[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think anyone should pay over 25% ever. It might be an arbitrary line, but over 25% just seems crazy to me. [/quote]
I agree. But this will never sell politically. I mean look at what any tax relief is called now “tax breaks for the wealthy”. And the morons in the public eat that shit up, failing to actually look at the data and see that it is the wealthy paying all the fucking tax, so yes, a reduction in tax is a “break for the wealthy” because the poor don’t pay shit. (I know you know this, just saying it again for the lefties reading along.)
So end of the day, we need to find a politically sellable idea, which includes fleecing the rich, because people no a days are addicted to their envy and want revenge for not being rich.
[/quote]
I understand the real political issue. My concern is that allowing the ignorant mob mentality to have their way can and probably will drive revenue generators to other countries particularly emerging economies like India, China, and even places like Brazil.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The deduction is why many can afford a home in the first place, I’m not sure I believe that. Do you have anything I can read on that?[/quote]
Nothing but personal observation and may a tax return that I can’t send you without losing my job.
[quote] Reducing the tax burden in general would have the same effect, no?
Incentivizing marriage means intact families, and intact family means less shit head delinquents. Less shit heads means a more functional society.
[/quote]
But now your picking winners and losers with taxes again. Why is it the government’s job to incentivize a way of life? Lets not be so “progressive.”
Everyone should just pay the same flat rate. No filing anything at the end of the year, no deductions, no exemptions. Lets say its 10%. You make $100,000 you pay $10,000. You make 10 billion, you pay a billion. You wife stays home with the kids and doesn’t work, she pays nothing.
Taxation should not be a form of behavior control.
Incentivizing marriage means intact families, and intact family means less shit head delinquents. Less shit heads means a more functional society.
[/quote]
But now your picking winners and losers with taxes again. Why is it the government’s job to incentivize a way of life? Lets not be so “progressive.”[/quote]
Except that you likely can’t find a statistical analysis that doesn’t point to coupling and dual parent households as a significant improvement for society than the alternative.
We also have the entirety of human history that shows the benefits of coupling and dual parental situations.
It isn’t exactly picking winners and losers as much as doing what is best for society’s function and health.
Because if we take your logic here to the extreme (fallacy I know) we end up with no police force, and in general no laws. We know society runs better when we discriminate against murder. Laws that incentivize people not to murder each other (stiff penalties for doing so) are for the better of society, and are picking “winners and losers”. Laws that protect property rights pick winners and losers. Pretty much any law does that.
Marriage is a commitment of two people (currently) to share their lives as one. Why on earth shouldn’t the tax code reflect that? Particularly given the fact we know, without question, couples and two parent households are that much better for the kids and society as a whole?
No. That shouldn’t be what happens. A retiree shouldn’t be paying the same rate as a billionaire. A 17 year old gaining life experience fucking up my coffee shouldn’t be paying the same rate as Tom Cruise. I should be paying more as it hurts me less to pay than it hurts someone making half of what I do.
One of the benefits of the progressive tax system is it puts the burden on those most able to shoulder it. I’ve seen medicare withholdings that exceed my salary (at the time) by quite a bit. That individual shouldn’t be paying the same rate I am.
We also can’t ignore that what you describe is a political non-starter and will never, ever pass. So there is little use in arguing for it.
[quote]Taxation should not be a form of behavior control.
[/quote]
And incentive =/= behavior control. Let’s leave hyperbole out of it.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Everyone should just pay the same flat rate. No filing anything at the end of the year, no deductions, no exemptions. Lets say its 10%. You make $100,000 you pay $10,000. You make 10 billion, you pay a billion.
[/quote]
Sounds good on paper, until you ask the question: what does it mean to “make” $100,000? If, for example, I send out bills to clients that total $100,000, but I also have to pay rent, overhead, and employees totaling $60,000 to generate $100,000 in billable, did I “make” $100,000, or did I “make” $40,000? What if it costs me $120,000 to “make” $100,000 in billable? Do I still have to pay $10,000 in taxes even though I lost money for the year?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Everyone should just pay the same flat rate. No filing anything at the end of the year, no deductions, no exemptions. Lets say its 10%. You make $100,000 you pay $10,000. You make 10 billion, you pay a billion.
[/quote]
Sounds good on paper, until you ask the question: what does it mean to “make” $100,000? If, for example, I send out bills to clients that total $100,000, but I also have to pay rent, overhead, and employees totaling $60,000 to generate $100,000 in billable, did I “make” $100,000, or did I “make” $40,000? What if it costs me $120,000 to “make” $100,000 in billable? Do I still have to pay $10,000 in taxes even though I lost money for the year?
[/quote]
I didn’t even catch that.
Yeah, paying tax on your top line is a non-starter. And no offense meant here, but anyone suggesting taxation on someone’s top line has no business having a conversation about taxation, business or economics.
No. That shouldn’t be what happens. A retiree shouldn’t be paying the same rate as a billionaire. A 17 year old gaining life experience fucking up my coffee shouldn’t be paying the same rate as Tom Cruise. I should be paying more as it hurts me less to pay than it hurts someone making half of what I do.
[/quote]
Why would you want to hurt someone who put in a billion dollars?
No. That shouldn’t be what happens. A retiree shouldn’t be paying the same rate as a billionaire. A 17 year old gaining life experience fucking up my coffee shouldn’t be paying the same rate as Tom Cruise. I should be paying more as it hurts me less to pay than it hurts someone making half of what I do.
[/quote]
Why would you want to hurt someone who put in a billion dollars?
[/quote]
I’m not hurting them anymore than they are already hurt. I’m not advocating to increased taxes here. I’m just stating that:
A flat tax is in fact a larger burden on low wage earners than on higher wage earners.
Anything but a progressive tax is a political non-starter. As in it won’t pass anytime soon.
Additionally, if someone can earn a that much in a year, they don’t need me advocating for them on the floors of congress, they can take care of themselves. Even at current rates.
Someone has to fund this bloated beast of a government, and I’m certainly not foolish enough to think asking low wage earners to put some skin in the game in politically possible, even though I’d appreciate it personally.
This is a thread about detailed possibilities, and sadly none of what you suggested is that, in reality.
No. That shouldn’t be what happens. A retiree shouldn’t be paying the same rate as a billionaire. A 17 year old gaining life experience fucking up my coffee shouldn’t be paying the same rate as Tom Cruise. I should be paying more as it hurts me less to pay than it hurts someone making half of what I do.
[/quote]
Why would you want to hurt someone who put in a billion dollars?
[/quote]
I’m not hurting them anymore than they are already hurt. I’m not advocating to increased taxes here. I’m just stating that:
A flat tax is in fact a larger burden on low wage earners than on higher wage earners.
Anything but a progressive tax is a political non-starter. As in it won’t pass anytime soon.
Additionally, if someone can earn a that much in a year, they don’t need me advocating for them on the floors of congress, they can take care of themselves. Even at current rates.
Someone has to fund this bloated beast of a government, and I’m certainly not foolish enough to think asking low wage earners to put some skin in the game in politically possible, even though I’d appreciate it personally.
This is a thread about detailed possibilities, and sadly none of what you suggested is that, in reality. [/quote]
It’s not a non-starter. There are several presidential candidates proposing very similar flat tax plans.
If we have equal protection under law, then why are we stolen from at different rates? It’s not within the constructs of liberty to decide that people who produce more pay a higher percentage of their income.
In the political realm, if it’s right it’s worth fighting for. Look at the planned parenthood thread. “They will never stop funding PP, so what’s the point of bringing it up?” That type of political apathy and cowardice has given us the mess we now have. One party is Santa Clause and the other is too afraid to make any waves.
It’s not a non-starter. There are several presidential candidates proposing very similar flat tax plans.[/quote]
Sigh… It doesn’t much matter what a POTUS wants, there are some 435 members of the House that need to approve it, and another 100 Senators, at least in a majority.
Add in the fact, none of the people proposing this actually think it will pass, and are largely just talking out of their ass to gain primary votes. When push comes to shove, compromise wins the day, and a flat tax will not be in our future.
You can give the same hyperbolic speeches I give (on different subjects) until you are blue in the face… It won’t change political reality, which is, a flat tax is a non-starter. And, assuming it did pass, you’d see the republicans lose control of the house in the off year elections to the tune of 2010 but in the opposite direction.
Here’s where you go off the rails when it comes to political reality. A relative minority of voters, and almost zero representatives consider taxation theft.
Well it’s a good thing that isn’t what is happening.
People who take in more income are taxed at a higher rate. More income doesn’t necessarily correlate to “produce more”. (If you are going to argue this, I’m going to need to know what you do for a living, because I’m not going to argue this fact with just anyone.)
[quote]In the political realm, if it’s right it’s worth fighting for. Look at the planned parenthood thread. “They will never stop funding PP, so what’s the point of bringing it up?” That type of political apathy and cowardice has given us the mess we now have. One party is Santa Clause and the other is too afraid to make any waves.
[/quote]
Playing pretend that things are politically possible when they aren’t isn’t exactly going to work in our system. Ours is built on compromise…
The next time I hear a Democrat talk about ‘what would Jesus do’, I would reply with the Lawd telling me to give 10%. If it’s good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for gubment.
Well it’s a good thing that isn’t what is happening.
People who take in more income are taxed at a higher rate. More income doesn’t necessarily correlate to “produce more”. (If you are going to argue this, I’m going to need to know what you do for a living, because I’m not going to argue this fact with just anyone.)
[/quote]
Who produces more, the man who owns a restaurant, or the cook in the restaurant?
Here’s where you go off the rails when it comes to political reality. A relative minority of voters, and almost zero representatives consider taxation theft.
Well it’s a good thing that isn’t what is happening.
People who take in more income are taxed at a higher rate. More income doesn’t necessarily correlate to “produce more”. (If you are going to argue this, I’m going to need to know what you do for a living, because I’m not going to argue this fact with just anyone.)
[/quote]
Who produces more, the man who owns a restaurant, or the cook in the restaurant?
[/quote]
Get this: It depends.
Also, who is taking home more income will also depend.
Big picture, the whole isn’t the whole without the sum of it’s parts. So… It depends.
This will be the last response on this topic until you talk about what it is you do, because again I’m not arguing things like this if your taking the pittbull approach of waxing on and on about things you’re unfamiliar with.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
So… ? Would you consider it a form of theft?
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. It literally doesn’t matter what I think.
I truly understand Thunderbolt’s frustration when speaking with Libertarians. And also the reason the party will never, ever get anywhere. [/quote]
Yeah, people that hold onto the principles of freedom and equal protection are frustrating. Those things are always getting in the way of what is “politically feasible.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No shit. I’ve been right in this entire thread.
I truly understand Thunderbolt’s frustration when speaking with Libertarians. And also the reason the party will never, ever get anywhere. [/quote]
Truly. It’s maddening, isn’t it? [/quote]
I’m just as guilty of it, particularly when it comes to things like gun rights, abortion etc.
But taxation and business is something I literally do for a living, study, have letters after name that need to be maintained, in the subject matter. And when it comes to business nothing, and I mean not a god damn thing, trumps reality. So political discussion about taxation that aren’t grounded in reality are frustrating. Particularly because I agree in principle, but understand this thing we live in called reality.