California Budget : Same tune .. Different year (buying, luxury, camp)

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

Umm...no. The relationship would be the same, the poor would pay the least, etc What I said, obviously, translates into their taxes as a percent of their income, so:

- The poor would pay a higher percent of taxes in relation to their income.
- The middle-class would pay a higher percent of taxes in relation to their income.
- The wealthy would pay a smaller percent of taxes in relation to their income.



I didn't say anything about fairness and you're still focusing on the cheap talk. Focus instead of the results of the respective tax systems and they are:

- The poor and middle-class pay more taxes with a flat-tax regime and the wealthy pay less.

Economically what does this result in? It results in a very high concentration of wealth in the top 10%. A flat-tax is a recipe for feudal society..... Now, are feudal societies unfair? You tell me...

I have no chips in this game (at least directly). If the middle-class want to lower my taxes and increase theirs "to stick it to the poor"...umm...okay. Good luck with that.

If you are no worried about "fair", why worry who pays what?

With a flat tax, let's say 5%, all pay 5% of earnings. No one pays less, no one pays more.

What is wrong with that?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

If you are no worried about "fair", why worry who pays what?

With a flat tax, let's say 5%, all pay 5% of earnings. No one pays less, no one pays more.

What is wrong with that?

I'm not worried about it. I'm just talking about the economic outcomes of tax policy and personally I'd much rather live in a society where wealth is well distributed throughout the entire society and flat-taxes don't result in such a society.

You're again asking me "what is wrong", I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I only stated that a flat-tax would result in a high degree of wealth concentration in the top 10%. If you think that is wrong then you shouldn't support flat-taxes. If you think those on top are superior, for whatever reason, then perhaps you'd think its just right to allow them a greater share of the national wealth.

And just to note, a federal flat-tax of 5% would be utterly insufficient. I think that is why some people support it though, they think a low figure like 5% would work. If the federal government switched to a flat-tax regime it would be between 15~20%. Heck, some states have a flat-tax close to 5%. When I was in PA I paid a combined state/city flat tax of 6%.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

be·lief

   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

I sure don't get what you are trying to convey here with your highlights ...
• a conviction still isn't a truth
• a confidence [in the truth] ... of something not provable? ... isn't a truth either ... just a belief that something is true without proof...
• faith isn't truth ...
what?

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

" the White Queen (from Through the Looking Glass) says, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." ... [a] mockery of the common ability of people to entertain beliefs contrary to fact."
I'll do no such thing.

Nonsense semantics.

be·lief
   [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

No you spew silly semantics. Like they say opinions are like a$$ holes...everybody has one

o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/


Noun:

• A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
• The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm not worried about it. I'm just talking about the economic outcomes of tax policy and personally I'd much rather live in a society where wealth is well distributed throughout the entire society and flat-taxes don't result in such a society.

You're again asking me "what is wrong", I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I only stated that a flat-tax would result in a high degree of wealth concentration in the top 10%. If you think that is wrong then you shouldn't support flat-taxes. If you think those on top are superior, for whatever reason, then perhaps you'd think its just right to allow them a greater share of the national wealth.

And just to note, a federal flat-tax of 5% would be utterly insufficient. I think that is why some people support it though, they think a low figure like 5% would work. If the federal government switched to a flat-tax regime it would be between 15~20%. Heck, some states have a flat-tax close to 5%. When I was in PA I paid a combined state/city flat tax of 6%.

I see your point, and I don't doubt that the % may not be 5%.

I don't think being taxed an equal percentage makes anyone superior. Why would you think that?

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I sure don't get what you are trying to convey here with your highlights ...
• a conviction still isn't a truth
• a confidence [in the truth] ... of something not provable? ... isn't a truth either ... just a belief that something is true without proof...
• faith isn't truth ...
what?

In your opinion, what makes something the "truth"?

[Curmudgeon]

Some are rather fond of empirical evidence, ya know.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

I don't think being taxed an equal percentage makes anyone superior. Why would you think that?

Umm....huh? I don't think that...nor did I say anything remotely close to that. The point of my comment was simple, this comes down to what you value. If you value a more equal society then you should support progressive taxes. On the other hand if you think those on top, that is the top 5% or so, are some how superior to the rest of the 95% that they should receive vastly more of the national wealth....well you should support flat taxes.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TVC15

No you spew silly semantics. Like they say opinions are like a$$ holes...everybody has one

o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/


Noun:

• A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
• The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.

I haven't "spewed" anything and I don't know what you are trying to say or point out ...
there is nothing about this definition that differs from anything I wrote.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

In your opinion, what makes something the "truth"?

The truth is: you are asking a lot of questions that don't have anything to do with the California budget, or anything related to taxes either.

I suspect, but don't know to be true, that you are jockeying around looking for argumentative angles that can trap other posters into making statements you can seize upon to make a point ... but what that point might be remains your little mystery. Why don't you explain yourself? Truth is a deep philosophical subject. There is a philosophy forum on CD if you want to explore the concept with others. If you have a relevant point to make about the perception of truth as pertains to the discussion here -- make it.