[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The flat tax is still theft.
Tax is theft 
[/quote]
Tax is not theft because itâs done by the state, and therefore is as legitimate as the state is legitimate.
Execution, done by the state after the due process of law is not murder; it is killing as legitimate as the state is legitimate.
If, as you believe, no state is legitimate, you are correct. However, I disagree.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Otep, take the corporate taxation dollars out of the mix and you would have your flat rate at over 100% of income.
Give me numbers.
In other words, prove it. Make your model very specific, and be sure to label all the assumptions you make as you go about developing the model.
If not, this is just conjecture. Iâll freely admit mine is conjecture, but it seems as though you think yours carries more weight. Iâm assuming this is because youâve run the numbers. I would love to see them.[/quote]
These are very rough numbers but in 2005 US large businesses (only those with more than $250 Million in assets or $50 Million in sales) had sales of roughly $1.1 Trillion.
OK from government releases, 1 in 4 of those companies paid no tax due to various schemes and loopholes. But the rest paid an average of 35%.
35% of 3/4 of $1.1 Trillion is $262,500,000,000.
From 2008 figures there were 217.8 Million adults in the US.
Therefore, just removing taxation from US large businesses would mean that every individual would have to pay an average of $1,205 extra tax dollars for each US citizen.
Obviously once you factor in small business and the full spectrum of business taxation, not just what was included on the studies I grabbed for these very rough numbers you have a pretty big hole to fill in the economy.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Otep wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Otep, take the corporate taxation dollars out of the mix and you would have your flat rate at over 100% of income.
Give me numbers.
In other words, prove it. Make your model very specific, and be sure to label all the assumptions you make as you go about developing the model.
If not, this is just conjecture. Iâll freely admit mine is conjecture, but it seems as though you think yours carries more weight. Iâm assuming this is because youâve run the numbers. I would love to see them.
These are very rough numbers but in 2005 US large businesses (only those with more than $250 Million in assets or $50 Million in sales) had sales of roughly $1.1 Trillion.
OK from government releases, 1 in 4 of those companies paid no tax due to various schemes and loopholes. But the rest paid an average of 35%.
35% of 3/4 of $1.1 Trillion is $262,500,000,000.
From 2008 figures there were 217.8 Million adults in the US.
Therefore, just removing taxation from US large businesses would mean that every individual would have to pay an average of $1,205 extra tax dollars for each US citizen.
Obviously once you factor in small business and the full spectrum of business taxation, not just what was included on the studies I grabbed for these very rough numbers you have a pretty big hole to fill in the economy.[/quote]
Taxes are figured on income, not sales, which, depending on the average gross margin and overall efficiency of the given firm, are typically much lower than average sales.
The point is valid, that there would be a shortfall, but I think eliminating tax exemptions would also do itâs fair share of increasing revenue generated.
Plus, there would be a huge ripple-through effect. If there were no corporate double-taxation (income taxed once at the corporate level and a second time when this income is distributed in the form of dividends) weâd see a great deal of corporate re-investment, which would in turn bolster spending and shortly thereafter, income.
That last element is, what I understand to be, the gist of supply-side economics, and itâs study is (once again, as I understand it) by no means without criticism. Still though, from a moral perspective, I see a flat-tax as most legitimate. And the government budget could use some cutting as well.
Skeptix has a point though- The bush tax cuts got through because everyone saw they were getting a piece of the tax-cut pie. Thereâs no way mainstream America would accept lowering the burden of taxes on corporation, because corporations are earth-raping, tax-dodging nightmares that eat third-world babies alive in front of the parents before vomiting up their half-digested remains in the form of deforestation and global warming.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Otep wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Otep, take the corporate taxation dollars out of the mix and you would have your flat rate at over 100% of income.
Give me numbers.
In other words, prove it. Make your model very specific, and be sure to label all the assumptions you make as you go about developing the model.
If not, this is just conjecture. Iâll freely admit mine is conjecture, but it seems as though you think yours carries more weight. Iâm assuming this is because youâve run the numbers. I would love to see them.
These are very rough numbers but in 2005 US large businesses (only those with more than $250 Million in assets or $50 Million in sales) had sales of roughly $1.1 Trillion.
OK from government releases, 1 in 4 of those companies paid no tax due to various schemes and loopholes. But the rest paid an average of 35%.
35% of 3/4 of $1.1 Trillion is $262,500,000,000.
From 2008 figures there were 217.8 Million adults in the US.
Therefore, just removing taxation from US large businesses would mean that every individual would have to pay an average of $1,205 extra tax dollars for each US citizen.
Obviously once you factor in small business and the full spectrum of business taxation, not just what was included on the studies I grabbed for these very rough numbers you have a pretty big hole to fill in the economy.
Taxes are figured on income, not sales, which, depending on the average gross margin and overall efficiency of the given firm, are typically much lower than average sales.
The point is valid, that there would be a shortfall, but I think eliminating tax exemptions would also do itâs fair share of increasing revenue generated.
Plus, there would be a huge ripple-through effect. If there were no corporate double-taxation (income taxed once at the corporate level and a second time when this income is distributed in the form of dividends) weâd see a great deal of corporate re-investment, which would in turn bolster spending and shortly thereafter, income.
That last element is, what I understand to be, the gist of supply-side economics, and itâs study is (once again, as I understand it) by no means without criticism. Still though, from a moral perspective, I see a flat-tax as most legitimate. And the government budget could use some cutting as well.
Skeptix has a point though- The bush tax cuts got through because everyone saw they were getting a piece of the tax-cut pie. Thereâs no way mainstream America would accept lowering the burden of taxes on corporation, because corporations are earth-raping, tax-dodging nightmares that eat third-world babies alive in front of the parents before vomiting up their half-digested remains in the form of deforestation and global warming.[/quote]
Fair point on the calculation, was being stupid having started conference calls way, way too early this morning. I have been involved in plenty of meetings on how to avoid making a profit so as to avoid tax so that was a rooky mistake.
At mid to higher levels of income people and businesses have an idea of what they see as acceptable tax burden and they will find a way to pay that. The problem is that the tax accountants are typically smarter than the guys setting the tax laws (and better paid) therefore they will find a loophole somewhere to ensure that their guy pays a pretty standard ammount regardless of what happens to the laws.
It is the lower income people who work it out themselves who end up getting screwed any time that the rules change.
I think there is definitely an argument for simplification even just based on cost savings for the IRS. I donât think however that you could set a single rate that works accross the board. I would be interested to see numbers that suggest different though.
[quote]Otep wrote:
âŠbecause corporations are earth-raping, tax-dodging nightmares that eat third-world babies alive in front of the parents before vomiting up their half-digested remains in the form of deforestation and global warming.[/quote]
Eloquently disgusting, while perceptively an accurate description of the laymanâs perspective of a corporation, albeit truthful to a point.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Skeptix has a point though- The bush tax cuts got through because everyone saw they were getting a piece of the tax-cut pie. Thereâs no way mainstream America would accept lowering the burden of taxes on corporation, because corporations are earth-raping, tax-dodging nightmares that eat third-world babies alive in front of the parents before vomiting up their half-digested remains in the form of deforestation and global warming.[/quote]
Skeptix?
And referring to a different post: Another error is not accounting for the fact that corporations are owned by persons and exist for the profit of persons.
Accordingly, a corporation being taxed at a lower rate or for that matter a complete absence of corporate income tax does not mean that taxable revenues are decreased. If foreign nationals are required to pay US income tax on dividends and other income earned from US corporations, as I believe they are, then if there is no effect on GDP, taxable revenues remain the same â over time anyway â regardless of the absence of a corporate tax or any reduction thereof.
[quote]Otep wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The flat tax is still theft.
Tax is theft
Tax is not theft because itâs done by the state, and therefore is as legitimate as the state is legitimate.
Execution, done by the state after the due process of law is not murder; it is killing as legitimate as the state is legitimate.
If, as you believe, no state is legitimate, you are correct. However, I disagree.[/quote]
Words have meaning.
The state is not legitimate precisely because it steals, murders, and enslaves.
Otep, typically those who favor the flat tax point out that progressive income tax is de-incentivizing citizens of a state to earn more by taxing each dollar incremental dollar earned at a higher (theoretical) rate. While I understand that this (progressive tax policy) sounds unfair, there are two points that I would like to make:
First is that a nation has the obligation to protect its citizens. Some would argue that in the US this includes protecting certain unalienable rights for those citizens, which costs money, and I donât just mean tax revenue to establish infrastructure or social policies. Taxation is a necessary evil for those reasons, but I am bringing up the point that a base level of income is something necessary to maintain a standard of living. This concept is morally supported. Some would argue that the pursuit of happiness is part of those rights protected under the constitution. As such a minimum base level of annual income would be required to sustain the standard of living required to afford this âpursuit.â Thus the notion of progressive tax is legitimized to a certain extent by the fact that a certain base amount of money is required to maintain a decent standard of living (i.e. $10,000). Based on both morality as well as the constitution of the US, it appears that at least the argument can be made for not taxing the first $X,XXX amount of dollars deemed necessary (adjusted for CPI even) to maintain a certain minimal standard of living. The only point I can see for extending this argument beyond that minimal tax bracket is to increase tax revenue, but others would disagree. It is however an effective means to increase tax revenues. The country is essentially a corporation and needs money to open its doors for business each day.
The second point I would like to make is that tax deductions are evidence of recognition by policy makers that the progressive tax system is unfair. Tax deductions are designed to make the progressive tax system fairer. The intent of deductions is to lessen the blow that higher tax brackets place on the incentive to earn more. Allow me to elaborate. Tax deductions strengthen and stabilize the economy through the encouragement of investing and saving. Take the deduction for home mortgage interest. Back to my first point for a minute, I would say that obviously it takes a large amount of money to earn the deduction. This deduction re-incentivizes the higher income earner to earn more. The message that deductions such as this make is that if you earn more, you can A) afford a home, and B) get a deduction for that home. Then you can get into itemizing, etc. etc. I wonât get into that or that higher than average income earners pay a substantial amount of tax too, as home owners are typically middle class and the basis of my argument is that a tax structure does need to have a morally supported purpose. Tax deductions do make an effort at least to make the system fairer.
I recognize that we have a wounded system in the US, but it is not necessarily time to abandon ship.
Your comments?
Why would someone who could work, both in terms of his abilities and opportunities available, but refuses to do so because he can manage to live on $10K per year which is taken from others and given to him, supposedly have a RIGHT to have that $10K taken from others under threat of force (or under threat of imprisonment backed by use of force if resisting arrest) and given to him?
You seem to be saying he does have such a right.
Who granted this right, by the way?
Or is it inherent to nature?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Skeptix?
[/quote]
Whoops.
Thanks for the question Bill. Of course all are welcome to comment, and not just Otep.
Please forgive any un-clarity in what I wrote. The point I was making when I referred to the $X,XXX was that an argument could be made for the first $X amount of dollars, say the first $10,000 that a person EARNS should not be taxed. The $X,XXX is a theoretical value for an amount that an individual needs to just get by. Cutting into that amount would not seem moral to me. $10,000 is just a figure I threw out there.
I wasnât saying that any person has a right to this amount of money. I was saying that if a person only earns $10,000, then they have a right to not have that amount taxed, but of course they have to earn the $10,000 first. I didnât intend to make any point about socializing the system more than it already is.
Oh, I misunderstood then. I had somehow thought you were saying taxation was justified because there were people that needed $10K to get by but didnât have it, therefore society needed to be able to fund that, so that they could pursue happiness. That was what I disagreed with.
I also donât believe in an income tax on people earning only $10K per year.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
lol
-Used money from the governement to go to college, used government unemployment through the 52-20 (though little was used), low interest, zero down payment home loans (GREAT IDEA RIGHT NOW)
[/quote]
Why exactly is this not a good idea now. Why donât you think this one through.
How many jobs compared to now?
Why was there a middle class boom?
again how many jobs compared to now
None of them?
more than keeping them in foreign countries? Wonât a good portion of them go to college anyway? What % make a career out of the military?
Where is their evidense of this?
And there could be room for them now. You just need to think through this a bit.
What exactly do we have today that was not provided by the market. How many peopleâs well being is dependant on the market today? Are you starting to see how ridiculous this is?
[quote]
i think there are prime examples in Central America of why dumping a large volume of displaced soldiers into a poor job market is a bad idea.[/quote]
how so?
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Otep, typically those who favor the flat tax point out that progressive income tax is de-incentivizing citizens of a state to earn more by taxing each dollar incremental dollar earned at a higher (theoretical) rate.
While I understand that this (progressive tax policy) sounds unfair, there are two points that I would like to make:
First is that a nation has the obligation to protect its citizens. Some would argue that in the US this includes protecting certain unalienable rights for those citizens, which costs money, and I donât just mean tax revenue to establish infrastructure or social policies. Taxation is a necessary evil for those reasons, but I am bringing up the point that a base level of income is something necessary to maintain a standard of living.
This concept is morally supported. Some would argue that the pursuit of happiness is part of those rights protected under the constitution. As such a minimum base level of annual income would be required to sustain the standard of living required to afford this âpursuit.â
Thus the notion of progressive tax is legitimized to a certain extent by the fact that a certain base amount of money is required to maintain a decent standard of living (i.e. $10,000).
Based on both morality as well as the constitution of the US, it appears that at least the argument can be made for not taxing the first $X,XXX amount of dollars deemed necessary (adjusted for CPI even) to maintain a certain minimal standard of living. The only point I can see for extending this argument beyond that minimal tax bracket is to increase tax revenue, but others would disagree.
It is however an effective means to increase tax revenues. The country is essentially a corporation and needs money to open its doors for business each day.
The second point I would like to make is that tax deductions are evidence of recognition by policy makers that the progressive tax system is unfair. Tax deductions are designed to make the progressive tax system fairer. The intent of deductions is to lessen the blow that higher tax brackets place on the incentive to earn more. Allow me to elaborate.
Tax deductions strengthen and stabilize the economy through the encouragement of investing and saving. Take the deduction for home mortgage interest. Back to my first point for a minute, I would say that obviously it takes a large amount of money to earn the deduction.
This deduction re-incentivizes the higher income earner to earn more. The message that deductions such as this make is that if you earn more, you can A) afford a home, and B) get a deduction for that home. Then you can get into itemizing, etc. etc.
I wonât get into that or that higher than average income earners pay a substantial amount of tax too, as home owners are typically middle class and the basis of my argument is that a tax structure does need to have a morally supported purpose. Tax deductions do make an effort at least to make the system fairer.
I recognize that we have a wounded system in the US, but it is not necessarily time to abandon ship.
Your comments?[/quote]
My first comment was WALL OF TEXT!!, but thatâs probably not what youâre looking for.
The points you mention have been brought up before in this thread: I canât speak to de-incentivization, because Iâve never seen it.
I can logically conclude that there are risks a rational individual would not undergo in pursuit of wealth if he only gets to keep 40% instead of 80% of his rewards, but I canât actually site a given example. So I choose not to make this a foundational area of argument.
As to the governmentâs responsibility to protect the âdignityâ of itâs populace (weâll use the word âdignityâ to describe the âminimum standared of livingâ you wrote about above)⊠itâs only there if you want it to be there. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to protect your right to the pursuit of happiness (mostly because that line comes from the Declaration of Independence).
I think the framers saw very clearly that the key to their new government would be in describing what it COULDNâT do. They did not wish the government to make promises it couldnât keep, so the BoR specifically lists negative rights.
I also⊠thoroughly disagree that tax deductions are there to âlevel the playing fieldâ wrt taxes. I donât know if you know it, but about 40% of Americans either pay no taxes or receive a tax credit (money given to them by the federal government). It doesnât matter how much your mortgage interest is; youâre not getting a check from Uncle Sam.
Instead, tax deductions are used to influece consumer choices- the government wants you to buy a house, they make your mortgage interest deductible.
Government wants you to buy green cars, they make your payments on your green car deductible. In both cases, we see the government giving you an incentive to buy something you otherwise wouldnât have purchased. This is government tampering with the market.
Your argument involved a larger number of points, that Iâd like to get to, but donât have time. Iâll post more tomorrow when Iâm more intelligent.
On your closing thoughts though- I think a tax structure MUST be moral. Taxation without justification is theft. So what justifies the IRS to take my money? For me, it is two-fold; one, the government needs my money to perform needed government services and two, the tax is applied fairly across all benefits of those services.
I just happen to think they could be applied more fairly.
Also, I donât think the current system works poorly. Actually, I know itâs complicated and painful, but it manages to work; the sun also rises, a tree grows in brooklyn and things fall apart, just as they should. I just think it could work better.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Thanks for the question Bill. Of course all are welcome to comment, and not just Otep.
Please forgive any un-clarity in what I wrote. The point I was making when I referred to the $X,XXX was that an argument could be made for the first $X amount of dollars, say the first $10,000 that a person EARNS should not be taxed.
The $X,XXX is a theoretical value for an amount that an individual needs to just get by. Cutting into that amount would not seem moral to me. $10,000 is just a figure I threw out there.
I wasnât saying that any person has a right to this amount of money.
I was saying that if a person only earns $10,000, then they have a right to not have that amount taxed, but of course they have to earn the $10,000 first. I didnât intend to make any point about socializing the system more than it already is.[/quote]
How do you come up with such a figure? How much scrimping and saving is appropriate to ask of the indigent? Who gets to decide?
[quote]Otep wrote:
Who gets to decide?[/quote]
The government. Haha.
CPI would be a major determinant of untaxed base in a flat tax system. To answer your question , the $10,000 was a rough calculation.
The correct amount that is morally justifiable would have to be determined based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index) for a local. The government would have to take into account the concept of how much does a âbasketâ of goods and services cost.
[quote]Otep wrote:
How much scrimping and saving is appropriate to ask of the indigent? [/quote]
I think you were being facetious but my idea of a reformed tax situation is not intended to reduce poverty. Rather it is designed to provide the most benefit to the greatest number of people while also striving to be fair. I guess itâs confusing because Iâm arguiing for the ideals of a progressive tax structure within the context of a flat tax system.
My concept of the flat tax does not impact standard social services as those are the focus of tax spending rather than receiving, so the âindigentâ would remain impoverished.
However, those earning a wage would be able to hold on to the first $X,000 amount of money adjested for inflation in their local. So in San Francisco for example, minimum wage is roughly $10/hour. Given that an individual works 40 hours a week and work 45/52 weeks in a given year, then that individual makes $18,000. San Francisco has a higher than average CPI, therefore perhaps the tax free base should be $15,000 in San Francisco.
What ever amount an individual earns above and beyond that ($3,000) would be taxed at the flat tax rate.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Otep wrote:
Who gets to decide?
The government. Haha.
CPI would be a major determinant of untaxed base in a flat tax system. To answer your question , the $10,000 was a rough calculation.
The correct amount that is morally justifiable would have to be determined based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index) for a local. The government would have to take into account the concept of how much does a âbasketâ of goods and services cost.
Otep wrote:
How much scrimping and saving is appropriate to ask of the indigent?
I think you were being facetious but my idea of a reformed tax situation is not intended to reduce poverty.
Rather it is designed to provide the most benefit to the greatest number of people while also striving to be fair. I guess itâs confusing because Iâm arguiing for the ideals of a progressive tax structure within the context of a flat tax system.
My concept of the flat tax does not impact standard social services as those are the focus of tax spending rather than receiving, so the âindigentâ would remain impoverished.
However, those earning a wage would be able to hold on to the first $X,000 amount of money adjested for inflation in their local. So in San Francisco for example, minimum wage is roughly $10/hour.
Given that an individual works 40 hours a week and work 45/52 weeks in a given year, then that individual makes $18,000. San Francisco has a higher than average CPI, therefore perhaps the tax free base should be $15,000 in San Francisco.
What ever amount an individual earns above and beyond that ($3,000) would be taxed at the flat tax rate.[/quote]
That is how the UK system works. You have a tax allowance then anything over that is taxed first at basic rate of 22% then at a higher rate of 40% for earnings over roughly $80,000 dollars.
[quote]Otep wrote:
As to the governmentâs responsibility to protect the âdignityâ of its populace (weâll use the word âdignityâ to describe the âminimum standard of livingâ you wrote about above)⊠itâs only there if you want it to be there.
The constitution does not give the federal government the power to protect your right to the pursuit of happiness (mostly because that line comes from the Declaration of Independence).[/quote]
TouchĂ©. Thanks for the history lesson. Indeed it is in the Declaration of Independence, but as well in several stateâs constitutions which provide that âall men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.â This definition Iâll address later.
While not strictly enforceable in courts as it is not in the US Constitution, it does have a degree of merit from the sources referenced.
While weâre on the subject of constitutionality, the governmentâs right to levy income tax as well is not in the (original) Constitution. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution in the early 1900s is when the act became âConstitutional.â As the concept of income tax in America was introduced not in the Constitution as laid out by the Framers, it is no less legitimate than my dignity argument.
Income tax was actually introduced in 1861 by the Revenue Act of⊠1861. Money was needed for the Civil War and thus a flat rate of 3% of annual income above $800 was levied. It then evolved or rather âprogressedâ into the progressive system we have today.
Coincidentally this is a very similar concept to that which I have proposed. I haven?t done the research on de-inflating the $800, but suppose it would be equivalent to what I suggest.
It is true that the framers sought to not make promises they could not keep. Indeed some of the framers were anti-federalists. Although the argument between state and federal government power remains, we are a long ways away from the government being so new that it fears making promises of protecting its citizens.
The government shall be held accountable for what it ought to do. Protect your citizens or be overthrown - this is the argument that I would raise that truly justifies my dignity argument.
[quote]Otep wrote: I also⊠thoroughly disagree that tax deductions are there to âlevel the playing fieldâ wrt taxes. I donât know if you know it, but about 40% of Americans either pay no taxes or receive a tax credit (money given to them by the federal government).
It doesnât matter how much your mortgage interest is; youâre not getting a check from Uncle Sam. [/quote]
I don?t disagree with your points about the purpose of tax deductions are to influence consumer choices, but Iâm not sure where you heard that 40% donât pay taxes or receive a tax credit. Seems high, but thatâs the problem with statistics - that they can be misconstrued. Also, the government very rarely gives out checks to anyone.
You are referring to the earned income tax credit. There is a complex schedule for this credit, but to actually get money back you have to earn a meager $15,000 while at the same time having two kids. For this the government will give you $4,800 some odd dollars, but that is reduced by about $1,000 of the tax liability on that $15,000.
I would think that most people would rather not be in that situation in the first place then to think it is some kind of advantage.
Allow me to go off on a tangent for a minute. I do not think supply side economics works 90% of the time. Let give you an example, which I will relate to tax credits . In supply side economics, if the economy is doing poorly then ?Joe?s Manufacturing Co.? receives a tax break from the government.
Well, the economy is bad so sales are down because ?Joe?s Mfg.? like most businesses is vulnerable to poor economic times. Well ?Joe?s Mfg.? is suffering and the factory is running at only 70%. After all, sales are down and Joe had to unfortunately lay some people off. Now, at the end of the year ?Joe?s Mfg.? gets a tax break and has some extra cash.
Do you think that Joe is going to hire more people to help manufacture more stuff which would result in a surplus of stuff that there is no demand for, or do you think that ?Joe?s Mfg.? is going to use that money to pay down some of its debt? Now my argument for why limited socialism isn?t so bad.
With the earned income tax credit, a single mother who works full time making $15K a year and raises her two kids gets $4,800 from the government. Is this money going to go to pay down her debt, or is she more likely to put this money back into the economy, i.e. school clothes, groceries, etc.?
I would tend to believe that the single mom is more likely to put the money back into the economy than ?Joe?s Mfg.?
Back to tax credits: Also, I think you have your understanding of a credit and a deduction a little mixed up. I don?t mean to offend, but let me explain, because even if you do understand and just didn?t take the time to write it all out, there is somebody who will read this and will have no idea that there is a difference.
Deductions are deductable expenses that a taxpayer can subtract from their taxable income base and the amount saved is dependent on the rate the taxpayer pays.
A credit is a reduction in tax liability and is not determined by the tax rate. Credits can be seen as a form of governmental discretionary spending.
First, the US government gave a tax credit for the purchase of green cars, not a tax deduction. Second, you make a point to say that ?the government giving you an incentive to buy something you otherwise wouldnât have purchased.?
I disagree not with what you said specifically but your basis that this is inherently a bad thing. Picture the economy as a big ball. I think that the government should do very little to make the ball roll, as the free market drives the momentum, but the government has an obligation to make sure that the ball rolls in the right direction.
If that concept made your blood pressure shoot up, re-read it and see if it actually makes sense.
Look forward to it.
[/quote]Otep wrote:âŠ"On your closing thoughts though- I think a tax structure MUST be moral. Taxation without justification is theft. So what justifies the IRS to take my money? For me, it is two-fold; one, the government needs my money to perform needed government services and two, the tax is applied fairly across all benefits of those services.
I just happen to think they could be applied more fairly." (end quote)[/quote]
No disagreement there.
[/quote]Otep wrote: ââŠAlso, I donât think the current system works poorly. Actually, I know itâs complicated and painful, but it manages to work; the sun also rises, a tree grows in brooklyn and things fall apart, just as they should. I just think it could work better.â (end quote)[/quote]
I think it is broken, but I must get back to work.
Excellent response BPT. I have been nothing if not impressed that this discussion has gone on for four pages without an incredible level of name-calling.
[quote]BulletProof Tiger wrote:
âŠAs the concept of income tax in America was introduced not in the Constitution as laid out by the Framers, it is no less legitimate than my dignity argument.
âŠThe government shall be held accountable for what it ought to do. Protect your citizens or be overthrown - this is the argument that I would raise that truly justifies my dignity argument. [/quote]
I think the main difference here was that the 16th amendment was added to the constitution through the appropriate channels of due process. As a result, I put itâs presence on par with the rest of the constitution.
side note- There are a number of men who revere the founders and with an adoration approaching that reserved for dieties and demigods, and I feel that this is inappropriate. They put into practice an adaptable system; it seems to work well. The true wisdom of the constitution is itâs elastic clause, which legitimizes change to be made when they need to be made.
back on topic- I do not think the government has an inherent responsibility to protect itâs people from financial trouble. Military trouble, yes. Financial trouble, no. Most (I believe the number was close to 80%) people who currently live below the poverty line in America do so as a result of bad choices, specifically
(I will find for you sources for both this statement and the 40% that donât pay taxes or recieve a net refund before the end of the day)
As a result, I see financial success (in America- I cannot speak for other nations in the developed world and I highly doubt itâs this good in the developing world) as a factor of individual effort. I do not feel it is appropriate to subsidize another manâs poor choices. Granted, many of these decisions are made at an age when people have yet to truly realize that their choices carry consequences.
However, I do not feel this is enough of a justification to not inflict the full force of those choices. Thereâs a brilliant parable in Luke, âLazerous and the Rich Manâ, where a beggar enters the bosom of Abraham and the rich man enters the fires of Gehenna.
The rich man begs (Michael, I believe) to be allowed to go back and tell his brothers that their choices have consequences. Michael replies; âthey have the prophets. If they do not listen to the prophets, they will not listen to youâ. I feel this parable is very appropriate in illustrating the importance of inflicting the full consequence of peopleâs actions upon them.
[quote] BulletProof Tiger wrote:
It is true that the framers sought to not make promises they could not keep. Indeed some of the framers were anti-federalists. Although the argument between state and federal government power remains, we are a long ways away from the government being so new that it fears making promises of protecting its citizens. [/quote]
True, the US has created such a bounty of wealth that it probably can afford to support a well-funded welfare state. But if you fail to repeat the actions that led to your success, you wonât be successful.
I feel a welfare state, in the interests of advancing an equitable distribution of economic growth, would sacrifice a good bit of the growth that should keep America at the vanguard of itâs current global hegemony.
[quote] BulletProof TIger wrote:
I disagree not with what you said specifically but your basis that this is inherently a bad thing. Picture the economy as a big ball. I think that the government should do very little to make the ball roll, as the free market drives the momentum, but the government has an obligation to make sure that the ball rolls in the right direction.[/quote]
I do not trust the government to actively choose âthe right directionâ. I do believe government has a very interesting role in its economy, but I believe that role should be in increasing the level of transparency in the market, instead of actively engaging in pushing the economy in a specific direction.
To run with your analogy, I believe government should remove rocks and twigs around the ball, instead of actively pushing the ball itself. I support the fact that publically traded business have to be be audited quarterly and yearly in order to provide information about the business itself to the marketplace.
This increases transparency (even though sometimes it doesnât, and we have our Enrons and Worldcoms). This helps support a free market. I do not believe the government should affect it beyond this point- creating, as it has, specific tax benefits (a credit, as you say) for green cars.
It seems to me that this is government seeing how the market SHOULD go, and prodding it in this direction. That is not itâs role. If people refuse to purchase green cars at a price that reflects its cost, why should the government remove scarce resources from other sectors of the economy in order to facilitate it?
The inherent logic here is that the government knows better than the consumer what they should buy, and then takes steps to enforce that. Further down this path lies the Soviet central command economy, where producers take their signals from the government instead of consumers directly, with disasterous results.
So now two questions.
and
40% of Americans donât pay income tax
Those in poverty made bad choices
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_chicsuntimes-the_truth_about_poverty.htm
The figures I threw around were from an article written by George Will back in 2002 (I read the collected articles last year). I canât seem to find it, so feel free to take only what I can source as legitimate.