Thread: What tax rate IS Fair? Is there REALLY a fair flat tax rate anymore?

Originally Posted by mabus

Why is the conclusion always to dip poor people face down into the shit? Why can't we simply raise wages to an adequate level?

I think it's more a question of why poor people insist in being dipshits, and why they don't simply raise their own incomes to an adequate level.

I'm sure there are true hard-luck, no fault of their own instances of poverty, but I have Never seen any. I knew a woman who got public assistance. She had two daughters. By a druggie boyfriend who's spent most of the time since then in jail on various charges. She was poor because she chose to have children and she chose poor relationships despite good counsel from friends. Choosing to drop out of college didn't help. I know a guy who's getting evicted. He has a bigger TV than I do, and has never made as much. He spends more on smokes than I do on pop, and I admittedly have a drinking problem. He has a kid by a now unemployed lower-wage wife. He chooses cigarettes and electronics over rent, and chose to have a kid he couldn't afford with a wife who didn't help matters financially. Another women I knew on public assistance had 4 kids by 3 fathers IIRC, and was pining over losing a cheating boyfriend who was unemployed and didn't make much when he was. Most poor people are poor by choice - Why should we financially encourage them to be poor, and worse, to raise even more children who will suffer not only from their parents' poor choices, but most likely a life based on those role models? That is true cruelty.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Sadly there isn't enough wealth to keep everyone from being poor. Someone somewhere gets to stay poor if we aren't all poor.

Poor is relative. Give everyone $1M (and assume no resultant inflation to cancel it out) and we'll still feel sorry for the people whose houses are less than 5K sf, whose cars are more than 3 yrs old, and/or have to eat cheaper cuts of steak. The best you can do is reduce the paths down and unblock the paths up.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

This weekend there will be 7 billion people in the world. Global GDP distributed equally would leave all of us poor.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Oh social justice stops at our borders, I forgot.

I agree that social justice should be global. But our government's first and arguably only priority should be the well being our citizens.

Originally Posted by timj219

One principle I've always supported is taxing income earned from work at a lower rate than income received from investment, lottery winnings, or inheritance. The willingness of people to work for wages is the one indispensable ingredient for a strong modern economy and for increased wealth for everyone. Hard work is one of the things most people say they value. It should be rewarded by being taxed less than other forms of income.

Except that in so doing, you're discouraging savings and investment, which is one of the keys to rising above wage-slave status.

Originally Posted by jviehe

I dont agree paying the same rate is fair unless everyone agrees to it.

Which brings us back to the fact that No tax plan is ever truly 'fair'. The best one can do is have one that's reasonably fair to as many people as possible while not being counter to the well-being of the country as a whole. The 'fair tax' seems to fit those criteria.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

You make laws based on your convenience, not what is fair. What I mean is that a flat tax is absolutely fair -- and, in reality, a flat fee is the fairest tax of all, demonstrably. After all, all citizens have the same obligation to society. But in any case, what is "fair" is not determined by the fact that you happen to be well-off or poor. That simply indicates a desire for social "justice," defined as "the rich must give their money to the poor."

Convenience and practicality do have a place in things. Why one should tax the rich is the same as why one would rob banks - That's where the money is. Does that mean they should be demonized, the poor coddled, and all that other leftie BS? No, just that not every seemingly leftist policy is based entirely on rechanneled guilt or jealousy.

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Tax imports and gasoline amongst other products that would go into defense and infrastructure. Institute highway tolls and other fees that pay for the defense, commerce and general welfare of the nation.

Sounds reasonable. (Of course - It's not too far off what I'd do!) Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a blind anti-income-tax mini-rant.

Originally Posted by mabus

I think it should be the other way around. Wages should ensure a fair amount of wealth for each one participating on the market, regardless the amount of taxes he has to pay. Its not the governments job to provide acceptable wages by creating deficits to keep the governments share low enough that people can survive with their wages.
Its clearly the market which is failing to do its job here, not the government.

How so? Market wages provide an appropriate amount of wealth, and the government's taxes, deficits, restrictions, and policies are preventing that from working properly. Yet you assign the blame 100% in reverse?

Originally Posted by goober

OK 4% is fair, 40% would collect the amount of money the government currently spends...

Which certainly says something about government spending. But some people refuse to listen...

Originally Posted by jviehe

So what? They gets lots of free services for that 4%. The rest of us dont even use those services. Its like charging everyone for a gym membership, yet only the poor work out.

You dont WANT people relying on those services for survival. At that point your taxes are just being recycled, paying for things that the individual could be paying for if his taxes weren't so high.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

You dont WANT people relying on those services for survival. At that point your taxes are just being recycled, paying for things that the individual could be paying for if his taxes weren't so high.

Exactly! So lower taxes for everyone and get rid of social programs.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Exactly! So lower taxes for everyone and get rid of social programs.

Except it isn't that simple.

You still need social programs for people who are unable to work or who need some basic assistance. Providing that basic assistance is preferable, especially if it means they keep working because if they keep working, they keep paying taxes. It's much more economical to pay a little bit to someone if that little bit keeps them in a home and working rather than A LOT if they end up losing that home and their job and need more support.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Except it isn't that simple.

You still need social programs for people who are unable to work or who need some basic assistance. Providing that basic assistance is preferable, especially if it means they keep working because if they keep working, they keep paying taxes. It's much more economical to pay a little bit to someone if that little bit keeps them in a home and working rather than A LOT if they end up losing that home and their job and need more support.

But the point was if they are earning income they should be paying taxes so that they deserve the social programs they use when they need them. No one is suggesting taxing them on the social program income they get so its a net win. Your argument was against a flat tax on the poor because they need every penny to get by. But since those taxes pay for social services, they are getting the money back. On the flip side, you could not tax them so theyd have that money to pay for what the sociali services would have provide. The glass is half empty or half full, but everyone feels better when everyone is contributing. Right now we resent the poor for mooching.

Which is the third way things can work, how they currently work. They get to be both exempt from taxes AND get social program income. And others pay higher taxes.

Originally Posted by goober

OK 4% is fair, 40% would collect the amount of money the government currently spends.....

then I guess we would have to cut government dramatically

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

I think it's more a question of why poor people insist in being dipshits, and why they don't simply raise their own incomes to an adequate level.

I'm sure there are true hard-luck, no fault of their own instances of poverty, but I have Never seen any...Most poor people are poor by choice...

Poor is relative....

Which brings us back to the fact that No tax plan is ever truly 'fair'. The best one can do is have one that's reasonably fair to as many people as possible while not being counter to the well-being of the country as a whole. The 'fair tax' seems to fit those criteria.

Convenience and practicality do have a place in things. Why one should tax the rich is the same as why one would rob banks - That's where the money is. Does that mean they should be demonized, the poor coddled, and all that other leftie BS?

Market wages provide an appropriate amount of wealth...

I'd agree that poverty is miscalculated. You should add on all the unemployment benefits, earned income credits, foodstamps, Medicaid dollars, etc. to see what people really get. Not being ABLE to get a job limits a couple of your assertions. And everybody knows that tax benefits you get just for being rich, like paying a smaller defacto percentage Income Tax than middle-income people, and not paying SS taxes on income over $160,000, are unfair.

Originally Posted by jviehe

But the point was if they are earning income they should be paying taxes so that they deserve the social programs they use when they need them.

I think you're looking at the wrong side of the issue; it's not about earning or deserving access to the social programs. Having these programs is the same as preventative healthcare; a little bit of outlay before things get bad keeps them from getting REALLY bad and costing us much more.

Once people hit bottom, they're going to cost you a lot more money in other ways. A little bit of help when things start going bad prevents much higher costs later on.

Right now we resent the poor for mooching.

Which seems to be the opinion of people who dont know or dont remember what it is to be poor.

Which is the third way things can work, how they currently work. They get to be both exempt from taxes AND get social program income. And others pay higher taxes.

Except they're not exempt from taxes, they still pay MOST of the sales tax and they pay various other taxes.

The flat tax is unfair, period. It's also the end of a Democratic America and the beginning of absolute plutocracy which will lead to revolution. People will only take so much and how much that is is generally determined by how much they have had and how much you are taking away. The general run of the American people will not tolerate the end of real freedom and meaningful rights for anybody not making over 1 mill annually.

What's fair is a return to rates similar to the Eisenhower years, 70-90 percent and above for those making over 1mil a year. This is from ANY income, dividends, interest, capital gains, whatever. Meantime, reduce taxes on anyone making less than this to mainly zero but progressing at present rates to a maximum of 25%. Do this for about a decade, then gradually reduce the maximum, but NEVER let it fall below 50% for the rich or above 25% for the middle class.

This would make up for the free ride the rich have gotten since Reagan and the robbery they then perpetrated on us with the Iraq debacle when that apparently wasn't enough. It would also put money back into the hands of people who need to buy new things with it instead of simply buying gold or sending it offshore and out of our economy, so there would be an upsurge in demand. If big business doesn't want to invest under those circumstances, tough, small businesses would take up the slack.

Thus you break the power of the corporations, which was the whole idea of Eisenhower's tax structure.

Don't like it? Go to China, Russia or Somaliland, or find any other country where your money and position has been historically safer than the US. The TeaPartiers are right about one thing, it's time the REAL owners of this country take it back

Originally Posted by John Drake

The flat tax is unfair, period. It's also the end of a Democratic America and the beginning of absolute plutocracy which will lead to revolution. People will only take so much and how much that is is generally determined by how much they have had and how much you are taking away. The general run of the American people will not tolerate the end of real freedom and meaningful rights for anybody not making over 1 mill annually.

What's fair is a return to rates similar to the Eisenhower years, 70-90 percent and above for those making over 1mil a year. This is from ANY income, dividends, interest, capital gains, whatever. Meantime, reduce taxes on anyone making less than this to mainly zero but progressing at present rates to a maximum of 25%. Do this for about a decade, then gradually reduce the maximum, but NEVER let it fall below 50% for the rich or above 25% for the middle class.

This would make up for the free ride the rich have gotten since Reagan and the robbery they then perpetrated on us with the Iraq debacle when that apparently wasn't enough. It would also put money back into the hands of people who need to buy new things with it instead of simply buying gold or sending it offshore and out of our economy, so there would be an upsurge in demand. If big business doesn't want to invest under those circumstances, tough, small businesses would take up the slack.

Thus you break the power of the corporations, which was the whole idea of Eisenhower's tax structure.

Don't like it? Go to China, Russia or Somaliland, or find any other country where your money and position has been historically safer than the US. The TeaPartiers are right about one thing, it's time the REAL owners of this country take it back

Wow...not that I disagree or take issue with anything in particular, but that seems...unusually strong from you, John.

Seems like the usual hysterical nonsense...

Everyone remembers the golden rule, right?

Now, how would you like to be someone elses slave for 54 minutes out of every hour?

Originally Posted by mabus

Its not called liberalism, its called math. People who have less will always pay less, regardless how deep you dip them face down into shit.

The kooky ideology here comes from all the market religious people who eagerly and endlessly pontificate us that its the rich people who should pay less, because that would make us all richer in the end.

Actually, the hilarious part is that your only defense is to keep repeating the mantra "the rich people should pay less??" That's pretty stupid, since the rich people pay more both in percentage and in absolute amount, so basically it's just your desperate hope that if you keep repeating it that your equally ignorant liberal buddies will chime in.