Subsidized everything

[Thorne]

You honestly believe, and can say with a straight face, that somehow a tax rate of 2.99% on $15,000 hurts more than a tax rate of 21.46% on $1,040,000. I don't think so! In the former that is my mortgage payment in the latter it is two cars or a really nice Harley! Or look at it another way the 2.99% is 13 meals out I'd have to pass on. Even at the most expensive meal I bought my wife and I the latter would be 171 outings. By any practical measure the claim is not supported that our current tax structure hurts the lesser in favor of the greater.

Sorry Duncan, but I have to argue with your numbers here. The question is not how much someone is paying in taxes but how much does he have left AFTER taxes.

The blue collar guy making $15000 per year will have only $14550 left after paying his 2.99%, but the millionaire will still have $816816 left. A very big difference. Which would you rather have?

[DuncanONeil]

The dollars taken away by the Government nor the dollars remaning after the Government has taken away a portion is not germane. Would you rather have 97% of your salary remaining or 79%.
To say that the larger dollar figure is better just because it is bigger is essentially saying that money equals happiness. We know that is not true. Further such a simplistic statement ignores a significant number of other issues. For Example Al Gore falls into the second category under discussion here and we know he has been spending as much as 20 other homes in his neighborhood for electricity alone.
If you remember in my post I related the two different tax figures to a situation outside of either person, I chose myself, and in one case it is a mortgage payment in the other two cars that are confiscated for taxes.

The point is that you think that paying a greater share of the tax burden is FAIR if you have more money and paying the same rate is somehow unfair. That implies the only way you would be happy is if Mr Rich Person after paying his tax bill had $14550 left. I on the other hand believe that paying the same rate is fair.
Having said that I feel compelled to state that I favor the truly voluntary tax called FairTax over what we have and any Government driven fixing thereof. And any VAT tax is even worse than the awful system currently existing.

Sorry Duncan, but I have to argue with your numbers here. The question is not how much someone is paying in taxes but how much does he have left AFTER taxes.

The blue collar guy making $15000 per year will have only $14550 left after paying his 2.99%, but the millionaire will still have $816816 left. A very big difference. Which would you rather have?

[Thorne]

The point is that you think that paying a greater share of the tax burden is FAIR if you have more money and paying the same rate is somehow unfair. That implies the only way you would be happy is if Mr Rich Person after paying his tax bill had $14550 left. I on the other hand believe that paying the same rate is fair.

That's not my point at all. The government requires a certain amount of money to function. Naturally, the first priority should be to trim down that necessity to the bare minimums. But once that is done a certain amount of needed money will remain. Obviously that money will have to be brought in by taxes, of one sort or another.

Now according to you, it's only fair to make everyone pay the same percentage. So let's assume for simplicity's sake that the government determines that, in order to balance their budget, everyone will have to pay 15% of their earnings in taxes. What does this mean? Well, the man making $1 million will pay $150K in taxes. Wow! A lot of money. But that still leaves him with $850K of discretionary income. Of course, having to pay $100 K for the mortgage on his 12 bedroom mansion, and another $100K for his brand new Rolls, will eat into that somewhat, too. He might have to cut his Hawaiian vacation down to only two weeks! And he and his family can't afford to eat out ... more than 4 or 5 times a week. Such hardship!

Meanwhile, we have our other man making $20K, working 2 jobs. He'll be left with a whopping $17,500 dollars. Hell, anybody can get by on that! So what if his kids can't go to private schools? So what if they have to cram a family of 6 into a two-bedroom, 1½ bath flat? So what if they can only buy a used car every five or six years, at best? As long as he's paying the same rate, everything will be fine!

No, my point is that the wealthier man can afford to pay a larger share of the tax burden, and because of his wealth will reap more benefits from the infrastructure those taxes pay for. The poor don't much care about maintaining the interstate, or building better airports, or keeping the harbors running properly. They can't afford to use those facilities anyway.

If you drop our poor working man's taxes down to only, say, 2% he'll end up paying only $400 in taxes. While still painful for him, he can probably handle that. His family might not eat steak, but it won't hurt them too badly. How much must our rich man pay to make up for that? An extra $2100, or 15.2% TOTAL. Holy cow! That just might break the bank!

Yes, I realize it's not quite that simple, there being so many more poor people than rich. But the point is the same. The more money you make the more you tend to benefit from the money the government spends, either directly or indirectly, so you pay more taxes. And there is less of a burden on the poor.

[DuncanONeil]

The fact that I support a change in the tax system is of no consequence?
The current tax system is unfair, not for the reasons that you state.
The current tax system punishes success.
If success is punished why try to succeed? If the reverse were true perhaps more work work for success.
I favor a tax system that is truly voluntary. Increases investment in the nation. Brings fresh capital to the country. Allows people all of the money they work for to be theirs. Provides the very kind of progression in taxation that social engineers desire. Increases the tax base.

By the way, you did not provide a different understanding of the position you stated in your previous.

That's not my point at all. The government requires a certain amount of money to function. Naturally, the first priority should be to trim down that necessity to the bare minimums. But once that is done a certain amount of needed money will remain. Obviously that money will have to be brought in by taxes, of one sort or another.

Now according to you, it's only fair to make everyone pay the same percentage. So let's assume for simplicity's sake that the government determines that, in order to balance their budget, everyone will have to pay 15% of their earnings in taxes. What does this mean? Well, the man making $1 million will pay $150K in taxes. Wow! A lot of money. But that still leaves him with $850K of discretionary income. Of course, having to pay $100 K for the mortgage on his 12 bedroom mansion, and another $100K for his brand new Rolls, will eat into that somewhat, too. He might have to cut his Hawaiian vacation down to only two weeks! And he and his family can't afford to eat out ... more than 4 or 5 times a week. Such hardship!

Meanwhile, we have our other man making $20K, working 2 jobs. He'll be left with a whopping $17,500 dollars. Hell, anybody can get by on that! So what if his kids can't go to private schools? So what if they have to cram a family of 6 into a two-bedroom, 1½ bath flat? So what if they can only buy a used car every five or six years, at best? As long as he's paying the same rate, everything will be fine!

No, my point is that the wealthier man can afford to pay a larger share of the tax burden, and because of his wealth will reap more benefits from the infrastructure those taxes pay for. The poor don't much care about maintaining the interstate, or building better airports, or keeping the harbors running properly. They can't afford to use those facilities anyway.

If you drop our poor working man's taxes down to only, say, 2% he'll end up paying only $400 in taxes. While still painful for him, he can probably handle that. His family might not eat steak, but it won't hurt them too badly. How much must our rich man pay to make up for that? An extra $2100, or 15.2% TOTAL. Holy cow! That just might break the bank!

Yes, I realize it's not quite that simple, there being so many more poor people than rich. But the point is the same. The more money you make the more you tend to benefit from the money the government spends, either directly or indirectly, so you pay more taxes. And there is less of a burden on the poor.

[Thorne]

The fact that I support a change in the tax system is of no consequence?

I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.

The current tax system is unfair, not for the reasons that you state.
The current tax system punishes success.

Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.

I favor a tax system that is truly voluntary. Increases investment in the nation. Brings fresh capital to the country. Allows people all of the money they work for to be theirs. Provides the very kind of progression in taxation that social engineers desire. Increases the tax base.

Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.

By the way, you did not provide a different understanding of the position you stated in your previous.

I don't understand what you mean, here.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.

I was not trying to imply that you actually said. Perhaps more of a feeling that something I said was missued.

Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.

Shoulder a larger share? Well then we need to discuss "share"! The presumption is that you are speaking of percent of income. Even that falls far short of "sharing the burden" when such a huge portion of the people pay nothing. To tell people that they must pay one-third or more of their income in order that another huge group may be allowed to pay nothing is not sharing a burden but taking on a burden. Should everyone be paying the same rate of tax the wealthy would still be paying more of the tax. But that is deemed as unfair since, somehow paying the same rate is unfair as they make more.
You do not think it is punishing to ask certain people to pay, I can't make a comparison to the lowest rate, some three and a half times that of those near the bottom? I do agree that leaving everyone with the same sum after taxes, or adjusting all pay to be equivalent is stupid.

Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.

Agreed! The Government is not well equipped to determine what is the proper use of the Nation's money. Or even the true mission of the Government itself!
But again we have reference to "paying their fair share". Would it not be fair if all tax was truly voluntary? Would it not be fair if all taxes were applied under the exact same set of rules? Some of those loopholes have the same cache as Social Security, mortgage interest for example.
"(L)ower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most." The people, well certain groups, will not allow that. Any reduction does automatically go to those that pay the most. But the special interests run out their goon squads to decry the tax cuts "for the rich", in spite of the fact that they pay most of the tax.

I still say that the FairTax will solve all of these problems, save perhaps the spendthrift nature of Congress. But even there they can not hide any proposed tax increase, be it some estoric fee or tax on an "evil" company or change in the deductions and exemptions. Everyone will know about the increase and who is responsible.

I don't understand what you mean, here.

I suppose just another way of saying that you said the same thing.

[tedteague]

I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.


Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.


Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.


I don't understand what you mean, here.

what about the wealthy that fund nearly everything? this picturesque america of everyones tax dollars pitching in is not true. the bottom 30% of the country (in income) gets MORE back than they PAID. Fair isnt "everyone should suffer from taxes equally" its "everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income." The wealthy who are paying more are getting the least back from the government. dont bite the hand that feeds, its that same mentality that made john galt leave