percent of the taxes. Rich people actually use less government services than those who are not paying their share
Look, that is exactly the point of this discussion. What is their fair share?
The 92% specified by law (pre-LBJ) or what they actually paid, which was nowhere near that amount. Nothing has changed in the finagling except the law. Whereas before the law stipulated a rate of 92%, now it is closer to 30% - and yet people like Romney still get "special attention".
I posted the UCal research infographic above, and yet the blindness of people like you persist. That very strong and very unfair accumulation of Taxed Income that has become Wealth and there is an underlying reason for it. And that reason must be "UNFAIR AND EXPLOITIVE RATES OF TAXATION PAID"!
And Donald Dork wants to lower taxes yet again?!? Duhhhhhhhhhhh ...
The top 1% own 40% of the wealth but you want them to just pay 1% of the tax!!
Aside from your position being morally repugnant, it would be economic suicide. You want mass poverty in your country just so you can be even richer? Absolutely disgusting.
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?