Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that income, because of low taxes on the wealthy, have concentrated income into the highest levels since the robber baron days:
The emergence of this distribution has important consequences. Conventional income profiling which classified people into categories of the poor, rich and middle-class is no longer relevant. A fourth category of the uber-rich has emerged at the highest income level, distinct from the mere-rich. (source)
The "flat-tax" isn't more fair. Unless you are rich, your taxes will rise under a flat-tax. The flat-tax redistributes the tax burden down to the middle-class and below. That's why it is supported by the wealthiest families in the country. They expect it to lower their taxes, which, of course, means that other people pay more.
Once again, the U.S. budget's problem isn't a spending problem. It's a revenue problem.
If spending is outstripping revenue its a spending problem. If you fail to meet last years income, then it is a revenue problem which should be fixed by spending less.
If I make $100 and I spend $110 it isn't because I wasn't paid enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I respect your right to disagree.
I feel about the fairness of the flat-tax the way Anatole France felt about the law, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
Yes, if the flat-tax is set at 30% to meet government needs, a man earning $30,000/yr. would owe $9,000 tax while a man earning $1,000,000/yr. would owe $300,000. I would contend that the $30,000 man would now find it difficult to manage while the millionaire would not.
Its not 30%, but for arguements sake I'll go with that.
The 1mil vs the 30K man is pretty common to attempt to discourage the flat tax. Theres a few problems with that on a few levels I'll try and speak about.
First, both are completely equal under the law. We strive for equality yet todays current political climate completely reverses that ideal. If each man is supposed to be equal then each man should share an equivalent percentage of income. It is the ONLY way to ensure equality.
Second, the disparity between the 30K person and the 1mil person isn't something thats going to be changed by punative taxation (which is in essence what this is). The 1 million dollar income is obviously doing something that society and the company have determined to be worth that price. The 30K person is statistically performing a task that can be done by numerous people within the general population, the 1mil person is obviously up at the top of their game.
Third, to continue your quotations "Democracy dies as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money" (de Tocqueville), which is exactly what is becoming commonplace as per election results vs. income. When you are making <32K (IIRC, again) there is no reason to vote for anyone other then the person who is promising you all that glitters, because the expense will be borne from those making higher incomes.
Forth, it will not destroy the middle class. Simplicity of the system means everyone can do their own taxes, the reduction in IRS requirements (thereby reducing taxes), and if you reign in government spending to a certain percentage of GDP you prevent government overgrowth.
Its a lot to discuss and take in, but your either sticking with a system the is punative for making more while being detrimental to the election process and allowing for out of control spending without the outcry from the people.
I was surprised that this amendment actually existed. It was created back inthe 1980's because they felt these unions needed the addtional protections. It comes up for renewal on July 1st of this year.
As much as I hate to say it and everyone hates to hear it, Triboro is probably saving towns money. The "step" system was designed by the districts, not the unions. It allows the district to take 18 or 20 years to finally pay a teacher full salary. This is why they always say the "step" is not the same as a "raise". If I was one of these employees I would probably do much better if I got my full salary in year 1 and then only got a raise equal to the CPI. Instead you have 20 steps before you get to full pay. I know it unpleasant to hear on here, but if you were a teacher in year one and make 40k and only got CPI equivalent raises for 30 years you probably wouldn't be making 60k at the end of a career. This is not realistic.
If Triboro was repealed it would actually add pressure to the DISTRICTS to negotiate costlier contracts because they would greatly fear a delayed opening in the fall or teacher strike. Remember, you could not just fire everyone because it would not be a wildcat action (AT controllers) but a protected job action. They would not be paid, of course, but could return up on its being settled.
Repealing Triboro sound great just like 175k superintendent cap, but in reality it would only make life harder for the districts in the end. Be smart and tone down the rhetoric. Look for real solutions.
Teachers are already covered by the Taylor Law no-strike proivisions, even without the Triborough Amnedment they could still be fired for striking. The Triborough Amendment allows the current contract to remain in place until a new contract is negotiated, that is a tremendous advantage for any union and has effectively raised salaries.
Teachers get a COLA increase each year around 3% and majority get a step increase around 3% that is just based on time, not performance. Also they can jump to another ladder with education credits.
Yes Federal AT Controllers are covered by a no-strike provison but they still have a union and can bargain. Around 2 years ago management gave them a last and final offer but in the case of federal unions congress has the last say on any contract, not an arbitrator. Congress rejected the agreement and management negotiated a new contract. Also amost all government employees recently had their salaries frozen including the unions.
If spending is outstripping revenue its a spending problem. If you fail to meet last years income, then it is a revenue problem which should be fixed by spending less.
If I make $100 and I spend $110 it isn't because I wasn't paid enough.
Its not 30%, but for arguements sake I'll go with that.
The 1mil vs the 30K man is pretty common to attempt to discourage the flat tax. Theres a few problems with that on a few levels I'll try and speak about.
First, both are completely equal under the law. We strive for equality yet todays current political climate completely reverses that ideal. If each man is supposed to be equal then each man should share an equivalent percentage of income. It is the ONLY way to ensure equality.
Second, the disparity between the 30K person and the 1mil person isn't something thats going to be changed by punative taxation (which is in essence what this is). The 1 million dollar income is obviously doing something that society and the company have determined to be worth that price. The 30K person is statistically performing a task that can be done by numerous people within the general population, the 1mil person is obviously up at the top of their game.
Third, to continue your quotations "Democracy dies as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money" (de Tocqueville), which is exactly what is becoming commonplace as per election results vs. income. When you are making <32K (IIRC, again) there is no reason to vote for anyone other then the person who is promising you all that glitters, because the expense will be borne from those making higher incomes.
Forth, it will not destroy the middle class. Simplicity of the system means everyone can do their own taxes, the reduction in IRS requirements (thereby reducing taxes), and if you reign in government spending to a certain percentage of GDP you prevent government overgrowth.
Its a lot to discuss and take in, but your either sticking with a system the is punative for making more while being detrimental to the election process and allowing for out of control spending without the outcry from the people.
I'm tempted to reply point by point... Instead I'm curious about one big thing - instead of attacking the pennies from the public sector and looking to keep more money in the hands of the rich, how do you solve the real issues of the monster entitlements like social security. You have a ton to say about unsustainable programs, so curious how you'd solve the real issue. All the spending cuts, tax changes, and govt caps sound great when ranting about them over a beer. But they're like driving around on your bike collecting cans on the side of the road to pay your mortgage. You look busy and are actually getting some money - but it's an exercise in comedy.
Only other comment I'd make is switching from progressive tax to flat tax is a huge step and a complete unknown... assuming it would work out is as bad as your assumption the "The 1 million dollar income is obviously doing something that society and the company have determined to be worth that price." - I just can't get over the ignorance of that statement. I mean wow. It makes me wonder how you don't realize how big the private sector special interests dip into the govt pot and fleece it to their own benefit.
I'm tempted to reply point by point... Instead I'm curious about one big thing - instead of attacking the pennies from the public sector and looking to keep more money in the hands of the rich, how do you solve the real issues of the monster entitlements like social security. You have a ton to say about unsustainable programs, so curious how you'd solve the real issue. All the spending cuts, tax changes, and govt caps sound great when ranting about them over a beer. But they're like driving around on your bike collecting cans on the side of the road to pay your mortgage. You look busy and are actually getting some money - but it's an exercise in comedy.
Only other comment I'd make is switching from progressive tax to flat tax is a huge step and a complete unknown... assuming it would work out is as bad as your assumption the "The 1 million dollar income is obviously doing something that society and the company have determined to be worth that price." - I just can't get over the ignorance of that statement. I mean wow. It makes me wonder how you don't realize how big the private sector special interests dip into the govt pot and fleece it to their own benefit.
Big fan of privatization of SS, put that money into private funds, 401Ks, etc. That way congress can't use it as a bank account. Also, not sure how your saying that tax caps, spending caps, etc are small potatoes. SS and medicare are huge costs, no one is going to say otherwise, but then dismissing cuts is crazy. And its not just beer-driven comments thank you, its a discussion on the viability of continueing the debt we are carrying and the continuation of spending.
So you feel that people being paid 1 million dollar salaries are just some guy standing on a street corner or the person making french fries. People making those salaries are obviously not just some random person off the street, uneducated, or performing tasks that could be done by nearly every person. But please, inform me of my "ignorance". Also, how does a million dollar salary just magically get linked to a special interest group in which both sides end up speaking with and recieving aid from.
There should be little "unknown" factor regarding flat tax. In fact, its pretty much the easiest to make projections over, there is no other factors to look at other then income vs required tax.
Big fan of privatization of SS, put that money into private funds, 401Ks, etc. That way congress can't use it as a bank account. Also, not sure how your saying that tax caps, spending caps, etc are small potatoes. SS and medicare are huge costs, no one is going to say otherwise, but then dismissing cuts is crazy. And its not just beer-driven comments thank you, its a discussion on the viability of continuing the debt we are carrying and the continuation of spending.
One could cut the entire discretionary portion and there would still be a debt. The problem in the near-term is unemployment that is keeping tax receipts down. Solving that problem will help bring the budget in-line more than cutting, cutting and cutting.
There is ample evidence that the cutting is counter-productive. Mark Zandi, of Moody's Analytics, said that the GOP cuts would cost 400,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs analysis says Republicans' $61 billion in cuts would trim U.S. economic growth by half this year.
Professor Krugman, of Princeton, also warns not to lump Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare into Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid. Social Security is funded for many decades and we decide the payouts and the receipts. Not so for the other two. Controlling health care costs is the most important object for controlling deficits. But lets be real, the GOP really has no interest in controlling the deficit. If they did, they would have done so when they controlled the entire government in good economic times. Instead, they pushed through tax-cuts that did nothing to help the economy and added huge debts ($5-6 trillion under Bush's watch) and tax-cuts are still their main focus, even though it has proven to be a failed economic policy and waged two unfunded wars.
Their second priority is cutting items they've always hated, like NPR, Planned Parenthood and the arts. Now, they wrap the policy they always had as deficit reduction -- after they forced Obama to extend tax-cuts that are the largest cause of the deficits!
The problem is that income, because of low taxes on the wealthy, have concentrated income into the highest levels since the robber baron days:
The emergence of this distribution has important consequences. Conventional income profiling which classified people into categories of the poor, rich and middle-class is no longer relevant. A fourth category of the uber-rich has emerged at the highest income level, distinct from the mere-rich. (source)
The "flat-tax" isn't more fair. Unless you are rich, your taxes will rise under a flat-tax. The flat-tax redistributes the tax burden down to the middle-class and below. That's why it is supported by the wealthiest families in the country. They expect it to lower their taxes, which, of course, means that other people pay more.
Once again, the U.S. budget's problem isn't a spending problem. It's a revenue problem.
I agree that part of the problem is the lack of revenue, but I would argue that it's at the other end of the spectrum. In 2009 you had roughly 160 million people file tax retuns. 71 million of those filings paid zero federal income taxes after deductions/credits. Some even made money when all credits were accounted for. The problem with the system is that 47% of the population pays nothing into the system. These people are also some of the biggest beneficiaries of the system, because they use a disproportionate amount of the resources through the plethora of welfare programs that exist. http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/t...axes/index.htm
Maybe the wealthy aren't paying enough, but at least they are paying something.
So, let me understand your argument. The poor aren't paying enough for programs for the poor?
Quote:
The problem with the system is that 47% of the population pays nothing into the system.
That may be true for income tax but those that make this argument seem always to omit the payroll taxes this group pays. Thus, it's not true that they pay nothing into the system.
Their second priority is cutting items they've always hated, like NPR, Planned Parenthood and the arts.
No different than the Dems.
Neither side has a monopoly on trying to stifle the other, especially when they hold the cards. The distaste that some have is directly correlated to the political lens that you filter things through.
One could cut the entire discretionary portion and there would still be a debt. The problem in the near-term is unemployment that is keeping tax receipts down. Solving that problem will help bring the budget in-line more than cutting, cutting and cutting.
But we'd be in a better position to pay that debt which over the course of time saves money in interest and brings us into the fiscal "black" faster. Unemployment is another issue. The policy of "forced equality for all" has many employers cutting costs, outsourcing, or not hiring due to the unknown costs of things like Obamacare.
Quote:
There is ample evidence that the cutting is counter-productive. Mark Zandi, of Moody's Analytics, said that the GOP cuts would cost 400,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs analysis says Republicans' $61 billion in cuts would trim U.S. economic growth by half this year.
Professor Krugman, of Princeton, also warns not to lump Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare into Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid. Social Security is funded for many decades and we decide the payouts and the receipts. Not so for the other two. Controlling health care costs is the most important object for controlling deficits. But lets be real, the GOP really has no interest in controlling the deficit. If they did, they would have done so when they controlled the entire government in good economic times. Instead, they pushed through tax-cuts that did nothing to help the economy and added huge debts ($5-6 trillion under Bush's watch) and tax-cuts are still their main focus, even though it has proven to be a failed economic policy and waged two unfunded wars.
1st article says that Obama is "restrained" on spending. Pretty much loses credibility.
2nd article skips that no evidence exists that the government can spend its way out of a recession, only a recovery of the private sector can do so.
I'll skip Krugman since he's already been pretty refuted already without the need to go into a Kenysian Economics has also failed to produce credible evidence, though this is pretty tell tale for understanding your POV.
The tax cuts have shown that in a period of economic problems lower taxation spurs job growth and the current ideology that is in office showed so far that the increasing of burdon on the business will reduce returns.
Your right on one thing though, Republicans should have pushed through an agenda, but even with the little they did try they were belittled and called dispariging remarks (including the ever-present "racist").
Quote:
Their second priority is cutting items they've always hated, like NPR, Planned Parenthood and the arts. Now, they wrap the policy they always had as deficit reduction -- after they forced Obama to extend tax-cuts that are the largest cause of the deficits!
Tax cuts is your opinion, facts have shown otherwise IMHO. But I'm sure there will be plenty of disagreements. However the cuts are no different then any other playing politics. Personally I would do the same, its not written in the constitution, NPR et all are just bastions of liberal vitriol, PP has had a major scandal, and the arts should fund themselves if the populus is appreciating them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. These people are also some of the biggest beneficiaries of the system, because they use a disproportionate amount of the resources through the plethora of welfare programs that exist.
