Kifle wrote:This post was made by teflor the ranger who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
I love the new message board.
That's how I be rollin' too.
Kifle wrote:This post was made by teflor the ranger who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
I love the new message board.
teflor the ranger wrote:Sarvis wrote:teflor the ranger wrote:edit: no satisfaction for you. read next post.
Oh I don't know, I found Corth's post very satisfying. :P
I told you he was that gullible, Corth. Btw, don't you think you took my quote a bit out of context? It is followed by "of Democrats."
Dalar wrote:Kifle wrote:This post was made by teflor the ranger who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
I love the new message board.
That's how I be rollin' too.
Kifle wrote:Dalar wrote:Kifle wrote:This post was made by teflor the ranger who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
I love the new message board.
That's how I be rollin' too.
Now if we could only find a way to block quotes of teflor :(
Ragorn wrote:Kifle wrote:Dalar wrote:Kifle wrote:This post was made by teflor the ranger who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
I love the new message board.
That's how I be rollin' too.
Now if we could only find a way to block quotes of teflor :(
Just block Sarvis too, problem 95% solved.
Corth wrote:I don't get it.. :)
Ragorn wrote:Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
Sarvis wrote:Now now, I've been good lately. I just couldn't resist the easy pickings in this thread...
Sarvis wrote:Freudian slips are out of context by nature.
Sarvis wrote:Well, I was going to refrain... but I think Adriorn needs my version of the beer story:
Suppose that every day, ten men decide to go out drinking. The bill comes to $100. If we used a "flat tax" system to pay for beer it would go like this
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Sarvis wrote:Well, I was going to refrain... but I think Adriorn needs my version of the beer story:
Suppose that every day, ten men decide to go out drinking. The bill comes to $100. If we used a "flat tax" system to pay for beer it would go like this
No, no Sarvis. Not a flat tax, a consumption tax. You buy it, you pay the high tax. Everyone pays the same tax. Food is excluded, beer isn't.
Sarvis wrote:Which still means the bar goes out of business, right? Are you going to tell us with a straight face that a consumption tax doesn't hurt commerce?
Sarvis wrote:That it doesn't unfairly target those with less money? That wealthier people couldn't just get around it by purchasing from other countries?
Our system isn't ideal, but I haven't heard of an alternative that isn't full of holes...
Ragorn wrote:Corth wrote:I don't get it.. :)
By the way, for Corth:
Rich people get tax breaks, and the middle class get fucked because of it.
Lathander wrote:Middle class doesn't get tax breaks??? Come on Rags, you're just playing devil's advocate right?
Most of the tax breaks out there are for the middle class. I'll list just a few:
Nontaxable status of health insurance through your employer
Mortgage interest deduction
Retirement plan contribution deduction
Child Exemption
0% tax on capital gains
I could go on, but I hope you see my point. The middle class get lots of tax breaks.
Ragorn wrote:Lathander wrote:Middle class doesn't get tax breaks??? Come on Rags, you're just playing devil's advocate right?
Most of the tax breaks out there are for the middle class. I'll list just a few:
Nontaxable status of health insurance through your employer
Mortgage interest deduction
Retirement plan contribution deduction
Child Exemption
0% tax on capital gains
I could go on, but I hope you see my point. The middle class get lots of tax breaks.
Do you want to argue about the value of tax breaks under a republican government?
Really?
Do you really want me to link you to Buffet complaining that his secretary is in a higher tax bracket than he is?
Corth wrote:"Progressive" taxes are just a means of dividing people by class for political reasons. The top 10% of earners are by definition in the minority. Its not a surprise that in a democracy, politicians would pander to the other 90% in order to get the bulk of votes. Ultimately, it is immoral for a government to treat its citizens in an unequal manner. Affirmative action was immoral for that reason. It sought to remedy inequality by creating more inequality. "Progressive" income taxes are in the same category. There is no moral reason why people who are smarter, have worked harder, or for that matter, are just plain luckier (yes, luckier), should pay more than others to support the government. Anyone who says otherwise is jealous, misguided, or both. That is why I endorse either a flat tax or a consumption tax.
teflor the ranger wrote:Adriorn: there are many individuals that make much more money than they do or can consume. If, in America, we do not tax savings income or investment income, the tax burden would shift towards those who spend all of their money. Lower and middle class would have an increased tax burden, while the rich would reap HUGE savings in investments.
Sarvis: your beer story and other beer stories are too simplified to impart any understanding of real-life taxation systems because no real-life taxation systems are ever implemented that simply. There is always some sort of tax relief for the poor and economic measures added in for fairness and growth.
Corth wrote:"Progressive" taxes are just a means of dividing people by class for political reasons. The top 10% of earners are by definition in the minority. Its not a surprise that in a democracy, politicians would pander to the other 90% in order to get the bulk of votes.
Ultimately, it is immoral for a government to treat its citizens in an unequal manner. Affirmative action was immoral for that reason. It sought to remedy inequality by creating more inequality. "Progressive" income taxes are in the same category. There is no moral reason why people who are smarter, have worked harder, or for that matter, are just plain luckier (yes, luckier), should pay more than others to support the government. Anyone who says otherwise is jealous, misguided, or both. That is why I endorse either a flat tax or a consumption tax.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I do not understand how having an extra $300-400 a month can hurt commerce. Don't think hypothetically, think practically. Instead of getting my normal $1000 check, I get $1300. In the minds of most people, that's now money that I did not have before. So whereas before I could not spend the $300 on a new lawnmower, now I can. So what if the lawnmower would have cost me $200 before? I didn't have that money before, now I do. Whereas before I couldn't go out to eat at any point during the week, now my wife and I can afford to go out with the family once a week and eat out.
A consumption tax doesn't "target" anyone. It taxes anyone buying anything. People with less money shouldn't be buying things that aren't necessities. By not buying such luxuries, they are in essence "exempt" from paying most taxes. Once they are able to save some money, they can then use the saved up money to purchase a luxury, like a nice sofa or a new microwave.
And hey, the consumption tax might not be the perfect system, who knows. But it's fairer towards a larger percentage of people than the current system. It treats more people like "equals".
Sarvis wrote:8. General sales taxes reduce consumption expenditure more and saving less than any other form of major-revenue tax.
Sarvis wrote:Really? So because you have an $300 you'd be willing to spend 1/3 of the surplus on one item? Oh, and what happened to "People with less money shouldn't be buying things that aren't necessities.
Sarvis wrote:You yourself state that a good portion of the population would stop buying (the same portion that doesn't pay taxes now anyway so wouldn't see a surplus by the way) but don't expect it to affect commerce?
Sarvis wrote:Is it _really_ fair? Nevermind that people with kids have to buy more. Nevermind that the wealthy can shop elsewhere. Nevermind that the poor are expected to live a subsistence lifestyle. It's "fair." Oh, and _definately_ ignore that a person with a million dollars can far more easily afford a $1300 lawnmower than a guy who makes $30k.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:but I do not want anyone taking advantage of my money.
Sarvis wrote:Oh, and get over the idea that you are being forced to do things with your money. You agree to live here, to participate in our political system and therefore you are agreeing to have these things done with your money.
Sarvis wrote:I know that, which is why I didn't post it originally and why I hate those kinds of stories.
Lathander wrote:Let's try this because we can argue the concepts and where the Laffer curve is. What would be your income tax % at different levels of income? Also, keep in mind, higher incomes don't mean you are wealthy. I know lots of folks in Montgomery County, MD with high incomes but low networth.
Corth wrote:I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Of course two people earning the same income will be taxed at the same rate. Two people being taxed at different rates is unequal. Its unequal because someone making 200k is taxed at a greater percentage rate than someone making 50k. If they were both being taxed at the same rate, but the person making 200k was still paying 4x as much in taxes, it would be better.. but imho, everyone should pay their exact share, no more, no less, and to that extent, the flat tax is ideal.
Corth wrote:Im also a big fan of consumption taxes because you can control your tax liability. Saving money should be encouraged (although these days, its discouraged - no wonder the economy is going down the tubes). Someone making 200k who lives frugally with the goal of saving capital for productive uses, can actually have a smaller tax liability than someone making 100k who lives it up. Taxing income, on the other hand, actually has the effect of encouraging otherwise unnecessary spending as certain purchases make sense because you can write them off. Taxing, in general, causes misallocations of capital. Placing the tax on income instead of consumption is what leads over time to a country of debtors.
Corth wrote:See, your position is not surprisingly government-centric. You start with the assumption that the government absolutely requires $x trillion dollars in tax revenue, and then you figure out how we're going to fund it. Given that assumption, you come to the reasonable conclusion that there is no way our current government can be funded by a flat tax or consumption tax, as it would be impossible for our poorest citizens to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves in addition to paying that type of tax burden.
Corth wrote:On the other hand, if you assume that individuals should be treated fairly vis a vis each other.. like for instance, no single individual should have to pay any more than any other individual towards the government they share (or even at minimum no two individuals should be taxed at different rates), well, you come to a different conclusion. If the government you want can't be funded while treating individuals absolutely equally... then the government you want isn't viable.
Corth wrote:My opinion: too bad. Individuals first.. governments second.
Corth wrote:You, on the other hand, consider yourself a conservative, and yet every single time that we get into specifics, you again demonstrate that you are drinking the big-government kool-aid.
Kifle wrote:It's been a while since I actually payed attention to taxes. Could one of you guys explain the current tax system and these different alternative tax systems (flat, consumption,etc.). I have a vague idea of them all, but I never honestly cared that much to learn them (you pay taxes regardless of whether you like or agree with the system).
Ragorn wrote:Current system: Tax rate scales up with income.
$15k: 12%
$25k: 17%
$40k: 21%
$75k: 25%
$200k: 28%
(numbers completely ficticious)
Flat tax: Everyone pays the same percentage.
$15k: 21%
$25k: 21%
$40k: 21%
$75k: 21%
$200k: 21%
Guess which system the lawyer prefers *roll*
Lathander wrote:. If people saw what they actually spend on their taxes, they would actually start to question why they pay so much.
Corth wrote:On the other hand, if you assume that individuals should be treated fairly vis a vis each other.. like for instance, no single individual should have to pay any more than any other individual towards the government they share (or even at minimum no two individuals should be taxed at different rates), well, you come to a different conclusion. If the government you want can't be funded while treating individuals absolutely equally... then the government you want isn't viable.
Corth wrote:Teflor,
And the Supreme Court is the end all and be all of what is correct? Tell that to Dred Scott. Heh. What are your thoughts on Roe v. Wade again?
Its just common sense. The government takes 25% of my income, and 10% of yours. Are we being treated equally? Hah! 25% from both of us.. We're getting there. $5,000 from both of us.. now we are being treated equally.
Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests