The following has been cut and pasted from the Farenheit 911 thread. I thought the topic was worth its own thread:
How much should people be taxed? I don’t know. My intuition tells me that an across the board percentage seems to be most fair. But, it also seems reasonable that those who earn very little will be more affected by that given percentage being taken out. What seems to occur is this: if someone makes $20K/year and they lose 20%, then they’re down to $16K. If this person is a single mother, for example, with no father paying child support, this taxation seems to be eating into her necessary expenses. Conversely, if someone earns $250K and 20% is taken out, then their income is $200K. I think it is more appropriate for someone to lose out on some luxuries than for another to fail to meet their basic needs. Even if this more wealthy person was taxed 50%, then they earn $125K. This income is certainly comfortable and will afford most a very, very nice life.
Moore and O’Reilly - examples of those that Moore proposed should be taxed (the arbitrary figure)60-70% - earn far more than my previous figures. They are, I’d guess, millionairres.
I think it becomes a matter of compassion. I am a compassionate person and I think if suffering can be prevented, then it ought to be done.
I see both sides of the argument, but I think - when pressed - I think the rich can afford to be taxed more than the poor.
The fundamentals of the philosophical problems of distribution of wealth are still heavily debated today. I don’t think it is cut and dry, black and white.
I hope you find my response sufficient, and you can get some sleep now (kidding)!
If a rich person feels morally obligated to give more than his/her fair share, then they are free to do so. Bill Gates is giving billions to AIDS research/treatment. Ted Turner is giving billions to the U.N. That’s all well and good.
What I don’t get is liberals who feel the government should legislate morality by saying rich people have a moral obligation to pay higher taxes.
Of course, I’ve always received more in tax refunds than I paid in. I never sent a dime of that back to the government for redistribution in a more moral manner.
I support a consumption tax with a small flat tax on the side.
Of course the rich can pay more - in a sense, they have more to protect.
But they do - the federal government is essentially funded by the wealthy. Basic arithmetic explains why.
As for the right tax level, it’s a moving target depending on what is happening in the country. As low as possible, I say, and I’m not a ‘let’s get rid of government’ type. There are worthy things that a government should tax us to provide.
But tax policy should never be used to try and redistribute income. There will always be - and should be - different classes in a free society. It’s natural and it’s a fool’s game to try and change that.
The government, imo, should be concerned with mitigating poverty - that is a worthy goal. But it should stop there.
Income tax penalizes people for earning, the more you earn the more you pay. This is not an incentive for earning a high wage. A consumption tax seems more fair. You are taxed on what you buy. The rich pay more, the poor pay less, anything that you earn and wish to keep is untaxed. If you want to have a more graduated taxation then luxury items can carry a higher sales tax. This would help guide a nation’s citizens toward finacial responsibility, increase the savings rate, and reduce consumption of resources (which hopefully wouldn’t cause a recession).
A rich person can also afford to pay more for a gallon of milk. Is it proper to charge the person more? Of course not!
What a person can afford to pay for something has nothing to do with what they should be charged. If I am wealthy and you work for me for $60,000 per year, do you have a right to be paid $80,000 per year just because I can “afford to pay it?” No.
People create businesses, and work very hard in order to become wealthy! And when someone creates a business and becomes wealthy he is also employing many people which in turn helps the economy.
Fairness can only be obtained when the entire nation is taxed at the same rate. The regressive tax system that we have now is counter productive to a healthy economy. When you make more you actually have to pay a larger percentage…now that is foolish. What if someone ran their business that way? What if their sales force was penalized for making more sales? Do you think sales would go up or down? Yet, liberal politicians everywhere think that they can tax the rich with impunity!
While I agree ZEB, I can’t get past some of the issues I raised, which is a testament to the complexity of the issue. A reasonable person should find it difficult to draw a conclusion on this issue (and other similarly complicated issues).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What makes you think you have the moral authority to decide the level of income a person “should” have?[/quote]
If this is directed to me, I’m unsure of the reason you’d post it. I never meant to convey that I had some moral authority to tax people. Actually, I don’t know that I made any reference to moral actions in my post.
Perhaps you’re referring to my referral to compassion. In which case, I don’t think I was making any “moral” judgement, but instead pointing to compassion as perhaps a decisive trait that might cause one to lean one way or the other on the matter.
How do you all respond to the position I put forth of sort of measuring one’s denial of luxury vs. one’s denial of necessity? Does this matter?
I dont find this issue complicated. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
If person “A” makes only $30,000 per year and has four children, why should person “B” who makes $90,000 per year have to help support person A’s children?
Person “B” might just be saving to send his own children to a fine college someday. Just because he makes more money does not mean that he does not have the use of it. In other words he has a right to spend his own money as he sees fit.
If you and I are both taking the same class and you get an “A” while I only get a “C” would you mind giving me some of your good grades so that we can each have a “B”? After all is it fair that you got a great big “A” and I only have a lousy “C”?
It is fair isn’t it? You worked for the “A” and I partied for the “C”. We each deserve what we got! And so it goes in the work a day world.
That you have pitty on the poor speaks highly of your character. That you want to take other peoples hard earned money to help support them is misguided. I think you need to donate some of your own time and money to the poor (which you may already do, forgive me).
…How much should people be taxed? I don’t know…
[/quote]
You created an entire thread to say this?
I don’t think compassion for the poor is limited to those who believe in punitive tax rated for the wealthy.
Who says that Gov’t is the only entity capable of taking care of the poor/disadvantaged?
I believe in a flat tax for everyone. Do away with the fuel taxes, fees and all the other hidden taxes that we unwittingly pay daily.
Everyone should get a big exemption - 15 - 20 thousand. Then everything after that is taxed at the same flat rate. No capital gains tax. No Alternative Minimum Tax, and no Self-Employment Tax.
As a canadian (read as “person who gets taxed for breathing”) I would be in support of a consumption tax, but I can see a flaw in this method as well. As a SWM, my level of consumption could be considered low when compared to a family of four. Sounds like a penalty for having kids… Perhaps a “cap” for consumtion taxation? A person could file their tax return based on money spent for the year, and recieve a return based on that dollar figure. Though, is it really anyone’s business but your own how and where you spend money?
A consumption tax just won’t work. UNLESS all basic goods - those goods/services that are required by everyone - were exempted. So what your left with is basically a sin tax on everything else.
Who determines what is taxable, and what is not?
I think instituting a national consumption tax is a huge gov’t goat screw in the making.
Look at our tax code right now - it’s indecipherable (is that even a word?). How long before self-serving politicians bastardize it to gain a few votes?
A flat tax is the cleanest, simplest way to get to fair taxation.
Well, I won’t argue with you, as you see it how you see it. But, there are intellects who’ve debated for centuries the proper way to distribute wealth and property…I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out (it’s easy to forget how easy life is on the pull up king’s planet)!
No, I started the new thread instead of continuing to hijack the Farenheit thread. Did you not see the many paragraphs that followed this sentence in which I spelt out my position and the way I sort through the issue? My statement that “I don’t know” is a testament to my modesty. I think you’re all sadly mistaken to think you’ve got it figured out. I’m not surprised, but I think you’re mistaken (I mean, after all, you ARE satisfied by statements like “Your either with us or your with the terrorists”…lol)
Guys, surely you must be aware that these issues are more complex than you or I could imagine? Try some humility, and perhaps education, and get a clue of the immeasurable complexity of issues such as this!
You scare me. I typically disagree with almost everything you write anyways but don’t usually bother wasting the energy discussing it until this post (which pushed me over the edge).
Ususally the people with these bright ideas are the ones making $20-30k/yr. It’s called basic economics. The higher the taxes are on wealthy individuals, the less incentive for them to create more wealth. The less incentive for them to create more wealth, the less chance they have of creating jobs for others. Look at France. It has one of the highest tax brackets in the world and tell me how many millionaires does it have compared to US? More millionaires/entrepreneurs equals more jobs for everyone. Haven’t you heard the saying that “all ships rise with the tide”? I’m an now grateful that you’re not in charge of determing what is fair for rich and poor alike…
What you are not considering is that most people who have money contribute more than their fair share of taxes. I own a business and I pay taxes twice, both corporate and personal. Not to mention the taxes I pay for my employees. Not only do I work harder than all of my emplyees but I risk everything every day by assuming all of the responsibility. Why should I also have to bear a greater tax burden? Where is the reward for being a productive member of society? Sure people need help, but the government is so screwed up and inefficient that I think people should bear an individual burden of socially responsibility. In other words, if I choose to use my money to help someone, or contribute to a cause, it should be my decision how to allocate my resources.
You do not “redistribute wealth.” The entire question is wrong!
Taxes were first initiated in order to strengthen defense, not support some woman who did not know enough to use contraception. (I know that sounds nasty, but let’s face it, that is a large degree of welfare).
As far as things being “nice and easy on the Pull-up kings planet.” Not so! I have worked very, very hard in my life. I have made some money and invested it wisely. Is that a bad thing in your world?
And because I have worked hard and succeeded to a degree does not mean that I “owe” that money to someone who chose not to work hard and succeed.
With that said, I have given to many worthy charitable causes. This is my (and my wifes) personal decision on what to do with a certain percentage of our money. Not the governments!
While I encourage everyone who has succeeded financially to give generously of their time and money to charitable causes, it should be their decision alone!
I hope this clears up or real differences. I always hesitate to get into conversations like this with those who have not yet entered the work force as in many cases they do not have a realistic handle on a situation that they have no experience with.
As I have said to you in past conversations: when you begin to earn …lets say $1,000 per week and you only take home $500 because of state and federal taxes, you will then quickly see my point of view.
This is not a slam on your age. It’s just that some things have to be experienced to be fully appreciated.
If this is directed to me, I’m unsure of the reason you’d post it. I never meant to convey that I had some moral authority to tax people. Actually, I don’t know that I made any reference to moral actions in my post.
Perhaps you’re referring to my referral to compassion. In which case, I don’t think I was making any “moral” judgement, but instead pointing to compassion as perhaps a decisive trait that might cause one to lean one way or the other on the matter.
How do you all respond to the position I put forth of sort of measuring one’s denial of luxury vs. one’s denial of necessity? Does this matter?[/quote]
RSU:
It was aimed at you. The reason it was asked was that the underlying idea behind any progressive tax system is that there is some level of income that people should be allowed to keep, which diminishes as people have greater incomes.
Why should it diminish? The reason offered is that “they can afford to give more.” However, that sets up other people as arbiters of the amount of income anyone should be allowed to keep. The naked reasoning is thus: They can afford to give more; I (rulemaker) think cause X is important; therefore, I will compel them to give a greater percentage of their income to fund cause X. The more money they have, the more they can “afford,” and the less they should be allowed to keep.
The implication is that you are deciding the amount of income a person should be allowed to have, instead of setting a set percentage of income that any person is required to give (flat tax) or a set amount of money each citizen is responsible to contribute (head tax).
Why is it that the liberals can make a moral “judgement” about taxing peoples income to help others yet openly and militantly oppose any other form of “morality” legislation?