The honeymoon is ALREADY over? Shocking numbers

[droski]

C'mon, dude. If you're not going to be honest, what's the point of having a debate?

40-something percent of the country doesn't pay INCOME taxes this year. They still pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales, gas, and wheel taxes.

And? Those extra taxes are so high half the country can't afford income taxes?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

C'mon, dude. If you're not going to be honest, what's the point of having a debate?

40-something percent of the country doesn't pay INCOME taxes this year. They still pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales, gas, and wheel taxes.

Those are a given for all and have nothing to do with the equitable tax structure you're justifying. He has been talking federal income taxes from the word go.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[StepCross]

so in your opinion higher taxes for teh rich aren't a negative incentive for people to generate new wealth?

First, Of COURSE not.

Imagine a guy making 50K. He gets offered a raise at work of 1000K.

He checks the books, and lo and behold, his taxes will go up by (let's be brutal) 500.

Then that guy, you claim, will DECLINE the 1000 because he would only get to keep 500 of it????

That would be stupid.

Second, I don't want "higher taxes for the rich." I've explained what I want very thoroughly, and you keep misstating it so you can argue with it.

 

[StepCross]

Those are a given for all and have nothing to do with the equitable tax structure you're justifying. He has been talking federal income taxes from the word go.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

As have I. But I'm talking about a theoretical progressive income tax, not the ugly beast that is our actual US tax code.

In fact, I'm not sure why he keeps bringing up US income taxes, as though I'm somehow their champion. I've been clear that our code sucks.

 

[StepCross]

Those are a given for all and have nothing to do with the equitable tax structure you're justifying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

BTW, good point about how my structure is equitable.:hi:

 

[StepCross]

And? Those extra taxes are so high half the country can't afford income taxes?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Jiminy cricket. Who cares? That's not what I'm defending here.

There are two issues here.

1. A progressive income tax being the correct way to tax a country.

2. The crap storm that is US taxation, between sales, property, income (which itself is complicated as chinese arithmetic), vice, gas, luxury, wheel, and the lottery, which is a tax on ignorance.

I'm defending #1. I don't know why you're even talking about #2 at this point.

 

[utgibbs]

Jiminy cricket. Who cares? That's not what I'm defending here.

There are two issues here.

1. A progressive income tax being the correct way to tax a country.

2. The crap storm that is US taxation, between sales, property, income (which itself is complicated as chinese arithmetic), vice, gas, luxury, wheel, and the lottery, which is a tax on ignorance.

I'm defending #1. I don't know why you're even talking about #2 at this point.

Nice one. :thumbsup:

Let me be very clear as well. The three maxims for a tax system are:

Simple
Transparent
Progressive

I wish I could say I invented these maxims, but I can't. Credit goes to Adam Smith long before me.

 

[utgibbs]

Needed to add the "Tax Revolt" by the US top tax bracket as well over time:

If you would like a comparison with the lowest rate:

This is simply a reflection of the marginal rate. Effective tax rate will be much different and be much in favor of the blue line vs the red.

 

[BigPapaVol]

BTW, good point about how my structure is equitable.:hi:

Only highlighting your word.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

We can't control that indirect stuff, but surely we'd prefer not to DIRECTLY take food out of people's mouths, right? I mean, in that case, what's the point? We want better society, not worse.

Yes. Gov't DOES control the indirect stuff. If you take an extra 15% of an entrepreneur's income and transfer it to someone who will do nothing but consume it then that is 15% that will NEVER go toward creating a job for someone. There is no residual value to it... it is simply gone. Because it is GONE... it can't EVER produce new wealth to buy milk for the baby.

So you are now saying that the failure to take by force something earned by one person is equivalent to taking food from a baby? That's ridiculous.

Of course we want a better society. I believe that people living free and responsibly will be better for ALL than any society produced by an effort to engineer the outcome. Income taxes are a tool used to try to engineer the outcomes.

No. I'm making a PRACTICAL judgment. It's impractical to directly tax our own citizens at a rate that makes it impossible for them to (say) eat. That would be stupid, and would make life worse for even successful people like you and me, because it puts a higher burden of things like homelessness and starvation and crime on all of us.

How many times must I repeat that I oppose the income tax in all its forms on principle?

The income tax as a direct tax does not apply to around 50% of Americans. I sizeable portion of that 50% will actually get more back than they paid in. If your opinion concerning the progressive income tax were correct then we should have no homelessness or crime.

It definitely does. It taxes people who buy things. Lower-middle class people buy only necessities, so they're getting slammed on taxes.

No. It doesn't. If sales tax on something pushes it out of your price range then the seller has to shift his price point or go out of business. If his costs are dramatically less because the myriad of other taxes have been eliminated then he has plenty of room to move his price point.

The more wealthy can save boocoodles, and thereby escape most of the taxes.

Then adopt the Fair Tax that prebates every family with the tax that would be paid against necessities. Exempt necessities like food and utilities from the sales tax or tax necessities at lower rates than say... yachts or BMW's or cell phones or computers.

That doesn't sound either fair or practical to me.

It is manifestly fair that those who consume should pay the tax. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the "rich" consume far more than the poor. And for that matter, if you EVER want the poor to become "rich" then you need to let them save without eroding it with taxes.

Simply put... a "poor" person could choose to set aside and invest while living modestly. He could literally choose when and how he wanted to be taxed. He would never be taxed more for working OT, for working a second job, for learning to buy stocks or mutual funds, for operating a side business.

I'm not defending the current code, I'm arguing theoretical tax here.

There is no way to justly implement an income tax. It always gives the taxing authority too much leverage over the individual.

 

[sjt18]

Nor yours.

I am not attempting to make a moral judgment over someone else's wealth. That would be you. You somehow have in your head that you are entitled to say when they have enough and should pay more in taxes or when they have too little and should pay nothing.

I WANT the most indirect tax possible... the one that keeps gov't furtherest from controlling us or knowing and manipulating our private affairs. That is and always will be a consumption tax.

We're not taxing people to "help the person who produces less," or to "help the economy."

We're just taxing people to collect enough money to run a country.

You seem like a smart guy but this expresses an extraordinary level of naivety. If you want to raise revenue, you tax at the fewest possible points in the most simple and concrete way that you can. You tax by a means that allows natural market forces to operate to bring growth to the economy and tax revenues.

You do NOT create a system as necessitated by the income tax where literally millions of people are required to semi figure the whole mess out.

You can't simplify the income tax a whole lot without taking away deductions, right? Whose deductions get cut? If you believe in a progressive income tax then there is a good reason for most of those 50K deductions.

You want a flat tax? What about dependents? Should one guy with no family pay the same as his co-worker making the same salary who has 3 kids?

 

[StepCross]

transfer

*StepCross bangs head against wall*

If you take an extra 15% of an entrepreneur's income and transfer it to someone who will do nothing but consume it then that is 15% that will NEVER go toward creating a job for someone. There is no residual value to it... it is simply gone. Because it is GONE... it can't EVER produce new wealth to buy milk for the baby.

Gone? It's not gone!

If they CONSUME it, then it goes to a merchant, and it DOES potentially create jobs.

So you are now saying that the failure to take by force something earned by one person is equivalent to taking food from a baby? That's ridiculous.

I said nothing like that. I agree, it is ridiculous.

Of course we want a better society. I believe that people living free and responsibly will be better for ALL than any society produced by an effort to engineer the outcome. Income taxes are a tool used to try to engineer the outcomes.

"Engineer the outcome"? What the holy hell? I just want to pay for the army!

Ye gods.

The income tax as a direct tax does not apply to around 50% of Americans. I sizeable portion of that 50% will actually get more back than they paid in. If your opinion concerning the progressive income tax were correct then we should have no homelessness or crime.

That is NOT what I said. I said that IF we DID take food out of mouths with taxes, that would be BAD because it would CONTRIBUTE to crime and homelessness.

I did NOT say it was the ONLY cause of such.

IT WAS A BLEEDING HYPOTHETICAL, dude!

Then adopt the Fair Tax that prebates every family with the tax that would be paid against necessities.

That would just protect the poor and the rich, and bleed the middle class dry.

Exempt necessities like food and utilities from the sales tax or tax necessities at lower rates than say... yachts or BMW's or cell phones or computers.

Now you're starting to sound progressive. Careful!

And for that matter, if you EVER want the poor to become "rich" then you need to let them save without eroding it with taxes.

Uh...shouldn't that be MY line?

Simply put... a "poor" person could choose to set aside and invest while living modestly. He could literally choose when and how he wanted to be taxed. He would never be taxed more for working OT, for working a second job, for learning to buy stocks or mutual funds, for operating a side business.

Yes, he would. Because if he were poor, he would be forced to spend every penny of it.

 

[StepCross]

I am not attempting to make a moral judgment over someone else's wealth.

Yes, you are, actually! You're saying that if you pay more in taxes than someone else, then they're "stealing" from you, and that it's not your fault they "don't work as hard as you."

If that's not a pair of moral judgments, it would definitely pass for one in a police lineup.

You somehow have in your head that you are entitled to say when they have enough and should pay more in taxes or when they have too little and should pay nothing.

No. I'm saying gradually raise the percentage from 0% to some top cap, like 35%, so that EVERY PERSON MAKING 10K or more pays the same percentage on that first 10K. Similarly with everyone's first 20K, 30K, etc.

What's "enough" isn't for me to say. It varies from state to state, and it varies over time. All we could do would be estimate.

But it's certain that 0 isn't enough to live on, and 1 million is more than enough (at least today).

The middle is details. Somebody could figure it out.

 

[utgibbs]

I know it often happens in the debates that y'all end up supporting my own arguments ("the freakin' governor appoints the Board of Trustees!" :hi but you sound positively progressive now, sjt!

 

[sjt18]

Yes, you are, actually! You're saying that if you pay more in taxes than someone else, then they're "stealing" from you, and that it's not your fault they "don't work as hard as you."

That's not making a moral judgment over what belongs to them... it is making a moral a moral judgment over WHAT BELONGS TO ME.

If that's not a pair of moral judgments, it would definitely pass for one in a police lineup.

What you own is yours. What I own is mine. What you earn is yours. What I earn is mine. If our gov't is going to treat us equal under the law then it should not be in the business of saying you earned too much and therefore should be treated differently.

No. I'm saying gradually raise the percentage from 0% to some top cap, like 35%, so that EVERY PERSON MAKING 10K or more pays the same percentage on that first 10K. Similarly with everyone's first 20K, 30K, etc.

I know precisely how the progressive income tax works. You can stop repeating this now. I would not state such concrete and emphatic opposition to it if I had not thought it through carefully and over a significant amount of time.

Once again, I am not opposed to taxation. I am opposed to the income tax and particularly the progressive income tax.

What's "enough" isn't for me to say.

EXACTLY. And since the gov't derives ALL of its legitimate powers from the people (as an extension of what they have a right to determine and do)... it is not for gov't to say either.

But it's certain that 0 isn't enough to live on, and 1 million is more than enough (at least today).
.

Now you have conflated the argument again from how to tax to how to redistribute wealth.

I really wish you would read up on the Fair Tax to see how it protects those you are concerned about. IIRC, a family of 4 would receive a "pre-bate" for about $400 per month so that they do NOT pay taxes on essentials. Roughly the first $1700 spent each month by a family would be tax free. Remember, all those hidden taxes would be eliminated too. The ONLY tax directed toward the American people would be this 23% sales tax collected on expenditures over $1700 per month.

No phone tax, airline ticket tax, corporate taxes hidden in prices, gas tax, transportation taxes hidden in prices, etc.

After the essentials... who consumes more? By far and away those with more disposable income do.

Gone would be the loopholes that allow Warren Buffett to pay less income tax than his secretary. This is an old article but note just one thing: Byron York on John Kerry & Tax Returns on National Review Online How many times did multi-millionaires like Kerry, Gore, and Bush living a lavish lifestyle with $1000 plate dinners, in home chefs/gardners/maids/butlers, luxury cars, multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, etc report less than $200K in income?

Do you really want a way to make these high consumers of wealth pay their "fair share"? I do. They will NEVER do it under an income tax administered by them or their elite pals.

 

[StepCross]

Now you have conflated the argument again from how to tax to how to redistribute wealth.

No, no, and no!

I do not want to redistribute anything! I just don't want to tax a person with 0 income, as that would be foolish and pointless!

I know precisely how the progressive income tax works. You can stop repeating this now.

Then stop stating my position incorrectly, and I'll stop repeating what I'm really saying.

 

[StepCross]

And for that matter, if you EVER want the poor to become "rich" then you need to let them save without eroding it with taxes.

I just want to go back to this statement of yours for a minute.

Ask yourself: what is the difference in you saying that, and me saying "progressive rates are more fair"?

In fact, your sentence up there is so progressive-sounding I actually would have avoided it.

Because if I had said it, the "don't-steal-my-money" crowd would attack me with all their moral judgments about what's theirs and why the "poor" aren't working hard enough and don't deserve a chance to save.

 

[sjt18]

Gone? It's not gone!
If they CONSUME it, then it goes to a merchant, and it DOES potentially create jobs.

Yes. It is GONE. Imagine a subsistence farm run by 20 people. Five people decide they want to eat but not work and the others allow it. What they eat is gone. It does NOT go to producing a more "wealthy" society for everyone. It might go toward creating more work for the others and further drag down their lives but it will not create more wealth for them all. At a certain point, the 15 workers do not have anything left to give without becoming so weak that they cannot support the group.

When a person consumes without contributing anything or worse engaging in destructive behaviors... that wealth is GONE.

I said nothing like that. I agree, it is ridiculous.

Yes. You did.

"Engineer the outcome"? What the holy hell? I just want to pay for the army!

Then lets go to a very efficient, very effective consumption based tax system and eliminate the very inefficient income tax that empowers gov't to control behavior.

Ye gods.

That is NOT what I said. I said that IF we DID take food out of mouths with taxes, that would be BAD because it would CONTRIBUTE to crime and homelessness.

I did NOT say it was the ONLY cause of such.

IT WAS A BLEEDING HYPOTHETICAL, dude!

If so, then it failed the reality test. Reducing the taxes of the "rich" is not the same as raising taxes on those so poor they can't feed their kids... it just isn't. That whole line of reasoning you attempted falls apart then and there.

That would just protect the poor and the rich, and bleed the middle class dry.

How? The middle class now pays virtually all of the taxes anyway. I am not necessarily proposing a change to who pays... just a more direct means of getting the revenue and a dissolution of the gov't's ability to manipulate and control through the tax code.

Consumers will ultimately pay all taxes. The rich actually now have the ability to even transfer the taxes on what they consume to others through the tax code. The "poor" are subsidized much more than they pay in any form. The largest group of consumers is and will remain the middle class... but if you really want the "rich" to pay their fair share then you MUST use a consumption tax.

Now you're starting to sound progressive. Careful!

No. If I were then those who could "afford" more groceries would get as much of an exemption.

Uh...shouldn't that be MY line?

No because the progressive income tax has demonstrated very clearly that it does not promote upward mobility.

Yes, he would. Because if he were poor, he would be forced to spend every penny of it.

Nope. It would mean he always had a very clear choice of whether to accummulate more marginal income through more effort or not... of whether to consume that marginal income or save/invest. It would not obscure in anyway the benefit of working and saving.

If you really don't think so... just talk to an hourly employee who has their paycheck eaten up by taxes on their OT.

 

[MG1968]

I know it often happens in the debates that y'all end up supporting my own arguments ("the freakin' governor appoints the Board of Trustees!" :hi but you sound positively progressive now, sjt!

if by "ya'll" you mean other lefties like LG, Fido, Ed, and stepcross, then hoo-ray for you and your pet gorilla.

 

[sjt18]

No, no, and no!

I do not want to redistribute anything! I just don't want to tax a person with 0 income, as that would be foolish and pointless!

How would a consumption tax apply a tax to someone with zero income? Who exactly are you talking about btw?

Then stop stating my position incorrectly, and I'll stop repeating what I'm really saying.

I haven't. I have disagreed with your position and told you specifically why and how. Rather than taking those objections and saying "You are wrong and here is why"... you either do not understand or else are evading by trying to argue something not in question.

 

[StepCross]

Yes. It is GONE. Imagine a subsistence farm run by 20 people. Five people decide they want to eat but not work and the others allow it. What they eat is gone. It does NOT go to producing a more "wealthy" society for everyone. It might go toward creating more work for the others and further drag down their lives but it will not create more wealth for them all. At a certain point, the 15 workers do not have anything left to give without becoming so weak that they cannot support the group.

When a person consumes without contributing anything or worse engaging in destructive behaviors... that wealth is GONE.

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

We don't live on a farm, where we get paid by means of a bag of potatoes.

We get paid by, um, money. Then if people "consume" it -- that is, SPEND it -- then it goes to the proprietor of the store they spent it at. Then he spends it on something else, or saves it, or invests it.

And so on.

In other words, it doesn't vanish--it goes back into the economy.

The middle class now pays virtually all of the taxes anyway.

Yes, they do.

I am not necessarily proposing a change to who pays...

I am. Why should the middle class pay it all? The affluent should help out too. The burden is unequally distributed, as you just noted.

No because the progressive income tax has demonstrated very clearly that it does not promote upward mobility.

It's demonstrated no such thing. We don't have progressive taxation in America.

 

[StepCross]

How would a consumption tax apply a tax to someone with zero income? Who exactly are you talking about btw?

I'm trying to start from an obvious point, and build from there.

If someone makes 0, clearly you can't tax them.
If someone makes 1 dollar, it would be stupid to tax them 1 dollar. It would probably be stupid to tax them anything at that income.

OTOH, if someone makes billions and billions, well, we can probably tax them (say) 20%, and it won't be a killer for them.

It then seems reasonable to start at 0% on the first dollar, and work your way up to 20% on the bazillionth dollar.

It's a reasonable, natural, and fair thing to do, and it is not tantamount to "stealing."

 

[MG1968]

I'm trying to start from an obvious point, and build from there.

If someone makes 0, clearly you can't tax them.
If someone makes 1 dollar, it would be stupid to tax them 1 dollar. It would probably be stupid to tax them anything at that income.

OTOH, if someone makes billions and billions, well, we can probably tax them (say) 20%, and it won't be a killer for them.

It then seems reasonable to start at 0% on the first dollar, and work your way up to 20% on the bazillionth dollar.

It's a reasonable, natural, and fair thing to do, and it is not tantamount to "stealing."

America's economy would be soaring if the top marginal rate were a mere 20%. It would be even better if there was zero tax on earned income and a consumption tax used in it's place.

 

[Tenacious D]

sweet jesus. how is this showing the tax rate is 10%? are you really this dumb? don't you realize that corporations lost billions in 09? ya think that might have something to do with tax receipts dropping.

I am sick and tired of everyone destroying UTGibbs' Utopian ideals with "facts" and using "logic" and "reason".

Isn't it sufficient to say that he wants all of this to be true? I mean, he really, really, REALLY, wants to deliver this Utopian vision to us?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

We don't live on a farm, where we get paid by means of a bag of potatoes.

We get paid by, um, money. Then if people "consume" it -- that is, SPEND it -- then it goes to the proprietor of the store they spent it at. Then he spends it on something else, or saves it, or invests it.

And so on.

In other words, it doesn't vanish--it goes back into the economy.

If you don't get this simplified analogy then I am afraid that no one can help you.

The wealth represented by that money is consumed by that person while they contribute nothing. This is truly as simple is 1-1=0.

I am. Why should the middle class pay it all? The affluent should help out too. The burden is unequally distributed, as you just noted.

I am simply saying the income tax and especially the progressive income tax will NEVER do it. Anyone who tells you different is either lying or is regurgitating a lie.

It's demonstrated no such thing. We don't have progressive taxation in America.

Yes we do... about as "perfect" as it can be while remaining "fair". If you purified it then it would only make it harder to climb each rung. Once you reached another one of your income levels more of what you needed to go higher would be confiscated.