- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,054
- Reaction score
- 58,730
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
you certainly have - the last time we had this discussion you merely zoomed in on the variation within the range to demonstrate that collection does, in fact, fluctuate.
So this is going to be your attempt to get the upper hand? I have supported my arguments and if you wish to avoid that fact, go ahead.
when the top rate was lowered, all rates were lowered. and your claim that "of course lowing the top tax rate is going to have some effect on overall revenues" remains unsubstantiated in the negative sense though we do have some substantiation in the positive sense:
and the problem with that graph is that it also does not show the distribution of income, so no real parallels can be made between your two points.
so here is the unfortunate fact. as tax rates were dramatically lowered for all taxpayers, revenue actually climbed slightly as a measure of GDP. Not enough to push it out of the historical range, but enough to push us to the upper side of it. This utterly invalidates the claim that revenues are merely a function of rates - had that been he case then revenues would have fallen as dramatically as the rates did - or at least they would have fallen at all.
Thank you. You have actually made a claim that is supported with demonstrated data. I will have to think on it.
on the contrary, our current tax code is stupid, and it is immoral. Our tax code punishes people for saving and investing (which is economically beneficial) and rewards them for going into debt in order to consume (which is economically harmful). It punishes people for getting married and forming stable families in which to raise children. It discourages new business formation and investment. It encourages malinvestment and helps to feed bubbles. On top of all that, it costs us a huge amount of money to maintain. We could fight four wars the size of Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have enough left to fund the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the EPA; just on the cost of compliance alone.
It's been well-bandied about that 45% of households don't pay income taxes. Another figure - slightly less known - is that 6 out of 10 households now receive more money from the Federal Government than they pay in taxes, so the 45% actually understates the matter. Not only should I not pay my fair share of government, it seems, I should have you cover my share, and then I think I should have you pay me a little something extra on the side. The US has the most progressive tax structure in the industrialized world. (I know, it surprised me too.) Now, a progressive tax code is supposed to have the wealthy pay more than the middle class or the poor as a percent of their income. I get that, and I get the basic notion of fairness behind it. But it also strikes me that the basic "fairness" of such a system depends on the middle class and poor actually paying something. Not as much as the rich, but something. Even if it's just one percent, you should pay something on tax day rather than looking forward to it as a day when the government sends you a big ole fat check.
Instead we've allowed our politicians to turn our progressive tax structure into a weapon of class warfare, and rewarded them for encouraging us to use it to try to take from others. Our tax code encourages dependency on government rather than self-reliance. It encourages us to turn on each other and form opposing blocs seeking to suck each other dry rather than fostering a sense of national unity and a belief that we are each helping to pay for the necessary costs of government. Look at you in this thread - you aren't pushing ways that you can earn more, you are pushing for ways that you can seek out hunt down and force more out of someone else because there are more of you than there are of them. Politicians can take advantage of people who are convinced that Someone Is Out To Get Them, and they can take advantage of people who think that They Can Get Something For Nothing; but it's harder for them to take advantage of people who are convinced that What We Need Is To Come Together To Have Responsible Governance. Our tax code doesn't just hurt our poor (who stand the most to lose from the economic losses it encourages), it doesn't just hurt our national pocketbook, it hurts our soul. It encourages greed, grift, lying, and cheating in the average man and woman. People who would never steal from their neighbor's house are tempted and encouraged by the complexity and messaging of the system to steal from him by taking advantage of the tax code to minimize their burden and increase his. It weakens what it means to be American, to be in something together, to take care of your own costs and be responsible for your own self. It weakens our sense of community by setting us against each other and putting us into a zero-sum game of I-win-You-lose. Instead of everyone seeking to combine our forces to produce good governance, the tax code has become a way for us to take from each other.
I do agree (and always have), that a simplification of the tax code is in order, or at least using the tax code to promote things that are beneficial to society rather than special interests alone. However, that is a function of the various tax exemptions we have allowed into our tax code, rather than, the progressive nature of the income tax itself. In fact thinking about it, that may be another thing wrong with your graph, does it show these exemptions? Perhaps having a simplified code that allows for people to cheat (and there is a difference between a simple mortgage deduction or a deduction for what people do anyway in their normals lives and economic activity primarily aimed at reducing tax burden but does not help them otherwise, the latter is cheating) is the nature of the problem more than anything else.
well, it's probably to do with the fact that individuals pay taxes, and are effected by the tax code and the cost of business in general. for example, i know several families who will be out of work the day after the EPA passes it's own version of Cap-and-Trade (if it ever does so), and the taxes inherent in Obamacare will have a similar effect (which is why so many businesses are so eager to get exemptions). If you don't make enough to think that you are effected by it, then of course you don't look at it as a personal issue - but those who get screwed of course are.
yeah! hunt them down right? make 'em squeal! how dare they try to minimize their tax burden, as if they were normal people, just like everyone else?
:lol: but no. It's tax avoidance. tax evasion is illegal. we are not yet communist china, and it is not yet illegal for people to move without the permission of the government. though we shall see how the Boeing case works out.
If people are going to benefit from a society that allows them the opportunity to benefit, then yes, they are obligated to support it. Even if it is largely their own actions that made them a success, the fact that they were born into a country with great infrastructure to support and multiply their efforts is reason alone. Because of this, we have to look at this from a macro level so that we can further enrich ourselves through good policy. So, yes, if people want to cheat from their obligation, they lose their moral right to claim they are being unduly harmed.