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.
Everyone should be paying the same rate, regardless of income level. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn a LOT; pay a LOT. The higher income earners will still be paying much more in taxes than the lower income earners.
Like I said... Everyone should be paying the same rate, regardless of income level. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn a LOT; pay a LOT. The higher income earners will still be paying much more in taxes than the lower income earners.
Why should children who make up 23% of the population and are part of that 50% have to pay taxes?
Why should the majority of the permanently disabled, who make no income have to pay taxes?
Why should the soldier who makes very little and has a new wife have to pay taxes when his take home is at or near the poverty level?
Why should retired people who have paid taxes for the last 50 years have to pay taxes after they retire?
These are the 50% that you and others are railing against.
How is that sustainable going forward? What's the plan for paying to support all those additional people, 70% of which are likely to need some or several forms of public assistance for life?
Let's take a look at the enormity of the problem using a numerical example...
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else.
And that's not even counting the millions of poor illegal immigrants to which Obama's EO will give work permits.
All of that keeps wages down for all but the most accomplished, who are therefore relatively rare. Supply and demand. Very basic concept.
2) The U.S.'s progressive tax system (European countries actually have regressive tax systems) creates a perverse incentive for our government to promote maximum income inequality:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
...Because of our highly progressive tax system, the government is overly dependent on making sure the income gap is as wide as possible, and that they don't discourage the revenue producers too much by taxing them at rates that are too high therefore either driving them and/or their capital available for investment out of the country, or causing them to scale back on their productivity and income because there's a tipping point at which they decide they have enough for now and don't need to earn as much thereby significantly lowering their effective tax rate and dramatically reducing federal tax revenue.
I'll let this economist explain it:
Quote:
"[Economist Anatole] Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressive taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. Ifthe solvency of the stateand the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
For example, in the U.S., the top 1% earns 18.7% of the income, but pays 35.1% of the federal income tax revenue, roughly twice their fair share which is 4 times what the middle class pays (the middle class pays only about half of their fair share of the federal income tax compared to their share of the income). The problem with our country's progressive tax system is that it creates a perverse incentive for the federal government to enact policies that promote as wide of an income gap as possible in order to maximize tax revenue.
As long as the U.S. has a progressive tax system, the incentive remains to keep the income gap as wide as possible, and this is why: When the top 1% loses income share, the federal government loses twice that much in tax revenue. But when the top 1% gains income share, the federal government consequently gains twice that much in tax revenue. Another way to look at it is that the federal government receives 4 times more income tax revenue per dollar earned from the top 1% than they do from the middle class, so guess whose income they're going to favor and protect.
Furthermore, the countries with more income equality have regressive tax systems, mostly based on VAT, consumption, etc., instead of one's income. Pay close attention to the charts:
Think very carefully about that... It's counterintuitive, and some people get angry when this is pointed out to them, but it actually turns out to be true.
And true to form, Mr. 'tax the rich's' presidency has resulted in EXACTLY what was predicted by the liberal economist quoted above.
Furthermore, in regards to #2, Federal Government politicians seek to maximize tax revenue to spend to buy votes. It's simple math. Which group has more votes?
50 people earning $20,000 each and receiving taxpayer-funded public assistance?
Or
2 people earning $500,000 each?
Extrapolate that onto the U.S. population in which 47% pay no federal income tax whatsoever yet receive the same government services and benefits that everyone else does, with the added benefits of one or more forms of taxpayer-funded public assistance for most of the bottom 25%.
It's all about buying votes. Under our current progressive federal tax system, the only way to maximize tax revenue to do that is to maximize the income of those who are taxed the most: the top 1%.
Why should children who make up 23% of the population and are part of that 50% have to pay taxes?
Wow. No. The stat refers to 50% of tax filers. Very few children file tax returns.
Again, earning very little so paying very little tax, and earning a LOT so paying a LOT of tax, is fair. Well, a modified form of fair. Absolute fairness would be for everyone to split the costs of our government equally.
Corky, if everybody gets a pay raise, everybody will be paying more for products and services. In the end, it will be exactly the same. It's the reason why a person making minimum wage in 1980 has no more buying power than a person making minimum wage in 2015 even though the rate has risen substantially.
That is an absolutely false notion.
If you can't refrain from personal attacks, please stop talking to me.
Is it fair to tax that which is needed for life? I say no. You should not tax that which is used to pay for food, shelter, clothing, power, etc.
You don't really want that. There are those earning 6 or even 7 figures living paycheck to paycheck because they spend all their income on "that which is needed for life... food, shelter, clothing, power, etc." They could very legitimately claim to be exempt from taxes under your "needed for life" scenario.
This is the biggest load of unadulterated bull**** that I've read in a LONG time.
Prove that the facts I posted are incorrect.
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.
