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.

Okay... I'm on a roll (ya'll are bringing my outta my shell)...

I'll try parsing this:

d-usa wrote: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?

Sure it is... all I'm saying that in my opinion, things will be better if everyone pays the same rate above poverty level w/o deductions or cap. Or, I could be comletely gakingly wrong... but, I can haz opinion..yes?

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

Hey... that's your opinion. Cool? We all can learn to disagree.

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.

eh... I'm just advocating that those that use the safety net pay SOMETHING (and some currently do today). From your example, the super wealthy would pay whatever the fixed rate w/o duduction, that'll cover the gap. By the way, what you just described, that happens today.

whembly wrote:

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

Ok, fair enough.

whembly wrote:<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

Ok, let me snip you there. I think you're coming at this wrong from the get-go. You're saying progressive tax systems only work well in theory, but in the real world, they do not. Let's stick with this one point for now without drifting into morality and so forth because those are ambiguous and this really isn't: I think you're wrong. I think that clearly, and unarguably, the countries that have a flat tax, the kind of flat tax you espouse, have much poorer outcomes economically than the countries that have progressive tax systems. At this point, I think you're now in the position of arguing why, in the real world, countries like Bulgaria and Slovakia are more economically successful then countries like Denmark and Belgium.

whembly wrote:@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.

Lots of people declared it a 'gaffe' and Romney ran loads of ads on the line. But no-one actually ever managed to point out how he was wrong. Because he wasn't.

Simply put, without other people providing education, without a system of contract laws and property laws making capitalism possible, and with government infrastructure massively reducing the costs of a single business, there'd be no way that businessman could have amassed a fortune. There's just no way to deny that.

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.

But it isn't about who made it and who didn't. It's about the fact that without society as a whole being what it is, no-one would have made it. There was plenty of hard work, determination, luck and whatever else back when Grug thought he could sell his coconuts for more on the other side of the island. Yet Grug never got a 14 bedroom house, or an Audi - because Grug wasn't part of a modern capitalist society.

The simple fact is you don't get to take all the parts of a society that benefit you for granted, and then cry foul at the one part that takes more from you than it does from others. If tax can be theft, then so is property.

Oh, and thanks for being quite agreeable in this thread. Having had a fair number of fair tax advocates in the past who were quite objectionable, I think I might have made that assumption about you, and posted more aggressively than I should have. But you've been very polite in spite of that, and should be credited for it.

Ahtman wrote: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.

Interesting...

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.

Hey man...what are you smoking? Pass please...

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.

I resent this man... that's a clown statement. (in honor of Bryce Harper's "that's a clown question bro")

whembly wrote: (in honor of Bryce Harper's "that's a clown question bro")

Now this, this we can agree upon. I had never heard of this guy previously, but I was incalculably pleased by his response - who, when trying to address his audience was as usual questioned by incapable, inept media; got right out there and called it as it is: a clown question, indeed. I'd like to see more people do that.

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote:

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

Ok, fair enough.

whembly wrote:<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

Ok, let me snip you there. I think you're coming at this wrong from the get-go. You're saying progressive tax systems only work well in theory, but in the real world, they do not. Let's stick with this one point for now without drifting into morality and so forth because those are ambiguous and this really isn't: I think you're wrong. I think that clearly, and unarguably, the countries that have a flat tax, the kind of flat tax you espouse, have much poorer outcomes economically than the countries that have progressive tax systems. At this point, I think you're now in the position of arguing why, in the real world, countries like Bulgaria and Slovakia are more economically successful then countries like Denmark and Belgium.

Okay... fair 'enuff.

I'm just advocating some simpler system... and as I said, I'm willing to be wrong. I'm in the "pie in the sky mode" when I'm thinking, why can't it be simple. I pay x flat rate to govt w/o deduction, the end. But it isn't that simple... and again, I can be wrong and we need this mess.

I was trying to point out that I believe most of the angst against the rich are from the tax avoidance strategy... which is why everyone is going after Romney's tax return... he's probably embarassed that he's maximized his tax liability legally. But in a poilitical sense, it is a liability...hence why he won't comply releasing the 10yr tax returns.

My opinion on that is... so what? He's a "rich guy"... why does that matter.

Hey... I root for the Cardinals and Blues (oops now, you know I'm a midwesterner)... but that doesn't matter either.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

whembly wrote: (in honor of Bryce Harper's "that's a clown question bro")

Now this, this we can agree upon. I had never heard of this guy previously, but I was incalculably pleased by his response - who, when trying to address his audience was as usual questioned by incapable, inept media; got right out there and called it as it is: a clown question, indeed. I'd like to see more people do that.

Right on!

I literally laughed for days after hearing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:@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.

Lots of people declared it a 'gaffe' and Romney ran loads of ads on the line. But no-one actually ever managed to point out how he was wrong. Because he wasn't.

Simply put, without other people providing education, without a system of contract laws and property laws making capitalism possible, and with government infrastructure massively reducing the costs of a single business, there'd be no way that businessman could have amassed a fortune. There's just no way to deny that.

I think people intuitively knew what he meant... we ain't all dumb hicks here...

However, it was bad optics and it re-enforces Obama's "socialistic" viewpoints which runs contra to the idea of what it means to be an American.

So yea, we knew what he meant, but "it just came out wrong". KnowWhatIMean? (btw, that's the last time he went w/o his teleprompter )

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.

But it isn't about who made it and who didn't. It's about the fact that without society as a whole being what it is, no-one would have made it. There was plenty of hard work, determination, luck and whatever else back when Grug thought he could sell his coconuts for more on the other side of the island. Yet Grug never got a 14 bedroom house, or an Audi - because Grug wasn't part of a modern capitalist society.

Right...we should acknowledge that our great society gave us the opportunity that we have... and be greatful too!

The simple fact is you don't get to take all the parts of a society that benefit you for granted, and then cry foul at the one part that takes more from you than it does from others. If tax can be theft, then so is property.

Um... I wasn't arguing that we shouldn't pay taxes... taxes ARE necessary. I was just trying to have a conversation about that "paying your fair share" meme.

Oh, and thanks for being quite agreeable in this thread. Having had a fair number of fair tax advocates in the past who were quite objectionable, I think I might have made that assumption about you, and posted more aggressively than I should have. But you've been very polite in spite of that, and should be credited for it.

No problem man... if I ever get out of line, you can biotch-slap me back to my senses
While Ouze has been trying to educate me that the current ideal of "flat-tax" hasn't had any successes... I'm just trying to have a conversation with ya'll about how can we change things for the better... 'cuz, the longer this doesn't get addressed, the uglier it's gonna get.

You own X % of the place, you pay for X % of the costs. Sounds fair to me.

whembly wrote:While Ouze has been trying to educate me that the current ideal of "flat-tax" hasn't had any successes... I'm just trying to have a conversation with ya'll about how can we change things for the better... 'cuz, the longer this doesn't get addressed, the uglier it's gonna get.

Well, I don't know it hasn't had any successes, simply that the concept hasn't had the level of success that progressive systems have had.

So far as changing things for the better, sure, I'd like to see it simplified. I think one of your earlier ideas - keep the same general structure, but eliminate a lot of the deductions and so on - is one a lot of people, me included, could get behind. I do think the Bush tax cuts should expire as well.

whembly wrote:

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.

I resent this man... that's a clown statement. (in honor of Bryce Harper's "that's a clown question bro")

You want to increase your own tax burden while decreasing that of those who can easily afford not to have it decreased, in a system that is progressively making it far more unlikely that you will ever move out of your current economic bracket. You are advocating harming yourself at the behest of those who don't really need it. How do you not see how others profit more from your plans than you, or those like you?

whembly wrote:I'm just advocating some simpler system... and as I said, I'm willing to be wrong. I'm in the "pie in the sky mode" when I'm thinking, why can't it be simple. I pay x flat rate to govt w/o deduction, the end. But it isn't that simple... and again, I can be wrong and we need this mess.

Here's the thing, the progressive tax system you have right now, where you pay a higher marginal rate when you move up to another tax bracket... you can knock that up in excel in about five lines. It's really not complex at all.

The reason you, and every other country, has really large tax codes, and masses of case law on top of that, is that deciding what is and isn't income is really hard. I mean, did I earn $80,000 or $120,000 last year? Well that depends on whether or not you think the new machiney I bought was replacement for old machinery, or new plant. And all that work I did in the last few days of the year, that I invoiced for on the first day of the tax year, when does that get taxed?

Once you figure out the above, then the bit about what rate you get taxed on that income is easy.

I was trying to point out that I believe most of the angst against the rich are from the tax avoidance strategy... which is why everyone is going after Romney's tax return... he's probably embarassed that he's maximized his tax liability legally. But in a poilitical sense, it is a liability...hence why he won't comply releasing the 10yr tax returns.

Agreed.

I think people intuitively knew what he meant... we ain't all dumb hicks here...

However, it was bad optics and it re-enforces Obama's "socialistic" viewpoints which runs contra to the idea of what it means to be an American.

The people inclined to think of Obama as a socialist are already on-side, lining up to vote for a straight Republican ticket.

But there are plenty of people who aren't died in the wool Republicans who got bothered by Obama's line, even the fuller version that gave context. I think among the general population it really touched on their idea of everyone being their own person, and they didn't like their president pointing out that was true. Especially because it really, really isn't true.

Right...we should acknowledge that our great society gave us the opportunity that we have... and be greatful too!

Sure, be grateful. And part of being grateful means not getting pissy over having to pay more taxes.

Um... I wasn't arguing that we shouldn't pay taxes... taxes ARE necessary. I was just trying to have a conversation about that "paying your fair share" meme.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply you were arguing that. But your argument that the wealthy don't need to pay more than 15%, the same as the middle class should pay, assumes that the rich person doesn't owe society any more than the middle class person.

Well the rich person is driving around in an audi, so yeah he's gotten more out of society than the honda driven by the middle class guy. So he doesn't get to enjoy all the benefits of society (the audi) and then cry foul when part of that system doesn't advantage him (a higher marginal tax rate).

Exactly what rate of tax people should pay at what tax bracket, and what those tax brackets should be is up for debate. But the idea that there can be some kind of moral argument that such tax brackets are unfair just doesn't exist.

While Ouze has been trying to educate me that the current ideal of "flat-tax" hasn't had any successes... I'm just trying to have a conversation with ya'll about how can we change things for the better... 'cuz, the longer this doesn't get addressed, the uglier it's gonna get.

Sure, there is an issue, and lots of potential solutions. And the best solutions have general bi-partisan support - namely pulling out a lot of the exemptions and tax incentives that are outdated. They'd make calculating taxes easier, and save government a load of money.

The problem is the culture in Washington is defined by two things - special interests and theatrical noise about battling the other side. And that makes meaningful reform pretty damn hard.

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

Actually the chances are they were lucky.

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

Not looking out for number 1?

In any case, you guys really shouldn't complain, whatever income bracket you're in. 15% taxes? 35%? In my country, you get taxed a minimum of 30%. If you make more than (I think) 40K a year, it ups to 40%, and if you go over 50K, it's a full 50%...

Bran Dawri wrote:

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

Not looking out for number 1?

Of course... but I don't think we should be "looking into" our neighbor's pocket with envy...that's all.

In any case, you guys really shouldn't complain, whatever income bracket you're in. 15% taxes? 35%? In my country, you get taxed a minimum of 30%. If you make more than (I think) 40K a year, it ups to 40%, and if you go over 50K, it's a full 50%...

Ouch...

I paid a collective tax rate (state + fed) at around 30% (I think it's 31%)... which ain't bad.

Is the Heritage Foundation a "bad word" here?
Me likey this: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/the-new-flat-tax-easy-as-one-two-three

I've always thought that the best soultion to our taxes woes in the U.S. would be a tiered tax system, but at fixed rates that could only be changed by an overwhelming act of congress (like in a time of war..hint hint...). this would bring a huge amount of stability to buisness and families, and give all parties (congress included) an ability to budget with fewer variables in thier income. Richer people should pay more, but it shouldnt be a political tool used to garner votes one or the other. remove it from politics, and get some stability.

Agreed... but, never gonna happen. That powers that be won't give up that influence.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Relapse wrote:

d-usa wrote:What percentage of income do the top earners make?

If the top 50% of earners make 90% of the income then I really couldn't care less if they also paid 90% of the taxes.

Chances are better than good they busted their asses or worked smarter to be in the income bracket they're in. Should they be penalized for working hard and taking risks?

Actually the chances are they were lucky.

Yep. In the grand scheme of things "Right Time, Right Place, Right Color, Right Gender" counts for far more than anything else when it comes to being wealthy. Are there exceptions? Certainly, but that only highlights the fact there is a rule.


Really I don't give a rat's ass about "Fairness", the way I see it nobody really needs to be hyper wealthy.. but we all need the basics and the vast majority of us need (or at least greatly benefit) from a functional government. Honestly if the resources and money are around to fix important problems and it isn't being used to fix important problems, I really don't mind forcing the matter, within limits obviously.

I wouldn't be up for any system so tyrannically oppressive that anyone has to give up anything they have at any time because it's for some vague greater good. However if you've clearly got extreme surplus, you're not going to be harmed in the same way by taking that surplus, as others are but not having what that surplus could do.

If you're taking in a 10Mil/Year and the government starts taking 9Mil/Year of it in taxes, I'm not going to be very sympathetic to your complaints.. you're still getting a million dollars per year. Buy yourself some genetically-enhanced tear ducts and cry me a river.