The Big Scary Word
Comments
-
Indifference wrote:All I'm saying is ALL federal services you receice for FREE. If it is something via the state/muni/county well how much did you pay in taxes towards them?
The source of revenue of the USA Govt is:
80% - Individual and payroll taxes
13% - Corporate Taxes
7% - excise, estate and gift taxes, custom duties and misc.
In reality though the majority of the government services you receive, on a day to day basis, are state and local. So the logic that those paying little to no federal taxes are living off the rest of us is pretty inaccurate."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
mammasan wrote:In reality though the majority of the government services you receive, on a day to day basis, are state and local. So the logic that those paying little to no federal taxes are living off the rest of us is pretty inaccurate.
Small things should be handled by state and local and hence you probably see more day to day impact of those - doesn't mean the federal govt doesn't provide a lot of services including state and local aid.SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=10 -
Indifference wrote:Agree to disagree - I want a fair/flat tax and you want everyone to make 50K-75K - no more and no less - or something close to that. You make 200K - well we are going to tax you at 75% because you can live on 50K.
I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class.0 -
Indifference wrote:Small things should be handled by state and local and hence you probably see more day to day impact of those - doesn't mean the federal govt doesn't provide a lot of services including state and local aid.
Yes the federal government does provide aid to states for roads, education, etc... but those that do not pay federal taxes still pay into these services through local taxes. So again with the exception of national security, whether it's defense, FBI or CIA, NASA and national parks they still pay into government services."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
digster wrote:I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class
Very well put.
This goes back to my original post on the absurdity of Calling Obama's plan "Socialist" Under both systems we are talking about the distribution of wealth.
1. For the Middle Class
2. For the very rich.
It's 2 different theories on how that distribution of wealth will benifit or effect the economy.
I side with cutting taxes to the middle class simply because they make up a greater majority of America. Putting more money in the Middle Class will have a greater effect on the economy as it will give a vast majority of people a chance to spend money.
The rich will make out great either way because they are esentially the ones who will continue to get rich when the Middle Class have more money to spend.
Keeping the money at the top and hoping and praying that it will magically flow down from the troths to everyone else is a bit of a "pipe dream".0 -
Even as a net beneficiary of taxes, I have trouble understanding how everyone so casually discusses taking other peoples' property. "We should do this" and "we should do that"--like it's no big deal at all.0
-
digster wrote:I don't think he's saying that, and I don't want to speak for him. I think we just have to be willing to look past the paper into common sense logic, and realize that a 20% (pick your number) taxation for someone making 500,000 dollars a year is not the same as someone making 50,000 a year. If both of those individuals paid a 20% tax rate to the government (again, picking numbers out of a hat), the former individual would having 400,000 dollars after taxes. The later would have 40,000. So why do we pretend that this would truly be "equitable?" If you want to cut taxes and MASSIVELY cut spending, I don't think it would be wise in every situation, but it's far more reasonable than this idea that EVERYONE pay the same percentage. It just doesn't work.
The thing that makes this so strange, and it's something that saveuplife, another poster, made an important point about (although I think he thinks it is a good thing), is that the tax system by definition constantly redistributes wealth. Look at the wages for the middle class and those top quintiles under Reagan. Look under Bush. In comparison, the top quintiles made more because the tax breaks offered were more attractive to those quintiles. Under Obama's plan, that would be reversed; the tax breaks would be more attractive towards the middle class. Both of those are redistribution of wealth; however, they differ in that different quintiles prosper under different administrations. In the past thirty years, the middle class has struggled a bit under Republican rule (particularly under the two Bushes) while the top quintiles have prospered; it's the entire idea of trickle down economics. However, they benefit two different sections of the population. I personally err on the side of our income tax system benefitting the middle class.
I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/70 -
I can definitely understand where both indifference and gonzo are coming from on this issue. While a flat tax does seem fair it will affect people of different income levels in different ways. As digster pointed out a 20% flat tax will definitely affect a person making $50,000 a whole lot more than someone making $500,000. This is why i think a national sales tax, Fair Tax, is a better solution."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0
-
know1 wrote:That doesn't answer my question - what loopholes do the rich have that the poor do not?
is that a serious question?"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/70 -
mammasan wrote:I can definitely understand where both indifference and gonzo are coming from on this issue. While a flat tax does seem fair it will affect people of different income levels in different ways. As digster pointed out a 20% flat tax will definitely affect a person making $50,000 a whole lot more than someone making $500,000. This is why i think a national sales tax, Fair Tax, is a better solution.
I actually prefer the "fair tax" to flat tax. Was just taking the other side of a discussion. Prefer both to what is currently in place and what is planned.SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=10 -
know1 wrote:I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.
Get rid of the loopholes and then you may be on to something with your 20%.
w/ Tax Umbrellas, Capital Gains, Equity Witholds, ect ect
You're not playing on a level field plain and simple.0 -
know1 wrote:I think 20% (or whatever number we use) for each level is the same and very fair. In fact, it would be one of the fairest things out there. Think of it this way - the 20% across the board with taxes is much fairer for all then even common consumer goods such as gas or milk or bread, etc. The cost of a gallon of gas for someone who is poor is a much higher percentage of their income than it is for someone who is rich.
Where he's muddying the water is bringing in all this talk about loopholes and essentially saying the rich wouldn't even pay the 20%. If we can have everyone pay the 20% that would work the best, imo.
That's the opposite point of the one I am trying to make; the point is that a 20% flat tax would NOT be the same. Someone trying to support a family with 10,000 in tax taken from a 50,000 dollar salary is not the same as someone with a 500,000 dollar salary who gives 100,000 to taxes, and is left with 400,000 to support his family. It's unrealistic to treat such a result as 'equitable' when it would only be equitable in the abstraction.0 -
digster wrote:That's the opposite point of the one I am trying to make; the point is that a 20% flat tax would NOT be the same. Someone trying to support a family with 10,000 in tax taken from a 50,000 dollar salary is not the same as someone with a 500,000 dollar salary who gives 100,000 to taxes, and is left with 400,000 to support his family. It's unrealistic to treat such a result as 'equitable' when it would only be equitable in the abstraction.
BINGO! give that man a prize.
somehow this simple concept eludes so many. tell me it's not a fuck of a lot easier to raise a family on 400k/yr than on 40k/yr.
people who claim to not see the problem, ARE the problem."Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/70 -
sweetpotato wrote:BINGO! give that man a prize.
somehow this simple concept eludes so many. tell me it's not a fuck of a lot easier to raise a family on 400k/yr than on 40k/yr.
people who claim to not see the problem, ARE the problem.
I don't believe people should be 'punished' for accumulating wealth. The point of striking out on your own is supposed to be that you can become successful. However, I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that a so-called 'equitable' flat tax is equal for those who are making less. 10,000 dollars for someone who makes 40,000 before taxes could be the dividing line between middle-class and poverty. Someone making 500,000 before taxes who is taxed a larger amount, although it is a far larger amount, is in no such danger. If a tax break is going to be given somewhere (as it has been in the past five Presidential administrations, if not longer), then I want it going to the former.0 -
Indifference wrote:I actually prefer the "fair tax" to flat tax. Was just taking the other side of a discussion. Prefer both to what is currently in place and what is planned.
The Fair Tax is by far the better of the three. It allows for taxes to be collected from everyone who is an active consumers, even visitors from other countries."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
mammasan wrote:The Fair Tax is by far the better of the three. It allows for taxes to be collected from everyone who is an active consumers, even visitors from other countries.
In theory, the Fair Tax appeals to me, but isn't there a danger of that leading to decreased consumption?
Also, how would it be administered? Would people be taxed on the basis of their income? On the basis of how much the item costs? How would that aspect of it work?0 -
digster wrote:In theory, the Fair Tax appeals to me, but isn't there a danger of that leading to decreased consumption?
Possibly, but not necessarily. My state has no income tax, but does have a sales tax. People here still buy cars, big screen TVs, etc...
The real danger is that people will feel themselves being taxed every single day, rather than just on April 15th."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help