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 08-15-2015, 12:43 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,663 posts, read 7,317,017 times
Reputation: 2862

Advertisements

The fairest way to tax is a progressive tax on income. Everyone pays the exact same amount on the same income bracket. That seems to be a point lost on a lot of people who propose a flat tax - which would actually be regressive, lower the taxes for the wealthiest Americans and shift more taxes to the poorest. It would also be a terrible idea for the budget.

Consumption taxes are also a regressive tax because a purchase of an item, for example of 10 dollars would be the same regardless of income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2015, 12:58 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,169,021 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14 View Post
The fairest way to tax is a progressive tax on income. Everyone pays the exact same amount on the same income bracket. That seems to be a point lost on a lot of people who propose a flat tax - which would actually be regressive, lower the taxes for the wealthiest Americans and shift more taxes to the poorest. It would also be a terrible idea for the budget.

Consumption taxes are also a regressive tax because a purchase of an item, for example of 10 dollars would be the same regardless of income.
And yet the European countries, with their national healthcare and all, have GREAT success with their REGRESSIVE tax systems. Hmmm...

Other countries don’t have a “47%” - The Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 01:08 PM
 
5,116 posts, read 4,607,614 times
Reputation: 4375
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Maybe you should read the 16th Amendment.
Dude, read the 16th Amendment...and the background behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...e_Pollock_case

Quote:
If your stance was the case, why would there have been the need for a 16th amendment,
Progressive federal taxes on income earned from labor were legal even after Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust, but income from capital were ruled an illegal direct tax. The 16th Amendment was passed so that the wealthy, who derived their income from capital, were no longer exempt from paying federal taxes on their income.

Quote:
and a centralized banking system, to hoard that new revenue and distribute it as they want and the IRS, to punish those that didn't pay, like the King we fought a revolution over taxation and punishment of the colonies????
Allow me to introduce you to the actual text of the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Where exactly does the amendment establish a centralized banking system that would 'hoard' that new revenue and distribute it as they want? As for the IRS - the nation had some form of a revenue office since it was founded - the 16th amendment doesn't establish any new power in that regard. There's always been some department charged with collecting federal taxes; here it is in it's original form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Cutter_Service

As for fighting a "King" over taxation? I refer you back to the the original source material that you've ignored: the actual text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Both sides argued back then over whether the federal government should have the power to lay taxes, and the anti-tax crowd lost. The power of the federal government to tax the citizenry was established by the ratification of the Constitution way back in 1788.

Quote:
I think you better see why the original Constitution read as it did.
Maybe you could point it out to me, because I've looked, and I can't find your claim anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 01:16 PM
 
624 posts, read 298,995 times
Reputation: 205
Consumption taxes are the ones that are most in line with the idea of liberty.

There is a proposed system called The Fair Tax that handles the issues some have when they think it would be regressive.

It would be revenue-neutral, not increasing the amounts that we are currently collecting. But it wouldn't be based on the government owning your labor. Instead, you choose to pay the tax when you buy something.

Certain things like food would not be taxed.

Raw materials would not be taxed, eliminating embedded costs in the manufacturing of products.

The super rich, who dont earn traditional incomes because they are living off of savings and investments, would end up contributing much more because they would be taxed on all the products and services that support their extravagant lifestyles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 01:24 PM
 
11,617 posts, read 5,905,387 times
Reputation: 1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winning Guy View Post

The super rich, who dont earn traditional incomes because they are living off of savings and investments, would end up contributing much more because they would be taxed on all the products and services that support their extravagant lifestyles.
Such as?

Do the super rich eat a million times more food than middle class people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 01:31 PM
 
624 posts, read 298,995 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
Such as?

Do the super rich eat a million times more food than middle class people?
No. But they eat at expensive restaurants.

They buy more expensive items.

They use expensive services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 01:35 PM
 
11,617 posts, read 5,905,387 times
Reputation: 1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winning Guy View Post
No. But they eat at expensive restaurants.

They buy more expensive items.

They use expensive services.
Oh.

Yeah, it prolly all averages out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 01:36 PM
 
25,059 posts, read 23,093,754 times
Reputation: 11618
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Dude, read the 16th Amendment...and the background behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...e_Pollock_case



Progressive federal taxes on income earned from labor were legal even after Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust, but income from capital were ruled an illegal direct tax. The 16th Amendment was passed so that the wealthy, who derived their income from capital, were no longer exempt from paying federal taxes on their income.



Allow me to introduce you to the actual text of the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Where exactly does the amendment establish a centralized banking system that would 'hoard' that new revenue and distribute it as they want? As for the IRS - the nation had some form of a revenue office since it was founded - the 16th amendment doesn't establish any new power in that regard. There's always been some department charged with collecting federal taxes; here it is in it's original form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Cutter_Service

As for fighting a "King" over taxation? I refer you back to the the original source material that you've ignored: the actual text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Both sides argued back then over whether the federal government should have the power to lay taxes, and the anti-tax crowd lost. The power of the federal government to tax the citizenry was established by the ratification of the Constitution way back in 1788.



Maybe you could point it out to me, because I've looked, and I can't find your claim anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
BentBow is just your average run of the mill tax protester (with an anarchist bent) who doesn't want to pay his taxes to live in a civil society. That's all. Taxes have been here for thousands of years, they will continue to be here until civilization collapses. That's the price you pay for not living a nomadic lifestyle in the desert, Arctic, or jungle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 02:33 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,663 posts, read 7,317,017 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winning Guy View Post
Consumption taxes are the ones that are most in line with the idea of liberty.

There is a proposed system called The Fair Tax that handles the issues some have when they think it would be regressive.

It would be revenue-neutral, not increasing the amounts that we are currently collecting. But it wouldn't be based on the government owning your labor. Instead, you choose to pay the tax when you buy something.

Certain things like food would not be taxed.

Raw materials would not be taxed, eliminating embedded costs in the manufacturing of products.

The super rich, who dont earn traditional incomes because they are living off of savings and investments, would end up contributing much more because they would be taxed on all the products and services that support their extravagant lifestyles.
Probably. But then they would pay the same amount of tax on the same item as you or i, which means a smaller proportion of their income than ours. That is why it is a system that is both unfair and inefficient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 02:57 PM
 
624 posts, read 298,995 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14 View Post
Probably. But then they would pay the same amount of tax on the same item as you or i, which means a smaller proportion of their income than ours. That is why it is a system that is both unfair and inefficient.
Why does that matter? If a rich person chose to live like a regular person, that their prerogative. The goal of taxes shouldn't be to punish success.

The way the system works right now, most of the super rich already pay little in taxes because they dont earn salaries. They live off of savings and investments.

Right now, the rich that are actively productive and helping the economy end up paying more than the rich that are trust fund babies.

The goal is to stop punishing productivity, but still earning enough to run the government.
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. The time now is 04:07 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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