Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, the rich can afford to pay more taxes and not feel the pain. But that is their money. Who are we to take it from them.?

A rich man can afford a lot more for a car. Should they pay more to subsidize my car purchase? Should we take more of their money when they buy a house to subsidize when I buy a house? Where do we draw the line?

It is their money. Fair taxes are not about what we can afford to pay. It should percentage across the board. That is fair.

whembly wrote:Not sure if I follow this thinking... to me, "fair" is paying the same tax rate.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:
God I hate that term..."paying your fair share"...

It reeks of class warfare and greed.

Simple solution. Flat Rate it.... say any $$ earned over poverty level is taxed at 15%... period.

You know, I agree with some of what you said. I do think that arguing that the working poor, eligible for food stamps, getting minimum wage (> $16,000 a year) needs to have their tax liability increased from zero to 15%, while a 1%'er making 2 million a year should have their tax liability reduced from 35% to 15%... that is class warfare. Just not the direction you're implying it's going in.

Nope... (this is what I believe) I don't care if you're poor or rich. EVERYONE should pay the same rate (okay... everyone making more than poverty level, but how is that level determined? *googling that*).

We have a system today... one of the most PROGRESSIVE income tax in the world, with the HIGHEST corporate tax rate, you are inherently perpetuating class warefare and greed. You also inspire wealthy people and corporation to lobby the congress critters to pass favorable tax laws so that the wealthy can legally minimize their tax liabilities. You CANNOT tax "behaviors"... everyone will attempt to minimize their tax liabilities.

This environment reeks of class warefare... how can you say it doesn't?

In Frazzle's America, let's tax everyone making more than poverty level at 15%. That is by definition "paying your fair share". If you complain that your tax contributions is more "unfair" when making $30,000/yr than a wealthy family... I believe that's greed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Yes, the rich can afford to pay more taxes and not feel the pain. But that is their money. Who are we to take it from them.?

A rich man can afford a lot more for a car. Should they pay more to subsidize my car purchase? Should we take more of their money when they buy a house to subsidize when I buy a house? Where do we draw the line?

It is their money. Fair taxes are not about what we can afford to pay. It should percentage across the board. That is fair.

^^^ Ditto...

whembly wrote: let's tax everyone making more than poverty level at 15%. That is by definition "paying your fair share". If you complain that your tax contributions is more "unfair" when making $30,000/yr than a wealthy family... I believe that's greed.

Yet, inexplicably, it's not "greed" when arguing that people in a 35% tax bracket should move down to a 15%.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:Not sure if I follow this thinking... to me, "fair" is paying the same tax rate.

So... Paris Hilton (wealthy folks) should be treated differently then... gotcha there.

I can see a new bumper sticker!

"It's FAIR to be So UNFAIR!" /sarcasm off

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Yes, the rich can afford to pay more taxes and not feel the pain. But that is their money. Who are we to take it from them.?

Who are we? We're the people, who democratically elect a government to put in place the laws we want, to produce the system of economics we want.

Now, exactly what system we want is up for debate, but the right of the country to tax as the population wants sure as hell isn't.

Just like it's flying rodent gak insane for a communist to claim it is theft for society to declare that land and factories can be privately owned, because we the people elected a government who put in place laws that made such things legal... because that was the society people wanted.

A rich man can afford a lot more for a car. Should they pay more to subsidize my car purchase?

You have this idea in your head that rich person generates his income purely through his personal virtues, and not because he happens to be part of a social system.

You need to get rid of that idea in your head, because it is wrong.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote: let's tax everyone making more than poverty level at 15%. That is by definition "paying your fair share". If you complain that your tax contributions is more "unfair" when making $30,000/yr than a wealthy family... I believe that's greed.

Yet, inexplicably, it's not "greed" when arguing that people in a 35% tax bracket should move down to a 15%.

Um... I'd be willing to bet you that they ain't paying 35%. If they are, they need a new accountant!

Most wealthy folks are paying much less because of loophole, offshore accounts and deductions.

Really, my whole initial point is that the phrase "Your fair share" is used improperly, because when it's thrown out there in discourse, it implies that the wealthy do NOT pay their fair share. And it couldn't be further than the truth. It's a political tactic to perpetuate class warefare... the us vs them meme and it's tiring.

Relapse wrote:@d-usa, At the point you keep calling someone delusional pretty much ends any dialogue worth having. You make yourself look like a child sitting in the corner having a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with you.
Welcome to ignore.

The corner is comfy, it keeps me warm and protected. Although I feel sorry that you will miss all my snappy comebacks and well researched replies full of depth and meaning. Your life will be less complete because of it, nobody should miss their fair share of d-usaisms.

@Sebster,

I wonder if behind the scenes, Obama has sent someone to tell Reid to shut up and sit down.

whembly wrote:So... Paris Hilton (wealthy folks) should be treated differently then... gotcha there.

..... yes. The people who have most of the money should pay most of the money in taxes, the people who have the least should pay the least. Not for moral reasons, but because it works better.

Here are some of the vibrant, thriving economies you think we should emulate.

sebster wrote:
You have this idea in your head that rich person generates his income purely through his personal virtues, and not because he happens to be part of a social system.

You need to get rid of that idea in your head, because it is wrong.

I disagree with this premise...

THAT rich person generated his wealth in the SAME economic system that everyone else partakes....

So, yes, if that rich person generated his wealth through his hard work (and taking risks), then he's entitled to his wealth. If that rich person dies, then his children (lucky suckers) should enjoy that wealth wi/o the government wanting a piece of that pie.

whembly wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:The super rich have enough money to support the poorest of the poor and still have waaay more money than everyone else.

Right... they're the bad guys... gotcha there

But I guess you don't like that because the rich would be slightly less richer than everyone else. And that's (buzzword of the day) class warfare!

I just hate that term "fair share" that you hear out of liberals. THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING their fair share.

I can't argue against this, because morality is entirely subjective.

Not sure if I follow this thinking... to me, "fair" is paying the same tax rate. But that'll never happen.

Why can't we go back to how the Fed used to collect taxes... it used to be that only tariffs and tax excise on foreign trade were the only income the Feds directly recieved. Then, if they needed more $$$ from the taxpayers, they'd ask the individual states... "hey, we need more money to provide these services"... then the states determine how they taxed their constitutes.

But it kinda disturbs me.

Your free to believe in that... but you shouldn't be treated any different for being succesful or lucky. It's no one else's business how or how much $$$ you have.

Flat taxes are regarded as regressive taxes by any economist worth his salt. The rich can afford to pay more, the poor rarely can afford to pay. 15% means more to someone making $20k a year than someone making $200k or $2mill. The flat tax systems offered by people like Herman Cain are proposed because they don't understand economics, tax laws or society's structure.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:So... Paris Hilton (wealthy folks) should be treated differently then... gotcha there.

..... yes. The people who have most of the money should pay most of the money in taxes, the people who have the least should pay the least. Not for moral reasons, but because it works better.

Here are some of the vibrant, thriving economies you think we should emulate.

?? I'm confused... aren't we arguing for the same thing?

I'm ALL for a Flat Tax. If we had such a system in place, Paris Hilton and Whembly would be taxed at the same rate. Thus, she's not being treated any different than me. We both pay the same rate. Paris, by virtue of earning a gak-ton more than me would pay more in $$$ terms. But we're treated as equal.

whembly wrote:

sebster wrote:
You have this idea in your head that rich person generates his income purely through his personal virtues, and not because he happens to be part of a social system.

You need to get rid of that idea in your head, because it is wrong.

I disagree with this premise...

THAT rich person generated his wealth in the SAME economic system that everyone else partakes....

So, yes, if that rich person generated his wealth through his hard work (and taking risks), then he's entitled to his wealth. If that rich person dies, then his children (lucky suckers) should enjoy that wealth wi/o the government wanting a piece of that pie.

Take a risk and be successful, pay more taxes.
Take a risk and fail, receive services paid for by the next guy that is successful.

The safety net that is available because of the higher taxes paid by the successful make it a lot easier to take the risks to become successful. I am going to guess that a lot less people would be willing to take the risk if the alternative to success is dying hungry in the streets.

Surtur wrote:
Flat taxes are regarded as regressive taxes by any economist worth his salt. The rich can afford to pay more, the poor rarely can afford to pay. 15% means more to someone making $20k a year than someone making $200k or $2mill. The flat tax systems offered by people like Herman Cain are proposed because they don't understand economics, tax laws or society's structure.

Of course 15% means more to someone making $20k a year than someone making $200k or $2mill. That's simply math...

My retort... so what?

(does that make me a cold-hearted bastard?)

You're not looking at potential benefit to going to flat rate... this will force more voters to pay attention to what's going on in DC.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:Not sure if I follow this thinking... to me, "fair" is paying the same tax rate.

That analogy could be reversed showing someone putting it all on the line to have a better life contrasted with someone on welfare, covered in jewelry and sporting $250 sneakers.
What you need to do in both mine and your examples is eliminate the outliers and arrive at the middle ground.

whembly wrote:

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:So... Paris Hilton (wealthy folks) should be treated differently then... gotcha there.

..... yes. The people who have most of the money should pay most of the money in taxes, the people who have the least should pay the least. Not for moral reasons, but because it works better.

Here are some of the vibrant, thriving economies you think we should emulate.

?? I'm confused... aren't we arguing for the same thing?

I'm ALL for a Flat Tax. If we had such a system in place, Paris Hilton and Whembly would be taxed at the same rate. Thus, she's not being treated any different than me. We both pay the same rate. Paris, by virtue of earning a gak-ton more than me would pay more in $$$ terms. But we're treated as equal.

Are you even reading my posts at this point or what?

d-usa wrote:

whembly wrote:

sebster wrote:
You have this idea in your head that rich person generates his income purely through his personal virtues, and not because he happens to be part of a social system.

You need to get rid of that idea in your head, because it is wrong.

I disagree with this premise...

THAT rich person generated his wealth in the SAME economic system that everyone else partakes....

So, yes, if that rich person generated his wealth through his hard work (and taking risks), then he's entitled to his wealth. If that rich person dies, then his children (lucky suckers) should enjoy that wealth wi/o the government wanting a piece of that pie.

Take a risk and be successful, pay more taxes.
Take a risk and fail, receive services paid for by the next guy that is successful.

The safety net that is available because of the higher taxes paid by the successful make it a lot easier to take the risks to become successful. I am going to guess that a lot less people would be willing to take the risk if the alternative to success is dying hungry in the streets.

sigh...

I'm not talking about getting rid of the safety nets... where did I advocate this?

All I'm saying that everyone should pay the same rate (with some caveats... above poverty rate, no deductions, etc...).

That way everyone has skin in the game and could potentially be more involved on how govt is ran.... hopefully for the good.

whembly wrote:

Surtur wrote:
Flat taxes are regarded as regressive taxes by any economist worth his salt. The rich can afford to pay more, the poor rarely can afford to pay. 15% means more to someone making $20k a year than someone making $200k or $2mill. The flat tax systems offered by people like Herman Cain are proposed because they don't understand economics, tax laws or society's structure.

Of course 15% means more to someone making $20k a year than someone making $200k or $2mill. That's simply math...

My retort... so what?

(does that make me a cold-hearted bastard?)

You're not looking at potential benefit to going to flat rate... this will force more voters to pay attention to what's going on in DC.

So a person making 100,000 pays more taxes than a person making 30,000.

My retort... so what?

(does that make me a cold-hearted basdard? The person still brings home more than twice as much as the guy making less)

Relapse wrote:@Sebster,

I wonder if behind the scenes, Obama has sent someone to tell Reid to shut up and sit down.

I think if he could do that, he would have done it a long time ago

Probably about three weeks into the healthcare reform debate, when it became clear Reid had no ability to influence any of the senators he supposedly led, and anything he said publically only strengthened the resolve of the blue dogs.

Ouze wrote:

Are you even reading my posts at this point or what?

Yes... sorry... just have reading comprehension prob at them moment... haven't slept in over 30 hrs o.O

<taking a deep breath>

In a vacuum from a purely academic stand point... the progressive tax system we have today works better than any other system.

However, in the real world, such system would be undermined by the current deduction, loopholes, etc... that encourages everyone to minimize their tax liabilities... I mean, c'mon, wouldn't you like to pay less taxes if you could?

I was only advocating the flat tax idea as an alternative... it ain't perfect either, but it ensure that everyone pays the marginal tax rate.

But back to my original response... I was just wigging out over the "pay your fair share" meme.

Question for you, what would you suggest? Keep the same tax structure in place, but remove any loophole/deductions?

Let the Bush tax cut expire? (I'm actually fine with that tbh)

The problem is that with the current/future liabilities, we're either going to see massive tax hikes or massive changes to entitlement programs. No easy solutions down the road...

Oh... and the comment that the "vibrant economy" being the old soviet bloc, former facist countries... we can do better

whembly wrote:Really, my whole initial point is that the phrase "Your fair share" is used improperly, because when it's thrown out there in discourse, it implies that the wealthy do NOT pay their fair share. And it couldn't be further than the truth. It's a political tactic to perpetuate class warefare... the us vs them meme and it's tiring.

That's not a point. That's just a claim that 'fair' doesn't mean what someone else is using it to mean, but that it means what you think it means. When you're talking about a complex word with many possible meanings like 'fair', then there's just no point claiming yours is the one true meaning.

And when you're also running around shouting 'class warfare' to describe progressive tax then it's clear you're not even concerned about words being used properly, and your point really just turns into noise.

Heck, I am part of the 10% and I think people who make more should pay a little more. That is fair in my eyes. I guess I am having an internal class warfare struggle going on...

whembly wrote:I disagree with this premise...

THAT rich person generated his wealth in the SAME economic system that everyone else partakes....

So, yes, if that rich person generated his wealth through his hard work (and taking risks), then he's entitled to his wealth. If that rich person dies, then his children (lucky suckers) should enjoy that wealth wi/o the government wanting a piece of that pie.

Sure, but put that rich person, or any person, out in the wilderness and see how well they go building their own 13 bedroom mansion, building their own Audi, brewing their own Guiness, and raising their own Kobe beef. That kind of material wealth only comes from being part of society, and enjoying the system set up by society.

So basically you have a person who happily accepts the system his government gave him when it enforces property rights, or makes employment of other possible, or allows him to enforce contracts through the court system... but then cries foul when it taxes him more than someone else.

It's all the same system, you can't pick out the tax part in isolation and call that unfair.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:Really, my whole initial point is that the phrase "Your fair share" is used improperly, because when it's thrown out there in discourse, it implies that the wealthy do NOT pay their fair share. And it couldn't be further than the truth. It's a political tactic to perpetuate class warefare... the us vs them meme and it's tiring.

That's not a point. That's just a claim that 'fair' doesn't mean what someone else is using it to mean, but that it means what you think it means. When you're talking about a complex word with many possible meanings like 'fair', then there's just no point claiming yours is the one true meaning.

What is the definition of "is"??

So what does it really mean?

And when you're also running around shouting 'class warfare' to describe progressive tax then it's clear you're not even concerned about words being used properly, and your point really just turns into noise.

eh... I see your point. I'm too tired to try explaining what I'm trying to say... it's something that caught in my mind while churning out these responses.

However, back to the OP... when people are arguing over who should pay what and how much... that is what I'm trying to say is class warefare, not necessarily the progress tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Heck, I am part of the 10% and I think people who make more should pay a little more. That is fair in my eyes. I guess I am having an internal class warfare struggle going on...

I'm in low end of that 50 percenter... what does that make me? (I know I'm setting myself up... lol)

But, hey... the IRS has a website where you can send your check if you think you should pay more. I won't stop you.

But the crux is, do you want the government to force the other 10% to pay more?

Saying that people who 25% of the wealth should pay the same amount of taxes as the people who own 75% of the wealth isn't class warfare?

That's my only real beef with saying you are penalizing people for being successful, or calling taxing rich people at a higher rate.

And safety nets make it also dumber for everybody to be taxed the same. I think I asked this question earlier:

What sense would it make to take $500 from a low income earner, and then spend $1000 to provide him with services he wouldn't have needed if you let him keep the $500. That is why people who make less pay a smaller percentage.

sebster wrote:
Sure, but put that rich person, or any person, out in the wilderness and see how well they go building their own 13 bedroom mansion, building their own Audi, brewing their own Guiness, and raising their own Kobe beef. That kind of material wealth only comes from being part of society, and enjoying the system set up by society.

So basically you have a person who happily accepts the system his government gave him when it enforces property rights, or makes employment of other possible, or allows him to enforce contracts through the court system... but then cries foul when it taxes him more than someone else.

It's all the same system, you can't pick out the tax part in isolation and call that unfair.

@sebster: please don't take this the wrong way...

But this line of thinking is exactly why we Americans called the Obama "You didn't build that" a gaffe.

My point stands... that rich person got "rich" in the same economic environment that I work in... That person had the combination of talent, luck, old money, determination, or whatever that made him successful. I believe I have the same sort of opportunity, but my decision in life lead me here (I'm far from rich). But, I'm not begrudging the rich guy... he "made it".... good for him. But that doesn't mean he owes his successes to society. He's paying his taxes (I hope) just like everyone else does, but at a different rate.

*deleted by LoneLictah, deciding that this debate is pointless and I shouldn't get sucked in*

whembly wrote: What is the definition of "is"??

So what does it really mean?

It means lots of different things, depending on who's saying it and what the context is.

eh... I see your point. I'm too tired to try explaining what I'm trying to say... it's something that caught in my mind while churning out these responses.

This has become a bit of a churn, loads of people posting quickly into the thread.

However, back to the OP... when people are arguing over who should pay what and how much... that is what I'm trying to say is class warefare, not necessarily the progress tax.

But it isn't class warfare to say 'I think you ought to pay slightly more of the overall tax burden than you do right now'. Whether or not they're right depends upon what the present rate is, what it could move to, what the overall economic impact of that is likely to be, and so on, but it isn't class warfare.

I mean, I know there's straight up jealousy of the rich out there. I hear it all the damn time, and what I'm saying is that talking about the overall tax burden ain't it.

But the crux is, do you want the government to force the other 10% to pay more?

I want the government to force everyone to pay the share of tax that society, through its democratically elected representatives, has deemed it right for them to pay.

Same as I want government to enforce the property rights that allow generation of that income in the first place. Property rights that were, of course, put in place by the same electoral system.

The Veil of Ignorance

Imagine you have to design a tax system in which you have no idea where you will end up being placed in it. After you design it you might be the poorest person out there or the richest, or somewhere in between. You have to be able to pay for things like the police, legal system, infrastructure, and military. Screw the poor to hard and you screw yourself, go to easy on the wealthy and you do end up with actual class warfare.

Why does it seem that people that are often the first to cry that life isn't fair complain about the fairness of the top 1% taxes? And why is it that the less taxes they pay the more they complain about how much taxes they pay? Of course the main reason we know all this is because, unlike most people, even the group right below them, they can buy television stations and reporters to sway the public, like the Koch Brothers bankrolling the 'grassroots' Tea Party.

whembly wrote:I'm in low end of that 50 percenter... what does that make me?

Someone who has made their own interests subservient to others I suppose.