Ready to pay more taxes!??

[PharmDBro2017]

agreed, was SMH when Ben Carson was pushing for flat tax. That would double, triple, quadruple the effective tax rate for most americans

Wasn’t he calling for a 20% flat tax rate though? I don’t recall the actual number now, but it didn’t sound terrible at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lord999]

As close to half have no effective federal income tax rate, that would be fine.

A flat rate would help all tax payers feel the burden of a bloated govt and hopefully pressure it to shrink

Except that's not what actually happens in practice. Remember, our own Revolution was caused in no small part due to a beverage tax that was on a nonessential drink by middle class and elites. It's only a country with very high levels of social control that can impose high taxes on the poor. Otherwise, the poor pay in blood and lead before gold.

 

[deleted480308]

Except that's not what actually happens in practice. Remember, our own Revolution was caused in no small part due to a beverage tax that was on a nonessential drink by middle class and elites. It's only a country with very high levels of social control that can impose high taxes on the poor. Otherwise, the poor pay in blood and lead before gold.

If 20% is too high to be fairly levied on the poor it is too high to be fairly levied on the wealthy

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If 20% is too high to be fairly levied on the poor it is too high to be fairly levied on the wealthy

It serves a functional purpose beyond fair or not fair. That being preventing a plutocracy from forming. And, importantly, keeping capitalism going. Capitalists generally need other people with money for the system to work. A lot of people don't seem to realize that its a delicate balance...and free markets aren't a magical panacea...sometimes there needs to be a rebalance downwards.

On the other hand, part of me wants the libertarian types to completely get their way...then when like 8 families own everything in the world after a few decades of unchecked capitalism...and all of us are basically their pseudoserfs...groveling at their feet...I'd ask how that flat tax is working for them...

 

[lord999]

If 20% is too high to be fairly levied on the poor it is too high to be fairly levied on the wealthy

And, it is actually too high to assess on the poor.

Gabelle - Wikipedia

Look, realistically you have to exclude an underclass from the tax somehow, unless you want to take the draconian step of culling your poor (Germany did that regularly in its HRE incarnation). The counterpoint is not true, 20% which is what we pay is not rebellion inducing for us, you're not going to pick up a gun and start shooting cops and the mayor over your property tax or income tax bill (and if you are willing to do that, I did not encourage it). 15% on extreme poverty was enough to regularly assassinate sheriffs of the UK, gendarmes of the French, and various other tax collectors and administrators during the medieval age well into the modern for unreasonable taxation. That's why we have both progressive taxation and the idea of land use taxes on the books, because it collects enough revenue both directly and indirectly without inciting rebellion.

Then, there's the other problem of collection. Is it worth an IRS auditor's time to go after a tax difference of less than $1000? No, because it costs the IRS more than that for a cursory audit (a line-by-line audit runs somewhere between $600-800 a day). You'd basically have a situation that if you imposed a flat tax, there would be a bunch of people who wouldn't care enough and the government could not collect on them anyway.

The entire point of taxation is to generate revenue for the government. You might not like what the government is up to, but unless you can marshal the votes to find representatives who aren't plutocrats, you're stuck with this system unless you want to leave. But freedom costs something, those M-16's don't just magically appear from the Springfield Armory in our possession. And we pay nowhere near the amount of taxes that less interventionalist nations pay that don't give their citizens anything.

I tend to take a Republican viewpoint toward taxation in the sense that most of our expenditures are frankly stupid. That said, I am under the belief that increasing the national debt is even more stupid, and that taxes should adjust upwards on everyone to account for it (and the US can actually go after transnationals by the German method, which is a taxation on transfers, but the US is always lobbied on both parties never to enact that particular feature). Taxes as they stand are too low now, and this tax bill goes in the wrong direction not because of tax relief, but because it adds to a national debt that default becomes an increasingly unavoidable prospect. If you are to maximize revenue, the taxes should be borne most by the parties who can be taxed without rebelling, the rich, and not to tax the parties most likely and most able to rebel, the poor and especially the veteran poor.

If I could tweak any particular law on revenue grounds alone and be completely uncharitable, I would basically repeal EMTALA, and let drug addicts, innocent babies, and other hopeless without insurance or means die without treatment like we used to before the Great Society times passed. Remove the safety net and let people die has an effective way of increasing productivity (by getting rid of your unproductive citizens). Healthcare was always meant to ensure the working populace stayed productive. If they aren't contributing, there's no reason for their access to healthcare as humanitarian grounds are precious enough already to give to workers.

 

[deleted480308]

And, it is actually too high to assess on the poor.

Gabelle - Wikipedia

Look, realistically you have to exclude an underclass from the tax somehow, unless you want to take the draconian step of culling your poor (Germany did that regularly in its HRE incarnation). The counterpoint is not true, 20% which is what we pay is not rebellion inducing for us, you're not going to pick up a gun and start shooting cops and the mayor over your property tax or income tax bill (and if you are willing to do that, I did not encourage it). 15% on extreme poverty was enough to regularly assassinate sheriffs of the UK, gendarmes of the French, and various other tax collectors and administrators during the medieval age well into the modern for unreasonable taxation. That's why we have both progressive taxation and the idea of land use taxes on the books, because it collects enough revenue both directly and indirectly without inciting rebellion.

Then, there's the other problem of collection. Is it worth an IRS auditor's time to go after a tax difference of less than $1000? No, because it costs the IRS more than that for a cursory audit (a line-by-line audit runs somewhere between $600-800 a day). You'd basically have a situation that if you imposed a flat tax, there would be a bunch of people who wouldn't care enough and the government could not collect on them anyway.

The entire point of taxation is to generate revenue for the government. You might not like what the government is up to, but unless you can marshal the votes to find representatives who aren't plutocrats, you're stuck with this system unless you want to leave. But freedom costs something, those M-16's don't just magically appear from the Springfield Armory in our possession. And we pay nowhere near the amount of taxes that less interventionalist nations pay that don't give their citizens anything.

I tend to take a Republican viewpoint toward taxation in the sense that most of our expenditures are frankly stupid. That said, I am under the belief that increasing the national debt is even more stupid, and that taxes should adjust upwards on everyone to account for it (and the US can actually go after transnationals by the German method, which is a taxation on transfers, but the US is always lobbied on both parties never to enact that particular feature). Taxes as they stand are too low now, and this tax bill goes in the wrong direction not because of tax relief, but because it adds to a national debt that default becomes an increasingly unavoidable prospect. If you are to maximize revenue, the taxes should be borne most by the parties who can be taxed without rebelling, the rich, and not to tax the parties most likely and most able to rebel, the poor and especially the veteran poor.

If I could tweak any particular law on revenue grounds alone and be completely uncharitable, I would basically repeal EMTALA, and let drug addicts, innocent babies, and other hopeless without insurance or means die without treatment like we used to before the Great Society times passed. Remove the safety net and let people die has an effective way of increasing productivity (by getting rid of your unproductive citizens). Healthcare was always meant to ensure the working populace stayed productive. If they aren't contributing, there's no reason for their access to healthcare as humanitarian grounds are precious enough already to give to workers.

Tax the wealthy because the poor will shoot back is a bad justification

 

[owlegrad]

If 20% is too high to be fairly levied on the poor it is too high to be fairly levied on the wealthy

You know who else complains about things not being fair? Toddlers.

 

[Old Timer]

You know who else complains about things not being fair? Toddlers.

Fair is the most abused word in the English language.

 

[owlegrad]

Fair is the most abused word in the English language.

More than literally?

 

[deleted480308]

You know who else complains about things not being fair? Toddlers.

as did american slaves, those on the trail of tears and ghandi

We can have an adult discussion about it any time you choose

 

[lord999]

Tax the wealthy because the poor will shoot back is a bad justification

But is a definite one. There's always been a government thesis surrounding don't screw the people who have a realistic motive for killing you and destroying your stuff. Like our illustrious predecessors, there's a limit to how much abuse you'd take out of a government before rebellion becomes the better way.

 

[deleted480308]

But is a definite one. There's always been a government thesis surrounding don't screw the people who have a realistic motive for killing you and destroying your stuff. Like our illustrious predecessors, there's a limit to how much abuse you'd take out of a government before rebellion becomes the better way.

Then get rid of all the income tax if you can’t levy it with an even hand

 

[owlegrad]

as did american slaves, those on the trail of tears and ghandi

We can have an adult discussion about it any time you choose

Ok, how is it unfair to expect people with more disposable income to pay a higher share of taxes?

Wouldn’t it be just as fair to charge everyone the same dollar value (regardless of income) rather than a percentage? Why is the percentage more fair?

 

[owlegrad]

I would also be curious to read these quotes from American slaves, Indians on the trail of tears, or Gandhi where they complained about fairness.

 

[deleted480308]

Ok, how is it unfair to expect people with more disposable income to pay a higher share of taxes?

Wouldn’t it be just as fair to charge everyone the same dollar value (regardless of income) rather than a percentage? Why is the percentage more fair?

The argument being that if a govt wants to claim that x% of my income is a just cost for being here, then it is also the just cost for you to be here. Our current system of federal income tax is a simple game of the mob outnumbering the wealthy and taking their stuff.

If the govt wanted to make the sales pitch that a flat charge of $x was a just fee for being here, then it too should be levied equally to everyone

 

[Digsbe]

Ok, how is it unfair to expect people with more disposable income to pay a higher share of taxes?

Wouldn’t it be just as fair to charge everyone the same dollar value (regardless of income) rather than a percentage? Why is the percentage more fair?

Would it be fair for a toll road to charge a Mercedes $40 and then charge an old Chevy $2 because the Mercedes is a more expensive car? If we pay taxes to support infrastructure and the military why is it ok for someone to pay $0 to use the same roads and have the same protections while someone else pays tens of thousands or even millions for the same thing? I understand the rational behind progressive taxation and support it, but there should be a cap similar to social security as to how much one can be taxed.

 

[PharmDminus]

Wasn’t he calling for a 20% flat tax rate though? I don’t recall the actual number now, but it didn’t sound terrible at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

a 20% flat tax rate would be great, but that would mean cutting our govt spending in half. and we all know that will never happen

 

[beautifulrobot]

The argument being that if a govt wants to claim that x% of my income is a just cost for being here, then it is also the just cost for you to be here. Our current system of federal income tax is a simple game of the mob outnumbering the wealthy and taking their stuff.

If the govt wanted to make the sales pitch that a flat charge of $x was a just fee for being here, then it too should be levied equally to everyone

Without the "government mob", you would be much more vulnerable to abuse and violation of your human rights by the wealthy (unless you already happen to be a high-level plutocrat with a well-funded security detail). I suspect that you already accept this, and that ideologically, you prefer to be at the mercy of those who have accumulated massive amounts of wealth and resources, than to pay taxes to the government. somehow that seems more fair to you.

In regards to a flat charge, how would that work for those who can't afford the flat charge? What should be done with them? Thrown into jail? Executed? Banished?

Lastly, although I don't condone you being called a toddler, it's pretty difficult to have an adult conversation with someone who compares paying taxes with slavery and genocide.

 

[deleted480308]

Without the "government mob", you would be much more vulnerable to abuse and violation of your human rights by the wealthy (unless you already happen to be a high-level plutocrat with a well-funded security detail). I suspect that you already accept this, and that ideologically, you prefer to be at the mercy of those who have accumulated massive amounts of wealth and resources, than to pay taxes to the government. somehow that seems more fair to you.

In regards to a flat charge, how would that work for those who can't afford the flat charge? What should be done with them? Thrown into jail? Executed? Banished?

Lastly, although I don't condone you being called a toddler, it's pretty difficult to have an adult conversation with someone who compares paying taxes with slavery and genocide.

We jail the wealthy who don’t pay what the mob wants from them..

And no, I don’t think the only options are an abusive income tax levied on the upper income producers or huge abuses by wealthy....we can have laws and a govt without our current federal income tax

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Lastly, although I don't condone you being called a toddler, it's pretty difficult to have an adult conversation with someone who compares paying taxes with slavery and genocide.

To be fair, from an absolutely objective standpoint, it is similar.

We all look at it from the normal American baseline perspective, where XX% of our money = time is taken from us without any choice.

If we were to look at a single individual in a micro universe who was wealthy all on their own for most of their life, and you insert an IRS like figure, how do you think they'd react to someone stepping in and taking a third of their things?

 

[beautifulrobot]

To be fair, from an absolutely objective standpoint, it is similar.

We all look at it from the normal American baseline perspective, where XX% of our money = time is taken from us without any choice.

If we were to look at a single individual in a micro universe who was wealthy all on their own for most of their life, and you insert an IRS like figure, how do you think they'd react to someone stepping in and taking a third of their things?

How is it possible to create any wealth on your own?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

How is it possible to create any wealth on your own?

I'm not sure why you've entered into this Descartes space, but I meant it as an objective example in a vacuum.

Allow me to rephrase:

People don't like when other people take their ****. We're conditioned to the idea of other people taking our ****. You're acting as if it's abnormal for SB47 to say he doesn't like when people take other people's ****.

 

[beautifulrobot]

I'm not sure why you've entered into this Descartes space, but I meant it as an objective example in a vacuum.

Allow me to rephrase:

People don't like when other people take their ****. We're conditioned to the idea of other people taking our ****. You're acting as if it's abnormal for SB47 to say he doesn't like when people take other people's ****.

Yes, I understand that we don't like it when other people take from us things that we think we are entitled to. I still think taking a certain amount of money from someone in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure that is required to produce that money to begin with is in no way similar with the experience of being enslaved or being the victim of genocide. The degree of deprivation of one's freedom and dignity is on a completely different magnitude.

Or in other words: If Tommy steals your candy, it would be abnormal to respond by selling Tommy into slavery and killing his family.

 

[Old Timer]

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address January 20, 1961

Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.

Oliver Wendell Holmes US Supreme Court Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue 1927

Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

The power of taxing people and their property is essential to the very existence of government.

James Madison

In 1790, the nation which had fought a revolution against taxation without representation discovered that some of its citizens weren’t much happier about taxation with representation.

President Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[Old Timer]

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Yes, I understand that we don't like it when other people take from us things that we think we are entitled to. I still think taking a certain amount of money from someone in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure that is required to produce that money to begin with is in no way similar with the experience of being enslaved or being the victim of genocide. The degree of deprivation of one's freedom and dignity is on a completely different magnitude.

Or in other words: If Tommy steals your candy, it would be abnormal to respond by selling Tommy into slavery and killing his family.

Cool.

John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address January 20, 1961


Oliver Wendell Holmes US Supreme Court Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue 1927


President Franklin D. Roosevelt

James Madison


President Lyndon B. Johnson

James Madison and LBJ being quoted in a single breath to make a single point.

Amazing.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Yes, I understand that we don't like it when other people take from us things that we think we are entitled to. I still think taking a certain amount of money from someone in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure that is required to produce that money to begin with is in no way similar with the experience of being enslaved or being the victim of genocide. The degree of deprivation of one's freedom and dignity is on a completely different magnitude.

Or in other words: If Tommy steals your candy, it would be abnormal to respond by selling Tommy into slavery and killing his family.

Have you given half your salary to the less fortunate yet or do you still want to force everyone to give 50% so you aren't the only one?

 

[beautifulrobot]

Have you given half your salary to the less fortunate yet or do you still want to force everyone to give 50% so you aren't the only one?

Taxation isn't the same thing as giving to charity. And yes, forcing everyone to give some of their income is a much more effective mechanism for ensuring government has the funds to function properly, which is something I want.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes, I understand that we don't like it when other people take from us things that we think we are entitled to. I still think taking a certain amount of money from someone in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure that is required to produce that money to begin with is in no way similar with the experience of being enslaved or being the victim of genocide. The degree of deprivation of one's freedom and dignity is on a completely different magnitude.

Or in other words: If Tommy steals your candy, it would be abnormal to respond by selling Tommy into slavery and killing his family.

But you are still cool with throwing tommy in jail or killing tommy if he fights back when you send others to take his candy because he has more than everyone else

Taxation isn't the same thing as giving to charity. And yes, forcing everyone to give some of their income is a much more effective mechanism for ensuring government has the funds to function properly, which is something I want.

but you don't seem to want to make "everyone" give some of their income to the federal income tax.....what flat percentage do you propose would work?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Yes, I understand that we don't like it when other people take from us things that we think we are entitled to. I still think taking a certain amount of money from someone in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure that is required to produce that money to begin with is in no way similar with the experience of being enslaved or being the victim of genocide. The degree of deprivation of one's freedom and dignity is on a completely different magnitude.

Or in other words: If Tommy steals your candy, it would be abnormal to respond by selling Tommy into slavery and killing his family.

Ok, acknowledging that you understand my illustration, I'll move on.

You're essentially operating under the "oh come on, it's not that bad" or "not the same" mentality used to excuse other problematic behaviors.

See, i think that's the fundamental difference in our worldview.

You view the government as an entity with rights, while i view it as a concept created for individuals with rights with a very narrow purpose.
You are also using a theoretical example of a government that doesn't exist, where the people are fairly taxed only to fund necessary functions.


Money is quite literally a measurement of our time in this society, and to think that 30% of my life is being spent supporting a government i basically never agree with is frustrating.

Do you approve of 30% of your life being spent on bullets to shoot unarmed black men or bombs to destabilize the middle East?

You're delusional if you think we arrived at our deficit by paying for schools and infrastructure.

 

[BMBiology]

Haven't read all the posts- but is there anything anyone is doing beforr the end of the year to save on taxes for next year?

Im going to buy a new desktop computer - I use it for work when on call, checjing email in evenings, etc. I've read to try and pay 2018 taxes early but I doubt I'll be able to accomplish that...

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

You can pay your property tax before Jan 1st, assuming you will be affected by the $10 k cap in tax deduction.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BMBiology]

What is the point of going back and forth about politics and taxes? It is not like you are going to change anyone’s mind.

Elections have consequences. Deal with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Elections have consequences.

Most overused phrase of 2017.

 

[owlegrad]

Most overused phrase of 2017.

No that would be fake news.

 

[owlegrad]

What is the point of going back and forth about politics and taxes? It is not like you are going to change anyone’s mind.

Elections have consequences. Deal with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What’s the point of discussing anything? sometimes it’s nice to get a different point of view. Sometimes you even learned something.

 

[PharmDBro2017]

No that would be fake news.

But if it is actually fake news... someone has to call out the bullchit for what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[gwarm01]

You are all overlooking the greatest victory with the new tax law - the survival of the EV tax credit.

Now us upper-middle class types can continue fleecing the proletariat to help fund our luxury automobiles. @msweph knows what's up.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You are all overlooking the greatest victory with the new tax law - the survival of the EV tax credit.

Now us upper-middle class types can continue fleecing the proletariat to help fund our luxury automobiles. @msweph knows what's up.

Shocked that made it through. EVs for the everyman are coming soon, though.

 

[gwarm01]

Shocked that made it through. EVs for the everyman are coming soon, though.

I hope the credit stays for the long term. If it survived this administration then it may be there for good.

I'm excited about VW's upcoming offerings. The I.D. Hatch and Crozz are two cars I'd love to drive. I might get one for the wife if our nation's charging infrastructure is a bit more mature by then. If not we'll probably look into a plug-in hybrid. We still need a way to visit family in the rural south after all.

 

[BMBiology]

Most overused phrase of 2017.

Same thing when Obama won the presidency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[owlegrad]

You are all overlooking the greatest victory with the new tax law - the survival of the EV tax credit.

Now us upper-middle class types can continue fleecing the proletariat to help fund our luxury automobiles. @msweph knows what's up.

Ha, you must visit an EV forum, that has been all the talk recently. For good reason obviously.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I hope the credit stays for the long term. If it survived this administration then it may be there for good.

I'm excited about VW's upcoming offerings. The I.D. Hatch and Crozz are two cars I'd love to drive. I might get one for the wife if our nation's charging infrastructure is a bit more mature by then. If not we'll probably look into a plug-in hybrid. We still need a way to visit family in the rural south after all.

I've been very satisfied with my Ford Fusion plug in hybrid. Gets me to work and back on electric.

 

[neoexile]

It only makes sense if you believe President Prevaricator:

President Donald The Prevaricator Trump in a speech in Indiana.

Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic advisor, said on Good Morning America.

Trump: 'The rich will not be gaining at all' with my tax reform plan

I haven't pulled out my tax returns from last year, but it looks like I'm gonna get screwed.....

In addition, non-profits will be getting in the @SS, can't deduct high salaries.

The electric car industry is in line to get doinked......

But, hey, they don't want to pick winners or loosers,........ Really.......

"You all just got a lot richer," Trump tells friends, referencing tax overhaul - CBS News

 

[deleted820760]

What’s the point of discussing anything? sometimes it’s nice to get a different point of view. Sometimes you even learned something.

It depends how open-minded people are. The majority of the time, I see one side essentially saying, “I’m right” and the the other side saying, “no, I’m right.” Lol.

 

[beautifulrobot]

But you are still cool with throwing tommy in jail or killing tommy if he fights back when you send others to take his candy because he has more than everyone else

I never said that. If Tommy is okay with making candy that he learned to make by attending tax-funded schools, and that he made using a tax-funded candy-making store protected by tax-funded police and fire services, accessible through tax-funded roads, and powered by a tax-funded electrical grid, then he should be okay with giving some of his candy to the government that made it possible for him to make candy to begin with, and so that he can continue to make even more candy. If he doesn't want to play by the rules, he either doesn't play, he works towards changing the rules, or he deals with the consequences of breaking the rules (which may involve jail time under humane conditions or probation, but I wouldn't be cool with punishments as draconian as capital punishment).

but you don't seem to want to make "everyone" give some of their income to the federal income tax.....what flat percentage do you propose would work?

Ideally everyone would give some of their income, but it doesn't seem fair (or economically reasonable) to take a percentage away from an individual who makes barely enough income to cover their basic necessities. A progressive taxation system makes things more fair in the sense that it better captures the greater level of influence on society and government that the wealthy hold. That influence comes with a higher premium of a higher tax bracket, and seems much more fair than a flat tax rate.

 

[beautifulrobot]

Ok, acknowledging that you understand my illustration, I'll move on.

You're essentially operating under the "oh come on, it's not that bad" or "not the same" mentality used to excuse other problematic behaviors.

I'm operating under the mentality that there is a spectrum of "violation of human rights" and that taxation is on a very different side of the spectrum relative to slavery and genocide. We agree that there is an element of force and oppression in taxation, but I don't view our current taxation system nearly as oppressive or harmful as slavery and genocide, or in any way actually comparable in a meaningful way.

You view the government as an entity with rights, while i view it as a concept created for individuals with rights with a very narrow purpose.
You are also using a theoretical example of a government that doesn't exist, where the people are fairly taxed only to fund necessary functions.


Money is quite literally a measurement of our time in this society, and to think that 30% of my life is being spent supporting a government i basically never agree with is frustrating.

Do you approve of 30% of your life being spent on bullets to shoot unarmed black men or bombs to destabilize the middle East?

You're delusional if you think we arrived at our deficit by paying for schools and infrastructure.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[deleted480308]

I never said that. If Tommy is okay with making candy that he learned to make by attending tax-funded schools, and that he made using a tax-funded candy making store protected by tax-funded police and fire department, accessible through tax-funded roads, and powered by a tax-funded electrical grid, then he should be okay with giving some of his candy to the government that made it possible for him to make candy to begin with, and so that he can continue to make even more candy. If he doesn't want to play by the rules, he either doesn't play, he works towards changing the rules, or he deals with the consequences of breaking the rules (which may involve jail time under humane conditions or probation, but I wouldn't be cool with punishments as draconian as capital punishment).



Ideally everyone would give some of their income, but it doesn't seem fair (or economically reasonable) to take a percentage away from an individual who makes barely enough income to cover their basic necessities. A progressive taxation system makes things more fair in the sense that it better captures the greater level of influence on society and government that the wealthy hold. That influence comes with a higher premium of a higher tax bracket, and seems much more fair than a flat tax rate.

so your argument is that we owe all our success to the govt and should be grateful they only want to take ~30% of our earnings? That's what we owe for the privilege of making candy? We owe the punishment of being outnumbered by those less successful taking our gains by threat of prison while they lie to themselves about "everyone" paying their share?

 

[beautifulrobot]

so your argument is that we owe all our success to the govt and should be grateful they only want to take ~30% of our earnings? That's what we owe for the privilege of making candy? We owe the punishment of being outnumbered by those less successful taking our gains by threat of prison while they lie to themselves about "everyone" paying their share?

The reality is that a lot of our success is due in great part to the infrastructure we have around us and the resources we were born in to. I wouldn't go as far as saying all of our success, but not a negligible amount of it.

When you say our gains - what are you referring to exactly? How are these gains possible to make to begin with, and what makes them ours?

 

[deleted480308]

The reality is that a lot of our success is due in great part to the infrastructure we have around us and the resources we were born in to. I wouldn't go as far as saying all of our success, but not a negligible amount of it.

When you say our gains - what are you referring to exactly? How are these gains possible to make to begin with, and what makes them ours?

what makes my gains mine? When I offer a good/service/item/etc to someone else and they in turn agree on a price for what I'm offering.......what they agreed to give me is my gain and it is mine

And further more...with your "everything you earned is because of the govt so you must pay for it out of your income" why do you not apply that all income?

(full disclosure here, I don't think we should have income tax at all)

 

[deleted480308]

How are you able to provide a good/service/item/etc to begin with? Where did this good/service/item that you are able to sell come from?

And why not apply that to all income? Because communism doesn't work as well as the system we have right now. Just because I think we are all better off if we contribute some to a collective system doesn't mean I believe in a complete extreme of that system.

It feels like you are fishing for something in the first paragraph, please just spell out the end point and we can discuss it...

For the second paragraph, you don't actually seem to support a notion that "we" contribute to a collective system as whole. "we" aren't all contributing to federal income tax in our system, the roughly upper half the country is paying for the federal govt via income tax