NC Repubs implement HUGE gamble called the modified flat tax

[buckshot24]

Maybe we'd be economists? Because the 1000th dollar is necessity, the millionth dollar is luxury.

When does the next dollar gained turn into a luxury?

 

[fskimospy]

When does the next dollar gained turn into a luxury?

I don't even get this whole line. You ask who are we to decide that? Who are we to decide that you can only drive on the right side of the road? Who are we to decide anything? That's what the government is for.

It is indisputable that your thousandth dollar earned has larger marginal utility to someone than your millionth. Therefore it is logical not to treat them as being exactly the same. Even if it weren't logical though, the idea that we as a society have no right to treat different levels of income differently is totally unsupported. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

When does the next dollar gained turn into a luxury?

When the previous dollar fulfilled your necessities.

 

[buckshot24]

Same thing as the flat tax except its progressive. Just for an easy example your "flat tax rate" goes up by half a percent every hundred grand more you make with a cap somewhere.

That doesn't seem much different than what we have now.

We are talking about being rich versus being potentially hungry. I would say its a bit more than "preferable" but thats just me.

If someone starves in this country then they have no excuse. Our poor are fat. Poor people aren't missing many meals.

Life isn't fair. Using your argument its not fair that the rich pay the same percentage as the poor because the rich will still pay far more actual dollars.

I think if it is based upon a set rate for every dollar earned then that is as fair as we can make it.

Thats the way its been for quite a while and yet the rich were still able to get rich in that system. The rich did not get rich in a vacuum and without society. It is arguable that they benefited far more from our society than the poor despite directly receiving less .gov benefits. If you are rich I would say life is treating you rather well.

The rich pays more into the society that they are thriving in as well. I get your point. I'm not trying to paint a bleak picture for the rich. Even with our progressive tax system almost anybody would rather be rich than not.

When that 1000th dollar is the difference between eating or not I would say its value is absurdly greater. The rich guy ain't going hungry if he doesn't get that millionth dollar.

Again, the poor are fat in this country. They aren't missing meals now and they wouldn't miss them in a world where everybody pays the same tax rate. The poor might not be able to afford xbox's or large plasma tvs if they had to pay the same tax rate as the rich.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publication...eport/err141/report-summary.aspx#.UgVSqNLvvSg

 

[buckshot24]

When the previous dollar fulfilled your necessities.

What do people need? Is there a number that you have in mind? Will that number move depending on where you live? Does a person really need an xbox, soda pop or video cards? Who the hell are you to decide what people need?

 

[fskimospy]

What do people need? Is there a number that you have in mind? Will that number move depending on where you live? Does a person really need an xbox, soda pop or video cards? Who the hell are you to decide what people need?

This continues to be a frankly bizarre argument. Why do you keep asking as if the government doesn't have the right to make decisions about what people do with their lives and the circumstances they live under? That's the whole point of government.

 

[boochi]

This continues to be a frankly bizarre argument. Why do you keep asking as if the government doesn't have the right to make decisions about what people do with their lives and the circumstances they live under? That's the whole point of government.

Maybe in your communist loving world.

 

[buckshot24]

This continues to be a frankly bizarre argument. Why do you keep asking as if the government doesn't have the right to make decisions about what people do with their lives and the circumstances they live under? That's the whole point of government.

It's plainly obvious that the government operates as if they have the right. No shit.

The problem is that our government can't know what utility a given dollar gives any individual. The most neutral way is to treat all dollars the same no matter how many of them you've earned.

 

[fskimospy]

It's plainly obvious that the government operates as if they have the right. No shit.

The problem is that our government can't know what utility a given dollar gives any individual. The most neutral way is to treat all dollars the same no matter how many of them you've earned.

There is actually a great deal of economic research on marginal utility, so that's just false.

Outside of that, there is also no reason to think that the most neutral solution is the best one.

Finally, the government doesn't act like it has that right, it explicitly has the right to pass taxes in whatever way of chooses. That is one of the primary purposes of the Constitution.

 

[Fern]

This continues to be a frankly bizarre argument. Why do you keep asking as if the government doesn't have the right to make decisions about what people do with their lives and the circumstances they live under? That's the whole point of government.

Frightening.

And that would be your opinion of the "whole point of govt"; certainly not mine.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

but its going to lead to economic warfare between the states.

Good, bring on choice and competition!!!

 

[Zaap]

Frightening.

And that would be your opinion of the "whole point of govt"; certainly not mine.

Fern

And sadly, its also fairly typical. It makes me realize why hellhole tyrannical regimes exist. There will always be people that know better, but also no shortage of those that think governments having absolute power is just fine and dandy.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Frightening.

And that would be your opinion of the "whole point of govt"; certainly not mine.

Fern

The point of government is to <gasp> govern.

 

[Bowfinger]

Good, bring on choice and competition!!!

It's not about choice and competition, it's a race to the bottom. It's screwing the vast majority of citizens for the benefit of an elite and powerful few.

 

[Fern]

It's not about choice and competition, it's a race to the bottom. It's screwing the vast majority of citizens for the benefit of an elite and powerful few.

I'm pretty sure that's not the objective of the NC legislature.

We've had higher than average unemployment here IIRC. We're major victims of NAFTA and other free trade agreements. We were a big manufacturing state (still are in many regards) but we've lost most of our clothing, furniture, paper goods and other manufacturing as a result of these agreements.

They've got to do something to bring decent jobs here. Having high taxes won't help with that. It hasn't in the last 5 or 6 years. NC state debt appears to $52 billion, adding another $2.4 bil may be a good gamble.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm pretty sure that's not the objective of the NC legislature.

Fern

Cutting education, cutting unemployment benefits, limiting abortion access, not expanding medicaid, limiting voting access, allowing leaky garbage trucks and landfills...

And this little nugget...
http://www.wral.com/at-nc-environmental-regulator-loyalty-to-mccrory-runs-deep/12755208/

And this one...
http://www.wral.com/proposal-to-shift-judicial-discipline-raises-questions/12760446/

And this one...
http://www.wral.com/power-struggle-develops-over-defending-nc-laws/12722343/

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[Patranus]

It's not about choice and competition, it's a race to the bottom. It's screwing the vast majority of citizens for the benefit of an elite and powerful few.

Then people will move to a state that serves their needs.
That is the entire fucking point of the United States, 50 unique experiments competing against each other not a homogenized mess like we are moving towards were some states impose their will on other states.

 

[Patranus]

Cutting education, cutting unemployment benefits, limiting abortion access, not expanding medicaid, limiting voting access, allowing leaky garbage trucks and landfills...

And this little nugget...
http://www.wral.com/at-nc-environmental-regulator-loyalty-to-mccrory-runs-deep/12755208/

And this one...
http://www.wral.com/proposal-to-shift-judicial-discipline-raises-questions/12760446/

And this one...
http://www.wral.com/power-struggle-develops-over-defending-nc-laws/12722343/

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.

More than 100 state environmental regulators who will implement upcoming legislative decisions on natural gas drilling, offshore oil exploration and changes to air and water quality rules will soon do so as “exempt” employees who can be fired without cause or appeal.

I don't see the issue.
That is how the real world works and government should work no differently.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I don't see the issue.
That is how the real world works and government should work no differently.

Governments do work differently and the issue is in the title of that article.

 

[buckshot24]

There is actually a great deal of economic research on marginal utility, so that's just false.

What is false? The government knows what utility every dollar each individual earns gives that individual? I'll wait for your pompous answer on that.

Anyway, marginal utility of income isn't a static value and is different for each individual so the government or anybody else knows each person's utility gained from any dollar that they earn.

Finally, the government doesn't act like it has that right, it explicitly has the right to pass taxes in whatever way of chooses. That is one of the primary purposes of the Constitution.

Did Fidel Castro hack your account and started posting in your name?

The constitution doesn't give the government unlimited powers to tax in any way it deems fit., quite the opposite. The constitution gives the government limited avenues of collecting taxes.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm pretty sure that's not the objective of the NC legislature.

That may not be their objective, but it is the predictable result. Flat tax schemes are inherently a gift to the very wealthy, at the expense of the poor and especially the middle class. Making ever greater concessions to attract new corporations is a fool's game that gives short term benefits at great long term cost, the race to the bottom I mention.

We've had higher than average unemployment here IIRC. We're major victims of NAFTA and other free trade agreements. We were a big manufacturing state (still are in many regards) but we've lost most of our clothing, furniture, paper goods and other manufacturing as a result of these agreements.

I'm skeptical North Carolina is substantially more impacted by this trend than any of the other manufacturing states. Indeed, I suspect it is less impacted than the traditional manufacturing powerhouses, but admittedly have not looked for data.

They've got to do something to bring decent jobs here. Having high taxes won't help with that. It hasn't in the last 5 or 6 years. NC state debt appears to $52 billion, adding another $2.4 bil may be a good gamble.

Fern

Republicans have been hawking different flavors of tinkle-down economics for over 30 years. and they haven't worked. The rich just get richer and everybody else falls farther and farther behind. There's no reason to believe NC will see different results. Couple that with some of the other recent nonsense out of NC, and it looks like a perfect example of radical ideology run amok.

In any case, NC tax rates don't look that high to me. Where do their former effective rates fall compared to other states? Perhaps the problem isn't high taxes at all, but rather deteriorating infrastructure, a poorly-educated work force, and crazed leaders who are pushing NC backwards instead of forwards. I wouldn't want to put a modern business in a backwards state. Food for thought.

 

[fskimospy]

What is false? The government knows what utility every dollar each individual earns gives that individual? I'll wait for your pompous answer on that.

Anyway, marginal utility of income isn't a static value and is different for each individual so the government or anybody else knows each person's utility gained from any dollar that they earn.
Did Fidel Castro hack your account and started posting in your name?

When you don't have a good argument, call the other guy a dirty commie. Decreasing marginal utility is considered so obvious that it is basically a law of economics. I cannot possibly fathom why you think the government would need to know the exact utility provided by every dollar in order to establish a broad framework. My guess is that you don't like progressive taxation from an ideological perspective and you are searching for a way to justify it.

The constitution doesn't give the government unlimited powers to tax in any way it deems fit., quite the opposite. The constitution gives the government limited avenues of collecting taxes.

Back to civics class with you. The taxation powers in the constitution are incredibly broad. This was done on purpose, as the inability to federally tax people was one of the biggest problems with the AoC.

Remember, the purpose of the Constitution was to make the federal government more powerful.

 

[buckshot24]

When you don't have a good argument, call the other guy a dirty commie. Decreasing marginal utility is considered so obvious that it is basically a law of economics. I cannot possibly fathom why you think the government would need to know the exact utility provided by every dollar in order to establish a broad framework. My guess is that you don't like progressive taxation from an ideological perspective and you are searching for a way to justify it.

Is the marginal utility of each dollar the same for the guy living in NYC vs Grand Rapids Michigan? No, but the federal government applies the tax code as if it is. I like how you say you cannot "possibly fathom" something then give your guess right after. You just "fathomed" it. haha

You just said something was false that I wrote, namely that governments can't know the utility of each dollar earned for individuals. Are you saying you fucked up? That's definitely not false.

Back to civics class with you. The taxation powers in the constitution are incredibly broad. This was done on purpose, as the inability to federally tax people was one of the biggest problems with the AoC.

Congress can't tax any damn thing they want. And what does Age of Conan have to do with anything!? :awe:

Seriously though the AoC is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting the constitution gives NO power to congress to tax and spend. I'm not sure how you define "incredibly broad" so I'll leave it there for now.

Remember, the purpose of the Constitution was to make the federal government more powerful.

The question wasn't about the Articles of Confederacy vs the Constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

Is the marginal utility of each dollar the same for the guy living in NYC vs Grand Rapids Michigan? No, but the federal government applies the tax code as if it is. I like how you say you cannot "possibly fathom" something then give your guess right after. You just "fathomed" it. haha

You just said something was false that I wrote, namely that governments can't know the utility of each dollar earned for individuals. Are you saying you fucked up? That's definitely not false.

Perhaps I was unclear, the idea that we can't enact progressive taxation because we don't know the marginal utility for each individual is false. We have a great deal of knowledge of how that works generally, certainly far more than enough to enact policy based on it. As for the marginal utility of dollars being different in different segments of the country...well... of course. So? Utility does not need to be identical, as I already said, it simply needs to be a better solution than a flat tax, which it is. I like how you think the idea of taxing a person in NYC the same as a person in Michigan shows the absurdity of progressive taxation, but don't think that taxing a person living in a hovel at the same rate as a person living in a mansion is a problem.

Congress can't tax any damn thing they want. And what does Age of Conan have to do with anything!? :awe:

Seriously though the AoC is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting the constitution gives NO power to congress to tax and spend. I'm not sure how you define "incredibly broad" so I'll leave it there for now.
The question wasn't about the Articles of Confederacy vs the Constitution.

No, the question was Congress' power to tax. I was mentioning the AoC to provide a frame of reference to Congress's powers under the Constitution. They are EXTREMELY broad. In fact, it's hard for me to think of any enumerated power in the Constitution that is more sweeping than taxation, in particular income taxation. Even the limits on apportionment aren't there for that.