States Consider Increasing Taxes for the Poor and Cutting Them for the Affluent

[PokerGuy]

Top 5 states for gas tax.

Pennsylvania 68.9
New York 68.7
Connecticut 65.8
California 63.8
Hawaii 63.4

Those damn republicans.

Headshot

 

[HomerJS]

We do know Scott Walker is cutting education by 300 million while taking 220 million from the state's general fund to give to the Milwaukee Bucks.

Walker is proposing a diversion of $220 million from the state's general fund to the arena.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...walker-wants-cut-college-budgets-13-and-spen/

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Okay, then my wise and so-informed superior in rich people ways, what am I missing? Keeping in mind that "in the bank" in this context was an expression meant to include investing the money more directly. The point is that they spend far less than they earn, so a tax on spending doesn't impact much of their income.

Of course taxation will never be equal, there are a dozen definitions of "equal" or "fair" and some of them (like actual dollar value being equal) are mind-numbingly stupid. The version of "fair" that I'm proposing to be the best one - both economically and morally - is "equal" pain, or put in economic terms, tax the marginal value of the dollar equally. That means progressive taxation, basically. It ensures that overall opportunity for advancement (though hard work and luck) exists for everyone.

Again, taxation comes in different forms so you'd have to "progressively" tax every imaginable scenario. It just can't and won't work that way. Investments can be long or short term - how do you progressiv-ize gains? real estate? Business value? etc. what about the time value of this now "marignal value"? Meaning, if the marginal value of money goes down over the investment period - what happens? goes up?

So again while libs and "progressives" always like to think they can make things "fair" by taking more from others, all they do is show they haven't really thought things through - probably because it's all about "feelings" rather than rationality.

 

[soulcougher73]

Top 5 states for gas tax.

Pennsylvania 68.9
New York 68.7
Connecticut 65.8
California 63.8
Hawaii 63.4

Those damn republicans.

lol

Headshot

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

 

[LucJoe]

what does that have to do with anything? they also don't pay as much in food taxe either. but that also does not matter.

Food is not taxed in my state (and I assume most states?) for this exact reason...

 

[waggy]

It should matter. You want to share the pain of taxes. Not just for moral reasons, though those should matter to you too, but also for reasons of economic growth and public good.

A poor man earning $15k is going to spend basically all of that and still be scraping by. Higher taxes on this spending might mean he just can't afford it, and he and his kids are more likely to turn to crime, but regardless, the extra 10% cost to this spending means he and his kids get worse educations as they take on extra jobs, have no time to find better jobs, have no time to train in skills to get better jobs especially, and so society loses out on potentially very useful workers and possibly gains crime. That $1500 is really, really important to that family.

A rich man earning $1 million/yr is going to spend, let's say, $20k/mo, and stick the remaining $63k in the bank. Add an extra 10% onto his spending for increased taxes, and now he's paying $22k/mo and sticking $61k in the bank. It has no impact on his education, potential, crime, or anything else. It's hard to imagine he would even notice. He would have to spend $83k/month before the percentage of taxation would be equal to the poor man, and frankly, I think he could cut back 10% on that $83k/month a hell of a lot easier than the guy making $1250/month can cut back $125.

I think everyone should pay the same amount. IE a flat tax of 20% over 25k.

I have no problem paying my fair share in taxes. But to say that a person who makes more should pay more just for that fact is silly to me. each person pay thier fair share. a equal amount across the board. no deductions and no BS that goes on now.

Food is not taxed in my state (and I assume most states?) for this exact reason...

we have a sales Tax that includes food. though food is taxed at a lower %. unless its pre-made then its taxed higher.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

Is a gas tax regressive?

 

[fskimospy]

Is a gas tax regressive?

Yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, taxation comes in different forms so you'd have to "progressively" tax every imaginable scenario. It just can't and won't work that way. Investments can be long or short term - how do you progressiv-ize gains? real estate? Business value? etc. what about the time value of this now "marignal value"? Meaning, if the marginal value of money goes down over the investment period - what happens? goes up?

So again while libs and "progressives" always like to think they can make things "fair" by taking more from others, all they do is show they haven't really thought things through - probably because it's all about "feelings" rather than rationality.

Exquisite straw man w/ elaboration.

It is not necessary for every tax to be progressive to achieve progressive results.

For middle & working class people, taxes are sacrifice for the common good. Those sacrifices are meaningful in the context that their discretionary income, their lifestyle expenditures are reduced. For the wealthy, the only sort of taxes that might affect their lifestyles are income taxes and estate taxes levied at rates much, much higher than today.

Mitt's life wouldn't change a bit if he paid 39% in taxes or his usual 13%. His only sacrifice is on paper either way.

 

[berzerker60]

Again, taxation comes in different forms so you'd have to "progressively" tax every imaginable scenario. It just can't and won't work that way. Investments can be long or short term - how do you progressiv-ize gains? real estate? Business value? etc. what about the time value of this now "marignal value"? Meaning, if the marginal value of money goes down over the investment period - what happens? goes up?

So again while libs and "progressives" always like to think they can make things "fair" by taking more from others, all they do is show they haven't really thought things through - probably because it's all about "feelings" rather than rationality.

Easy - you don't treat income from capital gains, or business value, or real estate any differently than any other income. Then you have progressive income taxes. You don't need separate taxes for every scenario any more than you do right now. Why do you see a need for taxing short term and long term investment differently?

Investments mean risk, so yes, you can lose money on investments, in which case your income from it is less and you're taxed less. That's nothing different from the status quo.

Congrats on your smug superiority though, I'm sure it's absolutely well-earned and that you're totally right that everyone who disagrees is just an emotional fool before your ubermensch rational brilliance.

I think everyone should pay the same amount. IE a flat tax of 20% over 25k.

I have no problem paying my fair share in taxes. But to say that a person who makes more should pay more just for that fact is silly to me. each person pay thier fair share. a equal amount across the board. no deductions and no BS that goes on now.

we have a sales Tax that includes food. though food is taxed at a lower %. unless its pre-made then its taxed higher.

Again, it's how you define "fair." Yours is an internally consistent, defensible way of defining it, I just don't think it's the best way. I think the most important "fair" relates not to equal percentages, but to equal sacrifice. Someone making $30k and paying $1000 is making a much, much bigger sacrifice than someone making $1,000,000 and paying
$195,000. That $1,000/yr could be the difference between Middle Class Joe Jr. going to college or not, whereas that $195,000 is not going to change much of anything about Rich Man James Jr.'s education or opportunity. By sacrifice, I mean how it impacts their ability to move up in life, get an education, meet basic needs, take risks at things like starting a new business even without a failure resulting in abject poverty.

Edit: Original math wrong, point remains the same

 

[Subyman]

Again, it's how you define "fair." Yours is an internally consistent, defensive way of defining it, I just don't think it's the best way. I think the most important "fair" relates not to equal percentages, but to equal sacrifice. Someone making $30k and paying $6,000 (living off of $24k) is making a much, much bigger sacrifice than someone making $1,000,000 and paying
$200,000 (living off of $800,000). By sacrifice, I mean how it impacts their ability to move up in life, get an education, meet basic needs, take risks at things like starting a new business even without a failure resulting in abject poverty.

Yes, well said.

 

[piasabird]

When you use terms like rich and poor and taxes it is hard to tell what you really mean. Often people use the term rich to mean anyone who makes more money than themselves. What they really want is to not tax themselves but to tax some other guy. I catch myself thinking the same thing. I do think that maybe some things we do just don't make sense. We make working people pay SSAN tax. However, if someone maxes out or reach the tax cap, they no longer have to pay any more SSAN. I think this is grossly unfair to those who will never reach the CAP for SS.

I also think that non-citizens should have to pay more in taxes and they deserve no deductions or credits. If you are not a citizen you have no skin in the game. Only US Citizens deserve credits and deductions or SS. Of course I think some exceptions should be allowed, like people here who are married to citizens, or who entered the country and have a valid Green Card. Undocumented people, people on student Visas or people on work permits or H1b visas should not get all the benefits of being a citizen and their children born here should not be considered citizens.

 

[nickqt]

When you use terms like rich and poor and taxes it is hard to tell what you really mean. Often people use the term rich to mean anyone who makes more money than themselves. What they really want is to not tax themselves but to tax some other guy. I catch myself thinking the same thing. I do think that maybe some things we do just don't make sense. We make working people pay SSAN tax. However, if someone maxes out or reach the tax cap, they no longer have to pay any more SSAN. I think this is grossly unfair to those who will never reach the CAP for SS.

I also think that non-citizens should have to pay more in taxes and they deserve no deductions or credits. If you are not a citizen you have no skin in the game. Only US Citizens deserve credits and deductions or SS. Of course I think some exceptions should be allowed, like people here who are married to citizens, or who entered the country and have a valid Green Card. Undocumented people, people on student Visas or people on work permits or H1b visas should not get all the benefits of being a citizen and their children born here should not be considered citizens.

You have skin in the game if you're currently breathing. Citizens get direct votes, non-citizens don't, but should be able to use certain credits and deductions.

Taxes are useful for 2 purposes:

1. Incentivize re-investment of profits back into a business/going concern, such as upgrading equipment, increasing training/wages/benefits, etc. In essence, if you just want to take your profits over a certain amount and give them to criminals on Wall St. to inflate bubbles for a high return, you first pay a penalty. Or, you reinvest a certain portion of it that benefits society, your workers, the economy in general, and then you can take a large chunk of profits to give to Wall St. criminals.

2. Control inflation.

The US Government will never go bankrupt. In fact, over 50% of the US Debt is owned by the...drumroll please...US Government.

Taxes are used to control inflation to keep it at a reasonable rate, so that savers aren't hurt, but debtors aren't hurt, either. To keep the value of money at reasonable rate, you have to take some out of circulation, otherwise you get rampant inflation.

The US Government doesn't one single tax dollar to pay for anything. Essentially, when the US government taxes a dollar from someone, it is destroyed, rather than put into some happy bank account somewhere.

There is a balance in who you tax, how much, and the laws that surround those taxes, such as credits, deductions, rates, etc. What has happened is that we've continued to cut taxes on the wealthiest people in the solar system. They weren't poor before we dropped the tax rate, they were just required to first reinvest some portion of profits before taking out all of it to hand over to wall St. Criminals.

At the same time that we've cut their taxes so they don't need to reinvest in their business, their employees (wages, benefits, education/training), we've also enacted "Free Trade" that allows those same wealthy people to transfer the jobs to anywhere and everywhere else so that they're paying $2.00 an hour instead of $15.00 an hour.

Not because it's the only way they can make a profit and keep their business running, but because the laws have been designed to allow for massive profit, and no company is going to not take advantage of the law to make massive profit.

So, over the past 35 years, the middle class has stagnated and shrunk as wages/benefits have stagnated. Even though productivity has increased greatly. With the extra money that could have been shared better so that the middle class would still be growing, going straight to the wealthiest people. Which is why we have such a glut of megamillionaries/billionaires, and a dying middle class.

There is a sweet spot with taxes, and I don't believe the top marginal rate needs to be anywhere near 90%. But, when it's around 55-60%, with specific credits for reinvesting in your business/equipment/employee wages/benefits/training, then you're still going to be a wealthy business owner, while the middle class is still allowed to grow and improve their situation, creating more demand for your widgets.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have skin in the game if you're currently breathing. Citizens get direct votes, non-citizens don't, but should be able to use certain credits and deductions.

Taxes are useful for 2 purposes:

1. Incentivize re-investment of profits back into a business/going concern, such as upgrading equipment, increasing training/wages/benefits, etc. In essence, if you just want to take your profits over a certain amount and give them to criminals on Wall St. to inflate bubbles for a high return, you first pay a penalty. Or, you reinvest a certain portion of it that benefits society, your workers, the economy in general, and then you can take a large chunk of profits to give to Wall St. criminals.

2. Control inflation.

The US Government will never go bankrupt. In fact, over 50% of the US Debt is owned by the...drumroll please...US Government.

Taxes are used to control inflation to keep it at a reasonable rate, so that savers aren't hurt, but debtors aren't hurt, either. To keep the value of money at reasonable rate, you have to take some out of circulation, otherwise you get rampant inflation.

The US Government doesn't one single tax dollar to pay for anything. Essentially, when the US government taxes a dollar from someone, it is destroyed, rather than put into some happy bank account somewhere.

There is a balance in who you tax, how much, and the laws that surround those taxes, such as credits, deductions, rates, etc. What has happened is that we've continued to cut taxes on the wealthiest people in the solar system. They weren't poor before we dropped the tax rate, they were just required to first reinvest some portion of profits before taking out all of it to hand over to wall St. Criminals.

At the same time that we've cut their taxes so they don't need to reinvest in their business, their employees (wages, benefits, education/training), we've also enacted "Free Trade" that allows those same wealthy people to transfer the jobs to anywhere and everywhere else so that they're paying $2.00 an hour instead of $15.00 an hour.

Not because it's the only way they can make a profit and keep their business running, but because the laws have been designed to allow for massive profit, and no company is going to not take advantage of the law to make massive profit.

So, over the past 35 years, the middle class has stagnated and shrunk as wages/benefits have stagnated. Even though productivity has increased greatly. With the extra money that could have been shared better so that the middle class would still be growing, going straight to the wealthiest people. Which is why we have such a glut of megamillionaries/billionaires, and a dying middle class.

There is a sweet spot with taxes, and I don't believe the top marginal rate needs to be anywhere near 90%. But, when it's around 55-60%, with specific credits for reinvesting in your business/equipment/employee wages/benefits/training, then you're still going to be a wealthy business owner, while the middle class is still allowed to grow and improve their situation, creating more demand for your widgets.

Well, yeh, but it doesn't come with Freedumb Fries, so Righties will be having none of it.

 

[DCal430]

We do know Scott Walker is cutting education by 300 million while taking 220 million from the state's general fund to give to the Milwaukee Bucks.



http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...walker-wants-cut-college-budgets-13-and-spen/

You have to remember these arena are "revenue neutral". This is how basically all big public arena and stadium money is justified this way. With claims of increase revenue increases in business, taxes, parking, and what not.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have to remember these arena are "revenue neutral". This is how basically all big public arena and stadium money is justified this way. With claims of increase revenue increases in business, taxes, parking, and what not.

What you're trying to say is that owning a pro football franchise is an extortion license.

 

[Engineer]

You have to remember these arena are "revenue neutral". This is how basically all big public arena and stadium money is justified this way. With claims of increase revenue increases in business, taxes, parking, and what not.

So a new arena will still be revenue neutral? They already have a paid for arena.

 

[Jhhnn]

So a new arena will still be revenue neutral? They already have a paid for arena.

It will create construction jobs & commerce in materials that might not otherwise occur. In that, it can be seen as a jobs program. OTOH, money has been moved from education to entertainment...

I mean, what's more important? Education, or football?

It's all about priorities...

 

[highland145]

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

Looks like the red states are trying to screw the poor like the top gas tax states have been doing for a while. Is that a problem?



Actually, I think it sucks for the poor in S.C.

 

[Nebor]

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

Gas taxes are already far too low. They effectively serve to force fuel efficient behaviors, and distribute the cost of the road system to those who use it most.

 

[Matt1970]

Doesnt actually refute his comment in the slightest. But you are correct that those are the 5 highest. Good job?

Looks like your fooled cadguy and poker into ignoring there States raising gas taxes. Oh how dumb can you people be lol

Well actually it kinda does. He is trying to act as if Republican states are going to take advantage of people in the form of gas taxes but it seem blue states already have a monopoly on that. Sticking it to the working man, Democrat style.

 

[Matt1970]

It's nice to see that you 3 are all excited about the new gas tax hikes your states are proposing. So instead of being upset your state wants to raise gas taxes you point and laugh at the blue states atop this list and wish to be on top of said list next year im guessing?

Feel stupid yet?

Aww, wish I would have seen this first. I might have replied with something like they are just trying to catch up to the blue states. And BTW, Repubs may just be proposing it, good ole blue state Pennsylvania already passed it and took top honors.

 

[Meghan54]

Well actually it kinda does. He is trying to act as if Republican states are going to take advantage of people in the form of gas taxes but it seem blue states already have a monopoly on that. Sticking it to the working man, Democrat style.

LOL!

Guess that's why the majority of states with higher unemployment are the red southern states and the majority of the "high tax" states seem to be doing a bit better in this recovery, such as it is.

 

[Ancalagon44]

It is funny that every single time they have tried trickle down economics - every single time - it is a dismal failure.

Look at the most recent example - was it Kansas?

 

[Ancalagon44]

It is funny that every single time they have tried trickle down economics - every single time - it is a dismal failure.

Look at the most recent example - was it Kansas?