More on taxes

[Ursa_Eagle]

HRoark said:

What's this "gravy" money you are talking about? Are you saying that I don't have the right to buy a $40,000 pickup if I had a good year on the stock market? THat I don't deserve to receive all that money, since it is what you call "gravy" and not "necessary". More to the point, who are you to tell me what is necessary for me? Are you prepared to leave this to some government office to decide? Who decides, Paco? Tell me. Who knows best what YOU need from day to day?

 

Howard

 

So why would you need an expensive pickup to begin with?

[HRoark]

Jim said:

Enslaved? Poor choice of words in the least. How much lower taxes do you think is fair? I assume you're advocating a flat tax. Again I would say that is not fair to take 10% from someone making $30K vs 10% from $3 million.

 

The little guy has $27K left, the big guy has $2.7 million. Doesn't seem "enslaved" is the proper context. Yes the rich should pay more, up to some debateable point, because they can afford to.

 

What do you call it when an individual is caused to work for someone else without compensation? That is what is happening when wealth is redistributed from those who earn it to those who do not.

 

How is 10% not fair to each man (using your example)? Each gets taxed the same rate; the first man pays $3,000, the second man pays $30,000.

 

Yes the rich should pay more...because they can afford to

"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.

[Paco]

Jim said:

HRoark said:

Paco said:

People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.

 

Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff

 

Yeah, it's the CEO's of corporations that make million dollar salaries, and even more millions through stock options and artificially inflating earnings who are societies victims. We should cut their taxes to 0% for the next 30 years and pay them retributions for being enslaved. Whatever.

[Ursa_Eagle]

umm, because living requires a certain minimum amount of money. food, shelter, clothes, etc. If someone is just barely making that, how can they survive if we take 10% (or more) off the top?

[Ursa_Eagle]

Paco said:

Yeah, it's the CEO's of corporations that make million dollar salaries, and even more millions through stock options and artificially inflating earnings who are societies victims. We should cut their taxes to 0% for the next 30 years and pay them retributions for being enslaved. Whatever.

 

exactly, do you think these CEO's do 200 (or whatever the factor is) times the work of the average worker in their company?

[HRoark]

Paco said:

Whatever.

 

Boy, glad you learned those great debate and communication skills in college. Is that all you can resort to? Sure, you're not going to change my mind, nor am I going to change yours, but a healthy debate on philosophies is good. It helps you cement what you do and do not believe. But, feel free to rejoinder with "whatever", if that's all you're capable of.

[murraysovereign]

Paco said:

The flat tax is a BAD idea, and anyone who thinks that it would make things more "equitable" is wrong. People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

Here's a simplified example of why people who make more money CAN pay taxes at a higher percentage:

 

As an estimate lets say that all people need to make a minimum salary or $30,000 to meet basic needs including housing, food, healthcare etc. If you tax someone 10% who makes 32,000 a year then they don't have enough money to make ends meet...

 

It will be interesting to watch Alberta, where a flat tax has been applied starting last year (or maybe the previous year?). But they've addressed your concern about everyone needing a certain minimum amount just to cover the basics, simply by exempting the first X-thousand dollars of income. So the income you need to cover basic needs is tax-free, and everything above that is taxed at a flat rate (something like 17% - I don't have the specifics here in front of me). Alberta is a bit of a distorted laboratory for experiments in taxation, due to the vast sums pouring into the treasury from oil revenues which allow the government a lot of breathing room as long as prices stay high. When oil prices bottomed out back in the 80s, Alberta became an economic basket-case almost overnight, and conversely the only reason they can currently afford major fiscal experiments like a flat tax is because there's so much money being pumped out of the ground that they don't need to worry much about revenue short-falls or other unforseen consequences.

 

So stay tuned, we'll see how it's working after a couple of years. The acid test will be to see how it fares in the face of collapsing oil revenues, but we may have to wait a while for that to happen.

[Paco]

HRoark said:

Paco said:

Whatever.

 

Boy, glad you learned those great debate and communication skills in college. Is that all you can resort to? Sure, you're not going to change my mind, nor am I going to change yours, but a healthy debate on philosophies is good. It helps you cement what you do and do not believe. But, feel free to rejoinder with "whatever", if that's all you're capable of.

 

Don't even start that bullshit. Your first reply regarding an ice pick followed the logic of a two year old and was also personally threatening. Read the other posts.

[RuMR]

Paco said:

Jim said:

HRoark said:

Paco said:

People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.

 

Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff

 

Yeah, it's the CEO's of corporations that make million dollar salaries, and even more millions through stock options and artificially inflating earnings who are societies victims. We should cut their taxes to 0% for the next 30 years and pay them retributions for being enslaved. Whatever.

 

 

and those poor mf'ers from enron...

[j_b]

"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.

 

it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.

[HRoark]

Paco said:

HRoark said:

Paco said:

Whatever.

 

Boy, glad you learned those great debate and communication skills in college. Is that all you can resort to? Sure, you're not going to change my mind, nor am I going to change yours, but a healthy debate on philosophies is good. It helps you cement what you do and do not believe. But, feel free to rejoinder with "whatever", if that's all you're capable of.

 

Don't even start that bullshit. Your first reply regarding an ice pick followed the logic of a two year old and was also personally threatening. Read the other posts.

 

Not true, Paco, my analogy was to make a point that just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD or that it is the RIGHT THING TO DO. I in no way meant it as a personal threat. Logic is a very simple thing, Paco; that's the beauty of it.

[Ursa_Eagle]

HR, but you said that his debating style was juvenile, when in fact yours is no better...

[Jim]

j_b said:

"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.

 

it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.

 

I don't see any imperical "facts" that bolster your argument. Your opinion is that the tax structure is "enslaving" the upper incomes. Mine and others is that the higher incomes can afford to pay a higher percentage (on income above a certain point) and should for a number of social benefit reasons.

 

PP's chart that started the discussion is true enough, but that's only part of the picture. The rich in this country are not hurting and can easily affort the current structure, in fact they're making quite the leaps recently.

 

You say it "enslaves" them - I say they're getting a pretty good deal recently.

[HRoark]

j_b said:

"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.

 

it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.

 

Again, lacking a logical argument, here. A few years ago this guy over in Germany believed that 'society' 'needed' to exterminate an entire race of people. Was that okay to do? This asks the larger question: what is 'society'? I don't believe is this nonsensical myth, personally. 'Society' is, in reality, made up of individuals. These individuals have rights and freedoms; you cannot restrict the rights of certain individuals in the name of 'society' without restricting ALL individuals. At the basis of 'society' IS the individual and the rights of the individual must be preserved if the freedom of 'society' is to be maintained.

 

This is just my opinion (and that of a few Founding Fathers), feel free to proffer yours.

[HRoark]

Ursa_Eagle said:

HR, but you said that his debating style was juvenile, when in fact yours is no better...

 

Resorting to "whatever" is a debate style?

[Paco]

HRoark said:

Paco said:

This is done by a few means such as setting a minimum wage and providing subsidized housing, food, and health care to the poor. These subsidies have to be funded somewhere and those with a high salary can afford to pay a greater percentage of income for taxes to support this. People with a higher salary can also afford to pay for a larger share of commonly used public services like roads, etc.

 

You have not enslaved any portion of the people because they get taxed at 30% on their income and others get taxed at 10% of their income, and no one is required to work in order to support another class.

 

The main part of my argument is that after basic needs are met then the rest of the money is just gravy, so that gravy money should be taxed at a higher rate because it is no longer used to buy necessities. It goes for paying for things like expensive cars, large houses, etc.

 

What would you propose? A flat tax so the poor get poorer. Maybe a system where only those that need social services have to pay for them. Hmm, that'll work well. Let's make those who can't afford something pay for it.

 

So, are you saying, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? What you are advocating is a massive socialist system where you have to right to the fruit of your own labor. Where some arbitrary committee or department will decide what "basic needs" are (using your words). Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to stipulate what an individual's "basic needs" are? This may vary from one person to another.

 

Regarding enslavement: you are dead wrong, each person IS required to work in order to support another class by the simple fact that when we DO work, that income is taxed. These taxes are required unless one goes through great pains to exempt themselves from the tax rolls.

 

What's this "gravy" money you are talking about? Are you saying that I don't have the right to buy a $40,000 pickup if I had a good year on the stock market? THat I don't deserve to receive all that money, since it is what you call "gravy" and not "necessary". More to the point, who are you to tell me what is necessary for me? Are you prepared to leave this to some government office to decide? Who decides, Paco? Tell me. Who knows best what YOU need from day to day?

 

Howard

 

Your're taking it way too much to the extreme in order to distort my argument. I'm not advocating a huge social system. In fact most of the institutions that I mentioned are already in place. One example is health care through the state. Low income people can sign up to get subsidized health care and they pay a small fraction of the actual cost. Something like 15 bucks a month for health care.

 

I'm also not saying someone doesn't have the right to buy an expensive truck, but it seems that you are arguing that you have a greater right to buy an expensive truck if you make 100,000 than someone else has to buy food if their income is 10,000. That's fucked up.

 

What is necessary for all people is debatable by society, but I think it should include to some degree or another food, shelter, education, and health care. The true wealth of out nation should be measured, not in how much the rich can buy, but in how well off our average and poorest citizens are.

 

Like i said before, I'm not advocating a system where the wealthy are taxed without restraint, but it's not unreasonable or unequitable to tax large incomes at a higher rate than those with minimal income.

[HRoark]

Jim said:

j_b said:

"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.

 

it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.

 

I don't see any imperical "facts" that bolster your argument.

 

What facts are needed - law is based on reason and logic. Plain and simple. If the law is the foundation for civilized 'society', shouldn't it be objective? If it is subjective, it would cease to be a foundation and become a shifting "standard." Do you agree? If we use the "because they can" basis for tax law (or whatever), what stops future leaders from using this same basis for other laws? Used once, it creates legal precedence to use it again.

 

 

[dryad]

HR, I gotta say that bringing up Hitler to further your argument is sinking really low.

[Jim]

A recent report:

 

Published on 9/25/2003 in the New York Times

U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says

by Lynnley Browning

 

The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows.

 

The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent.

 

In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows.

 

The figures show 2000 as the year of the greatest economic disparity between rich and poor for any year since 1979, the year the budget office began collecting this data, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research organization in Washington that advocates tax and federal spending policies to benefit the poor. It released its analysis on Tuesday.

 

The richest 2.8 million Americans had $950 billion after taxes, or 15.5 percent, of the $6.2 trillion economic pie in 2000, Isaac Shapiro, a senior fellow at the center, said.

 

The poorest 110 million Americans had less, sharing 14.4 percent of all after tax money.

 

But the higher incomes of the last decade did not lift all people equally.

 

In 2000, the top 1 percent of American taxpayers had $862,700 each after taxes, on average, more than triple the $286,300 they had, adjusted for inflation, in 1979.

 

The bottom 40 percent in 2000 had $21,118 each, up 13 percent from their $18,695 average in 1979.

 

Mr. Shapiro also analyzed the budget office data in tandem with a recently updated study on income by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Cambridge, Mass. The bureau study found that in 2000, the top 1 percent income group had the largest share of before-tax income for any year since 1929.

 

Mr. Shapiro said that findings from both studies suggested that in 2000, the top 1 percent had the largest share of the nation's total after-tax income since at least 1936 and probably since 1929. Mr. Shapiro emphasized that his combined analysis accounted for the fact that his study used after-tax incomes while the bureau's study used pretax incomes.

 

Both low- and middle-income people shared in the boom of the 1990's, while in the 1980's the bottom fifth experienced a decline in after-tax income, according to the budget office data analyzed by Mr. Shapiro and Robert Greenstein, director for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

The middle fifth had an average after-tax income of $41,900 in 2000, a rise of 15 percent both since 1979 and 1997, indicating a long period of no real economic gains for this group. "You do have gains across the spectrum from 1997 to 2000," Mr. Shapiro said, "but they are much more dramatic at the top."

 

The center's analysis said the highest income Americans had grown richer from 1979 to 2000 both from gains in income because of economic prosperity and from tax cuts. Huge gains in executive pay were a significant factor, Mr. Shapiro said.

 

Federal tax burdens for most Americans had declined over the previous two decades, and not risen as some conservative policy experts have asserted, the center said. Congress enacted tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were heavily weighted to the top 1 percent, which supporters said would encourage them to invest more to the benefit of all Americans.

 

From 1979 to 2000, the total federal tax burden for the top 1 percent dropped 3.8 percentage points, but for the middle fifth the decline was only 1.9 percentage points. Tax rates for the poorest fifth declined 1.6 percentage points.

 

The top 1 percent pay a quarter of all federal taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pay 6 percent of all federal taxes.

 

A side note - I notice PP didn't cite any source, just curious. Gotta get some work done, then 20 mi bike ride home. It's raining, ugh.

[rbw1966]

HRoark=mtngoat

 

As for law not being subjective: you are incrrect. Laws are HIGHLY subjective and NOT always based on logic.

[allthumbs]

rbw1966 said:

HRoark=mtngoat

 

As for law not being subjective: you are incrrect. Laws are HIGHLY subjective and NOT always based on logic.

hope so, I've missed the old goat

[HRoark]

Paco said:but it seems that you are arguing that you have a greater right to buy an expensive truck if you make 100,000 than someone else has to buy food if their income is 10,000.

 

I go to what you call the extreme to prove a point of where such ideas can lead. Look at the former USSR as an example.

 

It actually goes even deeper than that, Paco. What I am saying is that if I make $100,000 I alone have the right to decide what to do with that money. My labor (and the money it earns) is my property.

 

What is necessary for all people is debatable by society

And who is that? What group of individuals? "Society" means nothing; put some concrete into what you advocate. What people will decide what is necessary? Do we all vote? Do we all have a meeting and divulge what our necessities are? The necessities you have and the necessities I require are different from the simple fact of how much money we each require to pay our bills.

 

The true wealth of out nation should be measured, not in how much the rich can buy, but in how well off our average and poorest citizens are.

 

If you plan to use the rich to bring the poor up, what happens to the rich when they are no longer rich? Where will you get the money? What happens if they stop producing? When the Communists took over Russia, they sought to take from the rich to bring a better life to the poor. It failed, they merely brought misery and poverty to everyone.

[Jim]

Gotta be the goat. We're spinning outside Pluto's orbit now.

[HRoark]

dryad said:

HR, I gotta say that bringing up Hitler to further your argument is sinking really low.

 

Dryad, sorry that offended you. However, my example stands: Adolf Hitler believed that his German/Aryan people (society) would be better off if the Jews were exterminated. His belief in what was best for society spurred his action. An extreme example, to be sure, but it utilizes the same logic.

[j_b]

HRoark said:

j_b said:

"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.

 

it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.

 

Again, lacking a logical argument, here. A few years ago this guy over in Germany believed that 'society' 'needed' to exterminate an entire race of people. Was that okay to do? This asks the larger question: what is 'society'? I don't believe is this nonsensical myth, personally. 'Society' is, in reality, made up of individuals. These individuals have rights and freedoms; you cannot restrict the rights of certain individuals in the name of 'society' without restricting ALL individuals. At the basis of 'society' IS the individual and the rights of the individual must be preserved if the freedom of 'society' is to be maintained.

 

This is just my opinion (and that of a few Founding Fathers), feel free to proffer yours.

 

the founding fathers also believed in democracy (or some kind of) which hitler did not believe in. folks in this country overwhelmingly decided that a progressive tax was needed to attend to societal needs. end of story.