I propose a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the term "taxes"

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Why not call a spade a spade? Taxes to me imply some since of equality or fairness in their collection. Why not call our current system what it actually is? I'd much rather hear "did you pay your penalty for being successful" than for someone to ask if you paid your taxes. Since when did the US get this way, and since when was popular support so high? Over 55 million people felt it was OK to penalize others for their success. Anyone remember the 1800's? The 40 acres of land, and how you could own it free and clear? It rewarded those that were successful. If you weren't, you didn't get the land. So how did this current system evolve? Until we find out -- let's not continue the charade. The current tax system is a punishment on the successful.

Edit: Let me clarify. I seek to ban the term "taxes" and not the actual device.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
How would we fund stuff everyone uses like roads or the military?

Now, if you're advocating abolishing the steep graduations in taxes along income lines, that's a different story...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Yes, but without taxes, how will the spending sluts currently in power finance their ridiculous programs? Or are you merely suggesting a flat tax scenario?
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
How would we fund stuff everyone uses like roads or the military?

Now, if you're advocating abolishing the steep graduations in taxes along income lines, that's a different story...

I'm advocating abolishing the steep graduations. I'm editing the OP.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Let's be honest, taxes are penalties for success

No, they aren't. They are the dues one pays for the privilege of living in this country and being offered boundless opportunites for success ... thanks to the extraordinary physical, financial, and education infrastructure built using those very same tax dollars. People who make more pay more because, on the average, they gain greater benefits from this infrastructure.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
There are a few reasons why I think taxes need to be progressive:

1. Life is regressive. If I buy a car and make $10,000 a year and someone making $100,000 a year buys the same car, the expenses related to upkeep of that car are a much larger portion of my income than his. Same goes for food, et cetera.

2. People who make more money gain more from their investment. Someone at the top of a large corporation has a lot more to gain from an extensive network of roads for shipping than some guy working at Burger King, for example.

I don't have an exact solution worked out as to an actual just taxation scheme, but I decided a while ago that a flat tax system is not just. At the very least, you need some minimum income that an individual is not taxed on, above which a flat tax could be used (i.e. tax = 35%*income - exemption).
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let's be honest, taxes are penalties for success

No, they aren't. They are the dues one pays for the privilege of living in this country and being offered boundless opportunites for success ... thanks to the extraordinary physical, financial, and education infrastructure built using those very same tax dollars. People who make more pay more because, on the average, they gain greater benefits from this infrastructure.

Post proof that the Upper class uses more of the infrastructure than the middle or lower classes. What you said was an opinion, so I'll require some facts to believe it. Currently, there IS a penalty for being successful. Nice try at sugarcoating it.

Edit: Sorry if that came off too harsh, Bowfinger. I don't find your premise to be all that absurd, but I don't buy your conclusion in the slightest. I'd have to see proof, because most people use public services less as they grow in income.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There are a few reasons why I think taxes need to be progressive:

1. Life is regressive. If I buy a car and make $10,000 a year and someone making $100,000 a year buys the same car, the expenses related to upkeep of that car are a much larger portion of my income than his. Same goes for food, et cetera.

2. People who make more money gain more from their investment. Someone at the top of a large corporation has a lot more to gain from an extensive network of roads for shipping than some guy working at Burger King, for example.

I don't have an exact solution worked out as to an actual just taxation scheme, but I decided a while ago that a flat tax system is not just. At the very least, you need some minimum income that an individual is not taxed on, above which a flat tax could be used (i.e. tax = 35%*income - exemption).

Taxes should be progressive. That's a logical assumption, and a flat tax isn't really workable for many reasons. However, the massive graduations in tax rates spawned by a few thousand in additional income is absolutely sickening. 5k in additional income shouldn't increase your rate by 10-15%. They should graduate the tax rate for every thousand dollars you make. Sure, you'd have people paying 15.6234% on their dollar, but it would be MUCH more fair than the current system. I don't, however, support a tax rate over 25% for anyone.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Anyone remember the 1800's? The 40 acres of land, and how you could own it free and clear?
Anyone remember WWII? 93% tax rate for the wealthiest and we beat the nazis and japenese and didn't become communist.

The current tax system is a punishment on the successful.
You assume those with money and income are successful. This is not always the case. For example, take children of the rich with trusts. They are hardly successful, they did not control who they were born to. It was luck.

Edit: Let me clarify. I seek to ban the term "taxes" and not the actual device.
What's with the need to have double-speak for everything?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Mill
Taxes should be progressive. That's a logical assumption, and a flat tax isn't really workable for many reasons. However, the massive graduations in tax rates spawned by a few thousand in additional income is absolutely sickening. 5k in additional income shouldn't increase your rate by 10-15%. They should graduate the tax rate for every thousand dollars you make. Sure, you'd have people paying 15.6234% on their dollar, but it would be MUCH more fair than the current system. I don't, however, support a tax rate over 25% for anyone.
No arguments here. The existing tax scheme is arbitrary at best. I just want to clarify how the existing scheme works to make sure no one is confused. If the tax system is set up so that I fall into the 10% bracket making $1000 and the 20% bracket for income over $1000, then I only pay 10% on the first $1000 that I make and 20% on all income over that $1000. This basically means that you will never net less money by making a few grand more.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: sierrita
Pity the poor rich who have to pay taxes.


:roll:

Pity the thieves that steal their money and feel no guilt because a sense of entitlement.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
Anyone remember the 1800's? The 40 acres of land, and how you could own it free and clear?
Anyone remember WWII? 93% tax rate for the wealthiest and we beat the nazis and japenese and didn't become communist.

The current tax system is a punishment on the successful.
You assume those with money and income are successful. This is not always the case. For example, take children of the rich with trusts. They are hardly successful, they did not control who they were born to. It was luck.

Edit: Let me clarify. I seek to ban the term "taxes" and not the actual device.
What's with the need to have double-speak for everything?

So, money in a family is not success of someone? Like I said, penalty for success. You can try to obfuscate it all you want, but someone worked for that money at one point and time. It isn't luck -- someone did work for it. There is no double-speak. This is just your usual self in a thread.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Post proof that the Upper class uses more of the infrastructure than the middle or lower classes. What you said was an opinion, so I'll require some facts to believe it. Currently, there IS a penalty for being successful. Nice try at sugarcoating it.

Oh look someone is asking for evidence. I guess that means you are a 16 year old waiting for a high school assignment... :roll:
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Mill
Taxes should be progressive. That's a logical assumption, and a flat tax isn't really workable for many reasons. However, the massive graduations in tax rates spawned by a few thousand in additional income is absolutely sickening. 5k in additional income shouldn't increase your rate by 10-15%. They should graduate the tax rate for every thousand dollars you make. Sure, you'd have people paying 15.6234% on their dollar, but it would be MUCH more fair than the current system. I don't, however, support a tax rate over 25% for anyone.
No arguments here. The existing tax scheme is arbitrary at best. I just want to clarify how the existing scheme works to make sure no one is confused. If the tax system is set up so that I fall into the 10% bracket making $1000 and the 20% bracket for income over $1000, then I only pay 10% on the first $1000 that I make and 20% on all income over that $1000. This basically means that you will never net less money by making a few grand more.

Right. Some people have a common assumption that they can "lose" money by getting a raise. They are bad at math.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
Post proof that the Upper class uses more of the infrastructure than the middle or lower classes. What you said was an opinion, so I'll require some facts to believe it. Currently, there IS a penalty for being successful. Nice try at sugarcoating it.

Oh look someone is asking for evidence. I guess that means you are a 16 year old waiting for a high school assignment... :roll:

Ok, look, Infohawk is trolling again! :roll:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
So, money in a family is not success of someone? Like I said, penalty for success. You can try to obfuscate it all you want, but someone worked for that money at one point and time. It isn't luck -- someone did work for it. There is no double-speak. This is just your usual self in a thread.

The unit is an individual, not a family. If you didn't earn your money, you didn't get it. Family plays no part in it. This country was founded on the individual, not families like back in England.

Someone did work for it and you can argue they weren't lucky. But their kids are lucky.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
So, money in a family is not success of someone? Like I said, penalty for success. You can try to obfuscate it all you want, but someone worked for that money at one point and time. It isn't luck -- someone did work for it. There is no double-speak. This is just your usual self in a thread.

The unit is an individual, not a family. If you didn't earn your money, you didn't get it. Family plays no part in it. This country was founded on the individual, not families like back in England.

Someone did work for it and you can argue they weren't lucky. But their kids are lucky.
Just once, could you try to add something to a thread rather than just being argumentative or trolling? Just once.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
So, money in a family is not success of someone? Like I said, penalty for success. You can try to obfuscate it all you want, but someone worked for that money at one point and time. It isn't luck -- someone did work for it. There is no double-speak. This is just your usual self in a thread.

The unit is an individual, not a family. If you didn't earn your money, you didn't get it. Family plays no part in it. This country was founded on the individual, not families like back in England.

Someone did work for it and you can argue they weren't lucky. But their kids are lucky.

Hey, whatever makes you feel better about stealing. You are just trying to justify, because that's logically not even valid. Who says the unit is an individual? Families are taxed here just like individuals. This country was founded on individual freedoms, but that never usurped families. You've got a bad understanding of government, the constitution, and pretty much life in general.

How is it lucky that you inherit money due to death?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
So, money in a family is not success of someone? Like I said, penalty for success. You can try to obfuscate it all you want, but someone worked for that money at one point and time. It isn't luck -- someone did work for it. There is no double-speak. This is just your usual self in a thread.

The unit is an individual, not a family. If you didn't earn your money, you didn't get it. Family plays no part in it. This country was founded on the individual, not families like back in England.

Someone did work for it and you can argue they weren't lucky. But their kids are lucky.
Inheritance is taxed differently than income, no?

Also, do you have specific numbers as to what fraction of the wealthy received the bulk of their holdings through inheritance rather than income?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
Post proof that the Upper class uses more of the infrastructure than the middle or lower classes. What you said was an opinion, so I'll require some facts to believe it. Currently, there IS a penalty for being successful. Nice try at sugarcoating it.
Oh look someone is asking for evidence. I guess that means you are a 16 year old waiting for a high school assignment... :roll:
Come on...act your age
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Mill
Taxes should be progressive. That's a logical assumption, and a flat tax isn't really workable for many reasons. However, the massive graduations in tax rates spawned by a few thousand in additional income is absolutely sickening. 5k in additional income shouldn't increase your rate by 10-15%. They should graduate the tax rate for every thousand dollars you make. Sure, you'd have people paying 15.6234% on their dollar, but it would be MUCH more fair than the current system. I don't, however, support a tax rate over 25% for anyone.
No arguments here. The existing tax scheme is arbitrary at best. I just want to clarify how the existing scheme works to make sure no one is confused. If the tax system is set up so that I fall into the 10% bracket making $1000 and the 20% bracket for income over $1000, then I only pay 10% on the first $1000 that I make and 20% on all income over that $1000. This basically means that you will never net less money by making a few grand more.

Right. Some people have a common assumption that they can "lose" money by getting a raise. They are bad at math.


I hear it every day. People say that there is no use working overtime because they get taxed MORE and lose IT ALL. While they may pay "more" of a percentage on that money, it does not mean that they pay a higher percentage on ALL of their money.

Sorta like saying that you like to have your mortgage because it gives you a tax break on the interest. You pay 100% interest to only get a 20-30% (of that interest) tax break? :confused:

So we have two problems...how to clean up taxes and how to stop wasteful spending. Two Constitutional Amendment threads.....:)
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Hey, whatever makes you feel better about stealing. You are just trying to justify, because that's logically not even valid.

My motives have nothing to do with my arguments. Attack my arguments, not my motives.

Who says the unit is an individual?
Well, individual humans make decisions. Individuals ultimately are successful and fail. Individuals and their decisions are the fundamental units in economics.

How is it lucky that you inherit money due to deatH?
Well, you had no control over the death and your birth to your parents. That makes it lucky. Economically, something is only deserved if you made a decision to do something. Nobody makes a decision to have the parents they do.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
So, money in a family is not success of someone? Like I said, penalty for success. You can try to obfuscate it all you want, but someone worked for that money at one point and time. It isn't luck -- someone did work for it. There is no double-speak. This is just your usual self in a thread.

The unit is an individual, not a family. If you didn't earn your money, you didn't get it. Family plays no part in it. This country was founded on the individual, not families like back in England.

Someone did work for it and you can argue they weren't lucky. But their kids are lucky.
Inheritance is taxed differently than income, no?

Also, do you have specific numbers as to what fraction of the wealthy received the bulk of their holdings through inheritance rather than income?

I'm pretty sure the Death Tax/Estate tax still exists. There are a variety of ways to use trusts to mitigage or avoid these taxes, but typically it is very hard to do. So, the money is taxed when it is earned and it is taxed when the owner dies. I'm sure you know this, but just pointing it out. Then, even if someone has a tax-shelter in the form of a trust, taxes are still paid on Capital Gains. Anything that is gained via stocks or mutual funds has to have taxes paid on it. The exemptions would be bonds, and now dividends. So, even if they are so "lucky" as Infohawk states, they are still paying taxes on income from that money, and the principal of that money was already taxed TWICE. Gee, they are really lucky to get taxed twice... that's just awesome luck.