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.
Is it 'fair' that one person pays 0% taxes (or even less) while another pays 38%? Why is it that you think it's "fair" for one person to carry another under threat of force and violence?
How is 0% vs 38% "fair" but 10% vs 10% unfair?
Fair:
Synonyms
1. Fair, impartial, disinterested, unprejudiced refer to lack of bias in opinions, judgments, etc. Fair implies the treating of all sides alike, justly and equitably: a fair compromise. Impartial, like fair, implies showing no more favor to one side than another, but suggests particularly a judicial consideration of a case: an impartial judge.
The liberal definition of "fair" doesn't match reality.
So it is fair that someone making 125K pays say 21,250 and still have over 100K to spend on needs and wants while the 12.5K person pays 2,215 and has barely over 10k to spend on needs alone? The issue is with taxes is what is fair to one isn't to another. As it stands right now, lower income makers pay less in taxes because they need to keep more money while a higher income person doesn't need to keep as much. The 12.5K person can have anywhere from a 7% to a 17% increase in taxes this way.
I'm gonna put on my con hat here. Think like a con and see if I can answer that question
hmmm
I got it. The way you do it is you tax only low income people. not rich people. Because taxes are only theft when rich people pay them. When low income people pay them it's called "paying their fair share" or "having skin in the game" or "not leeching off of others"
I think I agree with you on this one especially as more and more libertarians become conservative and turn Republican.
I don't get why people would think that because they bought a TV for the group everyone instantly owed them $100 dollars. If you all agreed before hand that's one thing but you didn't and either he brought it home thinking it was a good idea or he already conferenced with the other four roommates.
No it wouldn't be. I don't see the government like that though. You may pay into social security, medicare, food stamps, medicaid, public schools, public libraries, pell grants etc. now and don't use it. However you will likely need it someday. You'll need to pay for schools so when you have a child, they can get a good education. When you get old, you'll qualify for social security and medicare. If you get seriously hurt, you may end up on disability and require social security disability. You may not use the library for your community but what if someday you need to?
As for what I would done I would say OK, I'll give you the $100 but I get my choice of the existing TVs for my room, take it or leave it. It's win-win for you, either you keep $100 and they won't bother you or you get a TV of your own.
Another way to look at it might be a random thief who steals your wallet, but then offers to buy you dinner. Maybe they'll offer to pay for some other things in the future (again, with your money). They're just taking your money and deciding what it's used for. They might give you stuff, but they still stole your money.
I remember seeing something where they calculated how much people could save up on their own instead of being forced into certain government programs and there was a big difference. I forget where it was...but the main point was that the programs do more harm than good. The government is extremely inefficient and tend to do a worse job than the free market anyway, so I'd prefer to get half my income back by not having to pay taxes and decide for myself how I spend it.
And with your last paragraph, I could have done that...I wasn't that interested in the TVs though. As long as I have the option to not pay anything, I have no problem with it.
No it isn't. Your repeating the lie doesn't make it less of a lie.
From what I've seen, you haven't actually disproven that it's theft. You assert that it isn't, and some assert that it is. That isn't even a debate. What is your actual argument? Taxation is not theft because _____.
If you want to try to refute the logic of my previous posts, that's fine too.
So it is fair that someone making 125K pays say 21,250 and still have over 100K to spend on needs and wants while the 12.5K person pays 2,215 and has barely over 10k to spend on needs alone? The issue is with taxes is what is fair to one isn't to another. As it stands right now, lower income makers pay less in taxes because they need to keep more money while a higher income person doesn't need to keep as much. The 12.5K person can have anywhere from a 7% to a 17% increase in taxes this way.
Well we've kind of naturally determined what fair is. You're not given a financial questionnaire when you go to McDonalds so they can figure out a fair price for their product. They set a price and regardless of your income you pay the set price. That's fair.
Here's a question, you and two friends go to a bar or a restaurant, you order as a table and figure out the bill at the end.
Ok so it's time to pay.
Do you split the bill equally three ways and every one pays exactly the same?
Do you figure out who had what and everyone pays for what they had?
Do you figure out based on income what percentage of the combined income each of you has and split it according to those percentages?
Which is fair?
The former, is reasonably fair, it becomes unfair if one person overconsumes.
The middle, is identical to everyone being billed and paying separately, so it's fair.
The last one? That's the system we have for taxation in the US, and the one you think isn't fair to people with low incomes.
Well we've kind of naturally determined what fair is. You're not given a financial questionnaire when you go to McDonalds so they can figure out a fair price for their product. They set a price and regardless of your income you pay the set price. That's fair.
Here's a question, you and two friends go to a bar or a restaurant, you order as a table and figure out the bill at the end.
Ok so it's time to pay.
Do you split the bill equally three ways and every one pays exactly the same?
Do you figure out who had what and everyone pays for what they had?
Do you figure out based on income what percentage of the combined income each of you has and split it according to those percentages?
Which is fair?
The former, is reasonably fair, it becomes unfair if one person overconsumes.
The middle, is identical to everyone being billed and paying separately, so it's fair.
The last one? That's the system we have for taxation in the US, and the one you think isn't fair to people with low incomes.
I can understand where you are coming from but there is room for error too. If you spend the same as your others it is equal if you pay for what you got. As you mentioned, if one overconsumes, it creates an issue. It can also happen if one underconsumes too. Now where wait, why is this a problem there? Well it doesn't with the restaurant example, but it does with taxes. If you look at what services you use and pay for it is often lopsided. Those who get welfare get a lot those that don't don't spend a whole lot of services (a least right now.) The issue here is that those that get welfare cannot afford to pay for the bill. The difference is it's not like they really like they ordered medicaid, WIC, TANF, etc. like one would order the most expensive meal while someone can order the least expensive meal despite making the most money of the group.
As for the point about the current tax code, I think it is fair to the lower income people, what isn't is saying they need to pay their fair share.
I can understand where you are coming from but there is room for error too. If you spend the same as your others it is equal if you pay for what you got. As you mentioned, if one overconsumes, it creates an issue. It can also happen if one underconsumes too.
Agreed, it's unfair on any party forced to pay more for overconsumption, and unfair on any party who chooses to underconsume responsibly, so that they're certain they have the money to cover their portion of the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Now where wait, why is this a problem there? Well it doesn't with the restaurant example, but it does with taxes. If you look at what services you use and pay for it is often lopsided. Those who get welfare get a lot those that don't don't spend a whole lot of services (a least right now.) The issue here is that those that get welfare cannot afford to pay for the bill. The difference is it's not like they really like they ordered medicaid, WIC, TANF, etc. like one would order the most expensive meal while someone can order the least expensive meal despite making the most money of the group.
No and everyone didn't agree that their income would determine the price they pay for the same government services. The question is who's right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
As for the point about the current tax code, I think it is fair to the lower income people, what isn't is saying they need to pay their fair share.
However would you consider it fair to divide a bar or restaurant bill according to the tax code?
If it's fair, then it's fair in all cases. If it's unfair then it's unfair in all cases. It's a simple question.
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
When I was in my 20's I lived on my own with a roommate. I was going to college and also worked to pay my fair share of the bills 50/50. While I was improving marketable skills my roommate was always out partying, no cares in the world. After I graduated and got my first good paying job my roommate said to me... "Since you make more money than me you should pay more of the rent and other bills". I gave her a choice, 50/50 or we go our own ways.
Quote:
Again unless there was an agreement that was agreed upon, you pay your share. If she just used her bedroom and the bathroom and never used common areas, maybe she should have paid less but I honestly don't know what it was. Maybe that roommate also got laid off or hours cutback and couldn't pay the amount to be equal too.
Wow, desperate, so it's possible to have a roommate that won't use the kitchen, living room, dining room?
She had her bedroom, I had mine, we BOTH used common areas. We agreed to 50/50. IN FACT, while I was away at school, then working, only sleeping there and she was partying and hanging out at home she used common area's much more than me. It was my choice to go to college. She chose to party instead. Her hours were not cut back.
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
When I was in my 20's I lived on my own with a roommate. I was going to college and also worked to pay my fair share of the bills 50/50. While I was improving marketable skills my roommate was always out partying, no cares in the world. After I graduated and got my first good paying job my roommate said to me... "Since you make more money than me you should pay more of the rent and other bills". I gave her a choice, 50/50 or we go our own ways.
Two girls live together, each had their own bedroom and share common area's
When moving in together they agree to each pay 50/50 of rent and bills
One chooses to go to college and works, the other works but parties, no college,
Girl graduates, gets better paying job than girl that parties,
Girl that parties thinks college graduate with better paying job should now pay a higher percentage of the bills.
I reminded party girl that the agreement was we each pay 50%. If she no longer agrees to that we can go our separate ways.
mkpunk comes up with excuses for party girl. Really?
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.
The issue is with taxes is what is fair to one isn't to another. As it stands right now, lower income makers pay less in taxes because they need to keep more money while a higher income person doesn't need to keep as much. The 12.5K person can have anywhere from a 7% to a 17% increase in taxes this way.
