View Poll Results: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • True

    15 50.00%
  • False

    15 50.00%
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 167

Thread: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

  1. #71
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,004

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Thank you. The statement was made by a DPer who is on the right side of the political spectrum. I didn't identify who it was because I didn't want to get points for calling the DPer out. The statement was made as an argument for not raising the taxes on the rich. Similar statements are made by others for the same reason. When you first hear read it, it sounds like a reasonable statement, but let me assure you its not. The idea that a group (10% or other) is not relevant unless they pool there money together and pay their taxes as a group. Everyone pays their taxes as individuals.
    So you agree that "fairness" is useless in discussion of taxes? Or are you only having issue when people who disagree with you use "fairness" or use it in a way you don't agree is "unfair"?

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So you agree that "fairness" is useless in discussion of taxes? Or are you only having issue when people who disagree with you use "fairness" or use it in a way you don't agree is "unfair"?
    While you're at it, can you get an answer to what it means when he constantly says "everyone pays taxes as individuals"? I don't get together with everyone in the subdivision and mail off one check.

  3. #73
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    But if you'd take the time to look at the current American economic mobility statistics, they DO stay rich a heck of a lot more often than lower- or middle-income people become rich.

    Attachment 67165200

    And now from the CNN Money article, information which you cannot allow yourself to accept:

    Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility {than in America}, according to Corak.
    The research measures "intergenerational earnings elasticity" -- a type of economic mobility that measures the correlation between what your parents make and what you make one generation later -- in a number of different countries around the world.
    Most Americans born into the lower class stay in the lower class.
    Economists aren't certain exactly why some countries have a greater degree of mobility than others, but they do point to certain similarities.

    Greater current inequality: The more unequal a society is currently, the greater the chance that the children will be stuck in the same sphere. This is because wealthy families are able to provide things like tutors and extracurricular activities -- and the time to pursue them -- that poorer families often cannot.
    Also, education matters a lot more now than it did 100 years ago in terms of getting a good job.
    "The rich can pump a lot more money into their kids' future," said Corak.
    This helps explain why countries like China, India and many South American nations also exhibit relatively little economic mobility.
    Families: Having a stable home life is also associated with the ability to climb the economic ladder, said Corak. The United States tends to have higher rates of divorce, single-parent homes, and teenage pregnancy than many other industrialized countries.
    Social policies: Countries that redistribute wealth -- through, say, higher taxes on the rich and more spending on the poor -- tend to have greater social mobility, said Francisco Ferreira, an economist at the World Bank.


    Think back, guy - when was America's economic mobility the world standard? Back in the days of the unions and higher taxes on the rich. But of course you cannot allow yourself to possibly draw any connections there, can you?
    However, if you review the revenue stream generated by the rich, you'll discover, as they have in California, governments can't count on the same levels of tax income each year to cover their commitments. Consider California at one time had a $42 billion deficit, representing over 60% of the nations state budget deficits, and this was in 2004, long before the recession in 2007-08.

    This is why the Progressive plan to soak the rich will fail every time. Tax revenue must be generated across a broad footprint, not just from the rich.

  4. #74
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So you agree that "fairness" is useless in discussion of taxes? Or are you only having issue when people who disagree with you use "fairness" or use it in a way you don't agree is "unfair"?
    I certainly believe fairness is important when discussing taxes, however the term fairness has a different meaning depending on who is defining it. I don't believe in soaking the rich as so many people on the right like to fame it, but as I understand it, Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 believed in what we call today as a progressive tax or the more affluent pays at a higher rate than those at the lower end of the income scale. Also, many people on the right like to frame the argument that those at the lower end use more of the government services than the more affluent. IMHO, that is pure bunk. Where would Jeff Bezos be today, if the infrastructure provided by the Federal, state did not exist.


  5. #75
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    However, if you review the revenue stream generated by the rich, you'll discover, as they have in California, governments can't count on the same levels of tax income each year to cover their commitments. Consider California at one time had a $42 billion deficit, representing over 60% of the nations state budget deficits, and this was in 2004, long before the recession in 2007-08.

    This is why the Progressive plan to soak the rich will fail every time. Tax revenue must be generated across a broad footprint, not just from the rich.
    : With so many businesses leaving California and taking their "richness" with them, who is going to pay the bills for those that count on other people to keep them alive? Sanctuary cities need constant funding in order to take care of those who can't or won't do so on their own, so we seem to be reaching some sort of tipping point, IMO. *shudders*

    Greetings, ocean515.

  6. #76
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,401

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads View Post
    If you consider the fact they own 75 percent of all "wealth" in the country, then no, the statement might not hold. But since this is about "income", of which they constitute about 48 percent of, then yes, the statement could be considered true.

    I still voted "no" however. There are plenty of other factors to consider. There is a reason we have a "progressive" tax system, it helps compensate for the inherent inequalities in a system such as ours. Yes, that would be the "redistribute the wealth" thing.
    Actually the progressive tax system is a stimulant for our consumer economy since it taxes money not spent at a higher rate. Taxing everybody at equal rates would deprive the economy of billions in retail sales crippling our economy and our GDP which is 75% consumer spending.
    The sad thing is that as our tax system grows less and less progressive, less and less people pay any income taxes which is opposite of what you might think would happen. It is another "unintended consequence" of the supply side nonsense of Reaganomics.
    Last edited by iguanaman; 04-21-14 at 06:03 PM.

  7. #77
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,770

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Neither. "Fair Share" is a poor and arbitrary notion that shouldn't factor into income tax levels. "Fairness" is not a good measurement for law as it's a completely subjective notion that has no definitive answer. Additionally, to often action that could be viewed as "unfair" can be attempted to "recitfy" something entirely seperate that they deem to also be "unfair".

    IE...it's "unfair" that certain people have so much money, so we'll "unfairly" take a substantially amount away from them.

    Fairness isn't the basis for which our tax code should be decided.
    I agree that fairness is subjective, but that's no reason to abandon fairness completely.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  8. #78
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    : With so many businesses leaving California and taking their "richness" with them, who is going to pay the bills for those that count on other people to keep them alive? Sanctuary cities need constant funding in order to take care of those who can't or won't do so on their own, so we seem to be reaching some sort of tipping point, IMO. *shudders*

    Greetings, ocean515.
    Hi Polgara. I hope you had a good weekend.

    There is a real problem with business leaving California, and with people of means leaving California. As I indicated, California has created a problem for itself by putting so much burden for revenue generation on the very top income earners. It's rates are pretty stiff on lower incomes as well, but the bulk of revenue generation is on the top tiers. Recent votes added to this burden, so the trend remains.

    The problem is the rich may get big bucks one year, and pay a lot in taxes for that year, but might get nothing the next year, and find their tax burden close to zero. While they remain rich, the revenue the state counts on is not to be found.

    This is where California and many other liberal states find themselves. If they want to count on the rich, they should be doing everything they can to keep the rich in money, and help them obtain more.

  9. #79
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Hi Polgara. I hope you had a good weekend.

    There is a real problem with business leaving California, and with people of means leaving California. As I indicated, California has created a problem for itself by putting so much burden for revenue generation on the very top income earners. It's rates are pretty stiff on lower incomes as well, but the bulk of revenue generation is on the top tiers. Recent votes added to this burden, so the trend remains.

    The problem is the rich may get big bucks one year, and pay a lot in taxes for that year, but might get nothing the next year, and find their tax burden close to zero. While they remain rich, the revenue the state counts on is not to be found.

    This is where California and many other liberal states find themselves. If they want to count on the rich, they should be doing everything they can to keep the rich in money, and help them obtain more.
    The liberal states apparently haven't been able to go from point A to point B yet in their thinking, which I find curious. They demonize the very people they need to keep providing the money that is needed!

  10. #80
    Advisor Crossroads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    07-06-15 @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    408
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Actually the progressive tax system is a stimulant for our consumer economy since it taxes money not spent at a higher rate. Taxing everybody at equal rates would deprive the economy of billions in retail sales crippling our economy and our GDP which is 75% consumer spending.
    The sad thing is that as our tax system grows less and less progressive, less and less people pay any income taxes which is opposite of what you might think would happen. It is another "unintended consequence" of the supply side nonsense of Reaganomics.
    Also very true.

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •