FAIRNESS IN TAXATION

i dont really like how taxes are handled, i think they should just tax items purchased, not income.

0 Replies

There is great unfairness and irrationality in the U.S. tax code (and usually in state tax codes as well). However, the abrogation of the income tax in favor of a sales tax would be no less unfair. Indeed, it would be more unfair.

BTW: I realize this forum is 'Philosophy and Debate', but wouldn't this topic be a better fit in 'Politics'?

0 Replies

Government was created predominantly for purposes of defense and revenge.

It was most certainly NOT created to give the poor a free ride,
at the expense of the middle class, nor the rich.
That was NOT the deal.

To apply government to that purpose
( i.e., robbing the rich n middle classes to begift the poor )
is a perversion of the deal.

Note that the 16th Amendment did NOT
authorize government to discriminate between or among the classes
in assessing tax rates; everyone shud pay the same.

David

0 Replies

Re: FAIRNESS IN TAXATION

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That way, everyone wud be able to regulate
how much he paid in taxes.

David

David, you make it sound as if that is the only way!

0 Replies

Re: FAIRNESS IN TAXATION

Miller wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That way, everyone wud be able to regulate
how much he paid in taxes.

David

David, you make it sound as if that is the only way!

As of now,
people can devise many different tax strategies.
Some folks r very creative.
Some just stay off the books n pay nothing.

I only meant to say
that funding government only thru
sales taxes wud grant freedom to citizens to control
how much tax thay pay, by how much thay purchase.

I 'm very big on FREEDOM
David

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

There is great unfairness and irrationality in the U.S. tax code (and usually in state tax codes as well). However, the abrogation of the income tax in favor of a sales tax would be no less unfair. Indeed, it would be more unfair.

BTW: I realize this forum is 'Philosophy and Debate', but wouldn't this topic be a better fit in 'Politics'?

The abrogation of the income tax wouldnt affect the country at all because it doesnt fund the country.. but it helps out alot of bankers thats fer sure.. so im sure they wouldnt like it

0 Replies

Richard Saunders wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
There is great unfairness and irrationality in the U.S. tax code (and usually in state tax codes as well). However, the abrogation of the income tax in favor of a sales tax would be no less unfair. Indeed, it would be more unfair.

BTW: I realize this forum is 'Philosophy and Debate', but wouldn't this topic be a better fit in 'Politics'?

The abrogation of the income tax wouldnt affect the country at all because it doesnt fund the country.. but it helps out alot of bankers thats fer sure.. so im sure they wouldnt like it

U believe that income taxation
and the economy r unrelated ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Government was created predominantly for purposes of defense and revenge.

It was most certainly NOT created to give the poor a free ride,
at the expense of the middle class, nor the rich.

Do you really believe that the poor are getting a "free ride"?

A progressive tax is justified by the fact that people in higher income groups benefit disproportionately from our society. However, it doesn't matter that you disagree with the fairness of a progressive tax since your alternative is demonstrably unfair in that it is a regressive tax.

Sales tax is regressive. It certainly is the case that, to a degree, some people (predominantly in the middle and upper classes) would be able to control how much they paid in taxes. However, there is a certain minimum amount of goods and services a person or family must purchase in our society. We'll call this cash amount X. Since X represents a larger portion of a poor family's annual income than of a middle or upper class family's, the sales tax paid on X by the poor family will also be a larger portion of that family's income than of a middle or upper class family's.

Your alternative to a progressive income tax that (theoretically) places a proportionally greater burden on higher income earners is a regressive tax that places a proportionately greater burden on low income earners.

0 Replies

Richard Saunders wrote:

The abrogation of the income tax wouldnt affect the country at all because it doesnt fund the country.. but it helps out alot of bankers thats fer sure.. so im sure they wouldnt like it

You did notice that I was referring to US income tax? To what country are you referring?

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Richard Saunders wrote:
The abrogation of the income tax wouldnt affect the country at all because it doesnt fund the country.. but it helps out alot of bankers thats fer sure.. so im sure they wouldnt like it

You did notice that I was referring to US income tax? To what country are you referring?

Richard is under this delusion that all of the US taxes go to pay bankers. I am sure he will be happy to try to explain it to you.

0 Replies

parados: Thanks for the heads-up. Out of curiosity, if the tax dollars go to bankers, what's the government spending? Shocked

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Richard Saunders wrote:
Mills75 wrote:
There is great unfairness and irrationality in the U.S. tax code (and usually in state tax codes as well). However, the abrogation of the income tax in favor of a sales tax would be no less unfair. Indeed, it would be more unfair.

BTW: I realize this forum is 'Philosophy and Debate', but wouldn't this topic be a better fit in 'Politics'?

The abrogation of the income tax wouldnt affect the country at all because it doesnt fund the country.. but it helps out alot of bankers thats fer sure.. so im sure they wouldnt like it

U believe that income taxation
and the economy r unrelated ?

You misunderstand. I didnt say income tax and the economy was unrelated. Let me clarify: The personal income tax doesnt provide any of the services we expect from our govt.. like military,education etc.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
Richard Saunders wrote:
The abrogation of the income tax wouldnt affect the country at all because it doesnt fund the country.. but it helps out alot of bankers thats fer sure.. so im sure they wouldnt like it

You did notice that I was referring to US income tax? To what country are you referring?

Richard is under this delusion that all of the US taxes go to pay bankers. I am sure he will be happy to try to explain it to you.

When you understand what monetizing the debt means then come and talk to me.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Your alternative to a progressive income tax that (theoretically) places a proportionally greater burden on higher income earners is a regressive tax that places a proportionately greater burden on low income earners.

This is completely false. Rich and poor people are both going to spend money proportional to their income level, and if the sales tax is proportional to the item price then this means both rich and poor will contribute to the tax proportional to their income level.

For example, assume a poor person makes $1,000 and spends 80% of it. The sales tax is 10%. So he pays $80 in tax, which is 8% of his income.

Now a rich person makes $1,000,000 and they also spend 80% of it. Sales tax is still 10%. So he pays $80,000 in tax, which is 8% of his income....same percent as the poor person.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
Your alternative to a progressive income tax that (theoretically) places a proportionally greater burden on higher income earners is a regressive tax that places a proportionately greater burden on low income earners.

This is completely false. Rich and poor people are both going to spend money proportional to their income level, and if the sales tax is proportional to the item price then this means both rich and poor will contribute to the tax proportional to their income level.

For example, assume a poor person makes $1,000 and spends 80% of it. The sales tax is 10%. So he pays $80 in tax, which is 8% of his income.

Now a rich person makes $1,000,000 and they also spend 80% of it. Sales tax is still 10%. So he pays $80,000 in tax, which is 8% of his income....same percent as the poor person.

It's not false.

Statistics show that those that make more don't spend the same percentage as those on the lower level. As the income goes up the savings go up and the spending as a percentage of income goes down.

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf
The top quintile spends 61% of their income. The middle quintile spends 93% of theirs.

0 Replies

Touche. In any case, I think it is more fair to tax relative to the amount spent not relative to the amount earned. So I agree with David.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
Mills75 wrote:
Your alternative to a progressive income tax that (theoretically) places a proportionally greater burden on higher income earners is a regressive tax that places a proportionately greater burden on low income earners.

This is completely false. Rich and poor people are both going to spend money proportional to their income level, and if the sales tax is proportional to the item price then this means both rich and poor will contribute to the tax proportional to their income level.

For example, assume a poor person makes $1,000 and spends 80% of it. The sales tax is 10%. So he pays $80 in tax, which is 8% of his income.

Now a rich person makes $1,000,000 and they also spend 80% of it. Sales tax is still 10%. So he pays $80,000 in tax, which is 8% of his income....same percent as the poor person.

It's not false.

Statistics show that those that make more don't spend the same percentage as those on the lower level. As the income goes up the savings go up and the spending as a percentage of income goes down.

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf
The top quintile spends 61% of their income.
The middle quintile spends 93% of theirs.

Government does not give
the rich, nor the middle class more services
( e.g., the State Dept., the Post Office, the Weather Forecasters, the Navy ),
but the rich and middle classes
get billed more, in return for nothing extra ANYWAY.

Its naked fraud.
The 16th Amendment does NOT authorize discrimination.
Neither house of Congress, nor the ratifying States agreed to THAT.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Government does not give
the rich, nor the middle class more services
( e.g., the State Dept., the Post Office, the Weather Forecasters, the Navy ),
but the rich and middle classes
get billed more, in return for nothing extra ANYWAY.

Of course the government gives the rich more services. Lets assume the government doesn't pay for an army and communist Cuba invades the US requiring all people to give up their property. Who loses more? Someone that has $1000 in assets or someone that has $10 million in assets? Since one can lose more who gains more by having an army to prevent losing their assets?

Roads. Who benefits more from roads? The person that just uses them to drive back and forth to work and makes $30,000 or the man that owns a business that ships products and makes $3 million? If someone can benefit more than someone MUST benefit less.

The US mail. Whe benefits more? the person that mails personal letters or the corporation that sends out bulk mailings of their bills at a reduced rate?

Quote:

Its naked fraud.
The 16th Amendment does NOT authorize discrimination.
Neither house of Congress, nor the ratifying States agreed to THAT.
David[/b]

Yeah. Your statements are naked fraud when someone points out the fact that your claims have no clothes. You might want to look up the word discrmination before you claim the tax laws do that.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Touche. In any case, I think it is more fair to tax relative to the amount spent not relative to the amount earned. So I agree with David.

Or, in other words, when the facts and your opinions contradict each other, you'll stick with your opinions.

0 Replies

FAIRNESS IN TAXATION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know