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.
Yes I would. However like I said, I don't need a court system, patent laws , FBI enforcement to protect my business. Again your fundamental approach is to just assume we all get the same gallon of milk, or even have a use for milk at all. Someone who is lactose intolerant should not even have to pay a penny. Why do you suggest someone is getting ripped off when they pay more for a gallon while ignoring those who are forced to pay while having no use for it?
The number one sign of an economic fraud is when someone works one side of the equation.
What we buy with our tax dollars is a "basket" of government services and activities, some of which we directly benefit from, some we benefit indirectly from, and some we benefit from not at all. The benefit that we derive is unique to each individual, and it is impossible to try to dis-aggregate each persons benefit. I make no assumption that we all "get the same gallon of milk." It was a simplified example to easily explain a point. Expanding from the simple to the complex, however, does nothing to diminish the point that I made.
If you believe that I have engaged in an "economic fraud," you will have to come up with something else, as my milk example is in no way fraudulent.
Quote:
One obvious example were the young and skilled form a country like Lithuania. Since many of them left , obviously their means had nothing to do with the state. I don't see them as having any stake in the military since there is nothing to defend. Someone with a million dollar estate obviously benefits from not only military but police. That is to say nothing of the parks, sewer and roads....Who does the government benefit more? It seems pretty obvious to me when someone would just assume pick up and leave.
As I mentioned before, we all benefit differently. Trying to quantify the amount of benefit for each individual is impossible. If your point is that the wealthy benefit more, and should pay more, a single uniform tax rate will easily accomplish that goal.
But I would argue that paying taxes isn't comparable to buying a gallon of milk. You don't have to buy a gallon of milk (you could drink tap water), but you do have to pay taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
If you'd like, substitute any other expenditure, mandatory or discretionary, it doesn't change the point.
Unlike all other expenses, one can't refuse to pay taxes (without consequences, of which you, as a published author of peer-reviewed articles in tax and accounting journals, surely must be aware). Assuming that one earns a paycheck, income and payroll taxes are taken away before one receives his/her net pay. Sales taxes are included in the total price of any consumer good that one elects to purchase.
You seem to insist on an equivalency that's simply not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
If a person earning $25K spends it all for basic food, clothing, and shelter, and if this person's total effective tax rate is only 20% of income instead of 30% of income, then do you claim that it would be fair to raise that person's taxes to match the same rate as someone who earns $100K? If so, exactly where is the $25K person going to come up with an additional $2,500?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
My claim is very simple - all taxpayers paying the same rate is fair.
That's an opinion, nothing more. And in reality, the upper 60% of income earners (or possibly more) already pay roughly the same total effective tax rate.
I ask again, if your upped the total tax burden on someone who has no disposable income, how do you expect that person to pay it? Do you expect that person to go live in the street in response to having less net income?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
It isn't terribly difficult to minimize the impact on the poor, if that is something that society deems important.
See, that's the thing - the overall tax system currently in place does just that. It lessens the tax burden on the poor. Yet you believe that it's not "fair".
It appears to me that you have staked out conflicting points of view.
It's an issue of fairness. Our progressive rate structure is a rather unique form of "income based pricing" that we don't see anywhere else in normal commerce. If you went to Wal-Mart to buy a gallon of milk, and there was a two-tier pricing structure, $2 for those with incomes under $25,000/year, and $5 for those with incomes greater than that, you would be justifiably outraged, and Wal-Mart would be engaging in illegal price discrimination. That so many not just accept, but laud the practice in our tax structure, is rather strange.
Progressive rate structure is very common for taxing income.
There's two-tiered pricing for food. It's called food stamps.
But I would argue that paying taxes isn't comparable to buying a gallon of milk. You don't have to buy a gallon of milk (you could drink tap water), but you do have to pay taxes.
But what is the purpose of a tax system and the government in the first place? It is to purchase collectively that which is more efficient to collectively purchase rather than individually purchased. It is more efficient to collectively purchase, say, national defense, interior department services, agriculture department services, education department services, etc than for each of us individually purchase such services from a private entity.
At the end of the day, it is all about purchasing goods and services, be they gallons of milk, National Parks or Center for Disease Control (CDC) services.
If you'd like, substitute any other expenditure, mandatory or discretionary, it doesn't change the point.
My claim is very simple - all taxpayers paying the same rate is fair. It isn't terribly difficult to minimize the impact on the poor, if that is something that society deems important.
Your argument would be more palatable if all costs were scalable, but they're not.
If I can't afford House X for $N, House Y half the size at $N/2 would serve as a scalable alternative, but government renders House Y unavailable (e.g. minimum lot size, etc).
By denying scalability, government regulation imposes a regressive cost structure on lower incomes; the person who cannot afford to buy House X must rent something else, for which they pay a premium.
Government thereby subtly redistributes income upward and in this context, lower earners are already paying more for basic survival, so I don't see how all taxpayers paying the same rate is fair. (By disallosing affordable ownership opportunities to rent slaves, government maintains an ample supply of rent slaves available to maximize landlord profits.)
But what is the purpose of a tax system and the government in the first place? It is to purchase collectively that which is more efficient to collectively purchase rather than individually purchased. It is more efficient to collectively purchase, say, national defense, interior department services, agriculture department services, education department services, etc than for each of us individually purchase such services from a private entity.
At the end of the day, it is all about purchasing goods and services, be they gallons of milk, National Parks or Center for Disease Control (CDC) services.
IMO, you also reach for an equivalency that is simply not there. With taxes, we don't buy goods or services, we buy civilization.
Unlike all other expenses, one can't refuse to pay taxes (without consequences, of which you, as a published author of peer-reviewed articles in tax and accounting journals, surely must be aware).
Looks like I really struck a nerve with you. Do you always have feelings of inferiority and inadequacy when becoming aware of the accomplishments of others?
Quote:
Assuming that one earns a paycheck, income and payroll taxes are taken away before one receives his/her net pay. Sales taxes are included in the total price of any consumer good that one elects to purchase.
You seem to insist on an equivalency that's simply not there.
I presented a simple example to explain the issue with income based pricing. The only insistence on a non-existent equivalency is in your mind. It didn't come from me.
Quote:
That's an opinion, nothing more. And in reality, the upper 60% of income earners (or possibly more) already pay roughly the same total effective tax rate.
What would be the problem with 100% of taxpayers paying the same marginal rate?
Quote:
I ask again, if your upped the total tax burden on someone who has no disposable income, how do you expect that person to pay it? Do you expect that person to go live in the street in response to having less net income?
Nice straw man.
Quote:
See, that's the thing - the overall tax system currently in place does just that. It lessens the tax burden on the poor. Yet you believe that it's not "fair".
It appears to me that you have staked out conflicting points of view.
If that's your conclusion, you haven't been paying attention, or you simply don't understand the argument.
Your argument would be more palatable if all costs were scalable, but they're not.
If I can't afford House X for $N, House Y half the size at $N/2 would serve as a scalable alternative, but government renders House Y unavailable (e.g. minimum lot size, etc).
By denying scalability, government regulation imposes a regressive cost structure on lower incomes; the person who cannot afford to buy House X must rent something else, for which they pay a premium.
Government thereby subtly redistributes income upward and in this context, lower earners are already paying more for basic survival, so I don't see how all taxpayers paying the same rate is fair. (By disallosing affordable ownership opportunities to rent slaves, government maintains an ample supply of rent slaves available to maximize landlord profits.)
Given that you believe that you have no choices, and that your life circumstances are out of your control, I don't know what I can say to you other than "Good luck!"
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.
