Why shouldn't I support progressive taxes?

[Kushinator]

do you believe that certain advances in technology had nothing to do with that

Asset bubbles are a byproduct of irrational premonitions of their respective asset markets. There were massive gains in technology throughout various stages of the world, they however did not lead to a 75% loss (from peak to trough).

 

[TurtleDude]

There's nothing inherently evil about progressive tax rates, except that they create an inherently more complex tax system than a flat tax would be. Complexity creates all sorts of ill effects, from tax avoidance to inefficencies to an inability to predict outcomes to tax-motivated investments and beyond. It is a very serious flaw, and I personally would dump our current system for a flat tax.

Clearly a 20% flat tax on all income -- which, BTW, would include such things as the proceeds of life insurance, the accretion in value of stocks and bonds, etc., none of which we have ever taxed in this country -- would be worse for us all than a progressive tax that ran from 0 to 15%.

So, why do so many like the flat tax? Why do some tax pundits oppose it?

A flat tax cannot be dodged. Whatever the result is of one equation, multiply your income times the rate and that's what you owe. Do up your return on a postcard and mail in what you owe. No more lobbyists, very little IRS. Easey-peasy.

But a flat tax also distributes the weight of the total tax burden in a way that none of our progressive tax rates ever have, shifting a sizable portion of that burden down from the wealthiest taxpayer onto the middle class and working poor. This defect cannot be cured; once you create a different tax rate for anyone, that tax is no longer "flat". Once it is no longer flat, it is open to the same complexity defects as our existing progressive tax rates.

Additionally, as I am sure has already been mentioned, many tax pundits and economists feel that our economy will suffer if capital gains (gains from the sale of assets, such as stocks and bonds) is not taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income (wages, stock dividends, etc.). This is because investment in assets is the engine of our economy; it creates factories as well as the credit to borrow to build them, and if that dries up, we'll all be sunk.

With a progressive tax, you can have various schedules for capital gains v. ordinary income. However, with a flat tax you can't as, once again, any alteration in the rate schedule will mean the tax is no longer flat.

Most pundits (last I looked) think we'd need a flat tax rate of about 14% to generate the revenue that our existing personal and corporate income tax generates. There's serious concern that this would be highly detrimental to our economy as too heavy a hand on capital gains, and serious concern that it would be too heavy a burden on mid-range taxpayers.

Then of course, there's the agony of changing our tax system to such a dramatic degree -- there'd be loss and waste and inefficiencies, so there's debate about whether the candle is worth the game.

I have never bought into the idea that because you are less able to pay taxes you should somehow pay a lower rate because that only encourages politicians to pander to such people. GOVERNMENT Ought to be limited and making the cost of government PAINFUL on those who crave it the most is a necessary thing in my mind. what we have done is to make it way too cheap for MOST people to get all the government they want and that is why we have too much of it

 

[gavinfielder]

tell me why those who pay a higher rate should derive no additional benefits from the government

So we don't end up with a plutocracy, the way that's phrased.
Ideally, no one would be paying more than anyone else.

 

[TurtleDude]

So we don't end up with a plutocracy, the way that's phrased.
Ideally, no one would be paying more than anyone else.

actually all it does is create an artificial class of plutocrats-those who are rich through government. Like the clintons and the Obamas

 

[Kushinator]

edify me as to the degrees you hold.

You can have an internet dick-measuring-contest without someone else. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what you are talking about.

the internet is full of google experts who adopt airs of superiority in order to bolster their own envy based opinions

So? I can (and do) fully defend my positions without consistently backing away as you do. What started out as a discussion on tax policy has turned into a "so tell me about yourself" session.

tell me why those who pay a higher rate should derive no additional benefits from the government

Your definition of benefit is subjective and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

 

[ecofarm]

You can have an internet dick-measuring-contest without someone else.

I do it plenty. It's like masturbating - not bad, but better with someone else.

 

[Pinkie]

I have never bought into the idea that because you are less able to pay taxes you should somehow pay a lower rate because that only encourages politicians to pander to such people. GOVERNMENT Ought to be limited and making the cost of government PAINFUL on those who crave it the most is a necessary thing in my mind. what we have done is to make it way too cheap for MOST people to get all the government they want and that is why we have too much of it

Well, let's take an example, k?

Marge has 3 kids and her husband has just died, leaving her no life insurance. She receives, say, $15,00 a year in TANF and other government benefits. Marge also receives free child care, subsidized work training, and various other programs that she couldn't participate in if she were not on TANF, and the entire family recieves Medicaid.

So, let's say Marge has a total income of $30,000. You and I pay for this through our taxes.

Now, if Marge has to pay, say, 10% tax on that income, she owes the government $3,000.

Tell me, Turtle, how is sending her money and then taxing her on that very same money efficient? And doesn't every inefficiency drive up the cost of government?

 

[Kushinator]

I do it plenty. It's like masturbating - not bad, but better with someone else.

Well have fun with that

 

[TurtleDude]

You can have an internet dick-measuring-contest without someone else. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what you are talking about.



So? I can (and do) fully defend my positions without consistently backing away as you do. What started out as a discussion on tax policy has turned into a "so tell me about yourself" session.



Your definition of benefit is subjective and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

I know what a libertarian is. and its not based on justifying more and more government and taking more and more wealth of others

My view is accurate. Top one percent tax payers pay 40% of the federal income tax and all the surcharge known as the death tax. we sure don't use anywhere near 40% of the government services paid for by those taxes.

In fact I believe those in the bottom 20% get several dollars of government service for one dollar of taxes-people like me-a couple pennies at best

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, let's take an example, k?

Marge has 3 kids and her husband has just died, leaving her no life insurance. She receives, say, $15,00 a year in TANF and other government benefits. Marge also receives free child care, subsidized work training, and various other programs that she couldn't participate in if she were not on TANF, and the entire family recieves Medicaid.

So, let's say Marge has a total income of $30,000. You and I pay for this through our taxes.

Now, if Marge has to pay, say, 10% tax on that income, she owes the government $3,000.

Tell me, Turtle, how is sending her money and then taxing her on that very same money efficient? And doesn't every inefficiency drive up the cost of government?

You are assuming we have to fund her existence despite her husband's bad choice? why is she having three children with someone who was that stupid?

as some point why do we make failure so easy?

 

[Pinkie]

edify me as to the degrees you hold. the internet is full of google experts who adopt airs of superiority in order to bolster their own envy based opinions

tell me why those who pay a higher rate should derive no additional benefits from the government

Those with a higher income DO derive more benefit from government. They benefit from the SEC, the FDIC, and all other government programs that service needs above the subsistence level. They also benefit from a well-fed class of poor people, as this reduces crime and unrest. Finally, they benefit from any program that facilitates upward mobility, such as public education, as this expands the working class.

 

[TurtleDude]

way too many people make poor choices because the cost of making them is artificially lessened by buy the vote schemes.

One of the more interesting arguments is that the left constantly talks about the greater good. that the good of society is more important than say the property rights of the industrious. but in reality-society itself would be better in the long run if a bit more social darwinism would be applied. The left pretends to want societal good when in reality that is cast aside to gain votes for those who derive the benefit of being generous with the money of others

 

[TurtleDude]

Those with a higher income DO derive more benefit from government. They benefit from the SEC, the FDIC, and all other government programs that service needs above the subsistence level. They also benefit from a well-fed class of poor people, as this reduces crime and unrest. Finally, they benefit from any program that facilitates upward mobility, such as public education, as this expands the working class.

Nope that is a myth. Direct payments or traceable expenditures on the rich are far far less. the wealthy have generally been able to deal with crime far better than the poor. we are past the point of providing what is needed--the goal of some in power is to keep people dependent and beholden on the government.

its a lot like Oxy-its a great drug for people truly in pain-many politicians are like those "Pain clinics" that are a scourge in SE Ohio

 

[Pinkie]

You are assuming we have to fund her existence despite her husband's bad choice? why is she having three children with someone who was that stupid?

as some point why do we make failure so easy?

Well, your first question was whether it makes sense to tax Marge, and I believe you can agree, it does not. Am I correct?

Now you ask me, should we allow Marge and her kids to starve?

Well, you can argue either way. To a degree, I think this is a question of what sort of country you want to live in. If you value a large and expanding middle class, then no. Remember, Marge cannot remain on TANF indefinately any more. If in 3 years, she is able to provide for her family (and pay taxes) all you and I had to do was pay her benefits long enough to get her over the hump.

If you don't value a large and expanding middle class, then, yes, the rational thing to do is to allow Marge and her kids to starve -- however, starving people are a serious threat to the safety of the rich people around them, so you and I will lose a great deal of the money we save not feeding Marge and her kids by paying for extra police, etc. to protect us from her. We'll have very few pockets of habitable land, a high incidence of kidnapping and all the other miseries of life in a 3rd world country.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, your first question was whether it makes sense to tax Marge, and I believe you can agree, it does not. Am I correct?

Now you ask me, should we allow Marge and her kids to starve?

Well, you can argue either way. To a degree, I think this is a question of what sort of country you want to live in. If you value a lathe and expanding middle class, then no.

If you don't, then, yes, the rational thing is allow them to starve -- however, starving people are a serious threat to the safety of those around them, so you will lose a great deal of the money you save not feeding Marge and her kids by paying police, etc. to protect you from her. You'll have few pockets of habitable land, a high incidence of kidnapping and all the other miseries of life in a 3rd world country.

Most of us who tire of the social welfare net being used as a vote dredging operation for the left are major fans of private charity.

 

[Kushinator]

I know what a libertarian is. and its not based on justifying more and more government and taking more and more wealth of others

Perhaps i am interested in more personal liberties, and not some made up notion of potential profit.

My view is accurate.

Your view is **** lol, and cannot be supported by empirical evidence. Those right of center would lead hand over foot with any worth-while empirical study that related levels of government spending to that of progressive taxation. Sorry to rip your world to shreds, but the evidence simply does not exist (and for a reason).

Top one percent tax payers pay 40% of the federal income tax

While earning exactly how much of the total federal income?

and all the surcharge known as the death tax.

Dead people do not pay taxes, only the people who where transferred wealth in excess of what, $5 million?

we sure don't use anywhere near 40% of the government services paid for by those taxes.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you sure as hell do not substantiate it.

In fact I believe those in the bottom 20% get several dollars of government service for one dollar of taxes-people like me-a couple pennies at best

Again it all depends on how you define (let alone quantify) benefits derived from government. Does a company like Conoco-Phillips derive more benefit from government than your typical small business that pays a much greater percentage of their EBIT to said government?

 

[Pinkie]

Nope that is a myth. Direct payments or traceable expenditures on the rich are far far less. the wealthy have generally been able to deal with crime far better than the poor. we are past the point of providing what is needed--the goal of some in power is to keep people dependent and beholden on the government.

its a lot like Oxy-its a great drug for people truly in pain-many politicians are like those "Pain clinics" that are a scourge in SE Ohio

O, absolutely, the wealthy receive fewer direct benefits from government. This is likely true even if you trace "corporate welfare" back to individual stockholders.

But do you dispute that an indirect benefit, such as law enforcement, also has value for a taxpayer?

 

[Pinkie]

Most of us who tire of the social welfare net being used as a vote dredging operation for the left are major fans of private charity.

Well, there absolutely can be and are abuses of any government program, Turtle. I'd say the energy credit is one such, as well as Cash For Clunkers. But then, you and I could easily find waste and embezzlement in the DOD, too.

We both know, the solution is to tighten up controls and not to abandon the idea of maintaining a military.

 

[Henrin]

What I like about is that it taxes income not spent at a higher rate which in a consumer economy maximizes growth by lowering taxes on those that spend all they make. This gives them more money to spend in the economy while the Govt. spends what the rich won't.

Sounds like you are just rationalizing something that you know is wrong with every fiber of your being. It doesn't just make it ok for the government to take because it wasn't going to be used in the economy and I doubt you actually think it is either. Though I don't know many rich people that put their money in closets. Do you?

 

[Kushinator]

But do you dispute that an indirect benefit, such as law enforcement, also has value for a taxpayer?

It is akin to believing that Japan receives more benefit from our pacific military presence because they pay little (if anything) into it, while investing quite a bit into it.

Call it a simplified way of believing in how the world works.

 

[Henrin]

Perhaps i am interested in more personal liberties, and not some made up notion of potential profit.

You are interested in personal liberties? How very interesting. I have seen no evidence of this from you in all honestly.

 

[Pinkie]

Sounds like you are just rationalizing something that you know is wrong with every fiber of your being. It doesn't just make it ok for the government to take because it wasn't going to be used in the economy and I doubt you actually think it is either. Though I don't know many rich people that put their money in closets. Do you?

Not only this, but a taxing scheme designed to discourage saving is condemned by every responsible tax and economic pundit as an attack on our economy.

 

[Pinkie]

It is akin to believing that Japan receives more benefit from our pacific military presence because they pay little (if anything) into it, while investing quite a bit into it.

Call it a simplified way of believing in how the world works.

Well, fair enough. But clearly, Japan derives some benefit from US military presence, right?

 

[Kushinator]

Well, fair enough. But clearly, Japan derives some benefit from US military presence, right?

Which is my point given they have very little military presence of their own.

 

[Kushinator]

You are interested in personal liberties? How very interesting. I have seen no evidence of this from you in all honestly.

You can start a thread about it if you would like. Turtle already has.