HUCKABEE'S FAIRTAX PROPOSAL

If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor?

You are the one that said this flaja...

Quote:

If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor?

You are the one that raised the rhetorical specter of the poor being benefited at the expense of the rich. When questioned on the "poor" benefiting you stated that over half of the federal budget went to "entitlement programs." In reality the majority of the entitlement programs do not go to the "poor". Over half of those receiving SS would still be above the poverty line even without those SS payments. If suddenly you think the programs that give money to middle class and rich people are wrong then why did you raise your specter?

Advocate wrote:

To qualify for SS and, I think, disability, you need only 40 quarters (10 years) of creditable service. So the waitress working 15 years would more than qualify for something.

Work 10 years and have a guaranteed living for 40+?

The math doesn't compute and this is why Social Security is going broke.

A disabled claimant will receive the same monthly benefit that he or she would receive had he or she retired at full retirement age.

Contrary to liberal doctrine, we cannot tax and spend our way to universal prosperity- impoverished socialism yes, prosperity no.

parados wrote:

You are the one that said this flaja...

Quote:

If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor?

You are the one that raised the rhetorical specter of the poor being benefited at the expense of the rich. When questioned on the "poor" benefiting you stated that over half of the federal budget went to "entitlement programs." In reality the majority of the entitlement programs do not go to the "poor". Over half of those receiving SS would still be above the poverty line even without those SS payments. If suddenly you think the programs that give money to middle class and rich people are wrong then why did you raise your specter?

This thread has been about the income tax in general and the estate tax in particular. It was you liberals that postulated that we can rightfully tax the estates of the rich to benefit society.

I asked my question as a way of making you libs consider the implications of your philosophy. My question was not by any mans meant to imply that I support your liberal policies, because I don't. I want to know that if you liberals believe it is OK to tax the rich to benefit society, do you believe it is equally OK to tax the middle class to benefit society and if this is OK why is not just as OK to tax everyone so that private property ceases to exist and everyone can derive equal benefit from all of the property in existence.

I apologize for asking what I thought was a simple question; I should have taken into consideration you simplemindedness and not have expected you to understand this straightforward matter.

For the record I am absolutely opposed to progressive taxation. No person should be obligated to pay more in taxes just because they can afford to do so.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

I am also opposed to most welfare spending and entitlement programs. It is immoral to take one person's money for common use and then spend that money on programs that benefit a select few. The government is constitutionally obligated to look out for the common welfare of the nation in general, not provide welfare for the general public.

well flaja I can tell by your extremely well crafted posts that you are not simple minded so here's my simple minded answer to your question. The congressmen/women and senators write the tax codes and since their primary function is to get re-elected they engineer the tax codes in a graduated form leaving enough loopholes so the very wealthy actually pay less a % of their income but appear to the common and yes simple minded folk that they are actually paying more. Smoke and mirrors as we simple minded folk like to say.

Advocate wrote:

To qualify for SS and, I think, disability, you need only 40 quarters (10 years) of creditable service. So the waitress working 15 years would more than qualify for something.

Work 10 years and have a guaranteed living for 40+?

The math doesn't compute and this is why Social Security is going broke.

Contrary to liberal doctrine, we cannot tax and spend our way to universal prosperity- impoverished socialism yes, prosperity no.

dyslexia wrote:

well flaja I can tell by your extremely well crafted posts that you are not simple minded so here's my simple minded answer to your question. The congressmen/women and senators write the tax codes and since their primary function is to get re-elected they engineer the tax codes in a graduated form leaving enough loopholes so the very wealthy actually pay less a % of their income but appear to the common and yes simple minded folk that they are actually paying more. Smoke and mirrors as we simple minded folk like to say.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1941.html

Note the Table that shows share of taxes paid by the rich as a proportion of their share of national income. Federal taxes are more progressive after Bush's tax cuts than they had been before. People who have incomes of more than $200,000 a year now pay a larger share of federal taxation while their share of the nation's wealth has declined. In 2000 people who earned over $200,000 a year collectively earned 26.7% of the nation's income and paid 47.3% of all federal income taxes. In 2004 people who earned over $200,000 a year collectively earned 25.5% of the nation's income but paid 50% of all federal income taxes.

http://www.sugisorensen.com/taxes/index.html#Head-3.htm

In 1995 the people in the highest 20% income bracket paid 64% of all federal taxes collected. This percentage is up from 59% in 1977. Between 1977 and 1995 people in the other income brackets all saw their share of the federal tax burden fall.

People in the top 1% income bracket saw their share of the federal tax burden go from 16% in 1977 to 20% in 1995.

People in the top 5% income bracket saw their share of the federal tax burden go from 32% in 1977 to 36% in 1995.

People in the top 10% income bracket saw their share of the federal tax burden go from 43% in 1977 to 48% in 1995.

It is a liberal myth that the rich pay low taxes. Even with their tax shelters the rich pay a higher share of federal taxation that the rest of us do.

well yes I suppose one could say Bush 43 is a liberal based on tax policy.

dyslexia wrote:

well yes I suppose one could say Bush 43 is a liberal based on tax policy.

Thus his failure to be re-elected n 1992.

What makes you think a so called "flat tax" or "consumption tax" will change the above allocation?

The intent of the progressive tax rates make perfect sense (that does not mean I agree with the percentages) if one wants to maintain the middle class and provide for economic advancement for the lower income brackets.

I guess flaja forgot to mention that even though the taxes went up by about 25% for the upper 1%, their share of the total income almost doubled. They are paying more because they are making a much larger % of the total income. All that while their tax rates are being cut.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000566

flaja wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

well yes I suppose one could say Bush 43 is a liberal based on tax policy.

Thus his failure to be re-elected n 1992.

Wrong Bush, Flaja!

woiyo wrote:

What makes you think a so called "flat tax" or "consumption tax" will change the above allocation?

I don't recall having said it would.

Quote:

The intent of the progressive tax rates make perfect sense (that does not mean I agree with the percentages) if one wants to maintain the middle class and provide for economic advancement for the lower income brackets.

Where is it the responsibility of the rich to maintain the middle class or provide for the economic advancement for the lower income brackets?

And if maintain a balance between the income brackets is your concern, why not lower taxes on everybody and let everybody keep more of the the money they earn?

parados wrote:

I guess flaja forgot to mention that even though the taxes went up by about 25% for the upper 1%, their share of the total income almost doubled. They are paying more because they are making a much larger % of the total income. All that while their tax rates are being cut.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000566

So what? What do you have against people making money either through their labor or through their investments?

I notice that your report leaves out estate taxes and gift taxes. Try again.

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

woiyo wrote:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

In other words the Federalists didn't want the poor majority to be able to threaten the (property) rights of the rich minority, thus they designed the Constitution in such as way as to prohibit income taxes whereby the poor could seize the property of the rich.

If the Framers of the Constitution were truly concerned that the rich minority could infringe on the rights of the poor majority, then they would have made provisions in the Constitution whereby the rich could be deprived of their wealth through taxation out of proportion to their relative proportion of the population. But the Framers put no such provision in the Constitution. In fact the Framers put the exact opposite provision in the Constitution:

Section 9, Article I: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

This means that a rich person cannot be made to pay taxes at a higher rate. Just because the population of state A has more wealth than the population of state B does, the Constitution (as originally written) prohibits Congress from collecting more in taxes on a per person basis from state A than state B.

Assume a 10% income tax:
State A:
Population 100
Total wealth of population $500
Federal Tax collection: $10 or $0.10 per person

State B:
Population 100
Total wealth of population $25
Federal Tax collection: $10 or $0.10 per person

The tax rate for state A cannot be any more or any less than the tax rate for state B according to the Constitution as the Framers wrote it.

flaja wrote:

parados wrote:

I guess flaja forgot to mention that even though the taxes went up by about 25% for the upper 1%, their share of the total income almost doubled. They are paying more because they are making a much larger % of the total income. All that while their tax rates are being cut.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000566

So what? What do you have against people making money either through their labor or through their investments?

I notice that your report leaves out estate taxes and gift taxes. Try again.

My report uses the same source, CBO numbers, you used. Are you now saying you don't trust the CBO?