First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Kansas kills Reaganomics
14866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17
I think the only way "tax equality" could actually work is by making a few changes. First of all, you would have to abolish sales tax. Due to the fact that spending habits don't perfectly align with earning habits (basically, poor people typically spend a greater portion of their income than rich people), sales taxes are considered to have a greater impact on the poor. Second of all, you would have to exempt the first $40,000 (or something like that, with different numbers based on livable wage in your area and family size) from being taxed to make sure you aren't overtaxing the poor. Third, you would have to make a lot of hard decisions about exemptions.

So basically, "flat tax" =/= "tax equality", unless significant other changes are made to the tax system.

And even still, I don't think that it is preferable as a system to a tiered tax system.
19812 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


but then what would be the point in working and trying to make a better life for you and your family... if they just going to steal more money from you? Your better off trying to find a easy job to make enough to live on because hard work, and trying to make money only cost you more.

I don't care if the rich pay the say % as me.. they are still putting in more money than I am.. and my goals are to join them in the top 10% some day.. why work hard it your going to be punished for it.. after all in America everyone has the opportunity to become rich.. you just have to work for it.


I have encountered no great difficulties in climbing the tax bracket so I fail to see your point. Tax inequality has not harmed me in the slightest. And honestly I don't get the complaints about it. Lower and Middle class people and families are actually benefiting from it since their tax rate is capped at much lower percentages.

And most people aren't wealthy enough to have any legitimate complaints against it. In my country you have to make 108k or more before you are even hit with a rate above 14% . That is a forgiving as hell rate since let's be honest even most middle class families aren't doing that despite combined incomes. The really lower class persons in my country are paying a 5% rate.

I honestly prefer it that way. The wealthy like me are suffering no hardships and the other tax brackets are given more forgiving rates.
21764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?


If by tax equality you mean the fantasy of a flat tax then yes I'm against it this was the Tax rate before Reagan on the top income earners in this country and they were doing just fine thank you very much.

Edit
No really look up the historic tax rates in this country you will see between 1971 and 1980 the top marginal tax rate was 71% before that it was 70% and before that it was 90% when LBJ reduced the effective rate to the actual rate of 70%



I really don't care about tribal Reagen vs LBJ vs Clinton whatever. Income discrimination is an injustice and anti-equality. Tax equality is more fair, because it values a dollar equally, regardless of who has it.


Income inequality is created by what you claim as being tax equality which is propagated by the belief that low tax rates on the rich some how trickle down to the rest of us. Historically when tax rate were higher we had lower not higher income inequality. So if again your argument is some how lower rates magically make the society more equal you are incorrect. So what do you consider a fair and equal tax I asked if it was a flat tax and you avoid the question. Is this because I made it clear that it a fantasy and I don't approve of it? Since flat taxes are not fair nor are they equal.


Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

Tax equality wouldn't work for what? The exhorbitant waste and government largesse? The government is pretty much the least efficient organization out there; they don't even have to follow GAAP.


It wouldn't work in general. Regardless of roping in the excessive spending in the government, it would deprive those who are incapable of funding due to the idea of "tax equality". Less government is one thing, no government is another. The problem is that the government rightfully assumes that citizens are dumbasses (we are, essentially, regardless of the party alignment). I have nothing against the government's largesse, as long as it extends only to citizens.

The exorbitant waste by the government is mostly centered around our "mostly useless" military - 50% or more of our budget goes there when it's rarely used outside of political statements. That, on top of contractors that charge significantly higher than the national average for jobs that can be done in-house for far cheaper ... compare those two things to how little we spend on "socialist programs" (unemployment, WIC, State Highway Administration, etc..) and you'll find that those programs are nothing but a drop or two in the bucket.
35896 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

The exorbitant waste by the government is mostly centered around our "mostly useless" military - 50% or more of our budget goes there when it's rarely used outside of political statements. That, on top of contractors that charge significantly higher than the national average for jobs that can be done in-house for far cheaper ... compare those two things to how little we spend on "socialist programs" (unemployment, WIC, State Highway Administration, etc..) and you'll find that those programs are nothing but a drop or two in the bucket.

Do you mean 50% of discretionary spending?

The military doesn't actually account for 50% of the budget. You'd have to take large bites out of programs like social security, and medicare first.
10742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

gvblackmoon wrote:

Income inequality is created by what you claim as being tax equality which is propagated by the belief that low tax rates on the rich some how trickle down to the rest of us. Historically when tax rate were higher we had lower not higher income inequality. So if again your argument is some how lower rates magically make the society more equal you are incorrect. So what do you consider a fair and equal tax I asked if it was a flat tax and you avoid the question. Is this because I made it clear that it a fantasy and I don't approve of it? Since flat taxes are not fair nor are they equal.




Well, for starts, the importance of equality comes in the government treating people equally, not life treating everyone equally. So, I really don't see anything wrong with income equality. At least, not any more than I see anything wrong with output equality. So, equality really isn't important in the realm of income. Maybe you disagree, but I don't see why. If you do, perhaps you could explain so.

On the other hand, I believe that equal treatment by the government is very important. Tax equality is part of that. A dollar is, objectively, worth a dollar. If I have ten dollars then my one dollar doesn't suddenly become worth less. It's still a dollar. If I take one of every ten dollars Peter has, and three of every ten dollars Paul has, then that's unfair discrimination and inequality. Why does the government take 10% of Peter's belongings and 30% of Paul's? 10% !== 30%. "Making society equal" is malequality and wrong and unethical. Treating everyone equally is a virtue. The government doesn't exist to make people equal in income any more than it exists to make them equal in grade point average, height, or sense of humor.

The thing that causes income inequality is some things being naturally scarcer than others, and other things being more valuable than others. That, and people's ambitions, talents, and efficiency being unequal. Society is a living thing, but a living thing at equilibrium is no longer living. Homeostasis is where it's at.


ninjitsuko wrote:


It wouldn't work in general. Regardless of roping in the excessive spending in the government, it would deprive those who are incapable of funding due to the idea of "tax equality". Less government is one thing, no government is another. The problem is that the government rightfully assumes that citizens are dumbasses (we are, essentially, regardless of the party alignment). I have nothing against the government's largesse, as long as it extends only to citizens.

The exorbitant waste by the government is mostly centered around our "mostly useless" military - 50% or more of our budget goes there when it's rarely used outside of political statements. That, on top of contractors that charge significantly higher than the national average for jobs that can be done in-house for far cheaper ... compare those two things to how little we spend on "socialist programs" (unemployment, WIC, State Highway Administration, etc..) and you'll find that those programs are nothing but a drop or two in the bucket.


I'm afraid I still don't understand. What does "in general" refer to? If everyone is taxed at an equal rate then will people spontaneously combust while walking down the street? Will government workers turn into vampires? I don't get it. Sure, the military is bloated, just like any government operation. That's just human nature, because the spending is easy when you're spending someone else's money on someone else.

Tax equality is about living up to the ideal that the government should treat people equally, not charge one class three dollars and the other class five.
10742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

sundin13 wrote:

I think the only way "tax equality" could actually work is by making a few changes. First of all, you would have to abolish sales tax. Due to the fact that spending habits don't perfectly align with earning habits (basically, poor people typically spend a greater portion of their income than rich people), sales taxes are considered to have a greater impact on the poor. Second of all, you would have to exempt the first $40,000 (or something like that, with different numbers based on livable wage in your area and family size) from being taxed to make sure you aren't overtaxing the poor. Third, you would have to make a lot of hard decisions about exemptions.

So basically, "flat tax" =/= "tax equality", unless significant other changes are made to the tax system.

And even still, I don't think that it is preferable as a system to a tiered tax system.


I think abolishing sales tax would be throwing out the baby with the bath water, because bigger purchases means more tax revenue. I don't see how you can say sales tax has a greater impact on the poor. If I buy a Maserati because I can afford it then it's going to have a bigger impact on me than the guy buying a Focus. The reason is that since the Maserati costs more. Objectively, my tax bill will be higher, which is a bigger impact than a lower tax bill.

All this tax inequality stuff hinges on the misguided notion a dollar suddenly loses its value if it's surrounded by other dollars. As if a dollar all by it's lone self in a wallet were somehow worth more than a dollar sitting next to nine other dollars. But it's not. A dollar is worth exactly the same objective value whether it's by itself or next to other dollars. I understand the idea that "Oh but if I have a million dollars, then maybe taking a thousand dollars won't 'hurt' as much". I get it, but that's a subjective evaluation, and until you can come up with an objective unit by which to measure 'hurt' then it has no business in the equation.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

karatecowboy wrote:
And why would I, as a someone who makes a hell of a lot more then some dude mopping hallways in some high school I should be contributing more to the financial welfare of my nation. To me the amount my government expects out of me is no hardship. To the janitor the amount the government expects out of him is likely a hardship since he is already makes less then me to begin with.


With tax equality you still are giving more because you're making more. If work ten hours a week and earn ten dollars, and the tax rate is 10%, then I am taxed $1. If I work 100 hours per week and make $100, then I am taxed $10. The rate is equal. Tax inequality discriminates and divides people into classes.

Remember that earnings are your property and yours by right. The onus is on the government to justify taking something, by force, from someone else. You don't have to justify keeping more.

So like I said with tax equality you still are taxed more if you make more, it's just not anti-equality like regressive authoritarians tend to be.

If you are making 10 dollars an hour and work 10 hours, you made $100

If someone else made $1 an hour, and worked 10 hours they made $10.

If you get taxed at 10%, you have $90, and he has $9 left.

A loaf of bread is $3, and the cheapest rent is $8..... Who's fucked here?

Unless you think EVERYTHING should be proportional, in which case he can pay $.80 for the same apartment that costs you $8

10742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

serifsansserif wrote:


If you are making 10 dollars an hour and work 10 hours, you made $100

If someone else made $1 an hour, and worked 10 hours they made $10.

If you get taxed at 10%, you have $90, and he has $9 left.

A loaf of bread is $3, and the cheapest rent is $8..... Who's fucked here?

Unless you think EVERYTHING should be proportional, in which case he can pay $.80 for the same apartment that costs you $8



What you're writing is a great example of the poison of desiring equal outcome, and conflating the virtue of equal treatment by the government with the vice of equality of outcome in everything in life. Trying to make everything equal in life is, as Churchill would say, the politics of envy.

So, thing to remember here is the nature of currency. Currency exists because of convenience: it offers us a very liquid and objective way of measuring value. If it didn't then we would still barter by oxen and things like that, because that would be easier. Governments mess it up by having fiat currency, but a dollar is supposed to be a measure of value in the same way that a cm is a measure of length. It's not perfect, but it's the closest thing we have. What you're saying with your example above is that, for some reason, when I walk by the value of that apartment should be $8, but when some other guy walks by the value of that apartment should suddenly drop to 80 cents. And why? Well, because the other guy makes his living off a less valuable, easier to acquire, and less productive skillset (say, doctor for the former vs floor mopping for the latter), and therefore has less objective value in his pocket.

Let's say it does play out that way: when the mopper pays his 80 cents to the landlord, does that 80 cents suddenly have the same value as the $8 he would have received from the doctor? No, because currency is the yardstick by which we measure market value. One centimeter does not suddenly become shorter just because it's sitting next to nine other centimeters.

Likewise, if you charge the doctor five dollars for government services (taxes) and the mopper five dollars, you're not taking more from the mopper than the doctor. Five dollars will always be equal to five dollars, just like five centimeters will always be equal to five centimeters.

The government doesn't charge us all the same rate for it's services because the government wants to make as much money as it can. If we look at history, the nature of those in power is to treat the populace like sheep, ready to fleece. As citizens, it is our prerogative to say no to that, and force the government to treat us all equally, regardless of race, class, religion, gender, etc. Tax equality is social justice, and tax inequality is social injustice. The former treats us all equally. The latter discriminates and treats us unequally.
21764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

Really that is your argument government should treat people equally it does oh wait you want government to treat people equally in taxation as well as I point out that leads to inequality like what we have right now. As I thought it is more flat tax horseshit. Natural scarcity does not create income inequality that is created by rules and regulation and taxation that is rigged against the middle class and poor. As the Canadian and I both pointed out he is doing fine and back when the tax rate was at 70% for the top margin the rich did fine in this country as well.

The argument you are making is no different then those made for Reaganomics back in the 1908's which is where your equal taxation argument comes from. It sounds nice oh lets treat everyone the same when it comes to taxes after all the rich will then spend more money and it will trickle down to everyone else. This was the logic use with Reaganomics and it is similar logic used with what you are using.

When the tax rate was higher on those at the top from the 1940's to 1980 everyone and I mean everyone was doing better. The reason for this is those at the top kept more money in their companies and didn't take it out as earning because the business tax rate is lower. This in turn allowed for them to increase wages to encourage folks to stay on at companies so they didn't loose talent. Everyone profited from it Businesses did better because the talent and capital need to expand was there and not being drawn off at the top. People did better because those at the top were closer to the middle and had more contact with them those at the bottom had a way up and those in the middle did as well. This was not a naturally system it was one created by man. Economies are not something that springs up out of whole cloth in nature they are since their origin an artificial construct.

Economies are constructs of man and requires rules and regulations to work taxation is one of those rules to provide for the services the government provides the economy and the protections that should be and need to be in-place so we don't have crashes every five years like they used to happen or people loosing limbs because their boss doesn't want to have safety rules in place to protect them.

Watch the movie "Inequality For All" before you continue please yes it is Robert Reich but it lays out and explains where you are wrong better then I ever could.
154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17
The only reason a private citizen can effectively amass a fortune to begin with is their right to property and autonomy is enforced and protected by the law and order provided by a free government. Without this condition, any property held would eventually be taken away from them by force. This is essentially a societal contract.

When that society decides it will benefit from the tax money by using different tax brackets, the rich affected really have no ground to complain. They're only recourse is trying to convince the rest of society that it's not in their self-interest because "you'll be rich someday" or "It's not fair" or my personal favorite "I'll just give up my luxuries and live as a poor person". If you fall for any of those, you are a sucker.
14866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

I think the only way "tax equality" could actually work is by making a few changes. First of all, you would have to abolish sales tax. Due to the fact that spending habits don't perfectly align with earning habits (basically, poor people typically spend a greater portion of their income than rich people), sales taxes are considered to have a greater impact on the poor. Second of all, you would have to exempt the first $40,000 (or something like that, with different numbers based on livable wage in your area and family size) from being taxed to make sure you aren't overtaxing the poor. Third, you would have to make a lot of hard decisions about exemptions.

So basically, "flat tax" =/= "tax equality", unless significant other changes are made to the tax system.

And even still, I don't think that it is preferable as a system to a tiered tax system.


I think abolishing sales tax would be throwing out the baby with the bath water, because bigger purchases means more tax revenue. I don't see how you can say sales tax has a greater impact on the poor. If I buy a Maserati because I can afford it then it's going to have a bigger impact on me than the guy buying a Focus. The reason is that since the Maserati costs more. Objectively, my tax bill will be higher, which is a bigger impact than a lower tax bill.

All this tax inequality stuff hinges on the misguided notion a dollar suddenly loses its value if it's surrounded by other dollars. As if a dollar all by it's lone self in a wallet were somehow worth more than a dollar sitting next to nine other dollars. But it's not. A dollar is worth exactly the same objective value whether it's by itself or next to other dollars. I understand the idea that "Oh but if I have a million dollars, then maybe taking a thousand dollars won't 'hurt' as much". I get it, but that's a subjective evaluation, and until you can come up with an objective unit by which to measure 'hurt' then it has no business in the equation.


As I previously stated, the poor spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy. While the wealthy are more likely to make big purchases, they are also much more likely to have money saved in the bank. Here is a breakdown from the IB Times based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

http://www.ibtimes.com/consumer-spending-how-much-their-income-do-poor-rich-american-families-spend-housing-1287121

Because the image is so big, I'll type out a quick breakdown:

Poor:
Income - $17k
Expenditures - $24k
Percent of Income Spent - 141%

Average:
Income - $63k
Expenditures - $50k
Percent of Income Spent - 79%

Wealthy:
Income - $247k
Expenditures - $123k
Percent of Income Spent - 49%

You will see that the poor spend more on necessities while the rich spend more on luxuries, however, they do not spend so much to neutralize the difference made up by cost of living.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:


What you're writing is a great example of the poison of desiring equal outcome, and conflating the virtue of equal treatment by the government with the vice of equality of outcome in everything in life. Trying to make everything equal in life is, as Churchill would say, the politics of envy.

Blah blah blah blah.....


Actually, I'm trying to point out the difference between percentages and specific values.

I don't mind some inequality, but I believe the role of the government is to balance out the inequalities of the market to make it at least "fairer".

Of course you want "fairness" in your taxes

As for "skills", It's bullshit. most of the time it's who you know and luck.

Plus you think those that market supply and demands should guide labor as it does goods, so if the labor market were to get together like businesses do to artificially inflate their prices to maximize profits... Oh wait.. That's unions.

Or perhaps as businesses might pay less for labor than is sustainable then perhaps labor should force the markets to sell goods at less than sustainable prices..... Oh wait, you're against that too...

Why are some things ok and some things not?
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

sundin13 wrote:

As I previously stated, the poor spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy. While the wealthy are more likely to make big purchases, they are also much more likely to have money saved in the bank. Here is a breakdown from the IB Times based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

http://www.ibtimes.com/consumer-spending-how-much-their-income-do-poor-rich-american-families-spend-housing-1287121

Because the image is so big, I'll type out a quick breakdown:

Poor:
Income - $17k
Expenditures - $24k
Percent of Income Spent - 141%

Average:
Income - $63k
Expenditures - $50k
Percent of Income Spent - 79%

Wealthy:
Income - $247k
Expenditures - $123k
Percent of Income Spent - 49%

You will see that the poor spend more on necessities while the rich spend more on luxuries, however, they do not spend so much to neutralize the difference made up by cost of living.


yeah.... I don't think he gets that...
Banned
11283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
So your uncle voted for or against this plan?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.