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.
I am not pro any tax. I believe in fees for services.
This is kind of like tricking a child into giving you a dime for a nickel because the nickel is bigger. Take some time and look up latent vs manifest consequences. What I pointed out was the net result of your whining would be a tax increase on most people. Your position results in a lot of tax increases, so you're pro-tax.
Don't complain to me that you didn't think things through.
Did you think through your whole fee for services idea? Have any notable economists who agree with you? What would be the negative impacts of this system? Do you have any data to back up your idea or is it purely emotion you pulled out of your backside?
No, they're unfair. Why do you think one person needs to pay more dues than another to live in the same society? Right now you can double your income and quadruple your taxes. That makes no sense. That IS punishment for being successful. Do you think those extra taxes are some kind of reward? They're a punishment on the successful and the more successful you are, the bigger the punishment. Not only do you pay more because you make more, you pay a higher percentage because you make more. The tax increase isn't even proportional to the income increase.
People argue for a national sales tax over a flat tax on the grounds that the IRS could be eliminated. I argue that this would just shift enforcement from a broad group (all taxpayers) onto a narrow group (retail businesses). This would make it easier for tax police to get away with abuses, not harder. When any law enforcement is focused on a specific group, there is no incentive for the general population to bring said LE agency to heel.
If people think the IRS is bad, just wait until we have a National Sales Tax Enforcement Agency (NSTEA, pronounced 'NASTY'). 99% of the population would have zero stake in keeping corruption & abuse down to its normal dull roar.
Since sales taxes already exist, that argument is a pretty weak one.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama was asked about the laffer curve, where raising taxes above a certain level results in lower revenue. His answer was that he'd raise taxes anyway for purposes of fairness.
You don't charge someone "dues" with the intent to not raise funds. Raising funds is the function of dues. So when you knowingly impose a tax that won't raise money for purposes of "fairness" then you are absolutely using taxes to make moral judgments about people.
I support a flat tax with a federal balanced budget amendment.
The internal revenue service would be much reduced in scope and size. It would eliminate the corporate taxes.
I think the first 30000 dollars anyone makes should be tax free. Beyond that, have one flat tax on income, and raise it, as needed, by voting in the Congress based on need.
Some details would have to be debated, but with no fuel tax, phone tax, and all of the other federal taxes eliminated, we could all afford a 35 to 50% tax rate on income above 30k.
No, they're unfair. Why do you think one person needs to pay more dues than another to live in the same society? Right now you can double your income and quadruple your taxes. That makes no sense. That IS punishment for being successful. Do you think those extra taxes are some kind of reward? They're a punishment on the successful and the more successful you are, the bigger the punishment. Not only do you pay more because you make more, you pay a higher percentage because you make more. The tax increase isn't even proportional to the income increase.
It isn't a reward or punishment. Income tax exists to make the tax curve "more even." Income taxes are based on ability to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
During the 2008 campaign, Obama was asked about the laffer curve, where raising taxes above a certain level results in lower revenue. His answer was that he'd raise taxes anyway for purposes of fairness.
You don't charge someone "dues" with the intent to not raise funds. Raising funds is the function of dues. So when you knowingly impose a tax that won't raise money for purposes of "fairness" then you are absolutely using taxes to make moral judgments about people.
Taxes are based on ability to pay, which is "fairness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I support a flat tax with a federal balanced budget amendment.
The internal revenue service would be much reduced in scope and size. It would eliminate the corporate taxes.
I think the first 30000 dollars anyone makes should be tax free. Beyond that, have one flat tax on income, and raise it, as needed, by voting in the Congress based on need.
Some details would have to be debated, but with no fuel tax, phone tax, and all of the other federal taxes eliminated, we could all afford a 35 to 50% tax rate on income above 30k.
I have oodles of deductions and exemptions, I kinda like the current system out of selfishness.
Morally though a VAT (and only a VAT) for federal funding is the fairest method IMO.
States can keep whatever tax systems they want, laboratories of democracy and all that.
VAT is too dependent on business cycles and disproportionately burdens lower income individuals.
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.
