[POL] Reason #1,456 I Can Never Be a Republican

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ah, the liberal talking points...

I want everyone's taxes to be low, not just the wealthy... I think the government is involved in way too much and we should put a lot more personal responsibility on individuals and less on the public as a whole to support individuals that make bad choices.

Again, I have a tough time deciding where to draw the line with children, but overall I feel we should give little to no long-term individual support.

Not all people are poor because of bad choices. A lot of them make the right choices but are screwed over from the start.

I'm not against lower taxes across the board if you want to do some spending cuts that we can all agree on. What I am not a fan of is spending cuts that target the poor and tax cuts that target the rich.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No child, HERE'S "the thing" -- I have no intention of dumping my grandmother in the ditch ... but I didn't take on "a village" to raise & damned
sure don't believe anybody ought to be volunteering me for the task at gunpoint.

I didn't work just short of 80 fucking hours in the past seven days so I could have my income "redistributed" -- I did it so I could buy my kid "Battlefront 2", so we can be in position to move next spring in order to give him access to a much better school.

I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.

I did it so that I might not worry about buying myself another tabletop sports game that I might be able enjoy if I ever have the energy & concentration level to play again. Some of those are easily equivalent to greens fees but frankly, I earned every damned bit of it so who in the bloody hell do you think you are to criticize that for the tiniest fraction of a second?

You want some of that? Then bust your ass & try to get it. There's no guarantee of it, but effort damned sure improves the odds.

My first full time job started at 9am the Saturday morning after I graduated HS on a Friday night & after 20+ years of working 50-60 hours a week more often than not, for the last 4 years or so I've finally managed to get past worrying about the utility bill every month

What I didn't work until I couldn't think straight, or barely sleep for more than 4 hours running, or until I can hardly stand to eat for the indigestion that follows every meal for was so that I could have more money than the average household income taken out of my ass in taxes for yet another year. Or so I can watch even more money poured down the multitude of governmental dry holes that produce a highly inadequate return on investment.

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

When you're paying the tax load I'm paying, then you tell me how oh-so- inconsequential it is. Until then, I'd suggest you stick to subjects you know something about.

It's a well-known psychological phenomenon that people will attribute good things that happen to them to hard work, and bad things that happen to them to luck, and vise versa.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Not all people are poor because of bad choices. A lot of them make the right choices but are screwed over from the start.

I'm not against lower taxes across the board if you want to do some spending cuts that we can all agree on. What I am not a fan of is spending cuts that target the poor and tax cuts that target the rich.

I do not believe that anyone that is not physically or mentally inable are poor because they "are screwed over from the start". This victim mentality is fostering a lot of the long-term welfare problems that drive me crazy.

[revrew]

I believe the issue of federal government welfare/entitlement/social spending programs is clouded by too many red herrings and distractions. The charge of "cutting programs to children" is in itself spun to affect the debate; but the answer "what's mine is mine" is a response that spins us even farther from the issues. "Welfare queens," class warfare, tax cuts for the rich/poor--these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the real issue at hand, though they make for entertaining bunny trails.

Someone earlier tried to drive back to what I consider the primary issue with the comment "we as a civilized society should care for poor/disadvantaged." This was a shot back to the center of the issue, though it didn't seem to stick.

Regardless of freeloaders and abuses, the "left" is correct that caring for the poor and the orphan and the widow are moral obligations for the U.S.A. (it may not be for other countries, but this country has been too heavily influenced by it's Christian heritage to suggest otherwise--it's a part of our collective social conscience). The response the "right" needs to return is not to argue "what's mine is mine" or "the freeloaders will suckle the system"--for that does not change the fact that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc. The "right" (I put "right" in quotes, because such terms are really irrelevant. Libertarians, conservatives, and even the "long-haired hippie love children" could all take this approach) does, however, need to present a legitimate question.

Who, exactly, has this responsibility? Who is morally obliged to do this care?

That's the real question. To this I would answer simply: individual Americans and their collective compassionate organizations do. If our Constitution provided this role for the federal govt (and to take "general welfare clause" to mean it does is a position clearly refuted by the writings of the framers), then the federal government would have that responsibility. Since it does not, I contend, thrusting such a responsibility upon the government is an abdication of our own moral obligations.

The people of this country have far too long thrust our responsibilities on others. We have thrust our responsibility to teach our children upon state schools; we have thrust our responsibility to train our children in the faith upon Sunday schools; we have thrust our responsibility to teach our children sexuality upon teachers (WTF?); we have thrust our resposibility to provide for retirement upon social security programs; and we have thrust our responsibility to care for the poor all the way up to the federal level. That's not the government's job. That's my job, the job of my church, the job of my community, the job of my collective compassion organizations (Red Cross/Salvation Army, etc).

And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.

[st.cronin]

good post rev

I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it.

For myself I think the question is not "should we care for the poor/unfortunate" but "how should we care for the poor/unfortunate." I don't think it's a philosophical question - I think 99.99% of us agree that there are no circumstances under which a child should go hungry in this country, for example - but rather it's a technical question, that most of us only understand what is apparent to our immediate reality (my taxes go up, etc.)

[Raiders Army]

This is a fascinating thread. I see many viewpoints here and I don't believe that they are necessarily contradictory.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The biggest problem with the extreme left and extreme right is that both start out with the assumption that the other side doesn't share their values. Americans are a diverse bunch, but we are pretty homogenous in our values, afaict.

A little late to the party, but this is very true.

[revrew]

[quote=st.cronin]good post rev

I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it.

QUOTE]

Extreme? I prefer the term "radical." Or even, "maverick." That's me! I'd like to see the boat rocked, and if that means suggesting we capsize it...then let her roll!

In philosophy, I'm an extreme, original intent Constitutionalist. I don't necessarily jive with the political party of that name, but it means sometimes I come off sounding Republican, sometimes Libertarian, but all held together by a common thread: the federal government needs to get back inside its Constitutional cage and give the people back their rights and responsibilities. One day, I dream about starting a third political party and calling it the "Bill of Rights" party, in reference to the Constitution, the check on the federal governement that the original Bill of Rights created, and regaining individual rights. Anybody with me?

[wade moore]

Where do I sign-up? ...

Only partially joking as I'm basing it on this one specific issue where I happen to agree with you...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I find it odd that the right-wing is the party of patriotism when the ethic of "mine is mine" is very anti-patriotic. Arguing that someone should sacrifice their life (a very patriotic act) for the sake of the American experiment, but they shouldn't sacrifice money for that same end is nonsense to me. Taxation is patriotic. It is a way of the citizens supporting the larger project. And everyone must contribute their share to make sure that the American project is worth something.

Now, we can debate about how that project should be designed (maybe welfare isn't a good idea? - that's what legislatures are for). But, never should we say "mine is mine" and "leave my stuff alone." That is the epitomy of anti-American, IMO.

It's got nothing to do with being anti-patriotism.

My question is, what is a "fair" tax for the rich to the poor. The rich are in a tax bracket of 35% (after tax cuts), while each bracket reduces greatly. Is it fair that the rich have to pay a higher poriton of the income compare to the lower brackets? Just some questions I have.

[RendeR]

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered?

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered?

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you?

Be much more fairer.....And wealth will create jobs.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RendeR

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered?

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

Agree with this, though I think it's more the government's fault to allow these loopholes.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you?

Its not a matter of better or worse. This country has to stop being so candy-ass about how it treats people on each end of teh scale. The rich shouldn't be getting tax shelters and tax cuts and the poor need to learn to live within their means. A flat tax does both of these things, you make X dollars this year, you pay 20% of it to the government. Period.

Its not worse or better, its called Fair and unbiased.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Agree with this, though I think it's more the government's fault to allow these loopholes.

Every tax paying citizen in this country has the ability to stop the bullshit, however we'd rather stick our ehads in teh sand than oust the porkfat feeders in washington.

[oliegirl]

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

As unfair as it is, it's because they can afford it. They can afford to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in ways which protect them from paying taxes on that money. On the other side of the coin however, without those people investing all that money - what would happen to the stock market and to our economy?

I think the best thing is a flat federal SALES tax...you pay taxes based on what you spend. Someone at the lower end of the scale will pay significantly less taxes on their purchases than the high end of the scale just because the price tag is higher at the higher end.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

As unfair as it is, it's because they can afford it. They can afford to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in ways which protect them from paying taxes on that money. On the other side of the coin however, without those people investing all that money - what would happen to the stock market and to our economy?

I think the best thing is a flat federal SALES tax...you pay taxes based on what you spend. Someone at the lower end of the scale will pay significantly less taxes on their purchases than the high end of the scale just because the price tag is higher at the higher end.

I don't know about a sales tax. A few advantages is that it is based on what you spend, would hit up those illegal aleins, as regular foreign vistors, ect.

A combination of a flat tax and sales tax might be something I would consider.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its not a matter of better or worse. This country has to stop being so candy-ass about how it treats people on each end of teh scale. The rich shouldn't be getting tax shelters and tax cuts and the poor need to learn to live within their means. A flat tax does both of these things, you make X dollars this year, you pay 20% of it to the government. Period.

Its not worse or better, its called Fair and unbiased.

I agree. I would also add (and others have said it) that the government can trim the fat a lot to aid in our taxes.

[oliegirl]

I don't know about a sales tax. A few advantages is that it is based on what you spend, would hit up those illegal aleins, as regular foreign vistors, ect.

A combination of a flat tax and sales tax might be something I would consider.

I would support the flat income/sales tax also, but I'd support just the sales tax more, and this is the #1 reason why - people in America don't save their money...on the whole, we are a nation of spenders...people see their income go up b/c of no income tax and they are going to go right to the malls, targets, walmarts, internet, etc - and spend that money. The percentage of people putting that extra income in savings will be small...it will boost the economy, and the gov't will have all the tax money they want (well, not really, they will always want more, but you know what I mean)

[judicial clerk]

Revrew is one of those board members who I always pause to read.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Revrew is one of those board members who I always pause to read.

What do you have to pause while you read his posts? Porn?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What do you have to pause while you read his posts? Porn?

Because you never know when a kid is going to come flying out.

[sachmo71]

[quote=revrew]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

good post rev

I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it.

QUOTE]

Extreme? I prefer the term "radical." Or even, "maverick." That's me! I'd like to see the boat rocked, and if that means suggesting we capsize it...then let her roll!

In philosophy, I'm an extreme, original intent Constitutionalist. I don't necessarily jive with the political party of that name, but it means sometimes I come off sounding Republican, sometimes Libertarian, but all held together by a common thread: the federal government needs to get back inside its Constitutional cage and give the people back their rights and responsibilities. One day, I dream about starting a third political party and calling it the "Bill of Rights" party, in reference to the Constitution, the check on the federal governement that the original Bill of Rights created, and regaining individual rights. Anybody with me?

It needs to be some sort of animal party. I'm partial to Bull Moose, but you could be Grizzly Bear or somesuch.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by revrew

Who, exactly, has this responsibility? Who is morally obliged to do this care?

That's the real question. To this I would answer simply: individual Americans and their collective compassionate organizations do. If our Constitution provided this role for the federal govt (and to take "general welfare clause" to mean it does is a position clearly refuted by the writings of the framers), then the federal government would have that responsibility. Since it does not, I contend, thrusting such a responsibility upon the government is an abdication of our own moral obligations.

Philosophically, do you agree that national defense should be the same way? Shouldn't that be left up to private industry as well? If I have no money, living in some shithole apartment, why should I be forced to pay my taxes to national defense when I have nothing to lose? Wouldn't it be better for me if a government with social welfare came in and overran the country? What if I think I am in greater danger of a terrorist attack than a ballistic missile? Shouldn't I be able to pay money to a company that will protect me from terrorists rather than pay it to the government for Star Wars?

Originally Posted by revrew

And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.

Where is this Utopia that proves that we are mired in foolishness? Because every country that has no safety nets and laissez faire business practices has a few ultra rich people and millions of people living in squalor. You are advocating Africa's economic system. Good luck finding people that will starve their family to feed someone else's family.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

Having a flat tax has absolutely nothing to do with the tax breaks and loopholes. That is not a function of the progressivity of the system. Apples and oranges.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Be much more fairer.....And wealth will create jobs.

A flat tax isn't a magic money tree. If the rich pay less (as I think you are insinuating by saying that it will increase wealth) the poor and middle class will pay more. Which means that the poor and middle class will have less money to spend to pay for the goods and services that make the rich wealthy.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Philosophically, do you agree that national defense should be the same way? Shouldn't that be left up to private industry as well? If I have no money, living in some shithole apartment, why should I be forced to pay my taxes to national defense when I have nothing to lose? Wouldn't it be better for me if a government with social welfare came in and overran the country? What if I think I am in greater danger of a terrorist attack than a ballistic missile? Shouldn't I be able to pay money to a company that will protect me from terrorists rather than pay it to the government for Star Wars?


Where is this Utopia that proves that we are mired in foolishness? Because every country that has no safety nets and laissez faire business practices has a few ultra rich people and millions of people living in squalor. You are advocating Africa's economic system. Good luck finding people that will starve their family to feed someone else's family.

Have you read in-depth about Africa?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Having a flat tax has absolutely nothing to do with the tax breaks and loopholes. That is not a function of the progressivity of the system. Apples and oranges.

A flat tax would eliminate those loopholes and tax breaks, at least not what I think it means.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

A flat tax isn't a magic money tree. If the rich pay less (as I think you are insinuating by saying that it will increase wealth) the poor and middle class will pay more. Which means that the poor and middle class will have less money to spend to pay for the goods and services that make the rich wealthy.

The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A flat tax would eliminate those loopholes and tax breaks, at least not what I think it means.

A flat tax is completely different. You can eliminate the loopholes and tax breaks and have 50 million incremented tax brackets. You can have a flat tax with tax breaks and loopholes same as you have them with a progressive tax system. Apples and oranges.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality.

Let's hold off on the equality rhetoric. What I meant by less was compared to the tax system now. Say the top tax rate now is 35%, on the last hundred dollars Bill Gates makes, he would pay $35. Under a system where the top tax rate is 20% (i.e., a flat tax of 20%), he would pay $20, which is less than $35.

If that wasn't what you were talking about in terms of building wealth to create jobs, what were you talking about?

EDIT: And in a revenue nuetral environment, if Gates pays less, the lower and/or middle classes pay more.

[ISiddiqui]

Also an important point is that a progressive tax system is able to deal with recessions much easier. A flat tax makes it much harder to get out of an economic downturn. The reasons are that during a recovery, the people that make the most money are those on the top and business. That ends up spreading to those lower down the chain because those businesses will start hiring more people and whatnot. In a progressive system, the rich will pay more and the poor pay less, making the recession less harmful on the poor, but when the rich start making their money in the beginning of recovery, the government will gain more revenues than without a progressive system.

Anyway, I'm not for a flat tax or national sales tax (unless the sales tax replaces the payroll tax). I'm fine with an progressive income tax.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality.

I make a sheer buttload of money, more than the range quoted here, and EVEN I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K, because my food, gas, and lodging costs the same as his. With a spouse and three kids, at the end of the day, he's wiped out, and he's taking the bus to work. I'm buying a second car and thinking about taking a month off to drive it.

Is that fair?

And I make so much more money because why exactly? Let me tell you, it was mostly dumb luck, it wasn't because I worked harder or because I deserved it more.

That's what the progressive tax system is, it's FAIR considering circumstances.

And never forget, we provide a wonderful system in the US for making money hand over fist if you catch the right breaks and make the right contacts. Without a progressive tax system in place, that system is absolutely FREE!! for those who can get in. And that system is made up of us.

With a progressive tax system such as we've had over the last few decades, it still didn't cost all that much, either. I mean, using Bill Gates as your example -- he still became a billionaire.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Because you never know when a kid is going to come flying out.

NOTHING?!??!

Man, tough crowd!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K ...

Then you sir are a damned fool.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I make a sheer buttload of money, more than the range quoted here, and EVEN I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K, because my food, gas, and lodging costs the same as his. With a spouse and three kids, at the end of the day, he's wiped out, and he's taking the bus to work. I'm buying a second car and thinking about taking a month off to drive it.

Is that fair?

And I make so much more money because why exactly? Let me tell you, it was mostly dumb luck, it wasn't because I worked harder or because I deserved it more.

That's what the progressive tax system is, it's FAIR considering circumstances.

And never forget, we provide a wonderful system in the US for making money hand over fist if you catch the right breaks and make the right contacts. Without a progressive tax system in place, that system is absolutely FREE!! for those who can get in. And that system is made up of us.

With a progressive tax system such as we've had over the last few decades, it still didn't cost all that much, either. I mean, using Bill Gates as your example -- he still became a billionaire.

But if the guy has a wife and three kids, is that his personal choice to support them? Should people have children and be married if they are not making that much money? As for progressive tax system, I can see what your saying (and the rest), but I think I'm not sure if it's fair. I just don't think a guy that makes more should have to pay a higher portion of his salary. Just my two cents.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then you sir are a damned fool.

I've never understood the higher taxes for higher income brackets thing. What's the point of gaining wealth in a capitalistic society if you have to give more of it away because someone else makes less than you (for whatever reasons)?

By the way, I know almost nothing about tax law or economics, so feel free to explain it to me in the most basic way you can, I won't be offended.

[revrew]

judicial clerk - tx, a kind compliment

Regarding private military -- The Constitution, I believe, spells out that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is national defense. Thus, a private military would be both impractical and entirely unneccessary.

Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church.

Regarding FLAT TAX - Why all this incredible misunderstanding and nonsense? There's no need to tax a poor person at 20% and call that flat or fair. Here's how a logical flat tax works: Some minimum standard of living is set, a threshhold for which all Americans are allowed at no tax whatsoever. Then, every dollar made above that amount is taxed at a flat rate without any sense of tax bracket, which merely penalizes people for making more. For example, if the minimum allowance was set at $30,000 per joint return, a couple making $25,000 would owe nothing. A couple making $40,000 would only pay a flat rate on the 10Gs above the allowance. A millionaire couple would pay the same rate on every dollar above the 30G allowance. Simple.

I would support such a system wholeheartedly, but want to see no tax shelters, no tax breaks, no deductions of any kind (except, possibly, a greater allowance threshold for # of people in a family, much as our "standard deductions" work now). The IRS could be virtually eliminated, and everyone could do their own taxes in a matter of minutes. Of course, H&R Block would be put out of business, and so would a few tax software companies, but I think the regained man-hours and political-hours would more than make up for it in the long run.

[st.cronin]

It has to do with the marginal value of the next dollar. If you make 25,000/year, then another 1,000 dollars in taxes means a lot. If you make 25,000,000/year, then 1,000,000 has less relative value than 1,000 to the first person.

There is also the theory that it discourages the accumulation of wealth, which is considered unhealthy for a variety of reasons in a democratic society. This is why we have tax breaks for charitable donations and investments - it's rewarding redistribution of wealth.

I'm not an economist, either, but I've read one or two books. I admit I don't really understand economics.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I've never understood the higher taxes for higher income brackets thing. What's the point of gaining wealth in a capitalistic society if you have to give more of it away because someone else makes less than you (for whatever reasons)?

By the way, I know almost nothing about tax law or economics, so feel free to explain it to me in the most basic way you can, I won't be offended.

Your first argument is in part why progressive taxation is not detrimental to the economy. As you continue to make more and more wealth, you still accumulate a substantial portion yourself. At some point, the incentive to gain more income decreases to a sufficient point that it is no longer worth your effort. However, based on modern American history, that rate is very high for most individuals. In the U.S., the top marginal tax bracket has been 90% at some times. At that rate, the marginal value of increasing your wealth is low. However, making another $100,000 at a 35% tax rate still nets you a crap load of cash.

Now, as to why it is "fair" or "good" to have progressive taxation, let me expand upon my previous post.

The rich get the most out of the American governmental system. The government gives the means to our population to accumulate wealth. The poor and middle class have less to lose by choosing an alternate political system. The wealthy, on the other hand, derive significant benefits that they should pay for.

For example, at a basic level, the very concept of money creates an efficiency surplus. If we used a strict barter system, our economy would look very different. We would have to constantly arrange trades for all of our goods and stores would have to need what we were offering. By using money, our system efficiency is GREATLY increased. This surplus value added to the economy is made possible only by government.

Similarly, a government that facilitates private industry competition creates signficant surplus to the people.

There are many such surpluses created by our form of government. These do not exist in the state of nature and are not the only way we can do things. To me, progressive taxation is the way for the rich to pay for the benefits they derive from the unique American system. They have no natural rights to their money, because their wealth is made possible ONLY by acts of the government.

Anyway, I was light on the economics, so hopefully that at least makes some sense to you (even if you disagree with it).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by revrew

Regarding private military -- The Constitution, I believe, spells out that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is national defense. Thus, a private military would be both impractical and entirely unneccessary.

That just says that it's good because it is in the Constitution. Why do you want to keep that as part of the Constitution? Slavery was in the original Constitution, I am sure you are not a fan of that. What makes the government in your eyes good at defending the country but bad at defending against poverty?

Originally Posted by revrew

Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church.

Before FDR's time poverty was much worse and the disparity between classes was starker. So how does that support your point that the 'abdication of personal responsibility' is making things worse?

Originally Posted by revrew

Regarding FLAT TAX - Why all this incredible misunderstanding and nonsense? There's no need to tax a poor person at 20% and call that flat or fair. Here's how a logical flat tax works: Some minimum standard of living is set, a threshhold for which all Americans are allowed at no tax whatsoever. Then, every dollar made above that amount is taxed at a flat rate without any sense of tax bracket, which merely penalizes people for making more. For example, if the minimum allowance was set at $30,000 per joint return, a couple making $25,000 would owe nothing. A couple making $40,000 would only pay a flat rate on the 10Gs above the allowance. A millionaire couple would pay the same rate on every dollar above the 30G allowance. Simple.

That's a progressive tax system, only with two levels (0% and X%). Why penalize the people that are successful that make more than $25k? You are attempting to say your views are based on principle, but then drawing an arbitrary line as to where that principal comes into play (i.e., taxing people at a higher rate at $100k in income is 'penalizing' them, while taxing people at a higher rate at $25k is 'simple and fair').

[John Galt]

Revrew and others,

There is one area of the flat tax that I always find lacking. One of the basic questions in tax law is defining income. The flat tax defenders don't seem to realize how many "loopholes" exist just by virtue of the definition of income.

Do you count capital gains? If you do, it is really a form of double taxation since the money was already earned once. If you don't, you really protect the rich who just invest their money over and over again. If you treat capital gains differently, how do you do it?

What if companies switch to providing income in-kind? That is, what if they pay your rent, loan you a car, and offer free health care? Are those income? If not, that is an enormous loophole? If yes, then you need to craft a very clear series of definitions about what in-kind services are income. You would never count the cost of water you drink at work, but would you count the company paying for meals on business trips? What if they use a reimbursement system for payment of such expenses?

Do you offer any special circumstances exceptions? What if you have $40,000 in health care expenses one year and you only earn $40,000? What if you are a small business owner and you record a major loss?

These are only a few basic questions. There are many, many more. The flat tax defenders often end up crafting so many exceptions that the simplicity of their system ends up lost. Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system. The rest of it still needs to be fleshed out and that is the source of most of the confusion regarding taxes.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Revrew and others,

There is one area of the flat tax that I always find lacking. One of the basic questions in tax law is defining income. The flat tax defenders don't seem to realize how many "loopholes" exist just by virtue of the definition of income.

Do you count capital gains? If you do, it is really a form of double taxation since the money was already earned once. If you don't, you really protect the rich who just invest their money over and over again. If you treat capital gains differently, how do you do it?

What if companies switch to providing income in-kind? That is, what if they pay your rent, loan you a car, and offer free health care? Are those income? If not, that is an enormous loophole? If yes, then you need to craft a very clear series of definitions about what in-kind services are income. You would never count the cost of water you drink at work, but would you count the company paying for meals on business trips? What if they use a reimbursement system for payment of such expenses?

Do you offer any special circumstances exceptions? What if you have $40,000 in health care expenses one year and you only earn $40,000? What if you are a small business owner and you record a major loss?

These are only a few basic questions. There are many, many more. The flat tax defenders often end up crafting so many exceptions that the simplicity of their system ends up lost. Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system. The rest of it still needs to be fleshed out and that is the source of most of the confusion regarding taxes.

...

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Anyway, I was light on the economics, so hopefully that at least makes some sense to you (even if you disagree with it).

It's not that I disagree with your reasoning, it's just that I also see the other side of the issue just as well (personal responsibilty, etc.). This is one of many issues I'm torn both ways on. As much as it might annoy some people on this board (who are offended by people even mentioning religion), my measuring stick on most political issues is the basic question as to what I think Jesus would do. Even going by that, this issue (and others) is in a grey area for me.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by revrew

Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church.

While I think your history is only partly right on this (a lot of welfare was provided on a local government level before), I think our economy has grown such that such a system is no longer possible. Nowadays, a hobo can't really live off the land. Everything is private. The ability to just "get by" is not the same as it was 150 years ago. A homeless person is highly unlikely to even get a job at McDonald's. Any given poor child in an urban public school system stands a low chance of ever becoming even middle class. Class mobility in America has largely been obliterated by growing wealth differential.

Now, I'm not opposed to greatly limiting certain types of welfare (I would be perfectly happy to eliminate social security, for instance). However, health care for the poor, welfare for children, school lunch programs, etc. seem absolutely essential in a society that has grown too much for local governments and churches to care for those most in need.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FTR, I'm not a "flat-taxer", at least not in the sense of Boortz,et al who have been blipping the radar lately. But with that caveat in mind ...

Originally Posted by John Galt

Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system.

I pretty strongly believe that ending progressive taxation is the primary goal of many (maybe most?) flat tax proponents. Less complex might (or might not) be a happy by-product of it, but its not at all a significant component of my support for the basic idea.

("support" as in an affirmative response to a general question like "Would you support changing to a 'flat' tax system")

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by revrew

The people of this country have far too long thrust our responsibilities on others. We have thrust our responsibility to teach our children upon state schools; we have thrust our responsibility to train our children in the faith upon Sunday schools; we have thrust our responsibility to teach our children sexuality upon teachers (WTF?); we have thrust our resposibility to provide for retirement upon social security programs; and we have thrust our responsibility to care for the poor all the way up to the federal level. That's not the government's job. That's my job, the job of my church, the job of my community, the job of my collective compassion organizations (Red Cross/Salvation Army, etc).

And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.

I guess I'm not willing to sacrifice many to teach a lesson to others. I know that is a horrible simplification of what you are saying and I've never doubted that your heart is in the right place. However, I still feel that any system which starts eliminating safety nets always leaves some (usually those least able to help themselves: children, mentally ill, physically handicapped, etc.) out in the cold in order to teach the cheaters to be responsible. I'd rather just have some cheating/gaming of the system than leaving some to die. I believe if everyone felt as you do that no one would be left in such a state. However, I don't believe such a world exists and I have little hope it ever would.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I pretty strongly believe that ending progressive taxation is the primary goal of many (maybe most?) flat tax proponents.

I agree. I just felt that some posts here were emphasizing the simplicity aspect and I really don't think a flat tax is any simpler than a progressive one. You just rip out the tax tables out of your tax forms - the rest of it remains the same (or some variation of rules depending on your particular views).

[Anthony]

what i don't get is this:

who says "the children" have to suffer as a result of weakening Big Government (i'm anti-Big Government, for the record)? shouldn't it be we cut programs we all deem to be excessive? i for one think our defense budget is quite unnecessary. i also happen to think our defense budget should be used for just that - defense, not proactively starting wars (but that's for another thread). i also happen to think we could stand to lessen the funding for our space program. i think space exploration should be a global responsibility, rather than nation by nation (again, we'll save that for another thread). so right there are two sectors from which we can lessen funding for without touching education and afterschool programs.