Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

@Brandon9000,

I'll also state for the record that IMO the rich benefit more from a stable government than the poor, so I don't see a problem with them paying a larger amount. (They do not pay a larger percent; see the Warren Buffet quote that Freeduck posted)

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Also, please explain the morality of having poor people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than rich people. (Which is what happens with things like sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.)

Sales taxes don't strike me as unfair, because everyone is asked to pay the exact same percentage of the sales price. I think that income taxes should be the same percentage of income for all (except the very poor), and sales taxes should be the same percentage of price for all. Maybe the really poor could have an ID card of some sort and be excepted from sales tax. I'd endorse that if it were in my power. If you ask me a million times, in a million ways, I will simply repeat this statement, because it's what I believe. Now, why don't you surprise me and simply tell me why you disagree, rather than trying to pin me down in technicalities?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

My alternate proposal is to tax everyone at the same rate, with a minimum of loopholes, and excepting the really poor, who ought to get a total pass. Excepting the really poor is as far as I think we ought to go in making a tax unequal. Beyond that, I think it ought to be flat.

That sounds nice as a broad statement. Howzabout some nuts and bolts? Taxed at what rate? By what method?

Brandon9000 wrote:

If there must be a progressive tax, it becomes more unfair as it becomes more progressive. At the very least, it shouldn't be wildly inequitable.

Don't try to find an internal contradiction in my position, because there isn't one, and it will just waste time. Simply tell me why you disagree with what I advocate.

In the current progressive method, the rich do not pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. They pay less. (I'm not talking about the tax brackets; I'm talking about the final amount they pay.) Explain again how this is unfair to the rich?

The numbers just don't support our current system as being "immoral" or "theft" or "unfair to the rich".

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I'll also state for the record that IMO the rich benefit more from a stable government than the poor, so I don't see a problem with them paying a larger amount. (They do not pay a larger percent; see the Warren Buffet quote that Freeduck posted)

I agree that most loopholes should be closed, and, after that, the wealthy should only be asked to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. Success should not be punished. I don't want to be part of a society in which we drag the fortunate down to our level out of jealousy.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
My alternate proposal is to tax everyone at the same rate, with a minimum of loopholes, and excepting the really poor, who ought to get a total pass. Excepting the really poor is as far as I think we ought to go in making a tax unequal. Beyond that, I think it ought to be flat.

That sounds nice as a broad statement. Howzabout some nuts and bolts? Taxed at what rate? By what method?

Brandon9000 wrote:
If there must be a progressive tax, it becomes more unfair as it becomes more progressive. At the very least, it shouldn't be wildly inequitable.

Don't try to find an internal contradiction in my position, because there isn't one, and it will just waste time. Simply tell me why you disagree with what I advocate.

In the current progressive method, the rich do not pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. They pay less. (I'm not talking about the tax brackets; I'm talking about the final amount they pay.) Explain again how this is unfair to the rich?

The numbers just don't support our current system as being "immoral" or "theft" or "unfair to the rich".

I wasn't talking about our present system. I was arguing about what the goal ought to be. The rich should pay the same percentage as the middle. To answer your request for "nuts and bolts," the rates should be whatever is required to run a frugal government adequately, and, in case you were going to ask, I won't define "adequately."

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

My problem with that is that the lower tax-paying end up paying a higher effective tax rate.

I actually have no problem with a single tax rate for everyone, provided it's the only way in which people are taxed. But once you add on sales tax, gasoline tax, etc. then folks at the lower end pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, which I find unfair.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

My problem with that is that the lower tax-paying end up paying a higher effective tax rate.

I actually have no problem with a single tax rate for everyone, provided it's the only way in which people are taxed. But once you add on sales tax, gasoline tax, etc. then folks at the lower end pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, which I find unfair.

If you and I were really in a position of power, I expect, based on what you say, that we could work out a mutually satisfactory deal. Your argument about sales tax is not unreasonable. I'd be fine with a flat tax and no sales tax.

That's enough for me. I'm not to0 interested in getting into the detals any further.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't want to be part of a society in which we drag the fortunate down to our level out of jealousy.

Do you have some evidence that shows that it is out of jealousy? Please provide this evidence or retract the statement.

The facts are: our government spends more than it takes in in taxes. Taxes need to go up; spending needs to go down. The rich pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes than the middle class.

So... do you advocate raising taxes on everyone, or just the folks that are paying the smallest percentage?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I don't want to be part of a society in which we drag the fortunate down to our level out of jealousy.

Do you have some evidence that shows that it is out of jealousy? Please provide this evidence or retract the statement.

The facts are: our government spends more than it takes in in taxes. Taxes need to go up; spending needs to go down. The rich pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes than the middle class.

So... do you advocate raising taxes on everyone, or just the folks that are paying the smallest percentage?

I advocate a flat tax, excepting only the very poor. Maybe we should have fewer programs in the budget. If, after making it a little leaner, taxes were still inadequate, they would have to be raised. This is all pretty simply stuff. I'd think you could predict what I'd say yourself with fair accuracy.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

But your choice this election cycle is not between the current system and a flat tax.

If it is immoral for folks to pay an uneven amount in taxes, which of the two candidates has the more morally acceptable tax plan?

Also, I'm still interested if you have any evidence of jealousy.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I actually like that plan - I think it should be a straight across the board % with like you said, little or no deductions. To me, most items that are deductions are individual decisions - if you want kids you should have to pay for them, not get a tax deductions - having kids costs others more money, why should they have to pay for it, while you get a deduction for it (for example). By the way I have two children.

Personally I like limited government involvement, but understand certain things need to be governed.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

One thing I do like about Mass is that do not have a sales tax on necessities - clothing and food. That sort of supports your thought process.

0 Replies

Nobody who isn't poor can claim to be unfairly treated by any of these considerations.

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Both candidates support a progressive tax system.

My issue with both candidates is the difference between the top and bottom brackets are too wide.

Obamas plan would widen the gap further.

Anyone who thinks a progressive tax system is "socialist or marxist" is stupid. Yet, Obama should watch what he says about "re-distributing" the wealth as the phrase will make people like you ask this type of question

Obama said, by reducing taxes on the middle class, they will have more discretionary income to spend. When they spend those dollars on plumbers, dentists, eating out, going to movies, buying consumer goods, etc., they are spreading the wealth around. Everyone benefits and our economy prospers. How does that equate to socialism?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Obama said, by reducing taxes on the middle class, they will have more discretionary income to spend.

There is no way in hell Obama will cut taxes for the middle class!

Obama will raise taxes for all tax payers and spend money like a drunk sailor on shore leave.

The best solution is the immediate adoption and implementation of The FairTax plan coupled with a 1 year government spending freeze.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Would you explain how that policy would operate in practice MAN so that we can decide whether it is the best solution or not. It sounds a bit abstract as it stands.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The employees of course probably mostly favor Obama who is promising them a virtual utopia at no cost to them while finally getting those rich business owners--you know, the ones who take all the risks and put in the time to create jobs for the others--they'll finally have to give up some of all that lovely money because it isn't fair that they have so much more than the people who work for them.

Silly you. If all those middle class employees benefit from lower taxes on their taxable income by having more money in their pockets rather than just scraping by, then they will have more money to hire plumbers to fix their leaky pipes . . . and plumbers will have more customers and make more money . . . and on and on and on. How is having more customers or patrons or clients unfair to the business owner who is making more money instead of less? Spreading the wealth around isn't "socialism," that's CAPITALISM. Again, silly you.

Spreading The Wealth

Obama said:

"For folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who's -- things are slow and she can barely make the rent.

My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015225.php

Oh gosh! HIDE YOUR WALLET because the "boogie man" wants businesses to be better off! ROFL

0 Replies

@spendius,

Click and learn - it's a very simple, yet extremely comprehensive plan.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/FairTax-1.jpg

Obama's tax plan started with taxing people that made more than $300K
per year and today his plan calls for taxing people that make $150K.

Two questions:

How low will Obama go?
How does Obama's plan motivate people to make more than they are currently making?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

How does Obama's plan motivate people to make more than they are currently making?

Well- there are some people who just like making money and are not too concerned about what happens to it.

Anybody who is put off from making money because of the tax is a bloody commie rat in my opinion. He sure isn't a capitalist.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

... is a bloody commie rat in my opinion. He sure isn't a capitalist.

Obama...

1 Reply

Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know