AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 9:59:45 GMT -5
"It seems to be widely accepted that we have to keep an income tax," I am a liberal - although by saying that I have no idea what your definition of liberal is - however I do not accept that an income tax is something we have to keep for a balanced budget - I think we need to take an un-politicized look at what is taxed. You're not a liberal. I've known many people like you- they used to be my very good liberal friends. Now they're my conservative friends. It just took them awhile to realize they were conservative. Liberals want to destroy the means of production so nobody will want it and they can take it over. It's the classic strategy of destroying and devaluing the company so you can buy it cheap.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 21, 2011 10:01:29 GMT -5
If you have services from the government then, those services should be paid by the people - taxation without representation does not mean no taxation but, the unvoted type - the usurious.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 14:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 10:02:01 GMT -5
Morality is not black and white. It is not universally applicable.
Lets consider Maslow for a moment, and his hierarchy of needs, First physiological, Second safety and security, Third belonging and intimacy, Fourth self esteem and achievement, Last self actualization, creativity and spontineity...
Now this is not direct corelation... and $ can't buy everything, but i think we can agree that the more $ you have, generally speaking the easier it is to progress up the hierarchy.
I guess i don't think its MORAL to suggest that 'all people should give up 10% of what they have' ... if that 10% to someone is 10% of their physiological needs, so that someone else can have 90% of his self actualization desires fullfilled...
I can certainly give up 50% of my ability to self actualize... if it means that everyone has the ability to see their physiological, safety and security needs met, and have a shot at belonging...
So... after certain basics are funded... yeah, i think a higher percentage IS morally sound.
It is also symbiotic... in that seeing everyone's physicological and safety/security and to an extent belonging needs are met... helps to create a safer system for EVERYONE... people often fail to understand that social programs ARE protective of your assets..
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 21, 2011 10:04:24 GMT -5
We have to look to the bible to see what the moral tax rate should be.I think it says 10 percent.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,466
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 21, 2011 10:12:05 GMT -5
WCP are you not a man of faith? Doesn't it clearly state that "Give unto Ceaser what is his and give unto God what is his" or some such. Money is not to be revered and hoarded but simply a device of man. You shouldn't complain about giving this material (money) to the government. God loves you Piggy! And I thank Him you brought this up. WE THE PEOPLE are Ceasar here. The federal government is the palace servant. ALL MONEY is ours. ONLY what we allocate to our servants may be used by our servants. They have borrowed from our children and grandchildren- who did not authorize borrowing (borrowing IS taxing) and therefore it is taxation without representation, the very founding issue of the United States. Paul, I applaud your efforts to change the way things. The is the nature of the system. There is a problem with your argument above however. "WE THE PEOPLE" have been in control the whole time. We have hired and rehired the servants. We, through them, have borrowed. We are guilty, not they. Those that feel as you do have failed to convince, as is your civic responsibility, an adequate percentage of the voting population as to the correctness of your perspective. Possibly 2012 is the year that you are successful. We shall see. ;D
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jun 21, 2011 10:24:49 GMT -5
I saw an interesting item this past week. It was a tax form dated 1859 for a family that had a farm. the total tax which covered crop sales, mules etc. The tax bill was for $91 dollars and change. Now based on inflation what would that tax bill have been in todays dollars? Back then a loaf of bread cost a penny. My guess the farmer had difficulty pay that bill back then to.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jun 21, 2011 11:04:41 GMT -5
So the whole basis of your argument is because the church tithes 10%, the government should too? That would only work if they performed the same functions. Guess what, they don't. Defense alone is about 20% of our budget. So, when can we expect the Methodist Church to deliver those missiles? Any sign of the First Church of God giving us those stealth planes? And when are the Latter Day Saints going to build that bridge? Are the Evangelicals going to pave that road? Can we send the Catholic Church the tornado/wildfire bill? Add to that, the government is also taking care of the elderly, sick, and disabled. You know, the things the church did a while ago. So you're asking the government to do what churches did and a whole lot more. All on 10% and just a little more! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_BudgetStrange how you use the Bible as a basis, yet ignore its disdain for the wealthy. And you completely ignore unfair wages, but I'm used to Conservatives' selective fairness rants.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 14:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 11:39:17 GMT -5
Hey mkitty... i know that every time the potholes in my road need fixed, the church is very receptive to coming out and fixing them... although their sex crimes division is a little less developed than i'd like...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 21, 2011 11:56:41 GMT -5
Can we send the Catholic Church the tornado/wildfire bill?
No but many of the Catholic Churches in those burned out areas had a second collection at this past Sunday's Mass to help those who have lost everything in those horrific fires ..
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 11:58:13 GMT -5
There are two independent questions here. How much I can afford, and whether I agree with the use my tax dollars are put to. I can afford quite a bit in taxes. As it is I save roughly 60% of my gross income. That's a lot of savings which I will never need to use. It will get handed down to the next generation. So I can afford a lot more than the tax rates I am currently subject to. I don't think I need to save more than 25% of my gross income and as such can afford doubling of the current tax rates.
However for me it is very important that the govt doesn't tax me to spend the money on something I find ethically revolting. For example the trillion plus dollars spent in the wars in the past decade was a complete and utter waste of my tax dollars. So, I would start with a different premise. First I would like to see the whole outlays that the govt needs to make in ethically sound spending like public transportation, health, schooling, safety nets, research, arts, preserving the environment et cetra. Then I am happy to pay as much tax as needed provided I can still save about 25% of my gross.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 12:04:18 GMT -5
You can include a graduated income tax. You can say 0% for some people-- I'm just curious what your max is? If I make $5 million a year, can they take 50%? 75%? over a certain amount? I would argue it does not matter. That at some point-- for me it's 25% everything you earn no matter how much it is is YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY TO KEEP and government's job is to PROTECT it, not TAKE it. I don't know how to answer this because I don't really see taxation as a moral issue. I see the world much differently than you do. I don't think my way is better or worse than yours, just different. So, in theory there'd be nothing WRONG with 100% taxation? You're only concerned with the practical issues?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 21, 2011 12:04:44 GMT -5
I'm somewhere between God- who only needs 10% and 25% as the absolute maximum anyone should pay. Sounds good to me. Since the average income tax rate is aound 9%, then looks like we will be raising taxes on pretty much everyone. Even the highest 1% pays an average tax rate of 19%, so they won't need their taxes cut either because that doesn't break your 25% threshhold. Looks like taxes aren't too high after all, in fact they seem to be too low. 2006 data www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdfIf anyone has more recent data, please share.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 12:10:06 GMT -5
I'm somewhere between God- who only needs 10% and 25% as the absolute maximum anyone should pay. Sounds good to me. Since the average income tax rate is aound 9%, then looks like we will be raising taxes on pretty much everyone. Even the highest 1% pays an average tax rate of 19%, so they won't need their taxes cut either because that doesn't break your 25% threshhold. Looks like taxes aren't too high after all, in fact they seem to be too low. 2006 data www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdfIf anyone has more recent data, please share. Well, again- this thread isn't about the tax code per se. It's assumed that we are going to have an income tax-- graduated or not; and an inheritance or other wealth tax. The question is: At any point expressed as a percentage of one's wealth and income is it IMMORAL to take more than a given %? With respect to your post- I've been out and open about the fact we NEED a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE in my opinion. We can't have 47% of US Households with a 0% income tax liability and 80% of those households making a net profit from the tax code.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 12:11:34 GMT -5
I don't know how to answer this because I don't really see taxation as a moral issue. I see the world much differently than you do. I don't think my way is better or worse than yours, just different. So, in theory there'd be nothing WRONG with 100% taxation? You're only concerned with the practical issues? 100% taxation would be stupid because that would be akin to communism, and we all saw how that turned out. Wrong? I dunno. And yes, I am pretty much concerned with practicality. I can't help it, I'm just wired that way. My husband thinks I'm a Vulcan.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 21, 2011 12:12:29 GMT -5
WCP are you not a man of faith? Doesn't it clearly state that "Give unto Ceaser what is his and give unto God what is his" or some such. Money is not to be revered and hoarded but simply a device of man. You shouldn't complain about giving this material (money) to the government. God loves you Piggy! And I thank Him you brought this up. WE THE PEOPLE are Ceasar here. The federal government is the palace servant. ALL MONEY is ours. ONLY what we allocate to our servants may be used by our servants. They have borrowed from our children and grandchildren- who did not authorize borrowing (borrowing IS taxing) and therefore it is taxation without representation, the very founding issue of the United States. I have done everything I can to stay out of this, I just find certain things Wrong with what is being said. We are not the Government, we are not the Ceasers of Christs time, that would be the elected representatives. What does the bible say about Christians and Elected Officials, We can start in Romans 13: 3-6 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Next we can take a walk into 1 Peter 2:13-15 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. As a Christian, you are expected to no matter what follow the laws as they are placed before you, as long as the laws do not violate God's law, Which Jesus said is to Love God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength and to love your neighbor as yourself, for off these hang all the laws and prophets. So your bible actually instructs you to not bad mouth those who are placed in elected positions, to follow the rules and guidelines that are set, and to happily pay your taxes. I do not get how people who claim to be Christian can't understand the writings in there most holy of books.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 12:13:50 GMT -5
::We can't have 47% of US Households with a 0% income tax liability and 80% of those households making a net profit from the tax code::
I agree with you on that. I never pondered the "morality" of it, all I know is that people like to vote themselves benefits they dont' have to pay for.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 21, 2011 12:24:00 GMT -5
Although he could be gay and is just hiding it. Who really knows? Unless you were born from test tube love, wouldn't that make him bi?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 14:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 12:25:00 GMT -5
Although he could be gay and is just hiding it. Who really knows? Unless you were born from test tube love, wouldn't that make him bi? I guess it depends on how you define someone who is gay or bisexual.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 21, 2011 12:28:47 GMT -5
Looks like I can violate 25% of the ten commandments but still reserve a place in Heaven. Since all my sins will be forgiven, I'm going to violate them all. I might violate the ones I enjoy, a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 21, 2011 12:29:28 GMT -5
"You're not a liberal. I've known many people like you- they used to be my very good liberal friends. Now they're my conservative friends. It just took them awhile to realize they were conservative.
Liberals want to destroy the means of production so nobody will want it and they can take it over. It's the classic strategy of destroying and devaluing the company so you can buy it cheap. "
I will still be happy to be your liberal friend--I have not met a liberal who wants to destroy the means of production. I would say that the conservatives have truly destroyed the means of production in this country through housing bubble on speculation aided by the monied elite (mostly conservative republicans or right wing) - No offense but, I don't like to see our country become a jungle law state.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 12:30:16 GMT -5
Looks like I can violate 25% of the ten commandments but still reserve a place in Heaven. Since all my sins will be forgiven, I'm going to violate them all. I might violate the ones I enjoy, a bit more. I'm gonna make the most of sloth, gluttony, and lust.
|
|
Taxman10
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 15:12:43 GMT -5
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Taxman10 on Jun 21, 2011 12:31:19 GMT -5
Since all my sins will be forgiven, I'm going to violate them all. I might violate the ones I enjoy, a bit more. I'm gonna make the most of sloth, gluttony, and lust. you sound like my kind of woman!! :-) let's start with the lust!!
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 12:34:44 GMT -5
It would indeed be nifty if one could device a morality compass, that surely and soundly proclaims that 13.7625% is the cutoff where additional taxation becomes immoral. That however is not feasible for two reasons. One, personal moralities vary. Two, and this is important, personal situations vary.
I have found that debating personal moralities is an exercise in futility. So I will focus on the personal situation.
Let's say there was indeed a morality compass that was infallible, and it spit out a certain percentage of "moral" taxation. Now, this percentage applied uniformly to the whole population will result in different levels of after tax income compared to cost of living. To illustrate this, let's say $10,000 per family member is need to maintain the average American middle class cost of living. Let's also say that 10% is what the morality compass recommended.
Now compare two families. Both are single income, husbands work, wives stay home, and husbands earn $25,000/year. However, only one of the families have a kid. The other is childless.
Now, one family will have a lower standard of living than the other under this flat, moral taxation. While one will have a disposable income of $2,500. The other will have a shortage in annual budget of $7,500. How is this moral?
One argument could be that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them. It is a matter of personal responsibility to live within ones means. Trouble with that argument is that it has a long term consequence because people will either choose to not have kids, or choose to have kids but the kids won't have the adequate resources needed to grow up to be productive members of society. Down the line, society will suffer.
I haven't even compared someone making a $1M/year to these two families.
That's why countries like America have long had progressive taxation instead of flat taxation. The appropriate level of taxation depends on the personal family situation. Morality in other words is relative.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 12:38:25 GMT -5
Swap, I hope this line of reasoning will appeal to your vulcan sensibilities and make you see why progressive taxation is necessary for the well being of the country as a whole.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 21, 2011 12:38:48 GMT -5
>>And when are the Latter Day Saints going to build that bridge? Are the Evangelicals going to pave that road? Can we send the Catholic Church the tornado/wildfire bill?<< The ironic thing here is that Obama borrowed over $800 billion from future generations and many of those bridges are still not built, and many of those roads are still not paved. So much for Caesar's lying ass....
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 12:41:59 GMT -5
Swap, I hope this line of reasoning will appeal to your vulcan sensibilities and make you see why progressive taxation is necessary for the well being of the country as a whole. I never said it wasn't............... I think the people who play $0, or get the EITC need to have some skin the the game too, even it's only a $1.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 21, 2011 12:43:11 GMT -5
>>One argument could be that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them. It is a matter of personal responsibility to live within ones means. Trouble with that argument is that it has a long term consequence because people will either choose to not have kids, or choose to have kids but the kids won't have the adequate resources needed to grow up to be productive members of society. Down the line, society will suffer.<<
And there is yet another argument...the family with children are given a lesser tax burden, even given additional money from the work of others, and their children still grow up to be non-productive members of society. So the money that was taken from productive society was wasted because nothing was ever done to make sure those resources were even effective. This does not allow society to prosper, now does it?
Good intentions are all well and good, but the results are what ultimately effect society.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 21, 2011 12:51:43 GMT -5
I'm gonna make the most of sloth, gluttony, and lust. I was browsing the Amazon store and just found something interesting. I never realized this was just a theory so I'm conducting an extensive, in-depth theoretical study of a Sigmund Freud.....
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 13:00:07 GMT -5
Forcing everyone to pay a symbolic $1 in minimum taxation when the cost of processing the taxation is far higher than $1 makes me wonder, Swamp, as to whether that would be the right thing to do.
jkapp, it is certainly possible that the kids grow up to be unproductive citizens anyway. But it is highly probable that in lieu of resources the kids will grow up to be unproductive citizens. Since no one knows that future, I personally prefer to go with the highly probable than the certainly possible.
There is also a lot of case examples here. If you look at countries that have huge resource gaps between the rich and the poor, like in South America, their overall performance is horrible. If you look at countries that have very low resource gap between the rich and the poor, like in Europe, their overall performance is very good. USA is currently somewhere in the middle, trending towards South America, and as a whole has been doing less well at the same time.
To me this is very worrisome.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 13:03:13 GMT -5
::Forcing everyone to pay a symbolic $1 in minimum taxation when the cost of processing the taxation is far higher than $1 makes me wonder, Swamp, as to whether that would be the right thing to do.::
I wonder too. I never said I have all the answers, and I recognize that complex problems require complex solutions. I dont see the world in black and white, I see one big blur of shades of gray.
I recognize that $1 tax on everyone would be a nightmare to process, but when half the population doesn't have an income tax liability, it's contributing to our fiscal problems.
I'm just some random chick on a message board, not the savior of the US.
|
|