Paying "fair share", and what does that mean to you?

[werepossum]

Stop trolling. There are numerous posts here, including mine, that have attempted to have real discussions on the "fairness" of taxation and laying out what that entails. Your initial response to my post was basically screaming about how lazy and stupid poor people are, completely ignoring my content.

I think quite a few people have offered up the idea that tax rates similar to the Clinton years would be favorable, and many on both sides seem to think loopholes are a big concern.

I think tax rates similar to the Clinton years would be reasonable, if applied to everyone. And I agree loopholes are a big concern. I would however want to see evidence that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue can actually spend less money before we increase taxes. Right now they can't even agree to spend a little less more money, and historically, if Congress gets an extra dollar it spends three.

I'll go on record though and say that anyone even a little above the poverty line should not get transfers of someone else's money.

 

[actuarial]

Canada have Federal and Provincial (state) income tax. I believe those site calculations are for Federal & Provincial income tax only, with out healthcare deduction. As healthcare/medical has always been a separate deduction on top of income tax calculation.

CanaTax Calculator for British Columbia -- This calculator include CPP & EI calculation.

I know what taxes are in Canada, as I live there and pay them

I can assure you that the taxes that were cited for Ontario at that site were including the cost of UHC. A quick search on wiki seems to find the problem:

In general, costs are paid through funding from income taxes, although British Columbia is the only province to impose a fixed monthly premium which is waived or reduced for those on low incomes.

So in almost all cases the cost of UHC is wrapped up in income taxes.

 

[HendrixFan]

what else are you looking for? should they be 80,000 above the poverty line before you're happy???

I'm simply showing that his numbers were waaaaaay off, and that this hypothetical situation has a family of three that treads the poverty line. I'm not opposed to welfare in general, though I am not a fan of the EIC. The lump sum nature of the EIC pretty much ensures it is gone within a month, often on big ticket items that they could otherwise not "afford". A real welfare plan get people off of welfare, the EIC does not achieve that goal. Also, the way EIC is calculated as a "negative tax" skews tax numbers terribly.

That being said, I do certainly believe that it is good for our society to keep the population out of poverty. I think it is a worthwhile investment. The goal should be to make people self sufficient though.

and in terms of trolling, i asked for an explanation of your "academic equality"...

The way "fair" and "equal" have been used in this thread has been commonly linked to a flat tax, something where everyone pays the same rate. To a 1st grader it is equal, to an accountant it is equal. Sociologically and philosophically it isn't equal.

Like I said before, James Madison spoke against the fear of taxes having an oppressive impact on the citizens.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fF...+to+our#v=snippet&q=oppressive to our&f=false

Taxing someone who makes very little money at the exact same rate as someone who makes an very large amount isn't equal in the sense that the poor person becomes burdened by the taxes. It affects their quality of life greatly. While you can argue that all taxes are oppressive, you can't deny that the impact of taxes is far greater to someone with little to no expendable income, provided it is at the same rate. Someone who feels it when they lose a $20 bill is not feeling the taxes equally.

Of course, there are many steps between poor and rich. Graduated tax rates like we have now do a good job of balancing that out.

 

[dmcowen674]

I

Taxing someone who makes very little money at the exact same rate as someone who makes an very large amount isn't equal in the sense that the poor person becomes burdened by the taxes.

It affects their quality of life greatly.

While you can argue that all taxes are oppressive, you can't deny that the impact of taxes is far greater to someone with little to no expendable income, provided it is at the same rate.

Someone who feels it when they lose a $20 bill is not feeling the taxes equally.

It's a Republican wet dream though. Just like with Health care.

Their motto is if you get sick and can't afford to pay to get better, just die.

 

[HendrixFan]

I think tax rates similar to the Clinton years would be reasonable, if applied to everyone. And I agree loopholes are a big concern. I would however want to see evidence that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue can actually spend less money before we increase taxes. Right now they can't even agree to spend a little less more money, and historically, if Congress gets an extra dollar it spends three.

I honestly haven't looked into specific rates, nor do I care to. Adding another bracket or two for extreme incomes at even higher rates may make sense too.

I know the Republicans have been beating the "we have a spending problem" drum, and I think there is certainly a ton of truth to that. We do also have a revenue problem though, even if they won't admit it. I also agree that slashing spending during bad economic times isn't the best idea, but I think the solution to "slashing" lies in appropriating money where it would have the biggest impact and cutting where it would have the least.

Lobbyists will do their best to make sure that won't happen though.

I'll go on record though and say that anyone even a little above the poverty line should not get transfers of someone else's money.

That is a hard line to take. You run into the problem of someone receiving benefits as just below the line versus someone just above the line not getting anything. That provides a disincentive to earn more.

Student loans?

Treasury bonds?

Mortgage interest deductions?

Those are all transfers of wealth.

Defense contractors? Who do you think gets all the money we pay for our mighty military? Very little goes to those who risk their lives. Most go to those who win no bid contracts and have money essentially funneled to them.

 

[Lithium381]

I'm simply showing that his numbers were waaaaaay off, and that this hypothetical situation has a family of three that treads the poverty line. I'm not opposed to welfare in general, though I am not a fan of the EIC. The lump sum nature of the EIC pretty much ensures it is gone within a month, often on big ticket items that they could otherwise not "afford". A real welfare plan get people off of welfare, the EIC does not achieve that goal. Also, the way EIC is calculated as a "negative tax" skews tax numbers terribly.

That being said, I do certainly believe that it is good for our society to keep the population out of poverty. I think it is a worthwhile investment. The goal should be to make people self sufficient though.

agreed

The way "fair" and "equal" have been used in this thread has been commonly linked to a flat tax, something where everyone pays the same rate. To a 1st grader it is equal, to an accountant it is equal. Sociologically and philosophically it isn't equal.

Like I said before, James Madison spoke against the fear of taxes having an oppressive impact on the citizens.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fF...+to+our#v=snippet&q=oppressive to our&f=false

Taxing someone who makes very little money at the exact same rate as someone who makes an very large amount isn't equal in the sense that the poor person becomes burdened by the taxes. It affects their quality of life greatly. While you can argue that all taxes are oppressive, you can't deny that the impact of taxes is far greater to someone with little to no expendable income, provided it is at the same rate. Someone who feels it when they lose a $20 bill is not feeling the taxes equally.

Like I stated before.... taxes should be applied on disposable income. Up to the poverty line a particular, albeit low, is provided for. I won't argue with you that a poorer person feels taxes more.... that's a true statement. But they are not deprived of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, there are many steps between poor and rich. Graduated tax rates like we have now do a good job of balancing that out.

 

[Lithium381]

I honestly haven't looked into specific rates, nor do I care to. Adding another bracket or two for extreme incomes at even higher rates may make sense too.

I know the Republicans have been beating the "we have a spending problem" drum, and I think there is certainly a ton of truth to that. We do also have a revenue problem though, even if they won't admit it. I also agree that slashing spending during bad economic times isn't the best idea, but I think the solution to "slashing" lies in appropriating money where it would have the biggest impact and cutting where it would have the least.

Lobbyists will do their best to make sure that won't happen though.



That is a hard line to take. You run into the problem of someone receiving benefits as just below the line versus someone just above the line not getting anything. That provides a disincentive to earn more.

Well, there has to be a line drawn in the sand. The person just below would be receiving just enough to get them to the line so they are not "impoverished". The person making more would be taxed on anything above that line to help subsidize the guy below it. At the end of the day, the guy above the line is better off than the guy below the line....there is an insentive to work harder and get something. Of course there are those that will never even bother to try.... but for those that put forth effort, there are rewards

Student loans?

Treasury bonds?

Mortgage interest deductions?

Those are all transfers of wealth.

Defense contractors? Who do you think gets all the money we pay for our mighty military? Very little goes to those who risk their lives. Most go to those who win no bid contracts and have money essentially funneled to them.

 

[werepossum]

I honestly haven't looked into specific rates, nor do I care to. Adding another bracket or two for extreme incomes at even higher rates may make sense too.

I know the Republicans have been beating the "we have a spending problem" drum, and I think there is certainly a ton of truth to that. We do also have a revenue problem though, even if they won't admit it. I also agree that slashing spending during bad economic times isn't the best idea, but I think the solution to "slashing" lies in appropriating money where it would have the biggest impact and cutting where it would have the least.

Lobbyists will do their best to make sure that won't happen though.



That is a hard line to take. You run into the problem of someone receiving benefits as just below the line versus someone just above the line not getting anything. That provides a disincentive to earn more.

Student loans?

Treasury bonds?

Mortgage interest deductions?

Those are all transfers of wealth.

Defense contractors? Who do you think gets all the money we pay for our mighty military? Very little goes to those who risk their lives. Most go to those who win no bid contracts and have money essentially funneled to them.

I have no strong problem with adding an extra bracket at the top, although in general I think a flatter tax is a better tax. Government should not be empowered to decide what I "need". But I can see that someone earning $1 million is quite well off in even the most affluent cities/neighborhood, whereas someone in Manhattan or LA might not be so well off earning $250,000 (as hard as that seems here in Tennessee.)

I agree with Lithium, you have to draw the line somewhere and as long as the payments graduate to raise you just above the poverty line, the additional amount lost would be very slight. I don't agree that treasury bonds or loans or mortgage deductions are wealth transfers; the first two are simply loans of wealth, for which society receives a benefit and the recipient pays (or should pay) a fair premium as interest. For the third, government not taking someone's money is not government giving someone money. A deduction may be counter-productive or even unfair, but it isn't a wealth transfer. Not unless you think that government should have first claim on all wealth and therefore anything it doesn't take is a gift.

I think raising taxes and cutting spending are both bad ideas in a recession, and I believe we are still in a recession, at least since they have abandoned the traditional definition of two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth. Unfortunately we've dug ourselves a hole so deep that we're going to have to do both. Frankly I think it will get worse before it gets better.

 

[spidey07]

He liberals!

What kind of loopholes does a W2 professional wage earner have that you wish to eliminate. I mean you want to get rid of "all those loopholes!"

WHAT ARE THEY!

 

[HendrixFan]

I don't agree that treasury bonds or loans or mortgage deductions are wealth transfers; the first two are simply loans of wealth, for which society receives a benefit and the recipient pays (or should pay) a fair premium as interest. For the third, government not taking someone's money is not government giving someone money. A deduction may be counter-productive or even unfair, but it isn't a wealth transfer. Not unless you think that government should have first claim on all wealth and therefore anything it doesn't take is a gift.

Interest on the national debt is paid via taxation. Interest earned on bonds is paid via that taxation. The wealthy profit from deficit spending. That is money that the government "could" be giving back in the form of tax cuts or infrastructure investment. It is money flowing from one source to another, no different than the EIC or any other instrument. Think big picture.

A few years back my roommate got braces. He couldn't deduct it from his taxes because he didn't make enough money. Think about that for a second, he didn't make enough money to claim his braces. That is a wealth transfer. Money flowed from his check into the government pile, and someone on the nicer part of town got braces for their kid and got to deduct it. Money didn't flow from their check into the government pile. It isn't about government's first claim or whatever.

The point is money is flowing from one place to another, and government spending (fed, state and local) is now 40% of GDP. It is foolish to think that welfare is a wealth transfer, but the movement of the other 95% of government money moving to other places isn't a transfer.

 

[HendrixFan]

He liberals!

What kind of loopholes does a W2 professional wage earner have that you wish to eliminate. I mean you want to get rid of "all those loopholes!"

WHAT ARE THEY!

In simple terms, just get rid of all loopholes for citizens and have them pay whatever rate they are bracketed for. I don't think the government should have a role in providing financial incentives to encourage certain spending for individuals. You know, liberty and all?

There may be a few worth keeping but I'm not coming up with any off the top of my head.

I do think business taxes should be increased, but then they should be offered plenty of loopholes. As I stated earlier, the tragedy of the commons prevents businesses from acting in the interest of the society they are incorporated in, and in doing so don't act in their own best financial interest. The loopholes would then push business towards those things (like the new CAFE standards, of what 54 mpg they announced today?).