Which tax system is most 'fair'

TurtleDude said:

cause and effect apparently is not your strong point. America became the greatest nation in the world before we had a massive welfare state.

Self respect doesn't come from being addicted to the dole and beholden to your Dem masters

how are you paying my share of the taxes? THat is a major laugher

Click to expand...

Note to the board.. although TD quotes my posts....
Still no answers to Them.
Basically his Problem (as I said)
What's "Fair" in the most simplistic/Brutal sense DOESN'T WORK.
Some people will end up with all the marbles (thx), unless mitigated by the govt.

me said:

We've had "fair' throughout the history of humanity.
Some people for reason of IQ, knack, or other advantage (including inheritance), end up with all the marbles.

Look back at the planet 500 years or 5000 years.
What would happen is a system of Lords and Serfs.. landowners/servants/slaves.
Or look back at this very country 100 years and Why they instituted the income tax in the first place; The robber barrons Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, etc. It was just to tax the top few percent.
While men in virtual indenture servitude worked in mines, rail gangs, etc.

Then look a THIS country in the 1950's through the 1980s when the top marginal rate was a "Communist" 50%-91%. We grew like crazy with less income disparity.
Why bring in "Russia" .. we have US!

The countries with the highest GDPs are the most 'socialist'. EU and Scandinavia. (and Japan)

Click to expand...

me said:

First let's be clear.
If anyone is paying for anyone else tax-wise.. it's me for you.
[unlike you] I understand the economy/manage money and have been paying top rates when they were astronomical.

Second.
You didn't/Couldn't answer me.
Because as I pointed out.. what's "fair" (in the most brutal/simple sense) doesn't work.
You remember. Serfs and Castles.. JP Morgan, Rail gangs, and 500 servants.
The whole expanse of history.

That's your basic problem. How do you solve it?
Put 85% of the country on the whim of charity or let them have some self respect?

Alas. we're [eventually] a democracy and even tho some are really stupid (poor AND conservative), they have/will eventually distribute the money so the majority can live. Ahh democracy.

You couldn't answer either when I pointed out this countries greatest growth and world ascendency was it's highest tax rates; During the Cold War. Destroying your "Communist" ploy.

Click to expand...

"Fair" will end up in democracy voting a better distribution.. or a revolution. As it always has.
Last word away.. but you can't fight the simple truth.

mbig said:

Note to the board.. although TD quotes my posts....
Still no answers to Them.
Basically his Problem (as I said)
What's "Fair" in the most simplistic/Brutal sense DOESN'T WORK.
Some people will end up with all the marbles (thx), unless mitigated by the govt.

Click to expand...

America worked rather well before the income redistributionist nonsense started. It might not have worked for those who were unproductive or unlucky but it worked for America. I have asked dozens of questions of the tax hiking set and received no real answers

is this the time when you refer to another thread and make the specious claim that I somehow got "owned" on it because someone posted an opinion you agreed with?

imagep said:

That's not correct. The prebate is not about "allowing all Americans to live tax-free up to the poverty line", it is about providing people who make below the poverty line with more tax-prebate than they pay in taxes. Or more directly, it is a feeble attempt on the part of the conservitive elite to incourage liberal to vote for it (after all, liberals are all-for more welfare). Even liberals are not stuipid enough to take the bate.

Click to expand...

well you have half the answer, the prebate is not 'about' allowing all Americans to live tax-free up to the poverty line, it's about making a sales tax progressive - more progressive (again) than our current system; while still keeping it a tax system that conservatives will recognize as fundamentally fair and one that will be beneficial to our economy.

cpwill said:

well you have half the answer, the prebate is not 'about' allowing all Americans to live tax-free up to the poverty line, it's about making a sales tax progressive - more progressive (again) than our current system; while still keeping it a tax system that conservatives will recognize as fundamentally fair and one that will be beneficial to our economy.

Click to expand...

Welfare is never beneficial to our economy. It would only be more progresive that our current system - for the poor. For the rich, it would be far less progressive.

Essentially the poor would get even more welfare than they already do, the middle class would pay the vast majority of our taxes, and the high income individuals would pay virtually no taxes (relative to their income). It's a step in the wrong direction for all three income classes. Honestly, if it was such a good idea, we would have already done that. The Fair Tax coalition has worked very hard to enact it.

I think a flat tax is most fair. I also think the fair tax is a good idea, but the wrong idea. Progessive Sales tax? Imagine everything costing more money as you begin to make more money. That defeats the purpose of working hard to get a higher salary, and de-incentivizes career progression.

TurtleDude said:

America worked rather well before the income redistributionist nonsense started. It might not have worked for those who were unproductive or unlucky but it worked for America.

Click to expand...

You mean it was lucky for the children who had to go work in mines and factories before there was "income redistribution" because their parents couldn't afford to send them to a private school because the majority of Americans were farmers or factory workers and there was little in the way of public education?

Or do you mean it was lucky for those very same children, along with adults and veteran soldiers who were disabled because of unsafe work conditions or because of military conflicts who had to either live off family, who likely couldn't afford it very well, or beg in the streets for money because they lacked the ability to do proper labor to earn a paycheck and there was no social safety net or programs for the disabled?

Or do you mean it was lucky for those boys and girls who died before the age of 30 because instead of getting proper medical care they had to pay their rent or help buy food for the rest of their family?

samsmart said:

You mean it was lucky for the children who had to go work in mines and factories before there was "income redistribution" because their parents couldn't afford to send them to a private school because the majority of Americans were farmers or factory workers and there was little in the way of public education?

Or do you mean it was lucky for those very same children, along with adults and veteran soldiers who were disabled because of unsafe work conditions or because of military conflicts who had to either live off family, who likely couldn't afford it very well, or beg in the streets for money because they lacked the ability to do proper labor to earn a paycheck and there was no social safety net or programs for the disabled?

Or do you mean it was lucky for those boys and girls who died before the age of 30 because instead of getting proper medical care they had to pay their rent or help buy food for the rest of their family?

Click to expand...

I tried to make it obvious to the feelers what I was saying-America as a NATION WORKED WELL but maybe not for the unlucky or the untalented. Edify me why I have a duty to pay for someone else's existence when I get nothing in return? Mind you I support-both philosophically and with my donations, charity but that is different than supporting by force-income redistribution.

Since you leftwingers believe in the common good as the paramount interest (at least when it comes to looting private property) one can make a good faith argument that not supporting those who cannot make it is best for society or at least better than spending billions on the unproductive. Darwin's theorem at its brutal finest

TurtleDude said:

I tried to make it obvious to the feelers what I was saying-America as a NATION WORKED WELL FOR THE ELETE

Click to expand...

At least thats the way I read you.

imagep said:

At least thats the way I read you.

Click to expand...

ELETE?

how do people become rich in this country? contrary to your viewpoint most get there by working hard and working smart. The Postmaster in Cincinnati came to the USA from Taiwan speaking no English. She's now an SES (Senior Executive service) level employee making close to 200K a year. she most likely retire a millionaire. Ever heard of Miguel Estrada--the guy that racist dems blocked from being on the Court of Appeals? he's a partner in a top firm making at least a million a year. Both of them are EL TES and I say more power to them.

America worked well as a nation. we were the biggest and strongest and most prosperous nation before dems saw buying the votes of the have nots with others' wealth as an easy way to win elections but weakening america while doing so.

Of course, then there is Paris Hilton...

Redress said:

Of course, then there is Paris Hilton...

Click to expand...

why do libs have such a "hard on" for Paris Hilton? is it jealousy? I never hear you all whine about say the Kennedy kids. True, some like Tim Shriver are great people who (because he inherited a ton of money) can take a job like being head of special olympics rather than working on wall street etc. But most are slugs, yet you all whine about a girl who actually has a trade rather than sitting around knocking up baby sitters and snorting cocaine

TurtleDude said:

why do libs have such a "hard on" for Paris Hilton? is it jealousy? I never hear you all whine about say the Kennedy kids. True, some like Tim Shriver are great people who (because he inherited a ton of money) can take a job like being head of special olympics rather than working on wall street etc. But most are slugs, yet you all whine about a girl who actually has a trade rather than sitting around knocking up baby sitters and snorting cocaine

Click to expand...

It was a joke. Relax!

Redress said:

It was a joke. Relax!

Click to expand...

It might be-sort of like the guy claiming he is a conservative yet he wants a massive death confiscation tax:mrgreen:

TurtleDude said:

I tried to make it obvious to the feelers what I was saying-America as a NATION WORKED WELL but maybe not for the unlucky or the untalented.

Click to expand...

Considering the number of revolutionaries there have been in the U.S. for a number of reasons based on a number of issues, no it hasn't. After all, the labor movement came to full swing during the time period you talked about. Why? Because of the excessive abuses of owners on their employees. The number of strikes during this period is what caused the U.S. government to legitimize unions in this country. And then there's the exposes of yellow journalists such as Upton Sinclair who exposed the underhanded and unethical practices of many businesses in order to institute reforms. So the nation WORKED BETTER with social reforms paid for by tax dollars, such as public education, recognition of unions, and federal regulatory agencies.

TurtleDude said:

Edify me why I have a duty to pay for someone else's existence when I get nothing in return? Mind you I support-both philosophically and with my donations, charity but that is different than supporting by force-income redistribution.

Click to expand...

Because those people can produce more with what taxpayer money gives them than what they would produce without that taxpayer money. By spending tax dollars to give eyeglasses to those who children who have eye problems or by giving wheelchairs or prosthetics to the disabled, they can lead a MORE PRODUCTIVE life than if they were denied those things. After all, why have someone who is disabled live on charity and take that money away from donors when the government can use tax revenues to help them get jobs that they will then pay a portion to taxes?

Likewise with public education. Why have kids doing menial manual labor that will not give them any marketable skills when by paying tax dollars for public education they can be taught to be productive and get a job and then pay for their own needs?

TurtleDude said:

Since you leftwingers believe in the common good as the paramount interest (at least when it comes to looting private property) one can make a good faith argument that not supporting those who cannot make it is best for society or at least better than spending billions on the unproductive. Darwin's theorem at its brutal finest

Click to expand...

No, it isn't, because the OUTPUT of those people's productivity is GREATER than the INPUT they receive from tax-provided services. This is why our tax dollars has produced a modern sustainable society whereas other governments incapable of taking in government revenue, such as Latin American countries and African countries, are impoverished throughout.

samsmart said:

Considering the number of revolutionaries there have been in the U.S. for a number of reasons based on a number of issues, no it hasn't. After all, the labor movement came to full swing during the time period you talked about. Why? Because of the excessive abuses of owners on their employees. The number of strikes during this period is what caused the U.S. government to legitimize unions in this country. And then there's the exposes of yellow journalists such as Upton Sinclair who exposed the underhanded and unethical practices of many businesses in order to institute reforms. So the nation WORKED BETTER with social reforms paid for by tax dollars, such as public education, recognition of unions, and federal regulatory agencies.



Because those people can produce more with what taxpayer money gives them than what they would produce without that taxpayer money. By spending tax dollars to give eyeglasses to those who children who have eye problems or by giving wheelchairs or prosthetics to the disabled, they can lead a MORE PRODUCTIVE life than if they were denied those things. After all, why have someone who is disabled live on charity and take that money away from donors when the government can use tax revenues to help them get jobs that they will then pay a portion to taxes?

Likewise with public education. Why have kids doing menial manual labor that will not give them any marketable skills when by paying tax dollars for public education they can be taught to be productive and get a job and then pay for their own needs?



No, it isn't, because the OUTPUT of those people's productivity is GREATER than the INPUT they receive from tax-provided services. This is why our tax dollars has produced a modern sustainable society whereas other governments incapable of taking in government revenue, such as Latin American countries and African countries, are impoverished throughout.

Click to expand...

MOre BS-

and please address my main point

if people who have a majority of the votes do not feel any pain when the government raises taxes and spends irresponsibly, what incentive do those voters have to stop a government from growing and growing and growing when dem politicians promise them all sorts of handouts that others have to pay for.

we don't need that sort of power in the hands of congress and a flat tax or a sales tax still means the rich pay far more than they use

(BTW if you claim the rich pay less than they use, you have to find a group that pays far more than they use to balance it out--you cannot and its a fact that the top 5% of tax payers basically are paying far more than they use-the next 5-10% are basically breaking even and everyone below that uses more than they pay)

later, I have 8 hours of depositions tomorrow

TurtleDude said:

MOre BS-

and please address my main point

if people who have a majority of the votes do not feel any pain when the government raises taxes and spends irresponsibly, what incentive do those voters have to stop a government from growing and growing and growing when dem politicians promise them all sorts of handouts that others have to pay for.

we don't need that sort of power in the hands of congress and a flat tax or a sales tax still means the rich pay far more than they use

(BTW if you claim the rich pay less than they use, you have to find a group that pays far more than they use to balance it out--you cannot and its a fact that the top 5% of tax payers basically are paying far more than they use-the next 5-10% are basically breaking even and everyone below that uses more than they pay)

later, I have 8 hours of depositions tomorrow

Click to expand...

I will address your main point as soon as you address my main point that the productivity of people who receive government services, such as children going to public school and the disabled who receive prosthetics and other assistance contribute more to society than they take from tax dollars.

samsmart said:

I will address your main point as soon as you address my main point that the productivity of people who receive government services, such as children going to public school and the disabled who receive prosthetics and other assistance contribute more to society than they take from tax dollars.

Click to expand...

Care to show me where the federal government has the delegated authority in the Constitution to do those things?

The_Patriot said:

Care to show me where the federal government has the delegated authority in the Constitution to do those things?

Click to expand...

How about Article I Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

How about Article I Section 8.

Click to expand...

I give you James Madison and Thomas Jefferson about the use of general welfare in Article I Section VIII Clause I.

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Click to expand...

I follow up with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since those objects that samsmart pointed out are not enumerated in Article I Section VIII that means that Congress cannot pass laws or provide those things. Also, by the very definition of general welfare means that everyone has to have the benefit. Since those benefits are solely for certain classes of people then it is not general welfare, but special welfare to certain groups of people. General is defined in Webster's 1828 Dictionary as, "Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation." Welfare is defined from the same source as, "Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states." Thus, General Welfare literally means the enjoyment of peace and prosperity for the whole of the people.

TurtleDude said:

MOre BS-

and please address my main point

if people who have a majority of the votes do not feel any pain when the government raises taxes and spends irresponsibly, what incentive do those voters have to stop a government from growing and growing and growing when dem politicians promise them all sorts of handouts that others have to pay for.

we don't need that sort of power in the hands of congress and a flat tax or a sales tax still means the rich pay far more than they use

later, I have 8 hours of depositions tomorrow

Click to expand...

Turtledude,

Obviously progressive taxes have a redistributional effect. However, you must acknowlege everything the government does has distributive consequences.

Have fun working!

I have never once talked to a successful person who was in favor of the progressive tax. That system is designed for the losers to keep voting for higher taxes on the winners. It is totally ridiculous. Some folks may not like to here it, but there are people who are more important than others. That's just life. Honestly, America would be a better place if every person on welfare dropped dead.

A flat tax is the only answer.

A long, long time ago, a famous Frenchman made a voyage to America. He left us with a quote that contained a warning. However spooky it may be, it is unfortunately 100% accurate:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."- Alexis de Tocqueville

TurtleDude said:

It might be-sort of like the guy claiming he is a conservative yet he wants a massive death confiscation tax:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Or a guy claiming that he is conservative yet he thinks that he has some type of special right to the wealth of someone else.

samsmart said:

I will address your main point as soon as you address my main point that the productivity of people who receive government services, such as children going to public school and the disabled who receive prosthetics and other assistance contribute more to society than they take from tax dollars.

Click to expand...

Just curious, Mr. samsmart, what do you do for a living?

Is it safe to assume you are either a janitor, bus driver, garbage man, fast food line cook, or gasp, unemployed?

2000 said:

I have never once talked to a successful person who was in favor of the progressive tax. That system is designed for the losers to keep voting for higher taxes on the winners. It is totally ridiculous. Some folks may not like to here it, but there are people who are more important than others. That's just life. Honestly, America would be a better place if every person on welfare dropped dead.

A flat tax is the only answer.

A long, long time ago, a famous Frenchman made a voyage to America. He left us with a quote that contained a warning. However spooky it may be, it is unfortunately 100% accurate:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."- Alexis de Tocqueville

Click to expand...

Just because you have not personally talked to them does not mean that they do not exist. Call up Warren Buffet and ask him.

Of course people like Mr. Buffet would be in the minority. People try to protect whatever they have, so if someone is rich naturally they would prefer a tax system that benefits the rich - that should be of no surprise. That has no bearing as to whether or not a progressive tax system is right or wrong.

The concept that the "system is designed for the losers to keep voting for higher taxes on the winners" is totally rediculous. Since 1918 we have had 17 decreases in the top tax rate (although we have obviously had some increases also to finance wars and such). The middle class does vote on our tax system, the elite class does, I would scarcely call the elite "loosers".

2000 said:

Just curious, Mr. samsmart, what do you do for a living?

Is it safe to assume you are either a janitor, bus driver, garbage man, fast food line cook, or gasp, unemployed?

Click to expand...

No, it is not safe to assume any of those things.