View Poll Results: Which do you prefer:

Voters
197. You may not vote on this poll
  • Income tax - no changes in the status quo

    39 19.80%
  • Flat tax - Everyone pays the same %

    67 34.01%
  • National sales tax - don't spend, you don't pay taxes

    47 23.86%
  • No tax - Unconstitutional - rely on private donations

    10 5.08%
  • Other - explain

    21 10.66%
  • Cookies!

    13 6.60%
Page 56 of 90 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 899

Thread: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

  1. #551
    I invented Human Nature
    Z3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    05-13-12 @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,251

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with economic disparity.
    NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Let's show those Brits by dumping tea into a harbor!!!!
    Don't tread on me= Don't tread on my corporate masters

  2. #552
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    If we are speaking of just progressive income taxes, I would agree. I oppose a progressive income tax system because I believe it to be unconstitutional as the Founders intended the Constitution to be interpreted; and I believe it is counter productive in accomplishing either more money for the government or more in services and/or prosperity for the people. But that is a debate within itself.
    True.

    What DOES cause an economy to collapse is taking more and more from one sector of society and giving that to another not because they merit it or were denied any benefit from society, but purely because they have less and will keep voting in people who will pay them for being poor.
    Just to comment on your last sentence in this post, and from what I just quoted, it sounds like that you are saying that a system that takes away from the productive and gives to the poor will cause an economy to collapse.

    am I misunderstanding you there?

    That sounds a lot like progressive taxation to me. If you are saying that there is some mechanism of wealth distribution of the productive to the unproductive that will always lead to economic collapse, then I would like to hear what that is.

    This is why I support a flat tax that is uniform across the board. Any change that benefits one group benefits all. Any change that hurts one group hurts all. And THAT, coupled with an iron clad law that Congress is prohibited from using tax revenues to dispense charity or benevolence of any sort that benefits some but not all, I believe would solve a very large lion's share of both our economic and social problems in this country.
    When it comes to economic efficiency you are right.

    But economic efficiency only helps all people in the long run. In the short run, of a generation around, progressive taxation does help the poor by giving them more income then they would have otherwise in the short run. That much is a fact.

    If you really ask someone why they support progressive taxation, I don't think they will go and tell you that it is better in the long run. So I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, but you and them just have different goals.


    Beyond that, I think there is actually a few negative effects from income inequality, even if the poor actually get more income. Income inequality increases civil unrest and makes people overly obsessed with consumerism, even though consumerism does not make people happier.

    Even though economic growth is more important then those things I talked about, the negatives of income inequality need to be factored in to create good policies. (if you think those are negative outcomes from income inequality)


    I don't think progressive taxation is unconstitutional, because congress is allowed to treat people differently. When someone commits a crime they are sent to jail, which means that when someone does something different. When someone does something different (like committing a crime or having higher income) they could have either higher taxes or go to jail.
    Again, the USA is not Europe. All European countries are far more like one of our states or even one of our larger cities or counties than they are like the USA. The USA was founded and designed on an entirely different principle than the European model and it has been a success. I do not wish to revert to the European model.
    Just curious, but what do you want a society to promote?

    If you support allowing people to be more happy, then European nations do a better job then the United States.

    As with progressive taxation, it is all about your goals.

    I have not said that progressive income taxes have ever or will destroy an economy. I think if you think that is what I said or implied, you should look more closely at what I have actually said.
    OK cool :P
    Last edited by nerv14; 01-22-10 at 09:23 PM.

  3. #553
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3n View Post
    NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Let's show those Brits by dumping tea into a harbor!!!!
    Which has nothing to do with economic disparity.

  4. #554
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Income tax, but we should be taxing all sources of income according to the same, progressive, tax brackets. Income from inheritance or investment should be taxed at the same rate as wages. If we do that, we could easily lower the percentages at which income is taxed dramatically. No need for the uberwealthy to pay lower tax rates than the rest of us. Especially not when it costs us somewhere around $1 trillion/year to give them those tax breaks.

  5. #555
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Income tax, but we should be taxing all sources of income according to the same, progressive, tax brackets. Income from inheritance or investment should be taxed at the same rate as wages. If we do that, we could easily lower the percentages at which income is taxed dramatically. No need for the uberwealthy to pay lower tax rates than the rest of us. Especially not when it costs us somewhere around $1 trillion/year to give them those tax breaks.
    Sales taxes are better, but I agree with you when income taxes or property taxes are involved.

    but investment taxes should be taxed at less of a rate, because it is those investments that cause economic growth. I like the idea of taxing investments at a progressive rate though.

  6. #556
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    but investment taxes should be taxed at less of a rate, because it is those investments that cause economic growth. I like the idea of taxing investments at a progressive rate though.
    It's true that investment drives growth, but consumer spending sustains growth. The problem the US has had ever since the massive cap gains tax cuts under Clinton and Bush has been stock bubbles. Investors drive stock prices sky high, but the consumer spending has been bad so the fundamentals of those companies are poor. Sooner or later the day of reckoning comes and the stocks crash back down to whatever their actual revenues support. In terms of tax policy, the best way to stimulate consumer spending is to cut taxes on wages and to cut sales taxes.

    Now, don't get me wrong, if you just taxed investments sky high and cut sales and wage taxes dramatically, we'd have the opposite problem. The economy would grow too slowly but have strong fundamentals.

    The trick is to balance the two knobs correctly so that you have both a decent amount of consumer spending and a decent amount of investment capital. Intuitively, setting the tax rates on both about the same sounds like it would work, and historically that is what has worked best.

    I was watching the West Wing the other day and Bartlett said something that struck me as particularly wise. His take was that the best economic policy is one that takes a little from every school of economics in moderation, but from none too much. We've bought into supply side economics hook line and sinker and the demand side fell apart on us. That needs to be brought back into balance or we're just going to have another bubble burst on us again here in another 5 years or so.
    Last edited by teamosil; 01-22-10 at 09:52 PM.

  7. #557
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    It's true that investment drives growth, but consumer spending sustains growth. The problem the US has had ever since the massive cap gains tax cuts under Clinton and Bush has been stock bubbles. Investors drive stock prices sky high, but the consumer spending has been bad so the fundamentals of those companies are poor. Sooner or later the day of reckoning comes and the stocks crash back down to whatever their actual revenues support. In terms of tax policy, the best way to stimulate consumer spending is to cut taxes on wages and to cut sales taxes.

    Now, don't get me wrong, if you just taxed investments sky high and cut sales and wage taxes dramatically, we'd have the opposite problem. The economy would grow too slowly but have strong fundamentals.

    The trick is to balance the two knobs correctly so that you have both a decent amount of consumer spending and a decent amount of investment capital. Intuitively, setting the tax rates on both about the same sounds like it would work, and historically that is what has worked best.

    I was watching the West Wing the other day and Bartlett said something that struck me as particularly wise. His take was that the best economic policy is one that takes a little from every school of economics in moderation, but from none too much. We've bought into supply side economics hook line and sinker and the demand side fell apart on us. That needs to be brought back into balance or we're just going to have another bubble burst on us again here in another 5 years or so.
    damn Caprica is almost on...

    sorry if this is brief.

    I agree that there needs to be a certain balance of tax burdon. My only point is that there should be less taxes on investments then income or consumption.


    Why do you think that we do not tax investments enough? I don't think we have obsessed with supply side economics. This a very complicated question, but if anything I think we have the opposite problem.

    Compared to Europe, we have barely any sales tax. Sales taxes only tax consumption, which in effect tax investments less.

  8. #558
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Only that it was what this country was founded against. There can be no freedom without justice.
    This country wasn't founded in opposition to economic disparity.

    Just in case you didn't notice, the Patriots were some of the richest colonists around.

    This county was founded on freedom and the assumption that tyranny is no way to run a country.

    The fact of freedom ensures "economic disparity".

  9. #559
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Land View Post
    Fair? If you think that changing the current tax system can be done because it is "fair" you are not thinking right.
    My thinking is just fine.

    My patterns of thought are so exact I can make the following prediction:

    The current system of dividing people into groups by level of income and punishing the richest earners...

    ...won't stop.

  10. #560
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    damn Caprica is almost on...
    I've convinced myself that Caprica is not going to meet expectations. I'm a faithful sci-fi fan, so I'll watch it anyways, but my hopes are not that high... Hopefully I'll be wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Why do you think that we do not tax investments enough?
    Well, you can kind of approach the problem from two different sides- the effect it has on the way wealth is distributed in the country and the effect it has on the economy.

    In terms of how it effects the distribution of wealth, it's getting pretty out of control. During Bush's entire reign, for example, the bottom 90% of the population actually LOST income while the top 1% quadrupiled their investment income. The gap between the rich and the poor in the US is shockingly wide. Far wider than it has ever been in our history and far wider than it is in any other first world country. One of the biggest reasons is that we've shifted the tax burden off of investors and on to the backs of people who work. If we had been taxing them both the same we could have had taxes on wages somewhere around 6% lower for each bracket while still making the same amount of tax revenue. So the 35% bracket would be 29%, the 15% bracket would be 9%, and so on. Think how much better off the vast majority of people in the country would be if they had 6% more income over the last 20 years... That's a huge sum of money that's been taken as taxes to cover the tax breaks we've given on investments.

    In terms of the economic effects, the main warning sign that you have a situation where the balance has shifted too far towards favoring investment and too far towards undermining consumption is the stock bubble. If you have an overabundance of investment money the stock prices shoot up even past what is reasonable, but if you don't have enough consumer spending then those companies can't actually make the kinds of revenues required to justify those stock prices, so sooner or later the bubble bursts. We cut the cap gains tax in half in the mid 90s. Since then we had the massive dot com bubble, which crashed back down to just about where we were before it started. Then we had another 6 years of unbelievably strong stock market performance right after that crash, but again it crashed down to just about where it was before the cap gains tax cuts. It's exactly what you'd expect to see if the balance is leaning too far towards favoring investors over consumers.

Page 56 of 90 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... 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
  •