Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

You still haven't explained how paying more because you effectively are buying more is an unfair concept. If they don't like the cost then they should be able to leave, but it seems some people want to keep their cake and eat it too. Or rather, other people somehow get it in their heads that those well-off people should gain an even greater advantage for undeserved reasons.

Hmm, translating this into my langauge... Error
no idea what you're talking about here. Who is paying more for buying more? What does a graduated income tax have to do with buying anything? As for cost, it's not unusual for rich people to leave actually, setting up tax shelters in other countries.

And who is saying we're giving them an even greater advantage? Who is advocating a smaller tax on the rich than on the poor? What I'm seeing is people complaining that the rich have to pay a larger portion of their income instead of an equal portion.

Do you or do you not understand that the wealthy depend more on society? Paying an equal amount in taxes isn't fair precisely because the people who are being forced to pay more are receiving a larger benefit than somebody who doesn't have a lot of taxable income.

I don't even know why you brought up Tax Shelters as evidence that they leave since it only reinforces my point that they'd be avoiding payment while trying to gain as much benefit from their society as possible.

The main problem in the US is that people are holding back. They hold back on hiring people, hold back on buying things, and hold back on finding something new to do. However, the Fair Tax does actually address this. If the taxation is moved entirely to purchasing of items, then people will have more money to spend on things (from a lack of other taxes).

When in the history of the universe has trickle down economics worked? There have been 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts that were recently extended to 10 years. The result was a bloated deficit and more jobs created overseas where companies can make a profit while reaping the benefits at home.

The people who need money to spend and whose money helps the economy? They're on the lower end of the wealth spectrum People who aren't making obscene amounts in personal income.

[Gantolandon]

It's a different definition of "fair".
My definition: Everyone has the same rules applied to them
Your definition (I think): Everyone succeeds the same amount

Nope. My definition is "everybody has a similar chance to succeed". Doesn't matter if the rule is the same if one person definitely benefits from it more than everybody other.

As for lawyers, that is the problem of our justice system, and has absolutely nothing to do with how we tax people.

It has everything to do with taxation, because it's not only "your" justice system problem, but the entire world with the possible exception of North Korea (because their laws are even more insane). Everywhere you can hire a better lawyer and it will give you an advantage, just not so huge as in USA. And it's not the only example. Who do you think need police more (and are better protected by them)? Bums? Factory workers? Are the poor districts more or less safe than the rich ones?

Rich people really do benefit from the state institutions more than poor ones, so why shouldn't they also pay more? What's so unfair in this?

[malimbar04]

Do you or do you not understand that the wealthy depend more on society? Paying an equal amount in taxes isn't fair precisely because the people who are being forced to pay more are receiving a larger benefit than somebody who doesn't have a lot of taxable income.

I don't understand. Well, I don't understand to the extent that you're saying anyways.

The wealthy become wealthy by using (or leveraging) other people, I understand that. Welfare, health care, roads, schools, defense, and so forth benefit general society regardless of the wealthy, and many of those same things actually hurt the wealthy. Healthy workers are more expensive than simply getting new workers. workers living on the job (like they did before roads and cars) is more efficient than commuting workers.

And I REALLY don't understand what you're advocating. Those that are wealthier should pay more in taxes because they benefit more from laws? If I did accept that (which I don't quite yet), I don't see why it would follow that they should pay more because of it, especially if the rest of society benefits as well.

I don't even know why you brought up Tax Shelters as evidence that they leave since it only reinforces my point that they'd be avoiding payment while trying to gain as much benefit from their society as possible.

Because it is evidence that they're doing exactly what you would expect if they had choices.

The main problem in the US is that people are holding back. They hold back on hiring people, hold back on buying things, and hold back on finding something new to do. However, the Fair Tax does actually address this. If the taxation is moved entirely to purchasing of items, then people will have more money to spend on things (from a lack of other taxes).

When in the history of the universe has trickle down economics worked? There have been 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts that were recently extended to 10 years. The result was a bloated deficit and more jobs created overseas where companies can make a profit while reaping the benefits at home.

The people who need money to spend and whose money helps the economy? They're on the lower end of the wealth spectrum People who aren't making obscene amounts in personal income.

The way your mind works is very different from mine. I'm not advocating tax cuts, but simply moving the taxes from several spots (income, investments, property, and everything else) to one spot (on the goods we buy). The rate is then decided in order to get the same amount of income. That is not a tax cut in any way shape or form.

Then we would also take the cost of living, figure out the taxes attributed to it, and give that to everyone. If the cost of living was determined to be (to throw a random number out there) 30,000 a year, then you would get a free 6,000 a year. That's not in tax breaks, but instead it's basically free money to rebate the taxes on the cost of living. That means that I, who hasn't had a job in over a year, would still get those thousands of dollars. That's far better than the current system, and not focusing on a "taxing the rich" mantra.

[Zrk2]

The problem comes with the universality of a law. When we cut off a specific population based on what they have produced and then give them a different set of laws, it's not fair.

Well, you are talking about people who can afford the best lawyers (giving them huge advantage in the court) and influence politicians better than the rest of their society combined. How that is fair?

You are confusing fair and equal, equal is not always fair.

There are solutions to the universality and fairness of the law, but they're having a tough time in congress. One of the solutions is the fair tax, which would replace income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and basically everything that the IRS regulates with a single tax on consumed goods. We could then section out whatever we think is the base cost of living, and give them each a paycheck monthy for this amount. The costs of goods would stay approximately the same,  everyone would have more income with which to buy their stuff, the poor and rich are treated equally, the poor are ensured a basic standard of living, and we can basically get rid of the IRS and it's complexities.

So the rich pay more taxes on the things they buy compared to the poor? That doesn't exactly seem Universal.

Except... they're not. They would pay the same portion as everyone else, and then get back the same base living expenses that everyone else is getting. If we assume a rich person is buying more expensive things, they still pay a higher portion of the national taxes, but the ratio of their money that goes into taxes is the same for everyone.

So, the rich have higher costs to live the way they do, but they get back the same amount as Dan McAverageguy, and somehow they pay less? The math does not work.

[Nikov]

I didn't much care for what seemed like loaded questions, but...



Now stop calling me Hitler.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I didn't much care for what seemed like loaded questions, but...

Which ones?

Now stop calling me Hitler.

If I've got my ideologies right, Hitler would be top and center, but that has nothing to do with this. I've yet to see anyone Godwin at you.

[malimbar04]

There are solutions to the universality and fairness of the law, but they're having a tough time in congress. One of the solutions is the fair tax, which would replace income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and basically everything that the IRS regulates with a single tax on consumed goods. We could then section out whatever we think is the base cost of living, and give them each a paycheck monthy for this amount. The costs of goods would stay approximately the same,  everyone would have more income with which to buy their stuff, the poor and rich are treated equally, the poor are ensured a basic standard of living, and we can basically get rid of the IRS and it's complexities.

So the rich pay more taxes on the things they buy compared to the poor? That doesn't exactly seem Universal.

Except... they're not. They would pay the same portion as everyone else, and then get back the same base living expenses that everyone else is getting. If we assume a rich person is buying more expensive things, they still pay a higher portion of the national taxes, but the ratio of their money that goes into taxes is the same for everyone.

So, the rich have higher costs to live the way they do, but they get back the same amount as Dan McAverageguy, and somehow they pay less? The math does not work.
[/quote]

That is a good point actually, since the cost of living differs from person to person. However, the point isn't to help people maintain a standard of living, but only to forgive the taxes that would be paid on a society-approved minimum standard of living. The idea is really part of a comprimise. If there is such a thing as a minimum standard of living, of which a person shouldn't be taxed for, then it would be covered under this.

[Tellemurius]

lol thats weak:


damnit so close to center and i moved 2 points to the left.

[Grakelin]

I didn't much care for what seemed like loaded questions, but...

Which ones?

Now stop calling me Hitler.

If I've got my ideologies right, Hitler would be top and center, but that has nothing to do with this. I've yet to see anyone Godwin at you.

He Godwin'd himself.

[Zrk2]

There are solutions to the universality and fairness of the law, but they're having a tough time in congress. One of the solutions is the fair tax, which would replace income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and basically everything that the IRS regulates with a single tax on consumed goods. We could then section out whatever we think is the base cost of living, and give them each a paycheck monthy for this amount. The costs of goods would stay approximately the same,  everyone would have more income with which to buy their stuff, the poor and rich are treated equally, the poor are ensured a basic standard of living, and we can basically get rid of the IRS and it's complexities.

So the rich pay more taxes on the things they buy compared to the poor? That doesn't exactly seem Universal.

Except... they're not. They would pay the same portion as everyone else, and then get back the same base living expenses that everyone else is getting. If we assume a rich person is buying more expensive things, they still pay a higher portion of the national taxes, but the ratio of their money that goes into taxes is the same for everyone.

So, the rich have higher costs to live the way they do, but they get back the same amount as Dan McAverageguy, and somehow they pay less? The math does not work.

That is a good point actually, since the cost of living differs from person to person. However, the point isn't to help people maintain a standard of living, but only to forgive the taxes that would be paid on a society-approved minimum standard of living. The idea is really part of a comprimise. If there is such a thing as a minimum standard of living, of which a person shouldn't be taxed for, then it would be covered under this.
[/quote]

MmmKay, I get the idea. Don't think it is useful, but at least the math works now.

[Glowcat]

I don't understand. Well, I don't understand to the extent that you're saying anyways.

The wealthy become wealthy by using (or leveraging) other people, I understand that. Welfare, health care, roads, schools, defense, and so forth benefit general society regardless of the wealthy, and many of those same things actually hurt the wealthy. Healthy workers are more expensive than simply getting new workers. workers living on the job (like they did before roads and cars) is more efficient than commuting workers.

And I REALLY don't understand what you're advocating. Those that are wealthier should pay more in taxes because they benefit more from laws? If I did accept that (which I don't quite yet), I don't see why it would follow that they should pay more because of it, especially if the rest of society benefits as well.

The wealthier should pay more in taxes because they're the ones who are getting more out of the system.

Consider somebody who doesn't have to work for more than a few hours a week, gets everything they want, can easily afford a family and a household of servants, and in general has an extremely good life.

Then compare that to a public servant who gets practically nothing, must work far more hours to afford their basic cost of living, puts their life at risk every day, and cannot enjoy life anywhere near as well as the previous person.

Which of these two examples has more vested interest in keeping the society running? The person whose life is mostly dangerous labor, or the person who is free to pursue activities at their leisure?

Because it is evidence that they're doing exactly what you would expect if they had choices.

That people who wanted to avoid paying taxes would attempt to do so? Those people still want to LIVE in the society, they just don't want to pay for it.

The way your mind works is very different from mine. I'm not advocating tax cuts, but simply moving the taxes from several spots (income, investments, property, and everything else) to one spot (on the goods we buy). The rate is then decided in order to get the same amount of income. That is not a tax cut in any way shape or form.

How isn't it? People have to spend their money to be taxed by your system and spending money they aren't. Hell, I was responding to your claim that:

The main problem in the US is that people are holding back. They hold back on hiring people, hold back on buying things, and hold back on finding something new to do. However, the Fair Tax does actually address this. If the taxation is moved entirely to purchasing of items, then people will have more money to spend on things (from a lack of other taxes).

If people have more money to spend due to a lack of taxes, that isn't a tax cut? Maybe I read parts of your post wrong, but it seems that you're saying the people who have a ton of money aren't investing because they don't have enough money. Apart from small businesses, the people who do the hiring are supposed to be those with the wealth, yet from what we've seen they aren't spending the money they already do have. How doesn't it make sense to tax that excess income and stimulate the economy with the government since the private sector is currently failing?

You say that banks would give out the excess money in loans, but the empirical evidence is showing that that money doesn't end up stimulating the economy very much at all.

Then we would also take the cost of living, figure out the taxes attributed to it, and give that to everyone. If the cost of living was determined to be (to throw a random number out there) 30,000 a year, then you would get a free 6,000 a year. That's not in tax breaks, but instead it's basically free money to rebate the taxes on the cost of living. That means that I, who hasn't had a job in over a year, would still get those thousands of dollars. That's far better than the current system, and not focusing on a "taxing the rich" mantra.

A country wouldn't get nearly enough revenue to keep itself running under this system. If the system is changed to where people are paying less taxes than they would with another system it doesn't matter what language you use if the amount of taxable wealth decreases dramatically.

[ECrownofFire]

I didn't much care for what seemed like loaded questions, but...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now stop calling me Hitler.

Nah, you're Friedman, according to this. I'm assuming that it's referring to Milton Friedman. Almost exactly on it, too.

[Phmcw]

Hehe, my answer is, the wealthy should pay more taxes because they got more money, so they can pay more without being too annoyed.

Now please, I know that there is constitutionalist among us, but could we please stop arguing as if we were in a cowboy economy, where the richest men in town is the one that go the ranch.

Also, who here actually know how investment work for someone that is really rich? Because I hear a lot about TVA and that got me laughing. So please only explore this idea in a comic sketch, especially if you pretend to tax the mos wealthy.

[Heliman]

Hey lookit that I'm right by ghandi.

[DJ]

Increasing purchasing power disparity reduces spending. Yeah, the wealthy might buy more BMWs, but it will be nowhere near enough to reduce the drastic drop in sales of Fiestas by the poor (10 BMWs is enough for anyone). The wealthy also tend to buy more imported goods (German cars, French wine, Russian caviare, Japanese beef, ...), which hurts the domestic production. And no, not everyone gets more spending money with equal taxes, the rich get more and the poor get less. The budget needs to get money from somewhere, so if you tax somebody less you have to tax somebody else more.