djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 13:07:22 GMT -5
Conservatives are going to win the green-eyeshade discussion every time. Conservatives have FACTS on their side. But there's something else even more powerful than the facts- and that is that conservatives are objectively, morally correct on taxation. The argument from the left whenever the idea of cutting spending comes up is usually a MORAL argument. Their argument is that the spending is morally justified- that their goal of being compassionate towards so-called 'needy' people outweighs the fiscal concerns and so the rest of us who know better should just roll over. But how compassionate is it to those from whom the money is taken at the point of a gun? What percenatage of a person's wealth and income can be confiscated before it becomes a crime? So, we're not going to discuss who should pay what here. We're not going to discuss the stimulative effect of low taxes, and a lighter burden of government. So, no arguments about if you take so much- it'll disincentivize work and risk taking. Again, we know the facts. What I want to know is where our HEARTS are on this topic-- how much can the government take? We're also NOT going to discuss the type of taxation-- for our purposes we're sticking to income (income taxes) and wealth (inheritance, and other asset-based taxes that may or may not be levied) I want to know- PURELY AS A PERCENTAGE what everyone thinks is MORALLY right, and at what point AS A PERCENTAGE the government has taken too much? I'm somewhere between God- who only needs 10% and 25% as the absolute maximum anyone should pay. I think we could probably settle on 15% before I'd get my eyebrows raised. 25% is too high, but I think could be justified. Over 25% is tyrannical theft. oh joy. someone who thinks the concept of a social contract is immoral. lovely.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 2:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 13:09:51 GMT -5
I don't think Freud's theories on sex will be as invigorating as you hope... way too much toilet training and mommies involved for most people's likes...
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 21, 2011 13:16:41 GMT -5
Maybe an income tax and business tax is the problem - maybe we should tie income to a wealth building activity and stop taxing it - instead tax that which does not build wealth through capital and labor - speculation, privalege etc. Anyone who eats and breathes has a tax liability buryed in the products consumed.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 13:19:56 GMT -5
Swamp, Once again, I would prefer to talk numbers. The median US household income is $44,000 approximately. There are about 100M households in the USA. Let's assume the average tax rate is increased by 5% for those below the median. That would raise additional $110B in tax revenue, peanuts compared to the total $2.5T tax revenue (before the crash). Not even close to helping with the fiscal problems. However, this will increase the hardship on these families tremendously. Doesn't seem either practical or ethical to me. Seems rather spiteful, however. But that's just me.
|
|
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 13:21:24 GMT -5
Swamp, Once again, I would prefer to talk numbers. The median US household income is $44,000 approximately. There are about 100M households in the USA. Let's assume the average tax rate is increased by 5% for those below the median. That would raise additional $110B in tax revenue, peanuts compared to the total $2.5T tax revenue (before the crash). Not even close to helping with the fiscal problems. However, this will increase the hardship on these families tremendously. Doesn't seem either practical or ethical to me. Seems rather spiteful, however. But that's just me. OK. But if they already pay 0% tax, a 5% increase isn't going to hurt..............
|
|
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 13:28:00 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. As problematic as it might / might not be, cost wise I'll go out on a limb and say it would be a savings. Even with our current tax code, you still have cost involved proving the income level of anyone that files along with the additional cost of actually sending them money for their efforts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 2:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 13:38:16 GMT -5
I think that we really need to re-think the EITC. I am not saying that the funding stream should necessary go away, but i don't think it should be part of the tax code... its too hidden, to easy for people to think of it as 'their money' ... without realizing they have a negative tax liability. To be sure i'm not saying i think some people shouldn't have a 0 income tax liability ... or even that some shouldn't get help beyond that, but the hidden aspect further skews the whole issue ..
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 13:40:41 GMT -5
Swamp, I am not really sure I understand what current taxation rate has to do with ability to pay. If you are making $20,000/year and supporting a family on that, $1000 is a lot of money. I think rich people who actually CAN afford a 5% tax hike often forget how hard it is to do the same for the poor.
|
|
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 13:40:45 GMT -5
I think the EITC is a bunch of crap and should be abolished.
|
|
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 13:43:02 GMT -5
I am still waiting for Paul to deal with the exact biblical wording of elected members and Taxation that I outlined in message #44.
|
|
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 13:44:43 GMT -5
Swamp, I am not really sure I understand what current taxation rate has to do with ability to pay. If you are making $20,000/year and supporting a family on that, $1000 is a lot of money. I think rich people who actually CAN afford a 5% tax hike often forget how hard it is to do the same for the poor. I understand it just fine, thanks. I live in a very rural poor area and know lots of poor people. In fact, I represent plenty of them. Are you getting that I'm not advocating any certain specific plan? I don't think so. My only point is that a large percentage of our population does not pay income taxes and it's detrimental to the country's well being.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 14:35:03 GMT -5
I do agree that a large part of the population pays 0% or negative income tax. My point is that trying to get them to pay something is far more detrimental to the country's well being than the benefit received from such taxes, which is minuscule compared to the total total tax revenue, but very substantial for this group of people who will take a real hit. I am a strong supporter of EITC. Welfare has a stigma. It shouldn't, but it does. EITC takes away that stigma.
If $110B is going to make a real difference in the fiscal health of the country, a far more effective way is to raise taxes on the top 2% of families who make more than $250k in income. Let's do the math again. There are about 100M US families, so we need to tax 2M of these. The average income of the top 1% is in excess of $1M/year. So, the whole income base is about $2T. We need to raise $110B, so the taxes for these folks need to go up by 5.5%. Same tax rate hike, but impact 1/25th of the population, and a segment who can actually afford it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 2:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 14:39:08 GMT -5
I think EITC actually could be positive for the Republicans. Because most people who receive one, that i know anyway, don't see it as assistance. They see it as 'their money' ... and its 'those other folks' .. who are the lazy, deadbeats scamming the govmnt... Contrary to popular believe, most of the poor people on assistance i know vote Republican... AGAINST their own interests... and i think this is one of the reasons. I don't think we should change it to change thier actions/opinions, but so they at least make an informed choice...
Fine... don't tell the paying kids about the kid who gets free lunches, so there is no stigma... but don't make it so that the parents don't realize they are getting free lunch....
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 14:46:24 GMT -5
Politics is interesting in the USA. Most of the rich people I know vote Democrat, again against their own financial self-interest. If the Republicans could get rid of the social conservatives, a lot of these folks would turn Republican in a hurry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 2:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 14:49:07 GMT -5
I vote dem, and while it does mean i might pay more taxes, i do not think it is against my self-interests... I think it is in all of our best interests to have a stable republic with a social safety net...
And yes, what really keeps me away is the social conservatism...
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 14:52:01 GMT -5
Incidentally, I tend to think of tax policy outside of my politics. I prefer to have a tax policy that would improve my earnings power. The current recession has not impacted me - yet. It may very well, and I would prefer to have the USA return to the growth years under Clinton. I do believe that severe erosion in purchasing power of the working poor is a large driver of the difficulty in coming out of the recession, and I would rather not make the situation worse by increasing the tax burden of the poor.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 21, 2011 14:54:04 GMT -5
>>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.<<
IMO, the CULTURAL gap is the determining factor in those two examples...not the wealth gap. And it doesn't sound like Greece is having as good a time with their lower wealth gap, now does it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 2:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 14:59:18 GMT -5
FYI, cotes.. your fly is down.. sshhhhhh...
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 21, 2011 14:59:33 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. Actually it is the greed of money that is evil, not the money that you have earned through hard work.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 21, 2011 15:07:20 GMT -5
Incidentally, I tend to think of tax policy outside of my politics. I prefer to have a tax policy that would improve my earnings power. The current recession has not impacted me - yet. It may very well, and I would prefer to have the USA return to the growth years under Clinton. I do believe that severe erosion in purchasing power of the working poor is a large driver of the difficulty in coming out of the recession, and I would rather not make the situation worse by increasing the tax burden of the poor. One way for it to return to growth like the Clinton years is to come up with something big like the Internet with the ecomm. If you do the economy will still come back down after it has utilized most of it's efficiency. If Clinton didn't have the great tech burst, the economy growth would not have overwritten the ridiculous spending by our congress.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 15:07:57 GMT -5
The issue in Greek is quite different. It is a problem imposed solely by the common currency, as Greece lost the monetary policy lever when it joined the Euro group. Otherwise Greece would pump massive amounts of capital in the domestic economy (like the USA is doing) to come out of a recession.
I would like to know more about the culture gap, jkapp.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 21, 2011 15:26:39 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. Your not our savior? Darn, now I have to take down that shrine
|
|
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 15:32:37 GMT -5
::Darn, now I have to take down that shrine::
You're still free to worship me.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 15:32:54 GMT -5
reasonforfreedom, It is unlikely that the Clinton boom was because of the high tech bubble. That was less than 15% of the economy. The reason for growth was the steady decrease in the budget deficit till it turned to a surplus. Without the tax increases made by Clinton, that would not have been possible. I paid higher taxes then, but my income also increased at a much faster pace. I was not part of the tech bubble in any way.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 21, 2011 15:36:30 GMT -5
reasonforfreedom, It is unlikely that the Clinton boom was because of the high tech bubble. That was less than 15% of the economy. The reason for growth was the steady decrease in the budget deficit till it turned to a surplus. Without the tax increases made by Clinton, that would not have been possible. I paid higher taxes then, but my income also increased at a much faster pace. I was not part of the tech bubble in any way. He never closed the gap...he filled in his holes in the budget by "borrowing" from SS. He "borrowed" nearly a trillion dollars from the SS "trust" fund during his reign.
|
|
|
Post by illegalimmigrant on Jun 21, 2011 15:46:24 GMT -5
That is not quite true. It is indeed true that Social Security continued to buy US bonds. But that has been the case since the beginning of Social Security. It is, in fact, a legal requirement. Social Security must buy govt bonds, that is. So, while other Presidents, like Bush I, Bush II, Regan etc. had a budget deficit while "borrowing" from the SS Fund at the same rate as Clinton, Clinton actually had a budget surplus.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 21, 2011 15:52:07 GMT -5
I thought multinicking was a CoC violation here. Is that another "conservatives only" rule?
|
|
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 15:53:23 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.. I am really trying to be clear as a bell here- you can graduate a scale. You can do whatever you want to it. How much is too much-- as a percentage-- on moral principle. Let's call it the next dollar after $1 billion. Can you take 80% of that, or is there some percent that's just always wrong no matter how much a person has? I say there is. I say, on principle that people own what they earn. I don't care if it's $100 billion dollars- no more than 25%, and that makes me cringe just to say that. I'm much more comfortable at 10% to 15%
|
|
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 15:55:04 GMT -5
reasonforfreedom, It is unlikely that the Clinton boom was because of the high tech bubble. That was less than 15% of the economy. The reason for growth was the steady decrease in the budget deficit till it turned to a surplus. Without the tax increases made by Clinton, that would not have been possible. I paid higher taxes then, but my income also increased at a much faster pace. I was not part of the tech bubble in any way. I really don't want to have the tax debate- and this is debatable. I want to know how much is too much? What is the limit of taxation? Is there a point at which it is morally wrong to take more than X% ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 2:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 15:55:41 GMT -5
50%.
|
|