Quote :

"why do you think people who excel more in their career should be penalized for being successful by paying proportionately more taxes as a % of paycheck."

Are you seriously asking why taxation should be progressive?

1/20/2008 2:10:36 PM

Moron, what is wrong with a flat tax in your opinion?

1/20/2008 2:31:03 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously asking why taxation should be progressive?"

yes; why should i have to pay a higher % of my paycheck which is a exponentially greater gross take-away for earning my income, when a lot of this money is used for programs that disproportionately benefit those that contributed less or were irresponsible. programs like social security, Medicare, Medicaid, foodstamps, etc. While I do believe this programs have a purpose I think a Flat tax would be a more "fair" way to generate revenue. If social programs are kind of like an "insurance" in case you fuck up in life, don't save enough for retirement, or are just a victim of circumstance than it only makes sense that those more likely to use these programs pay more into it. As it is right now they inhibit the bottom rung of the tax bracket if they end up paying any taxes at out.

1/20/2008 2:53:49 PM

Quote :

"Does that mean it didn't work not because of some inherent flaw in a flat tax system, but because of deliberate intervention by our politicians?"

The ease of manipulation by politicians IS an inherent flaw in the income tax.

Quote :

"Let's put the national government $150 billion MORE in the red! I'm sure the American people will love all the new money they get and elect the same politicians back in office! "

Yep...absurd and unconstitutional spending makes low taxes ultimately impossible.

Quote :

"I AM A WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL AND I SEE NO REASON WHY OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELPED. I BELIEVE THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE PERFECT INTELLIGENCE IN EVERY TRANSACTION THEY ENACT, AND FOR THIS REASON I BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET IS PERFECT. STOP GOVERNMENTING ME!!!!!!!! "

Helping people is all well and good, but it should not be done by the federal government, and should not be done on the scale it is in some cases.

In addition, the fact that some people aren't as smart as me is not my problem. By virtue of being smarter, harder working, having made better decisions, and being generally more capable, I am entitled to the greater fruits of my labor.

Quote :

"well if you're going to call people stupid for having agreed to certain loan terms ("predatory") then you are also arguing that they completely knew what they were doing and that there was no misinformation along the process. but hey, why should simple market externalities get in the way "

They were stupid if they knew what they were doing and did it anyway. In addition, if they engaged in a financial deal like that while being so grossly uninformed and without thinking it through, they were equally stupid. Fuck 'em.

The lending companies also knew that what they were doing was high risk. Now they're paying the piper. Fuck them, too.

Quote :

"Either way if you make a career choice to be a teacher don't bitch about the fact that you only make 35K a year."

Exactly.

1. That salary was hardly a surprise to you. You knew that when the thought of being a teacher first crossed your mind.

2. You only work like 9 months out of the year. Boo-hoo.


Now, I think some adjustments should be made in teacher pay and tenure for the purpose of retaining GOOD teachers and getting rid of bad ones, but this idea that teachers are, across the board, not paid enough is silly. If they weren't paid enough, they wouldn't keep taking the jobs.

Quote :

"Are you seriously asking why taxation should be progressive? "

I can't believe you're seriously arguing otherwise.

I mean, I'll grant you the "blue line" instead of the "red line", but the "brown line" that we have now is bullshit.



I mean, I'm torn between the "red" and "blue" lines ethically, but I would rather err on the side of generousity towards the poor/lower middle class. I don't even see an ethical case to be made for the brown line, though.

1/20/2008 3:55:58 PM

Quote :

"On the other side of the argument though it is kind of ridiculous that the US has one of the biggest income inequaltiy gaps for a modern industrialized developed country."

fo real. This disparity is very obvious to anyone who's lived in another developed country.

1/20/2008 6:18:00 PM

ok

so what's the problem?

1/20/2008 7:02:16 PM

Quote :

"when a lot of this money is used for programs that disproportionately benefit those that contributed less or were irresponsible"

How much of the money that you pay in taxes goes to those people?

1/20/2008 10:14:48 PM

Well according to http://encarta.msn.com/media_461536304/U_S_Government_Spending.html

I would say one could safely guess between 40-50%.

Even if you skew your data heavily in the direction of most of your money going to military spending, you still see between 30-40%

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm


[Edited on January 20, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason : edit]

1/20/2008 10:40:58 PM

So you're saying that all the spending done on social security, medicaid/medicare, and income security went to people who were irresponsible?

What would happen if no one in the US were irresponsible, would these programs go away?

1/20/2008 10:50:32 PM

No but, one would hope that removal or limitation of such programs would eventually lead to reducing the number of people who rely on them. If you make people sink or swim you'll improve the population. Continuing to encourage stupid decision making is not helpful to society as a whole or to the individual you are "helping" in the long term.

1/20/2008 11:44:57 PM

moron's argument most likely relies on the fact that either

a. he is lazy OR
b. lacks the intelligence to fully excel in society.

Therefore he wants other people to work hard and pay taxes so that he can reep the benefits via receiving gov't social programs to support him through out his life.

1/20/2008 11:55:12 PM

Quote :

"someone who makes $500k/year can pay as much as 40% of their income and still get by comfortably"

Well so nice of you to decide that for the rest of us. What if some folks want to do better in life than just "get by"?

This phrase should also make you feel all warm and fuzzy: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

1/21/2008 12:37:08 AM

Quote :

"If you make people sink or swim you'll improve the population. Continuing to encourage stupid decision making is not helpful to society as a whole or to the individual you are "helping" in the long term."

What do you mean "sink"? You mean like bums on the street? Or starving children running around in huts made of zinc and scrapwood?

The problem is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to "swim" in a capitalist society. It's like teachers who give the top 5 students As, the next Bs, the next Cs, regardless of their actual grade. That's how capitalism works. So even if all of the people actually get As, someone's going to end up with a D. The entire reason the US doesn't really dump in to a pit of despair like some 3rd world countries is because we at least attempt to keep our poor at a non-destitute quality of life, and we really owe it to them, because the system is designed for them to exist. A fair tax sans prebate is a pretty terrible idea, because it's directly regressive, which means that the poor masses stay poor, while the rich get exponentially richer, making it even harder for the poor to break out of their cycle. So it's not really fair at all.

The fair tax with prebate is more fair, on paper, but I can't imagine the prebate system actually working. It seems way too easy to abuse, far easier than the current TANF/SS system, because everyone will have access to it, and it seems like it wouldn't fix any problems, and it would create new problems. Loansnark is always going on about the EITC which seems like the best solution to be, with the appropriate modifications to the current tax grades.

Considering that rich people use more resources from society than poor people, as well as from the gov., it only makes sense that they are taxed more. And also considering that wealth and power both scale exponentially with wealth, to maintain a stable democracy something has to keep that force in balance. You're living in communist fantasy land if you think rich people are going to be naturally generous enough to voluntarily donate money to society to keep things floating. That's as delusional an idea as thinking people would be able to work for the common good in a communist system.

A pure fair tax, sans prebate, seems like such an obviously dumb idea, I can't see why anyone would support it. A far tax with prebate seems more reasonable to me, but the whole prebate system doesn't seem like it would work much better than our current tax-return system. I also am not certain how businesses would be taxed with a fair tax. Businesses depend far more on gov. support directly and indirectly than the average person, it's only fair they pay their share too.

1/21/2008 12:55:37 AM

Quote :

"The problem is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to "swim" in a capitalist society. It's like teachers who give the top 5 students As, the next Bs, the next Cs, regardless of their actual grade. That's how capitalism works. So even if all of the people actually get As, someone's going to end up with a D."

wait...

wat?


Why in the fuck would it work this way? In a perfect capitalist economy there shouldn't be any unemployed (or I imagine "failing") people because there's no floor to how low wages can go, and there always exists some rate for which there is a marginal gain for employers to take on those people. Furthermore, the gradient would only be determined by value of the labor, and let's be honest, humans aren't all that different from one to the other.

seriously, you are pulling this out of your ASS.

1/21/2008 1:12:22 AM

I'm not talking about a perfect capitalist economy, i'm talking about our capitalist economy.

Do you seriously think a perfect anything can actually exist?

We should strive for perfection, but we should recognize and account for our limitations.

Quote :

"shouldn't be any unemployed (or I imagine "failing") people because there's no floor to how low wages can go,"

Just because soemone's employed doesn't mean someone's not "failing". By the definitions in this thread, those people are lazy or dumb or both. In fact, your theory reinforces why we need progressive taxation.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 1:23:57 AM

Quote :

"It seems way too easy to abuse, far easier than the current TANF/SS system, because everyone will have access to it, and it seems like it wouldn't fix any problems, and it would create new problems. "

have you ever actually done your own taxes and/or made an effort to become vaguely familiar with the rules and regs of tax law (which is about the best you can hope for unless you're a CPA or something).

Quote :

"Considering that rich people use more resources from society than poor people, as well as from the gov., it only makes sense that they are taxed more."

Are you kidding?

Quote :

"The problem is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to "swim" in a capitalist society. It's like teachers who give the top 5 students As, the next Bs, the next Cs, regardless of their actual grade. That's how capitalism works. So even if all of the people actually get As, someone's going to end up with a D."

Seems we have different opinions of sinking and swimming.

Yes, there will always be a lower class. That's fine and natural, actually.

1/21/2008 1:27:05 AM

Quote :

" have you ever actually done your own taxes and/or made an effort to become vaguely familiar with the rules and regs of tax law (which is about the best you can hope for unless you're a CPA or something)."

Haha, I do my own taxes as well as my parents. I almost look forward (not really) to seeing what interesting thing the gov. puts in tax codes. That's another thing... it pretty clear that most of the tax holes are also geared towards giving breaks to businesses (not that there's anythign wrong with that, small businesses deserve help, as long as they are honest). I worked in retail, and on a weekly basis, someone would come in and buy a plasma TV for their home, and would be very open with the fact that they were going to write it off as a business expense. Either by paying with a business check, or buying gift cards with a business check, then buying the product with gift cards. If we could close those types of loopholes from dishonest business-owning leeches, the gov. would probably make more money than trying to clamp down on all the welfare-leeches out there.

Quote :

"Yes, there will always be a lower class. That's fine and natural, actually."

yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Which is why we should make sure they don't turn out like the kids in somalia.

Quote :

"Are you kidding?"

Nope. Per capital, the rich use more resources than the poor. Lots of money goes to the poor, but they are so many of them, the cost is fairly low per person. ALmost as much money goes to fund the rich, but there are much less rich people. http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm When you look at that, and look at the military spending, how much of that do you think is going to the military industrial complex? Companies like Haliburton and other defense contractors? Some of this money is worth it, but when you consider the gouging companies like this do on the gov., it's clear we're tossing away a lot of money to stuff peoples' coffers. Dell for example, when buying computers on gov. contracts, charges more/unit despite the gov. buying them in bulk, compared to an individual buying the same thing. And this is for the same support contract the individual would get. And they have no explanation of this. I know this first hand, but I'd wager a lot of money that this goes on all across the gov. Most of your court cases that the judicial system has to handle are between wealthy entities. Zoning laws are catered to businesses. Eminent domain is even being used to support private ventures. By the previously posted pie chart, at most, social programs use 32% of the budget. If you assume that a meager 10% of this is "worth" it, that still leaves 22% of the budget to social programs. Compared to the other 70% or so, we could shave a lot more room, in terms of making taxes more "fair" elsewhere.

Switching to a fair tax hurts defense spending and other gov. programs a LOT more than it hurts spending on social programs. And even among the social programs, things like TANF and spending classified as "income assistance" is the minority group. Medicare/medicaid are far bigger chunks, by an order of magnitude, and are used fairly representatively by all groups (actually skewed to whites a little), which means that the people taking advantage of the health care are hardly the leeches the Republicans like to make them out to be.

To be clear, i'm not saying that the current tax system is fair. But it seems a lot of the Fair Tax people are feeling a bit of reverse-class warfare in presuming that all these poor lazy people are brining the gov down. This is a baffling perspective, when you look at actual gov. spending where not that much money is spent on handouts compared to the media attention that it gets.

1/21/2008 2:04:08 AM

Quote :

"Haha, I do my own taxes as well as my parents. I almost look forward (not really) to seeing what interesting thing the gov. puts in tax codes."

Quote :

"I worked in retail"

Oh man, you are one sick fuck.

Quote :

"Which is why we should make sure they don't turn out like the kids in somalia. "

I agree, and all but a few fringe ideologues do, too.



and I didn't know you were speaking per capita.

also, I hardly count rich people being awarded gov't contracts as "using more resources from society than poor people, as well as from the gov". I mean, I guess strictly speaking that's true, but I think that's stretching (to be generous) the scope of the argument.


regardless, i can't imagine you'd argue that the rich and so-called rich don't pay a unfair share disproportionate to the benefits they receive.

i definitely have no boner for screwing over the lower income demographic, or especially the middle class segment where I live (although supposedly i'll be getting promoted into the top 10% by around this summer ), but fair is fair, and what we're doing is fucked up.

of course, I want to be one of the "rich" one of these days, and it would be nice to not be on the business end of the government dick for once!



____________________________
I will agree that welfare, food stamps, and public housing are, to some extent, a whipping boy. I mean, there is a bunch of bullshit spending there that needs to be cut out, no doubt...but THAT'S not where the upper (and middle) class get fucked hard by footing the bill for other people. The number of non-legitimate dollars spent on those programs isn't as bad as a bunch of other things.


[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 3:03 AM. Reason : asdfads]

1/21/2008 3:00:36 AM

Quote :

"What do you mean "sink"? You mean like bums on the street? "

Yes. Exactly like the bums on the street. Most people have too much pride and self respect to be begging for change on the street corner when not even 100 yards away there is a strip mall with 30 stores all with "help wanted" signs. And those that don't have that sort of pride and self respect are choosing their lifestyle, so why should tax money go to help them continue that lifestyle? I don't begrudge them their choice to stand on the corner and earn their money that way, but I feel no sympathy for that fact that the job they have chosen doesn't pay well enough to get them a steak for dinner. I further feel no sympathy when I see them in the gas stations buying their lunch and it's costing them $6-10 which is more than I spend on food for that whole day.

Quote :

"The problem is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to "swim" in a capitalist society."

Absolutely untrue. The only thing you need to do to "swim" in a capitalist society is to provide value to someone. Now it is true that in a capitalist society it is impossible for everyone to be paris hilton, but that's because everyone has different talents and personalities and dreams.

Quote :

"That's another thing... it pretty clear that most of the tax holes are also geared towards giving breaks to businesses (not that there's anythign wrong with that, small businesses deserve help, as long as they are honest). I worked in retail, and on a weekly basis, someone would come in and buy a plasma TV for their home, and would be very open with the fact that they were going to write it off as a business expense. Either by paying with a business check, or buying gift cards with a business check, then buying the product with gift cards. If we could close those types of loopholes from dishonest business-owning leeches, the gov. would probably make more money than trying to clamp down on all the welfare-leeches out there."

That the tax system is so full of loopholes and that those loopholes primarily get exploited by the upper classes is a direct result of having an overly complicated tax system and a tax system which punishes the rich just for being rich. I just received a promotion and raise. I redid my budget and planned on taking home an extra $X each pay check. What I didn't realize was that my raise apparently pushed me into the next tax bracket, so a full 25% of what I thought my raise would be after taxes goes right back into taxes, and that's on top of the taxes I was already paying. You can bet your ass that I'm now more motivated to seek out loopholes and get some of that money back. And when I hit the next tax bracket and this happens again, I'll look for more loopholes.

Quote :

"Which is why we should make sure they don't turn out like the kids in somalia."

The reason you have somalia is a corrupt political structure that doesn't allow people the freedom to survive on their own terms, while protecting them from people who would seek to actively steal the wealth of others. But whether you are breaking into someone's farm and stealing their food, or sending the tax man round to take 25% of what they earned, you're doing the same thing, reducing their ability to provide for themselves.

Like Duke said, no one here is looking to screw the lower class (hell I was lower class until recently) but everyone knows that tax money gets wasted on corruption and people who shouldn't be getting it, but people seem to think as long as they tax it out of the rich, it's ok because the rich can take it. I would prefer a flatter tax system (and a simplified one) if for no other reason than it could be used to start forcing spending into line. When the government knows the most they will be able to get is X because a tax hike on the rich = the same tax hike on the poor, we might start to see some real budgeting going on. Or conversely, we might see everyone becoming slaves to the government, but at least we'll all go down together.

1/21/2008 9:38:04 AM

Quote :

"The problem is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to "swim" in a capitalist society. "

sooo.....

This is part of the reality of life and competition factor that will always be present as a way of naturally selecting those most fit for survival. Unfortuantly their is not enough resources available for everyone to have everything they want and reproduce with their children also getting everything they want. To have anything otherwise would be to create a socialist system at its best and a communist system at its worse where the gov't physically controls the economy to guarantee every comrade a job, food, and shelter.

Quote :

" Considering that rich people use more resources from society than poor people, as well as from the gov., it only makes sense that they are taxed more."

If by resources you are talking about purchasing of real estate, consumer goods, etc then I agree. Thus inherently they pay a higher % of their paycheck then what is directly measured via income tax b.c they then pay more sales taxes on their purchases. If by resources you mean benefits from the government or use of tax payer dollars then you are completely incorrect. I would safely say their is an inverse relationship between tax dollars paid and tax-payer supported services that a citizen receives. You could be right though if the Rich you are specifically talking of just happen to be buddy buddy with a shady politician or one of the uber-rich they are able to lobby favorable actions by congress to benefit their bottom line.

Quote :

"ok so what's the problem? "

See Above

I agree with moron on the halliburton and the eminent domain thing being used to benefit certain individuals private ventures. This pretty much entails my above paragraph. Really if you think about it also, while everyone benefits from a strong military defending our country; the upper tiers of American society have more to lose in the case of a lost war or lack of internal security. Not that this is a bad thing but just food for thought.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 9:57 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM. Reason : a]

1/21/2008 9:52:29 AM

Quote :

"I would prefer a flatter tax system (and a simplified one) if for no other reason than it could be used to start forcing spending into line. When the government knows the most they will be able to get is X because a tax hike on the rich = the same tax hike on the poor, we might start to see some real budgeting going on."

I'm sorry, but you are a fool if you actually believe that.

1/21/2008 10:18:48 AM

Just to keep things more accurate on the FairTax....

Quote :

"I also am not certain how businesses would be taxed with a fair tax."

Keep in mind that most businesses pass on their tax component to the consumer...so actually it's you and I paying the corporate tax. The FairTax removes the federal tax component from business..making America the world's biggest tax haven.

Quote :

"...and would be very open with the fact that they were going to write it off as a business expense."

Cheating is going to occur in any tax system. It will be harder under the FairTax, but still possible. Under the FT, you will need two people, instead of one to knowingly cheat. If a business wants to purchase something tax-free, they will have to have a license from the fed and be required to make all of their tax-free purchases from a licensed wholesaler.

If the business chooses to buy at retail, they will have to pay the tax and then apply for a credit. A big screen TV might catch some attention and trigger an audit.

Quote :

"Switching to a fair tax hurts defense spending and other gov. programs a LOT more than it hurts spending on social programs"

Wrong. The FairTax has been calculated to be revenue neutral, that is it will collect the same amount of federal taxes that the current system collects. With FairTax, you will have foreign tourists helping to pay for our Defense and social security.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

1/21/2008 11:10:05 AM

I think either a flat tax or fairtax is the best way to go. Its the most fair to workers.

I like the idea of either because if government wants to raise taxes they have to do so on everyone, which would make it harder. Instead of playing to class warfare.

1/21/2008 11:39:45 AM

25% Tax on someone who makes 30k a year:

$7500 to taxes
$22500 take home

25% Tax on someone who makes 300k a year:

$75000 to taxes
$225000 take home

If you tax the 300k person a little more at 33% that's enough to make up for 3 people at 30k a year. Are you seriously arguing that it's a good thing to take away money from multiple low-income people that means so much more to that person than to take a little bit more away the person who can afford it? Taking another $25000 away from the 300k person would decrease that person's income by 11%. Using that money to eliminate the tax burden on 3 lower income people would increase their incomes by 33% with money left to spare. By no means am I advocating these people pay no taxes, but statistically speaking, that $7500 means approximately 3x more to the lower income people than the $25000 means to the 300k guy.

1/21/2008 11:50:42 AM

Quote :

"The FairTax has been calculated to be revenue neutral"

maybe so, but you can "calculate" any tax system to be anything you want it to be, but you'll never know until it's actually implemented.

for example, you can make your calculations show you that tax cuts will increase revenue, but that' doesn't actually make it so all the time
http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2006/10/tax_cuts_and_their_consequence.html
http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2007/12/continuing_with_the_shameless.html
http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/to_repeat_tax_cuts_dont_increa.html

1/21/2008 11:54:33 AM

yeah, it looks like fair tax does collect less money.

That said... if you could decrease spending sufficiently it would be great. But there's still one little problem left *cough* national debt.

1/21/2008 12:02:01 PM

Quote :

"If you tax the 300k person a little more at 33% that's enough to make up for 3 people at 30k a year. Are you seriously arguing that it's a good thing to take away money from multiple low-income people that means so much more to that person than"

Yes I am!

Why should the doctor making 300k get punished more by having to pay a higher tax rate then someone that maybe didn't have as much ambition and decided to make a career out of (insert mediocre semi-skilled blue collar job here) making 30K a year.

Most likely this 30K person will then turn around and expect the gov't to pay them during retirement (social secuity) or give them foodstamps/medicaid in the circumstance they get laid off and don't have a job for an extended period.

Since it is SOOO... unfair that upper middle class professionals and the upper class citizens earn more would you also advocate a progressive sales tax. Where every time you make a purchase with your credit card the system would identify you as a "higher income individual" and make you pay 10% instead of 6.75% for someone of lower wealth.

IMStoned420 good thing you pay 0% income tax when you sell pot.



[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 12:09 PM. Reason : a]

1/21/2008 12:07:11 PM

why not set a flat tax at 15-20% across the board?

Everyone pays the same percentage.

So 15% on 30k is a shitload less taxes than 15% on 300k, stoned420. But its the fairest.

I agree with HUR. Why are we punishing people different for working?

1/21/2008 12:20:29 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Exactly like the bums on the street. Most people have too much pride and self respect to be begging for change on the street corner when not even 100 yards away there is a strip mall with 30 stores all with "help wanted" signs. ... Absolutely untrue. The only thing you need to do to "swim" in a capitalist society is to provide value to someone"

So working part time at $7/hr is "swimming"?

^ It's not a "punishment", it's the cost of living in one of the best countries in the world, with good power systems, lots of scientific research to help us live longer more comfortable lives, good roads to get where we're going, allowing the gov. to bail out airlines so we can travel easily, etc.. Where do you think this comes from? IIRC too, a good chunk of your income comes from gov. funded healthcare right? And if you went to school at a state college, the gov. paid for most of your education.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 12:23:03 PM

Yeah i'm down with a flat income tax.


"....but rich people don't need the money as much as I do to buy that 1/5 of hennesey "



^ yeah if you are a high school kid that needs a unskilled part-time job or a senior citizen with a job to supplement SS and to provide something to do. If motivated and can work hard any able adult can find a job making more than $7 even with just a high school degree. If you are 30 and stuck making $7 maybe you need to re-evaluate your life goals. Otherwise to damn bad.

Most likely if you are ONLY making $7/hr espicially if you have kids you qualify for welfare and medicaid. Thus you are pretty much being "paid" additional wages by the gov't.

Hell my 18 yr old sister works at Harris Teeter and gets paid $8 as a cashier. This summer I worked as a pool attendant which basically entitled to me sitting next to a pool 15 hours a week, getting a tan, and cleaning a little at the end of the day. I got paid $9 and if you only counted the time I was actually doing "work" my gross wage was probably like $36/hr.

I have no sympathy for those making minimum wage on their full time job w/o any attempt to do better. I think Social Darwinism holds many truths.

Quote :

"a good chunk of your income comes from gov. funded healthcare right? And if you went to school at a state college, the gov. paid for most of your education. "

umm actually my parents paid for my instate-tuition from 25 years of working and getting NC income taxes deducted out of their paycheck. Hence why you must be a NC resident to get "in-state" tuition.

Also the only people who get gov. funded healthcare are those who pay the LEAST taxes anyway. So everyone else is paying to keep the lowest quintile alive and they do not even make a meager contribution.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 12:34 PM. Reason : a]

1/21/2008 12:23:41 PM

I actually paid out of state. Yep, Id rather have that 50 bucks from the medicaid over the 110 from a private pay. LOL And medicare is cutting reimbursements too. Goal of 40% cut in 5 years. So finding a medicare provider will be like finding a medicaid provider. However, people will bitch and they will never get that big of a cut once the masses learn they "cant" see thier docs anymore.

And my last 4 years I took out loans, so yes the govt loaned me 100k at 3.5%. However, they loaned my lawyer friend his at 1%. Wonder if having all those lawyers in govt had anythign to do with that. ahha

moron, seriously, what dont you like about a flat tax?

1/21/2008 1:10:25 PM

Quote :

"umm actually my parents paid for my instate-tuition from 25 years of working and getting NC income taxes deducted out of their paycheck. Hence why you must be a NC resident to get "in-state" tuition. "

If you went to a state school, even if you paid for your tuition, most of the actual costs of your education is paid for by the gov.

Do you actually the the 2k/semester you pay in tuition actually covers the cost to run the school? Most of that comes from gov. funding and grants, etc.. Why do you think out of state students pay more?

Quote :

"Also the only people who get gov. funded healthcare are those who pay the LEAST taxes anyway. So everyone else is paying to keep the lowest quintile alive and they do not even make a meager contribution. "

At least 50% of the current gov. spending on health care goes to old people, the "greatest generation" as they say. These are people who put their time in making the country great.

The other half goes mostly to kids, who we need healthy or they'll form in to cesspools of disease, making conditions ripe for a disease epidemic.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 1:28:11 PM

moron, he didnt say anything incorrect. People qualify for medicare at 65 or if disabled. So most are probably in a very low tax bracket by not working. Medicaids are low to no income earners so they are no doubt in the lowest bracket.

again, why are you so against a flat tax?

1/21/2008 1:36:00 PM

He was incorrect in assuming those people made only meager contributions.

I've said multiple times in multiple posts what the problem is with the flat tax. It is regressive.

1/21/2008 1:47:24 PM

regressive= fair?

Honestly, why should someone have to pay more in taxes by making good decisions and working harder than others? Just set a flat rate and people can all stop bitching. Everyone pays the same percentage, so everyone would have the same percentage after taxes. Whats the problem?

1/21/2008 1:59:56 PM

Duke you failed to answer my question: are we assuming that EVERYONE who has a very bad loan agreement COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD what they were getting into? That there was no imperfect information along the way? Otherwise you HAVE to have outlets to deal with these market failures.

1/21/2008 2:01:54 PM

^^ In a very real sense, it costs more to tax three people when you can just tax the one a little more. Yes, it would wreck the system to only tax the rich at current spending, but that does not negate the argument, just make it not apply today.

But, if we could shrink the Federal government by half, let-us-say, then I have no problem with taxing $200+k at 35% and everyone else at 0%. The IRS would become a tiny agency only chasing after 20% of the population. Compare that to today, when 70% of the population needs to worry about being audited.

1/21/2008 2:09:22 PM

^^^ I'm pretty sure they teach this in high school ELPS but the problem with that system is for the gov. to be able to run even basic services, the flat tax rate would be prohibitively high on middle and lower class. The reason for this is pretty obvious, and that's because there's a minimum amount of expenses people MUST spend in order to live. This is where the whole prebate system comes from.

Things look fine there, until you look at the 4th dimension, time. Over time, the flat tax + prebate causes a negative feedback loop effect on the poor people, essentially making anyone born poor at an innate disadvantage because of the tax system. This is where the whole idea of progressive taxation came from. People realized this effect decades ago, they've been teaching kids it in high school.

I can't believe the right calls the left elitist, when the right makes poor people, which is most of America by the definitions in this thread, to be lazy, blood-sucking leeches.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 2:10:24 PM

It was still ELP when I was in school.

1/21/2008 2:27:47 PM

the difference moron is that the left want to keep handing out freebies that keep people poor and expand thier voting base.

What you arent explaining to me is why are you taxing people at different rates? To get more income into the govt to then be handed back out? Explain to me how that is fair?

Or the other thing about only taxing people over 200k? Why in the world would you want a job paying over that then? Thats ridiculous.

How about people start living within thier means. If that means you make 30k, you dont buy a 500k house, then bitch when you cant afford the payments. Get the govt out of bailing out people's bad decisions.

1/21/2008 2:33:58 PM

Quote :

"What you arent explaining to me is why are you taxing people at different rates? To get more income into the govt to then be handed back out? Explain to me how that is fair?"

Haha, are you kidding? I didn't say that at all. Did you even read my post?

Even if there were not a single welfare or social program in the gov, even if all we paid taxes for was the military and the roads, we'd still HAVE to use a progressive tax structure. It's more math than the moral indignation you seem to want it to be. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I suggest thinking rationally, and not emotionally, about this issue.

1/21/2008 2:51:09 PM

What is unrational about everyone paying the same price/percentage?

I dont have a chip on my shoulder, I just dont understand what the problem is.

1/21/2008 2:57:56 PM

Welfare and Social Programs are the primary reason I support a flat tax. If the gov't is going to provide services paid by the tax payer to cover the basics and necessities in peoples lives who can not manage to take care of themselves then they deserve to have a higher % taken out via taxes for any income they do make. It is kind of like insurance against you being stupid/lazy/or just a victim of circumstance.

Why should i pay 28% while making 55K a year. 25% of which goes to social programs while Tyronne pay 0-10% income tax on the 8,000 he makes while working at McDonalds. He is using my tax money to buy food through foodstamps; my tax money to provide shelter via gov't subsidized housing projects; and my tax money to pay for his medicaid since McD's does not supply health insurance and he makes below a certain threshold. All his basics are covered for him so his $6.15/hr is like free spending money to get them chrome rims, hennesey, and a oz. of that sticky icky.

On the other hand if our gov't removed all social programs I may on the other hand be more open to the ideas of a progressive tax. Since the net benefit of defense , roads, and some of the other federal programs has more intrinsic value to those w/ more wealth and thus more to lose in the event of a catastrophe.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : a]

1/21/2008 3:07:15 PM

Quote :

"Why should i pay 28% while making 55K a year. 25% of which goes to social programs while Tyronne pay 0-10% income tax on the 8,000 he makes while working at McDonalds. He is using my tax money to buy food through foodstamps; my tax money to provide shelter via gov't subsidized housing projects; and my tax money to pay for his medicaid since McD's does not supply health insurance and he makes below a certain threshold. All his basics are covered for him so his $6.15/hr is like free spending money to get them chrome rims, hennesey, and a oz. of that sticky icky."

do you think you can try to make this argument again, only this time without the racism?

1/21/2008 3:18:28 PM

Paulson is one of Bush's better appointees. Goldman and ex-Goldman guys are good. they are right 99% of the time, and i would never bet against them. you want advisors who are giving you good ideas not their agenda, and i think Paulson is one of them.

i think this kind of stimulus plan can help. i think the last tax cuts helped too, but more should've been returned to the middle class.

i also think Bush's Jobs Creation Act helped - it allowed companies to repatriate capital with a significant tax break.

deepening the defecit and trying to absolve the sins of excess liquidity with more liquidity seem counter-intuitive, but i think at this point its about running on 3rd and 10 so that you can get a few more yards out your punt on the impending 4th down.

now that i've given Bush credit where its due, i'm going to take a parting shot. it is incredibly suspect that Haliburton moved to Dubai. i think they can get the immunity they need in Dubai. if they wanted to cash in on Global growth and be close to places that are building new infrastructure, they could've moved to Singapore.

there's no grand conspiracy here, and as i've said before, i don't question Bush's intentions, just his ability to separate ideas from agenda.

1/21/2008 3:34:50 PM

Dubai is a cool place. Haliburton is ebil tho.

1/21/2008 4:14:01 PM

Quote :

"What is unrational about everyone paying the same price/percentage?"

Okay, then what's a good percentage for everyone to pay?

1/21/2008 4:29:36 PM

Take all the money currently collected via personal Income taxes and divide it by the number of americans paying income tax. bam....

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 4:36 PM. Reason : aa]

1/21/2008 4:36:14 PM

Quote :

"Welfare and Social Programs are the primary reason I support a flat tax. If the gov't is going to provide services paid by the tax payer to cover the basics and necessities in peoples lives who can not manage to take care of themselves then they deserve to have a higher % taken out via taxes for any income they do make."

By this logic, under a "flat" tax a poor person's rate would have to be about 30% of a richer persons, because rich people benefit more from gov, war and defense spending, and poor people benefit more from human services spending.

So you're basically arguing that if your "flat" rate was 23%, then a poor person would be taxed at about 7% and a rich person taxed at 18%.

^ Yeah, and what number do you get? 5, 10, 15, 20?

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 4:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 4:36:21 PM

No not really. The difference being that the benefits received by social services are tangible monetary costs that can be measured. However programs like defense and others which intrinsically benefit the elite more have no tangible way to measure the difference and inherently benefits all to some degree.

While a wealth individual may lose his million dollar mansion if for example Iran invaded; the poor living in the ghetto also are at risk of losing their $50K house that as a proportion of time worked could be similar to the million dollar mansion.

However, some welfare mom receiving $50 in free groceries by using foodstamps to feed her and her 8 kids does not really benefit me.

Besides you are completely neglecting that someone has to fill the positions required to maintain a standing army or some other position that is created by the government like building roads. This money is used to pay the wages of soldiers many of whom join the armed forces as an opportunity to raise the socio-economic position within our society above that of their parents. Thus jobs are created to allow opportunities for the poor to work and make money and thus not need welfare or medicaid.

I think 20% is a good number. With maybe a $5000 exemption for basic food and necessities applied to everyone regardless of income to be fair.

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 4:48 PM. Reason : a]

1/21/2008 4:44:09 PM