Originally posted by: konichiwa
Let's try
here for starters. Sure, the rich pay the most taxes, which I never purported to disagree with, but what I do disagree with is the claim that that is some sort of problem. You make the most money, you pay the most tax. Not to mention that most tax cut schemes vastly help the rich pay less taxes, while the poor and middle class get (almost always) comparably a far smaller decrease, and sometimes even an increase.
Yeah, I'm going to take anything from that site seriously.
You do realize that with a flat tax, the people who make the most money would still pay the most tax right? If I made 10 times as much as you, i'd pay 10 times as much tax.
Tell me how exactly any tax cut would be possible that would not benefit the rich the most when they are the ones paying most of the taxes. How do you propose we cut taxes for the poor when basically don't pay any taxes?
I don't see what's wrong with that.
From the above article:
"Based on the 1992 returns, if this inane proposal were implemented, taxes on everybody making $200,000-plus will go down and those on everybody else will go up. Malcolm Forbes Jr., one of the richest men in America, was the leading backer of the flat tax during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now do you see why?"
Duh. That's the point. But you didn't say why that would be a bad thing. What it would also do is eliminate the substantial penalty for increasing your income.
Ever heard of cost-of-living? A flat tax doesn't work, principally for that reason. Take a good read of that article above. It's not designed to bash the rich, but suggest that, while they do pay the majority of taxes, there is a reason for it, and it works.
I never denied that there was a reason for it. It is because it is practical, they can afford it, and there are more poor and middle class voters than rich voters. And a flat tax would certainly work. It would make things harder on the poor. And that is fine. But there will no longer be a strong incentive for them to stay poor. If we had a 17% flat tax, and you made 10,000 dollars a year, you would pay 1700 in taxes. If I made 100,000 a year, I would pay 17000 in taxes. So I would still basically be paying for the government services you use. Surely, if I am willing to contribute 17,000 dollars of my money that I EARNED to support our government services, you would be willing to at least chip in 1/10th that amount wouldn't you? If not, I think YOU are the one being selfish and I would like you to tell me why it isn't fair.
Or Sweden, or Canada, or any of the many countries that have some form of democratic socialism, which, while poviding a benefit to those who work and make money, also uses the common wealth to support those who cannot support themselves.
I'd prefer socialistic over communistic, thank you. And if you look at the many European (and other) countries that have implemented forms of mild (and not so mild) socialism in the past few decades (give or take), you'll see that motivation for hard work is not necessarily eliminated, if the system is done right.
If you are talking socialist governments, might as well throw the U.S. in there too. And yes, it works just fine in the mild form we have now. We may not have moved as far towards socialism as those countries, but I don't want to. I have never advocated getting rid of our welfare systems. I believe nobody in this country should go without food or medicine. But I believe we have an unfair tax system which penalizes success and rewards lazyness.
I am offended that you call me selfish. I have always been willing to help people. I have always been williing to donate money to what I consider to be good causes. I said I do not want my money going to lazy people who don't want to work.
And I do not think it is fair or morally right that I pay 10 times as much in taxes as someone that makes half as much as me. Truly fair would be me paying the same amount. But for practicality, I would be perfectly happy paying twice as much as that person.
Facebook
Twitter