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.
so why should it charge us differently just because some of us make less money than others?
Because that's how Adam Smith set it up when he wrote the playbook for this thing called "capitalism."
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
I have no problems paying more for my milk -- to use your analogy. I make more. I should pay more. Back when the top tax tier was 88%, wealthy Americans used to brag where they landed on the progressive tax scale. It was like golf scores in reverse. "Just hit 75, up from 60." Col. Tom Parker (whose name was not Tom Parker, nor was he a colonel), famously bragged that his job was to "Keep Elvis in the 88% tax bracket."
Furthermore, don't you think that if we made the top tier, say, 40% with no loopholes, the wealthy Americans who now throw hundreds of millions of dollars at candidates for promises of lower taxes would instead throw hundreds of millions of dollars at candidates for promises of reining in spending?
You can't expect 10% of the people to hold 90% of the wealth and then try to get the remaining money from the have-nots. That is what the flat-tax people are basically arguing for.
I hope that's not 2 x 0= 0. (Half kidding, half serious, which is kinda sad)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastrudy
How about the gov't just stops spending more than ever in history and pass a budget that actually solves the debt crisis?
Bush was the one who blew through the surplus left by Clinton with expensive wars. The debt crisis was the result of Republicans putting our nation to the economic brink and trying to pin it on President Obama. <===That's what the credit rating service said when they downgraded the USA credit rating.
I'm not going to argue with that. But the latest downgrade is blamed on congress and Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
When folks like you get on this subject, why is it that if one is against out of control spending by our federal government without seeing satisfactory results from that spending, you assume that person wants taxes eliminated altogether? Why do you have to suggest that the extreme is what everyone complaining about taxes/spending wants?
I want all the things that a well run federal government provides. I want a well maintained interstate highway system, so that trade between the states can happen easily. I want to be able to send a piece of paper across the country for under a dollar. I want to make sure that the elderly or infirm who need a little help are able to get it. I want to know that other countries understand that our military is the strongest in the world.
All those things cost money, and I'm willing to "pay my fair share" for them. All I ask is that my representatives take only what they need, that they spend it as wisely as I would, and that my neighbors pitch in at least a little bit, too. What's wrong with that? Why is it that my position has to mean that I want to live in Somalia?
Totally agree with you. I never said to eliminate taxes so all this 3rd world talk doesn't really apply to what I'm bringing up(Gambling tax increase a part of Obama's Largest Tax Increase In History).
-------------
And back to how will this affect me?
I'm going to have to pay more taxes. Thousands. No joke. And I'm not rich, not even close.
... I have no problems paying more for my milk -- to use your analogy. I make more. I should pay more...
... I make less. But I don't think I should pay less. To do so implies others who make more are somehow better than me. I don't subscribe to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV
... Furthermore, don't you think that if we made the top tier, say, 40% with no loopholes, the wealthy Americans who now throw hundreds of millions of dollars at candidates for promises of lower taxes would instead throw hundreds of millions of dollars at candidates for promises of reining in spending?...
Actually, I don't think that. But, as with most hypotheticals involving tax policy, it is unlikely to ever occur. I think most people agree with Holmes that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." The entire spending-side discussion is a different issue altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV
...You can't expect 10% of the people to hold 90% of the wealth and then try to get the remaining money from the have-nots. That is what the flat-tax people are basically arguing for.
Actually, I don't think that is what flat-tax people are arguing for at all. And now the discussion gets back to the OP's article regarding unearned income.
Most flat-tax people are arguing for massive tax simplification. Implicit in this is an acknowledgment that all elected representatives of both sides of the aisle are incredibly vulnerable to bribery in the form of campaign contributions & endorsements from special interests.
See Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets for a current list of top campaign contributors to federal elections, according to the Federal Election Commission. This website also lists if the contributions are primarily to Democratic candidates, or to Republican candidates, or if contributions are balanced acrosss the aisles. The list has many surprises (at least to me).
Congress of course (both sides of the aisle) loves to talk about changes in tax policy, because then two things happen: (1) people who want it to change start contributing (bribing), and (2) people who do not want the change start contributing (bribing). This is a perfect system from their perspective.
I hope that's not 2 x 0= 0. (Half kidding, half serious, which is kinda sad)
I suppose it must make sense that because I'm in favor of higher taxes, it is because I don't pay anything. I must be content to let others carry the water for me. That doesn't square with reality. Unfortunately, the Stephen King's and Warren Buffet's of this country are vastly outnumbered by the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelsons -- who stands to save $2 BILLION in taxes under Romney. Why do you think he's shoveling money into Romney's campaign?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseton3
(Gambling tax increase a part of Obama's Largest Tax Increase In History).
And back to how will this affect me? I'm going to have to pay more taxes. Thousands. No joke. And I'm not rich, not even close.
The Affordable Health Care Act isn't the largest tax increase in history. It's not even in the top five. And as for how it's going to affect you, do what I do -- hire an accountant. But don't do it in March when the clock is ticking. Do it now, so you can go over ways to minimize your tax burden while you still have half a year to implement your strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
... I make less. But I don't think I should pay less. To do so implies others who make more are somehow better than me. I don't subscribe to that.
No, it doesn't imply "better" or "worse." You're bringing that baggage along for the ride. It is a simple question of math -- our annual nut is X and we have Y many people, who make Z.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Most flat-tax people are arguing for massive tax simplification.
It is easy to simplify our tax code without resorting to a flat tax. Write up some brackets and eliminate all deductions. The number most pushed by the flat tax people is 28%. (In order to be revenue neutral, it would actually have to be 30%.) That doesn't affect me at all, because that's my current bracket. But what about someone who makes $20K per year? The $5,600 in taxes is going to CRUSH any family unfortunate enough to only make $20K per year.
The flat tax is the one-percenter's scheme to shift the tax burden from themselves to the middle class and the poor. It would be the end of this country as we know it.
That was a low blow. ScoopLV choice in energy conservation has not a thing to do with his political views, and is no one's business but his own. If he chooses to spend money on good food, and less on energy, then kudos to him. We all have our priorities in how we chose to spend our money and it's different for everyone.
Such a personal attack on someone who doesn't share your political views speaks volumes about you.
His all-knowing, I know better than you because _____, pompous attitude prompted my response. I have spent more than "five minutes in Somalia" and many other third world dumps during my military career. It has not impacted my thought process on taxes one way or the other. SportyandMisty summed it up pretty well below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
I've spent plenty of time in 3rd world $****holes, and the difference isn't taxation IMHO. The difference is a well developed set of laws regarding property rights and an independent judiciary that will enforce them, coupled with a well developed set of laws & culture against public sector corruption again with an independent judiciary that will enforce them.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating no taxation at all. The govt has a responsibility to protect us from threats, both internal and external. That has a cost. It's the rest that's up for debate. I don't believe in govt-created equality and happiness. You and other like-minded individuals obviously believe every kid deserves a trophy.
I don't hate taxes. I LOVE taxes. I've spent enough time in third-world hellholes to truly know the "joy" of a tax-free society. Everyone should spend some time in Haiti or Somalia. Then maybe they wouldn't whinge on about taxes. It will also give people renewed respect for the US Postal Service. "Wow, your mail gets where it's going almost all the time, and you don't have to bribe anyone?"
Furthermore, that link is the dumbest thing I've read. "Joe Student" who gambles $995,000 in Las Vegas. Seriously? Perhaps he should take that money and spend it on tuition. Or pool parties.
Then you should move to the northeast and check back in after 5 years there. If you LOVE taxes so much, you are in the wrong state to prove it.
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,686,006 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfapps
Then you should move to the northeast and check back in after 5 years there. If you LOVE taxes so much, you are in the wrong state to prove it.
You know that the difference in state and local tax burden between supposed low tax state Nevada and the most taxed state in the Union is no more than 5%
... I make less. But I don't think I should pay less. To do so implies others who make more are somehow better than me. I don't subscribe to that.
Actually, I don't think that. But, as with most hypotheticals involving tax policy, it is unlikely to ever occur. I think most people agree with Holmes that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." The entire spending-side discussion is a different issue altogether.
Actually, I don't think that is what flat-tax people are arguing for at all. And now the discussion gets back to the OP's article regarding unearned income.
Most flat-tax people are arguing for massive tax simplification. Implicit in this is an acknowledgment that all elected representatives of both sides of the aisle are incredibly vulnerable to bribery in the form of campaign contributions & endorsements from special interests.
See Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets for a current list of top campaign contributors to federal elections, according to the Federal Election Commission. This website also lists if the contributions are primarily to Democratic candidates, or to Republican candidates, or if contributions are balanced acrosss the aisles. The list has many surprises (at least to me).
Congress of course (both sides of the aisle) loves to talk about changes in tax policy, because then two things happen: (1) people who want it to change start contributing (bribing), and (2) people who do not want the change start contributing (bribing). This is a perfect system from their perspective.
Aren't you leaving out a big one here? The Super Pacs?
Also, the organizations with the biggest pockets under the guise of other very "Family Oriented Names", which are by in far established for the Evangelical sector, which comprises of over 25% of all voters.
Bush was the one who blew through the surplus left by Clinton with expensive wars. The debt crisis was the result of Republicans putting our nation to the economic brink and trying to pin it on President Obama. <===That's what the credit rating service said when they downgraded the USA credit rating.
Oh Lord, My oh my. Source please?
What Standard & Poor's actually said (you know, the "credit rating service") was this:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."
Read it over, and do your due diligence (it's easy to find Standard & Poor's statements and bullet items for the decision to downgrade the US rating). No one needs to "pin" the uncontrolled spending on Obama, he's doing a find job of that himself. As the downgrade happened just last year, your interpretation is quite off base and not supported by the facts.
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.
