drz-400
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 551
- Location
- North Dakota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think to totally summarize my point here.
We've had some sort of progressive taxation for the better part of 100 years and the amount of relative poverty is more or less the same (over the past 40 years at least).
We've increased regulations from 1 book of approximately 1,000 pages to multiple volumes compromising approximately 70,000 pages.
Is there a point when you ask yourself, when is it enough? What have we really accomplished?
The more progressive a tax system, the more stability it provides to the economy during changes income (GDP).
So the rich are clearly paying far far more than they use to make up for all those who don't pay near as much as they use.
AND........ just under Bush II, Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes were near HALVED from 28% to 15% (on which the truly wealthy live), and the estate tax all but eliminated.me said:You may THINK it's unfair because of Your political stance, which has NO basis in the econonic history of this country... only in what you naively perceive as 'fair'.
So easy on the "Idiotic" unless you have a Mirror handy.
We have a Progressive income tax now, which in your mind is already 'unfair'.
but in FACT, it's clearly not Progressive Enough to prevent greater and greater income disparity and so-called 'working poor.
So that IN FACT, BOTH parties have agreed several times to stimulous checks (ie 600/1200) which benefit the little guy (and effectivley Lower His tax rate far more significantly than bigger earners) and who HAS to spend every penny he makes ALREADY and still has nothing left.
He can't buy enough cars, computers, etc, to support the Stock prices of the rich. So ALL then do agree where relief is more needed.
The Closet 'Proof of the Pudding'.
A Flat Rate Income tax would obviously cause even greater disparity and Raise the taxes of at least the bottom 2/3s (probably 4/5's/80%) of the population now to lower the taxes on the richer.
Of course, Only AN "IDIOT" would propose it, and no one really has seriously tried.
And as to "Class Warfare", I already addressed this, the most myopic of your many Goofy remarks in post #176.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table
Year/ Top Rate%/ Over
1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
I think to totally summarize my point here.
We've had some sort of progressive taxation for the better part of 100 years and the amount of relative poverty is more or less the same (over the past 40 years at least).
We've increased regulations from 1 book of approximately 1,000 pages to multiple volumes compromising approximately 70,000 pages.
Is there a point when you ask yourself, when is it enough? What have we really accomplished?
Maybe we can draw a few conclusions from that.
One could be that not enough is being done to help the poor.
The other is that maybe the methods we are using to help the poor are not working.
The other, which is the most likely IMO, is that measures are put into place to make it appear that the goal is to reduce poverty but they are mostly hot air. The reason being that it gets votes.
Isn't the intent to help reduce or end poverty though?
When is there a point where it is too progressive?
I dunno, I am sure it would have to do with income elasticities and peoples incentives to make more money. I agree, a redistribution effect can also be a goal and would be partly the side effect of a progressive scheme, however I think this is justified if we envoke rawls veil of ignorance and difference principle. However, my main point was a progressive scheme also provides stability as an accoplishment.
I understand your main point.
I guess what I am getting at is that, if I a libertarian were to accept progressive taxation, would proponents of the system also agree that there is a limit to it's problem solving ability?
Can anyone really justify a tax rate as high as 50%,60%,70%+.
To me that seems criminal, irrational and unreasonable.
I know the thread is about the most fair tax system but we really must delve deeper into the subject than giving a check mark of fair or not fair.
This is a Continuing and Raging LIE by Turtle Due.
Not an opinion.. a Grotesque LIE.
Most recently he's been shown so here
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-flat-taxation-dont-get-3.html#post1058836356
Reminding him of:
AND........ just under Bush II, Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes were near HALVED from 28% to 15% (on which the truly wealthy live), and the estate tax all but eliminated.
So the rich pay fare LESS than the used to.
What's the most 'fair' tax system? (not asking which is most sustainable, just which would be most 'fair', in a morality sort of way)
Progressive tax
I don't disagree with you in that we need some serious behavior modifications in this country. However, I think that the government could be used to make such necessary behavior modifications.
One is shelter for the poor. I've stated this several times in other threads. I am critical for the government having provided government-backed loans to the poor for houses they can't afford that were built for the middle class. That's just stupid.
Instead, I think the government should use the authority of law to mandate that housing developers cannot ignore the housing needs of the poor.
My position is this. Most housing developers focus on the people who are middle class or wealthier when they build houses. However there is a demand for shelter for people who earn minimum wage. But land is a commodity, so housing developers build housing only for the middle class or wealthier so they can get a better long term profit.
If I had my way, I would write a law requiring housing developers to build a certain percentage of low-income housing designed and built to be affordable to people earning a minimum wage. These could be very small, efficient multi-story homes. By forcing housing developers to dedicate to building these types of homes, they will use their ingenuity to create such homes.
This way, the poor can actually get housing they can afford and the government isn't making risky mortgages, and housing developers will earn a profit.
The only thing that inhibits this is housing developers' desire to earn even more of a profit to cater to the demands of the middle class. But in doing so, they ignore the needs of the poor.
So there's a lot of ways to look at the scenario.
AND........ just under Bush II, Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes were near HALVED from 28% to 15% (on which the truly wealthy live), and the estate tax all but eliminated.
So the rich pay fare LESS than the used to.
Conservative pundits and media outlets have seized upon an estimate that 47% of taxpayers owe no federal income tax for 2009. This statistic has morphed into the claim by conservatives that “47% of all Americans don’t pay any taxes.”
The conservative pundits are Wrong. It’s true that many taxpayers don’t pay federal income taxes, but they still pay federal payroll taxes (and some federal excise taxes) and also pay state and local taxes. Most of these other taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of a poor or middle-class family’s income than they take from a rich family. This largely offsets the progressivity of the federal income tax.
CTJ estimates that the share of total taxes (federal state and local taxes) paid by taxpayers in each income group is quite similar to the share of total income received by each income group in 2009.
For example, the share of total taxes paid by the richest one percent (22.1%) is not dramatically different from the share of total income received by this group (20.4%).
Everyone in America pays some sort of taxes, which may take the form of income, sales or property taxes imposed by state and local governments, in addition to federal income, payroll and excise taxes.
Claims that the richest 1% are paying far more than their fair share usually focus only on the most significant progressive tax, the federal income tax. They ignore the other types of taxes. As these figures make clear, the U.S. tax system just barely qualifies as progressive.
as a percentage of their income, certainly; as far as actual revenues are concerned?
Rich got richer, paid more taxes under Bush
...In 2000, the top quintile paid 66.6 percent of taxes, a share that dipped to 64.8 percent in 2002 and then rose, peaking at 69.3 percent in 2006 and settling at 68.9 percent in 2007...
and what did those tax cuts do, anyway?
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
I know this will never happen but it would be interesting to see the tax returns of those who clamor for more taxes on the rich. I suspect that would shed a great deal of light on what motivates those who scream for others to pay more taxes. It is also the biggest problem with the progressive taxes-it appeals to class envy and gives congress untold extra-constitutional power by such pandering.
Rich got richer, paid more taxes under Bush
The fairest tax is no tax. The second fairest tax is where everyone pays the same amount. The third fairest tax is where everyone pays the same %. None of these are feasible. We need to accept the inherent unfairness of taxes but also accept that no taxes would be even worse.
Well I think what you have to consider matters of fairness in a particular way to see no taxation as the most fair.
No taxation would result in no government and anarchy outright. It would be a disaster.
The second fairest tax according to you based on flat taxation where everyone pays the same tax does not consider that finances in terms of having dollars to spend has a bottom. A flat tax hits the lowest income bracket far more then the upper income bracket. So according to this logic if you have less money then someone with far more wealth to pay for needs/wants, it is somehow fair for you to have less money available for needs. Because you do have less money for needs it creates smaller pool of wealth available for wants. The person with less money has to spend a larger percent of his money on needs then the person with more money. When a person works for money equivalent to the poverty line or less they spend a greater portion of their money on needs under a flat tax system. A flat tax disproportionately punishes low income.
A progressive taxation does tax people with more total available money to spend then the people with less money to spend. However one only has to consider the means by which they attain that larger portion of wealth to reason they should indeed pay more. Many wealthy employ people who work for less then the poverty line.. so it is clear that the wealthy have created more wealth from people who are under huge income pressure in more of a parasitic manner then a symbiotic way the wealthy make wealth from the less fortunate. Many wealthy people don't do anything but invest their capital while the working poor are busy making them the money they live a privileged life from.
A progressive tax makes it possible for the wealthy to re-contribute to society via public services that their less fortunate social counterparts should indeed benefit from. A progressive taxation is the most fair considering the costs of needs on the lowest income bracket. More importantly from an economic sense in a consumer economy it makes sense for the wealthy to want consumers to have money to spend.
I personally think libertarians need to re-evaluate their idea of what fair is.
I know this will never happen but it would be interesting to see the tax returns of those who clamor for more taxes on the rich. I suspect that would shed a great deal of light on what motivates those who scream for others to pay more taxes. It is also the biggest problem with the progressive taxes-it appeals to class envy and gives congress untold extra-constitutional power by such pandering.
Class warfare and racism are the central tenets to progressivism. That's what.
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?