U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2014, 03:34 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,584 posts, read 8,015,139 times
Reputation: 4151

Advertisements

In another thread, a poster wrote:
Quote:
My readings tell me that as income increases, people spend a lower proportion of their income on sales taxes. That sounds to me like a regressive tax.
It's a symbol of just how confused people have become about the purpose of taxation, that they always compare any tax plan, to people's incomes. They are stuck on the idea that, if someone earns more, he should pay more tax.

A more equitable idea is, of course, that if someone gets more benefit from government programs, he should pay more tax.

One manifestation might be that, a person who owns more land, buildings, and other propoerty, should pay more in taxes. Since the armed forces (by far the most expensive program authorized by the Constitution) protect all of our property, those with more property should pay more taxes to the government for their protection.

Another might be that a person with a larger family, should pay more taxes. His family (and he himself) are similarly protected by the armed forces. And surely his family members are more valuable to him than any acerage of land or height of buildings, or anything else (including his income no matter how large). Who can deny this?

In fact, when the Constitution was originally written, and more than a century afterward, the only personal Federal taxes (aka "direct" taxes) allowed, were taxes in proportion to the number of people. If you were the head of a family paying Federal personal taxes, the Constitution required that those taxes be proportional to the number of people in your family. Such a tax is also called a "capitation tax" or, colloquially, a "head tax".

Sounds like the founders of the country, agree with the second scenario above.

Can anybody name any basis more valuable than family, that the government protects, on which taxation should be based?

People worried over whether a tax is "regressive" or "progressive" (both misnomers, applied to an irrelevant comparison to taxes to income), should stop worrying. Personal taxes should be based on what government does for you. And by far the most important thing it does, is protect your family. Protecting your haouse or the section of forest you own out back, should be far down the list.

And you should adjust your tax load, by deciding in advance how many family members you will gather around you to personally support; and by encouraging them to support themselves as they grow up, thus moving out from under your financial umbrella even if they never move away from the bosom of your family.

A nice side benefit of this tax plan, is that you are NOT punished financially for increasing your income. So many of the roadblocks to prosperity are removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2014, 03:36 PM
 
28,411 posts, read 14,303,683 times
Reputation: 19546
Renting your land from the government is a horrible idea.

Taxes should be based on consumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 03:37 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 1,777,711 times
Reputation: 1459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
In another thread, a poster wrote:
It's a symbol of just how confused people have become about the purpose of taxation, that they always compare any tax plan, to people's incomes. They are stuck on the idea that, if someone earns more, he should pay more tax.

A more equitable idea is, of course, that if someone gets more benefit from government programs, he should pay more tax.

One manifestation might be that, a person who owns more land, buildings, and other propoerty, should pay more in taxes. Since the armed forces (by far the most expensive program authorized by the Constitution) protect all of our property, those with more property should pay more taxes to the government for their protection.

Another might be that a person with a larger family, should pay more taxes. His family (and he himself) are similarly protected by the armed forces. And surely his family members are more valuable to him than any acerage of land or height of buildings, or anything else (including his income no matter how large). Who can deny this?

In fact, when the Constitution was originally written, and more than a century afterward, the only personal Federal taxes (aka "direct" taxes) allowed, were taxes in proportion to the number of people. If you were the head of a family paying Federal personal taxes, the Constitution required that those taxes be proportional to the number of people in your family. Such a tax is also called a "capitation tax" or, colloquially, a "head tax".

Sounds like the founders of the country, agree with the second scenario above.

Can anybody name any basis more valuable than family, that the government protects, on which taxation should be based?

People worried over whether a tax is "regressive" or "progressive" (both misnomers, applied to an irrelevant comparison to taxes to income), should stop worrying. Personal taxes should be based on what government does for you. And by far the most important thing it does, is protect your family. Protecting your haouse or the section of forest you own out back, should be far down the list.

And you should adjust your tax load, by deciding in advance how many family members you will gather around you to personally support; and by encouraging them to support themselves as they grow up, thus moving out from under your financial umbrella even if they never move away from the bosom of your family.

A nice side benefit of this tax plan, is that you are NOT punished financially for increasing your income. So many of the roadblocks to prosperity are removed.

lol

Good luck passing that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 03:46 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,584 posts, read 8,015,139 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Renting your land from the government is a horrible idea.
I agree, which is why I favor the second scenario I outlined in the OP over the first.

It's really a "flat tax", just like other taxes with that name are.. Only it's not based on income (an irelevant measure), but on population - the most valuable thing government legitimately protects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 03:48 PM
 
25,130 posts, read 11,787,748 times
Reputation: 11762
I find it objectionable to tax the income a person needs to feed, house, and provide for their survival.

Thus I believe that those with little income barely sufficient for themselves should not pay taxes on that.

I also believe that the rich are benefitting FAR more from the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 03:51 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,069,220 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I find it objectionable to tax the income a person needs to feed, house, and provide for their survival.

Thus I believe that those with little income barely sufficient for themselves should not pay taxes on that.

I also believe that the rich are benefitting FAR more from the government.
Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Yep, sounds rational to me.

Why is the right-wing so angry about taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 04:04 PM
 
Location: SGV
22,125 posts, read 8,342,044 times
Reputation: 8858
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I also believe that the rich are benefitting FAR more from the government.
This is like saying water is wet.

And now it's only a matter of time before someone disagrees with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Rural Central Texas
3,585 posts, read 9,037,535 times
Reputation: 5403
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I find it objectionable to tax the income a person needs to feed, house, and provide for their survival.
If the person is soley responsible for those needs, then a case can be made for your objection. However, many of the services the government provides are essential for that same person to survive. If not paid for with taxes, then how will that person survive? If that person does not contribute with taxes, then his survival become an act of charity, and if not a voluntary charity it becomes extortion by one for the benefit of another.

A person spends money on housing to protect from the elements, on food to feed themselves, and education to enhance their earning potential. Why would government services be any different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Thus I believe that those with little income barely sufficient for themselves should not pay taxes on that.
This topic could become a debate of opinion since the basic essentials of survival are often found to be different based on person priority. Many people look at a "rich" persons lifestyle and argue that there are many luxuries that can be taken away without adversely affecting survival. I would argue that this evaluation is relative to the person making the judgment. I know many people who feel they are barely surviving with a minimum of luxury and are envied by those in a lesser lifestyle. What is an essential requirement varies based on what a person is accustomed. The definition of what income is beyond the sufficiency level will always be argued and never agreed upon. How then do we agree on a level to exempt from taxation without causing dissent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I also believe that the rich are benefitting FAR more from the government.
Since we are talking taxation and taxation accrues to the government from both rich and poor, I am missing how the rich benefit more than the government. Are you trying to say there is some value to paying taxes so the rich derive that benefit? I am missing your logic altogether on this topic. Please clarify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 04:18 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,069,220 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62 View Post

This topic could become a debate of opinion since the basic essentials of survival are often found to be different based on person priority. Many people look at a "rich" persons lifestyle and argue that there are many luxuries that can be taken away without adversely affecting survival. I would argue that this evaluation is relative to the person making the judgment. I know many people who feel they are barely surviving with a minimum of luxury and are envied by those in a lesser lifestyle. What is an essential requirement varies based on what a person is accustomed. The definition of what income is beyond the sufficiency level will always be argued and never agreed upon. How then do we agree on a level to exempt from taxation without causing dissent?
Jesus.

It is not an opinion. Humans need food, shelter, water, and clothing to survive. In this day and age, a cell phone is also a necessity (due to the decline in landline usage) for emergencies.

That is sufficiency. In "welfare terms" - Food stamps, section 8 housing, and a phone.

Thanks for the strawman argument. The easiest way to ensure food, shelter, clothing, and water are tax excempt is to waive sales tax on those items. Many states already do this. Clothing items usually cap at $100, since additional price is "luxury." For the Feds, the EITC is supposed to be enough to cover these basic purchases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2014, 04:18 PM
 
3,532 posts, read 2,197,134 times
Reputation: 2644
Tax structure is basically about incentives as much as anything else. I mean, if we wanted to we could just fund the government entirely through borrowing, at least at a federal level. In that context, taxes exist solely for social engineering purposes, e.g. redistributing wealth to achieve more social fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Renting your land from the government is a horrible idea.

Taxes should be based on consumption.
That's not really an argument so much as a suggestion. Like "We should go to KFC for lunch!".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top