Fairness

[MtnBiker]

What is fair? And who should decide what is fair for each of us?

Some people in this country pay a 14% tax rate. Some people pay a 30% tax rate. Should all people pay 30% or should all people pay 14%?

Is it fair that some people freely and willingly give alot to charity and some people give very little to charity?

[krisy]

What is fair? And who should decide what is fair for each of us?

Some people in this country pay a 14% tax rate. Some people pay a 30% tax rate. Should all people pay 30% or should all people pay 14%?

Is it fair that some people freely and willingly give alot to charity and some people give very little to charity?


I think the fairest thing I've heard is a flat tax. 30 sounds awful high and I bet this country could function just fine with under 20. Just quit giving able bodied people section 8 housing and funding research on why crickets chirp and it should work :)

[gabosaurus]

What is fair? And who should decide what is fair for each of us?

Some people in this country pay a 14% tax rate. Some people pay a 30% tax rate. Should all people pay 30% or should all people pay 14%?

Is it fair that some people freely and willingly give alot to charity and some people give very little to charity?

Life is not fair. You should know this by now.
The less money you earn, the fewer taxes you should pay. Because you are much closer to the break even point than someone who earns more.
My husband and I are near the top of the tax bracket. Obviously, we should pay more. Because we can.
Why does it baffle so many people that those who make a million per year should pay more taxes than those who make $10,000 per year?
Politicians (primarily Republicans) believe both groups should pay the same tax rate. Why? Because those who earn $10,000 per year don't make political contributions. Thus, they are worthless to those who make the laws.

[CSM]

Life is not fair. You should know this by now.
The less money you earn, the fewer taxes you should pay. Because you are much closer to the break even point than someone who earns more.
My husband and I are near the top of the tax bracket. Obviously, we should pay more. Because we can.
Why does it baffle so many people that those who make a million per year should pay more taxes than those who make $10,000 per year?
Politicians (primarily Republicans) believe both groups should pay the same tax rate. Why? Because those who earn $10,000 per year don't make political contributions. Thus, they are worthless to those who make the laws.

Guess how much federal income tax someone making $10,000 per year pays!

[ConHog]

Guess how much federal income tax someone making $10,000 per year pays!

Oh , believe me, another component of "fairness" in my mind is that 47% of the population would suddenly find themselves paying SOMETHING in income tax, burns me up that we actually have people who MAKE money off the income tax system.

I'm just saying that IF the government wanted to make a case that it could and should take extra from those who are earning obscene amounts of money, then I'd be okay with that IF those people truly are making it off the backs of the working poor. I'm not talking about small businesses. Most small business owners aren't making $20M while paying employees $12K a year. That's the sole province of corporate CEO types of companies like Exxon or IBM. And that isn't right, capitalism be damned.

[fj1200]

Why does it baffle so many people that those who make a million per year should pay more taxes than those who make $10,000 per year?
Politicians (primarily Republicans) believe both groups should pay the same tax rate. Why? Because those who earn $10,000 per year don't make political contributions. Thus, they are worthless to those who make the laws.

Psst. They do pay more taxes.

Only you would think same rate =/= fair. Besides the same marginal rate does not mean the same overall rate.


And that isn't right, capitalism be damned.

So, you would like to be appointed to the Just Compensation Board and be given the authority of determining pay rates? Why am I not surprised.


What is fair?

Fairness in opportunity or fairness in outcome?

[ConHog]

So, you would like to be appointed to the Just Compensation Board and be given the authority of determining pay rates? Why am I not surprised.

Is that what I said at all?

Nope. I just think that IF a CEO is making $20M a year while he has employees of his are on welfare b/c of their low wages then that welfare should be paid by HIM, in the form of higher taxes. Said CEO can make $80M a year for a all I care, as long as he's willing to pay the higher tax rate if he's using lower paid employees.

I don't make 100X what any employees make so why should I have to subsidize his greed?

I could fix social security as well. Anyone who in the last 5 years of their earning career averaged $1M in salary. Thanks for the donations, you're ineligible to receive social security benefits.


Psst. They do pay more taxes.

Only you would think same rate =/= fair. Besides the same marginal rate does not mean the same overall rate.

An income tax will never be fair. But it's probably not ever going anywhere. I would PREFER a national sales tax.

[fj1200]

^^:shakes head: The CEO does pay higher taxes. Do you realize that tax rates do not determine tax revenues​? Macroeconomically speaking of course.

[ConHog]

^^:shakes head: The CEO does pay higher taxes. Do you realize that tax rates do not determine tax revenues​? Macroeconomically speaking of course.



I realize he pays higher taxes, I'm saying I'd raise them more. I would also raise the levels of people who pay nothing. This would ease the burden on the middle class by getting more from both ends.

[fj1200]

I realize he pays higher taxes, I'm saying I'd raise them more. I would also raise the levels of people who pay nothing. This would ease the burden on the middle class by getting more from both ends.

Ahem.


Do you realize that tax rates do not determine tax revenues​? Macroeconomically speaking of course.

They pay enough. You also presume that them paying more will have ANY effect down the line.

[ConHog]

Ahem.



They pay enough. You also presume that them paying more will have ANY effect down the line.

Enough is of course subjective FJ. The poor who don't pay anything probably feel they pay enough to. I disagree with them as well.

[gabosaurus]

I realize he pays higher taxes, I'm saying I'd raise them more. I would also raise the levels of people who pay nothing. This would ease the burden on the middle class by getting more from both ends.

A lot of the people who pay nothing don't earn enough to pay taxes. Do you really want someone who makes less than $10,000 to pay more taxes?

Also, a lot of very wealthy people pay next to nothing. Due primarily to tax credits and shelters. I know this because my husband advises some of them.

[jimnyc]

A lot of the people who pay nothing don't earn enough to pay taxes. Do you really want someone who makes less than $10,000 to pay more taxes?

Also, a lot of very wealthy people pay next to nothing. Due primarily to tax credits and shelters. I know this because my husband advises some of them.

But a "flat tax" would STILL leave the wealthier "paying more", that's what so many can't comprehend. Let's assume we had a 20% flat tax for all:

You and hubby make a total of $150k per year = $30k in taxes

A family making $50k per year = $10k in taxes

Sounds fair to me.

[ConHog]

A lot of the people who pay nothing don't earn enough to pay taxes. Do you really want someone who makes less than $10,000 to pay more taxes?

Also, a lot of very wealthy people pay next to nothing. Due primarily to tax credits and shelters. I know this because my husband advises some of them.

Yes, I want the guy who makes $10K paying SOMETHING. WHo cares if its $10? At least they are paying in SOMETHING. Especially given that those are the very people who use most of the entitlements, so called entitlements that is.

and certainly you agree that NO ONE should be earning money from the income tax system? Just pisses me off when some ass claims they have a refund of $X coming back and then they giggle that they didn't even pay anything in. And that happens ALL the time.

47% in this country pay NOTHING, surely you aren't naive enough to believe that 47% of the people in this country earn below the poverty line?


But a "flat tax" would STILL leave the wealthier "paying more", that's what so many can't comprehend. Let's assume we had a 20% flat tax for all:

You and hubby make a total of $150k per year = $30k in taxes

A family making $50k per year = $10k in taxes

Sounds fair to me.

I prefer a national sales tax at the retail level. You buy something, you pay tax on it. You purchase something abroad and bring it here, you pay taxes on it. You are in complete control of how much tax you pay.


no deductions, no credits, no loopholes, no nothing.

[CSM]

I prefer a national sales tax at the retail level. You buy something, you pay tax on it. You purchase something abroad and bring it here, you pay taxes on it. You are in complete control of how much tax you pay.


no deductions, no credits, no loopholes, no nothing.

I'd much rather invade another country like Saudi Arabia, steal all their stuff (yep, including oil) and use all their resources, give US manufacturers as much as they need/want then get the heck out and move on to the next country. No need for taxes and eventually we end up ruling the known universe!

[ConHog]

I'd much rather invade another country like Saudi Arabia, steal all their stuff (yep, including oil) and use all their resources, give US manufacturers as much as they need/want then get the heck out and move on to the next country. No need for taxes and eventually we end up ruling the known universe!

LOL

I said in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, we should have drove up kicked down the Iraq sign at the border , hung up a HUGE neon Exxon sign, gave every Iraq a blue smock and a slurpee and put them to work producing oil for us. They would have been too busy and too tired to be insurgents.

[gabosaurus]

I prefer a national sales tax at the retail level. You buy something, you pay tax on it. You purchase something abroad and bring it here, you pay taxes on it. You are in complete control of how much tax you pay.


no deductions, no credits, no loopholes, no nothing.

You don't believe that would bring down sales?
I believe that those who make below a certain level of income shouldn't have additional burdens placed upon them. And I don't get the ideas that those above a certain income level shouldn't pay more. The "job providers" do a good job of finding way to pay fewer taxes. Taking away their loopholes would merely put them more in line with average folks who don't have access to such methods.

[Trigg]

You don't believe that would bring down sales?
I believe that those who make below a certain level of income shouldn't have additional burdens placed upon them. And I don't get the ideas that those above a certain income level shouldn't pay more. The "job providers" do a good job of finding way to pay fewer taxes. Taking away their loopholes would merely put them more in line with average folks who don't have access to such methods.


Honestly the more you post the less I believe that you work with low income children in the school system. I work in healthcare and the people who come in on welfair are the ones who smell like smoke and look like they've been on a three day bender. Guess what, smokes and booze cost money, but those people would rather spend their money on that than diapers or formula.

Almost half the damn population of this country doesn't pay ANY TAXES. These people know how to work the system and they do a great job of keeping their income just below the cut off point so they continue collecting these benefits.

The middle class is being screwed over. The rich can afford everything and the poor have everything given to them including free food, free education, free healthcare and on the radio today free tax processing.

If you do the right thing in this country and get married before having kids, go to school and only have kids you can afford you're an idiot/sucker so much for morals and a sense of responsibility

[Abbey Marie]

LOL

I said in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, we should have drove up kicked down the Iraq sign at the border , hung up a HUGE neon Exxon sign, gave every Iraq a blue smock and a slurpee and put them to work producing oil for us. They would have been too busy and too tired to be insurgents.

Racist! :laugh2:

[ConHog]

You don't believe that would bring down sales?
I believe that those who make below a certain level of income shouldn't have additional burdens placed upon them. And I don't get the ideas that those above a certain income level shouldn't pay more. The "job providers" do a good job of finding way to pay fewer taxes. Taking away their loopholes would merely put them more in line with average folks who don't have access to such methods.

No, I don't think it would cut down sales. not by any appreciable amount.

And a sales tax WOULD get rid of all the loopholes. It would be FAIR to everyone. YOU only seem concerned with making sure the poor don't have to pay anything.

[fj1200]

Enough is of course subjective FJ. The poor who don't pay anything probably feel they pay enough to. I disagree with them as well.

Thus your politicking for the Just Compensation Board. Government tax policy should raise revenue not determine someone's subjective definition of "fair" or social engineering.


Also, a lot of very wealthy people pay next to nothing. Due primarily to tax credits and shelters. I know this because my husband advises some of them.

I wasn't aware you supported the FairTax; good on 'ya.

[ConHog]

Thus your politicking for the Just Compensation Board. Government tax policy should raise revenue not determine someone's subjective definition of "fair" or social engineering.



I wasn't aware you supported the FairTax; good on 'ya.

Incorrect. I am not politicking for anyone to have any sorts of limits on their income. If a company feels a CEO is worth $20M a year, then pay him that, but his tax rate is going to rise relative to how much more he makes than the lowest paid employee in the company.

FJ you can't possibly convince me that you truly think it is a good thing when the CEO of a company is raking in millions while hundreds if not thousands of their employees are on government assistance because THEY don't get paid enough to make it without it. Why shouldn't said CEO have to pay a little more in taxes to help offset that assistance? And if in the process the CEO decides he'd rather decrease his own taxes and give the money directly to his employees himself all the better.

Is that using taxes to do a bit of social justice? Probably, but who gives a shit, we use government rules and regulations to push a little social justice all the time, and as long as people are involved straight capitalism will always need a little tempering.

[shockwave]

Is that what I said at all?

Nope. I just think that IF a CEO is making $20M a year while he has employees of his are on welfare b/c of their low wages then that welfare should be paid by HIM, in the form of higher taxes. Said CEO can make $80M a year for a all I care, as long as he's willing to pay the higher tax rate if he's using lower paid employees.

I don't make 100X what any employees make so why should I have to subsidize his greed?

I could fix social security as well. Anyone who in the last 5 years of their earning career averaged $1M in salary. Thanks for the donations, you're ineligible to receive social security benefits.
Apparently you lack even a basic understanding of economics. But from whay I have read nobody ever said you did.

[jimnyc]

Apparently you lack even a basic understanding of economics. But from whay I have read nobody ever said you did.

Do "we" know you from somewhere, or do you know ConHog from elsewhere? Just an odd first post is why I ask...

[ConHog]

Do "we" know you from somewhere, or do you know ConHog from elsewhere? Just an odd first post is why I ask...

Was an odd post, I thought it was FJ at first.

[fj1200]

Incorrect. I am not politicking for anyone to have any sorts of limits on their income. If a company feels a CEO is worth $20M a year, then pay him that, but his tax rate is going to rise relative to how much more he makes than the lowest paid employee in the company.

His tax rate is already higher but it should have nothing to do with whatever his "lower paid employees" get paid.

Oh, and I'll take you off the shortlist.


FJ you can't possibly convince me that you truly think it is a good thing when the CEO of a company is raking in millions while hundreds if not thousands of their employees are on government assistance because THEY don't get paid enough to make it without it. Why shouldn't said CEO have to pay a little more in taxes to help offset that assistance? And if in the process the CEO decides he'd rather decrease his own taxes and give the money directly to his employees himself all the better.

Is that using taxes to do a bit of social justice? Probably, but who gives a shit, we use government rules and regulations to push a little social justice all the time, and as long as people are involved straight capitalism will always need a little tempering.

I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Your pal Bill decided he should rein in CEO compensation back in '93 by limiting the deductability of executive compensation over $1mm. Do you know what happened? CEO salary now rarely rises above 1mm but is packed with options that increase their overall package. That worked out well didn't it?

Pushing social justice by government fiat creates outcomes that are opposite of their intended effects. Social Security? It's no longer about security, it's become a retirement program. By providing people a SS retirement means that they aren't going to invest for themselves and are no longer encouraged to build an asset base that they can live off of or pass on to the next generation. Is it any wonder that the poor are permanently poor? If you want to make sure old people don't eat dog food and live out of cardboard boxes create a program that helps those that need it. Don't create a program that supports every old person over 65 including those who don't need it.

[fj1200]

Was an odd post, I thought it was FJ at first.

Seems like something I would say. :poke:

[shockwave]

Do "we" know you from somewhere, or do you know ConHog from elsewhere? Just an odd first post is why I ask...Actually you dont know me from somewhere. I have been reading over this thread and I see odds and ends about people saying the rich dont pay enough tax and all of that nonsense. I simply chose to reply to his post. It could have been anyone.

[jimnyc]

Actually you dont know me from somewhere. I have been reading over this thread and I see odds and ends about people saying the rich dont pay enough tax and all of that nonsense. I simply chose to reply to his post. It could have been anyone.

Good enough for me, was just curious.

And welcome to DP!! :beer:

[Abbey Marie]

Welcome, shockwave :salute:

[shockwave]

Good enough for me, was just curious.

And welcome to DP!! :beer:Thanks. I am very passionate about matters of taxation. I see so many posters on boards asking why someone like Romney pays 15% tax and they pay a higher rate. Rarely does someone allude to the fact that capital is what provides the jobs this country depends on. Capital supplies business interests and those business interest provide tax paying jobs. If someone uses capital that has already been taxed once as ordinary income it boggles my mind that they dont understand why it recieves a favorable rate once it is used for investment.

[shockwave]

Welcome, shockwave :salute:Thank you. !:salute:

[ConHog]

His tax rate is already higher but it should have nothing to do with whatever his "lower paid employees" get paid.

Oh, and I'll take you off the shortlist.



I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Your pal Bill decided he should rein in CEO compensation back in '93 by limiting the deductability of executive compensation over $1mm. Do you know what happened? CEO salary now rarely rises above 1mm but is packed with options that increase their overall package. That worked out well didn't it?

Pushing social justice by government fiat creates outcomes that are opposite of their intended effects. Social Security? It's no longer about security, it's become a retirement program. By providing people a SS retirement means that they aren't going to invest for themselves and are no longer encouraged to build an asset base that they can live off of or pass on to the next generation. Is it any wonder that the poor are permanently poor? If you want to make sure old people don't eat dog food and live out of cardboard boxes create a program that helps those that need it. Don't create a program that supports every old person over 65 including those who don't need it.


We're ageed there. Which is why I advocate telling those who earned $5M in their last 5 years of working, thanks for the contributions, but you are ineligible to receive social security benefits.

[ConHog]

Thank you. !:salute:

I'll add my welcome. You need an avatar. Might I suggest

3229

[shockwave]

I'll add my welcome. You need an avatar. Might I suggest

3229Ok. That was funny.

[fj1200]

We're ageed there. Which is why I advocate telling those who earned $5M in their last 5 years of working, thanks for the contributions, but you are ineligible to receive social security benefits.

Why take away what they've been promised?

[ConHog]

Why take away what they've been promised?

Umm because they don't need it and won't miss it? Isn't taking away from some who can afford to have it taken away better than the entire damn system collapsing down around itself?

[fj1200]

Umm because they don't need it and won't miss it? Isn't taking away from some who can afford to have it taken away better than the entire damn system collapsing down around itself?

Are you ready to apply that to all government pensions? The rich already get a decreasing (reverse progressivity) return of their contributions. The system isn't collapsing because of those very few, it's collapsing because it is a crap system.

[ConHog]

Are you ready to apply that to all government pensions? The rich already get a decreasing (reverse progressivity) return of their contributions. The system isn't collapsing because of those very few, it's collapsing because it is a crap system.

I'm willing to do whatever it takes FJ, whatever it takes to be fair the most people and whatever it takes to get our government solvent again.

I don't know fair has to mean fair for one side or the other. Why not be fair to both sides? Yes ending all entitlements would certainly go a long way towards fixing the budget, but it would hurt a lot of people. So why not selectively cut people. If someone's been fortunate enough to secure their future without SS benefits then those benefits should be paid to others who are going to collect regardless.

[fj1200]

So why not selectively cut people.

Because it needs wholesale changes. Cutting a few of the rich people you somehow now don't think are paying enough isn't going to cut it.

[ConHog]

Because it needs wholesale changes. Cutting a few of the rich people you somehow now don't think are paying enough isn't going to cut it.

Okay propose some wholesale changes, I agree that WOULD be best, but it's not going to happen as long as you don't let me implement voter exams.:salute:

[fj1200]

Okay propose some wholesale changes, I agree that WOULD be best, but it's not going to happen as long as you don't let me implement voter exams.:salute:

I would either propose that every retiree receive, say, $1000 per month regardless of income, wealth, etc. while they have been paying half of their SS contribution into a government retirement account THAT THEY OWN and can pass on any remainders to their heirs or it's treated solely as a welfare issue.

That second one won't fly at all and the first requires some sort of phase-in period; the current average (http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts.htm) payment is about $2500 but immediately raising the retirement age more aggressively.

[ConHog]

I would either propose that every retiree receive, say, $1000 per month regardless of income, wealth, etc. while they have been paying half of their SS contribution into a government retirement account THAT THEY OWN and can pass on any remainders to their heirs or it's treated solely as a welfare issue.

That second one won't fly at all and the first requires some sort of phase-in period; the current average (http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts.htm) payment is about $2500 but immediately raising the retirement age more aggressively.

So proposal one, you are still proposing take some of what the more wealthy have paid in. It's just a matter of amounts relative to my suggestion.

Your second proposal , I agree the retirement age probably needs to be raised; but as you say, it will never happen.

[fj1200]

So proposal one, you are still proposing take some of what the more wealthy have paid in. It's just a matter of amounts relative to my suggestion.

Your second proposal , I agree the retirement age probably needs to be raised; but as you say, it will never happen.

Not necessarily, it would be phased in. The retirement age is already rising, albeit too slowly. I forgot to add that the proposal would have to be actuarially solvent.

I would also add that my plan rules, yours is knee-jerk reactionism. :poke: :bunny4:

[ConHog]

Not necessarily, it would be phased in. The retirement age is already rising, albeit too slowly. I forgot to add that the proposal would have to be actuarially solvent.

I would also add that my plan rules, yours is knee-jerk reactionism. :poke: :bunny4:



Your plan drools.

And of course no changes should be made if they actually don't make fiscal sense. I am not holding my breath for the government to make fiscal sense .

[Gunny]

What is fair? And who should decide what is fair for each of us?

Some people in this country pay a 14% tax rate. Some people pay a 30% tax rate. Should all people pay 30% or should all people pay 14%?

Is it fair that some people freely and willingly give alot to charity and some people give very little to charity?

You have no idea what "fair" is until that skid touches down. It ain't bout tax.

[cadet]

What is fair? And who should decide what is fair for each of us?

Some people in this country pay a 14% tax rate. Some people pay a 30% tax rate. Should all people pay 30% or should all people pay 14%?

Is it fair that some people freely and willingly give alot to charity and some people give very little to charity?

Fairness, is every man working for himself, and not having to give to lowlifes that don't want to work.
fairness is the ability to do what you want with your hard earned cash. or not do.

[ConHog]

Fairness, is every man working for himself, and not having to give to lowlifes that don't want to work.
fairness is the ability to do what you want with your hard earned cash. or not do.

Not everyone who needs help is a low life. You've led a VERY sheltered life if you truly believe that is so.

Being conservative does not have to mean being a dick with no compassion.

[cadet]

Not everyone who needs help is a low life. You've led a VERY sheltered life if you truly believe that is so.

Being conservative does not have to mean being a dick with no compassion.

I meant like the ows. Should've specified.
I'm fine with helping, to an extent. So long as not being used.

Here's my view on helping people, not just throwing money into it.
"give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for life."

[pegwinn]

Life is not fair. You should know this by now.
The less money you earn, the fewer taxes you should pay. Because you are much closer to the break even point than someone who earns more.

Income tax creates the have and have-nots paradigm. Bad juju. It violates your privacy and is not subjected to the same rules as any other court proceeding. Those reasons alone make it a bad idea.


You don't believe that would bring down sales?
I believe that those who make below a certain level of income shouldn't have additional burdens placed upon them. And I don't get the ideas that those above a certain income level shouldn't pay more. The "job providers" do a good job of finding way to pay fewer taxes. Taking away their loopholes would merely put them more in line with average folks who don't have access to such methods.

Nonsense. A national sales tax means that you are not punished for being wealthy or succeeding. If you are rich, then that is great. But, using your own logic, the more successful you are, the more claim others have on your cash. Theft is theft. A national sales tax means that everyone from the so-called poor up to Paris Hilton pays in according to whatever they buy.

And poor is pretty reletive. I regularly work in some of the poorest sections of town. I see plenty of high dollar bling, evryone has a cell phone and facebook page. Lots of satellite dishes going up in the ghetto. Another poster noted that there is no shortage of cash for cokes, smokes, and beer even in the poor neighborhoods.

Take yourself down to Mexico or over to any of the 'Stan countries. There you will see actual poor people.


Incorrect. I am not politicking for anyone to have any sorts of limits on their income. If a company feels a CEO is worth $20M a year, then pay him that, but his tax rate is going to rise relative to how much more he makes than the lowest paid employee in the company.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Expand on a bloated buerocracy even more. Adjustable rates based on his employees wages will require even more data mining and create a thicker dossier. Bad idea dude. Just go with the Fairtax or a national property tax and then live, let live.


Umm because they don't need it and won't miss it? Isn't taking away from some who can afford to have it taken away better than the entire damn system collapsing down around itself?

Another bad idea. The point is that there is a deal having been made. I didn't get a choice about paying the protection money and I didn't get a say in how old I had to be IOT get something back out of it. Now you want to rewrite the deal and basically tell me to pound sand because I finally got my break and made a fortune? Fuck that. A deal is a deal. I paid in, and by god I better get some of it back when it comes my turn.

A better plan would be to allow an opt out. Give me back the money I put in. Hell I won't even charge interest like your buddies in the IRS would. Then, once I got my money back, we can mutually agree that the deal is off.

[ConHog]

Income tax creates the have and have-nots paradigm. Bad juju. It violates your privacy and is not subjected to the same rules as any other court proceeding. Those reasons alone make it a bad idea.



Nonsense. A national sales tax means that you are not punished for being wealthy or succeeding. If you are rich, then that is great. But, using your own logic, the more successful you are, the more claim others have on your cash. Theft is theft. A national sales tax means that everyone from the so-called poor up to Paris Hilton pays in according to whatever they buy.

And poor is pretty reletive. I regularly work in some of the poorest sections of town. I see plenty of high dollar bling, evryone has a cell phone and facebook page. Lots of satellite dishes going up in the ghetto. Another poster noted that there is no shortage of cash for cokes, smokes, and beer even in the poor neighborhoods.

Take yourself down to Mexico or over to any of the 'Stan countries. There you will see actual poor people.



Yeah, that's the ticket. Expand on a bloated buerocracy even more. Adjustable rates based on his employees wages will require even more data mining and create a thicker dossier. Bad idea dude. Just go with the Fairtax or a national property tax and then live, let live.



Another bad idea. The point is that there is a deal having been made. I didn't get a choice about paying the protection money and I didn't get a say in how old I had to be IOT get something back out of it. Now you want to rewrite the deal and basically tell me to pound sand because I finally got my break and made a fortune? Fuck that. A deal is a deal. I paid in, and by god I better get some of it back when it comes my turn.

A better plan would be to allow an opt out. Give me back the money I put in. Hell I won't even charge interest like your buddies in the IRS would. Then, once I got my money back, we can mutually agree that the deal is off.



LOL I'd close the IRS tomorrow, talk about some savings. I mean we couldn't actually CLOSE the IRS someone still has to collect the national sales tax, but with no loopholes, credits, refunds, or other bullshit they would need FAR less employees.

[logroller]

Fairness in opportunity or fairness in outcome?

I'd say fairness in forgone opportunity


A lot of the people who pay nothing don't earn enough to pay taxes. Do you really want someone who makes less than $10,000 to pay more taxes?

Also, a lot of very wealthy people pay next to nothing. Due primarily to tax credits and shelters. I know this because my husband advises some of them. They actually pay a negative tax rate; so paying no taxes would be an improvement.



Thanks. I am very passionate about matters of taxation. I see so many posters on boards asking why someone like Romney pays 15% tax and they pay a higher rate. Rarely does someone allude to the fact that capital is what provides the jobs this country depends on. Capital supplies business interests and those business interest provide tax paying jobs. If someone uses capital that has already been taxed once as ordinary income it boggles my mind that they dont understand why it recieves a favorable rate once it is used for investment.

Capital investment is a means to garner a return on the investment. Period. If that is best done through hiring or laying off doesn't matter. Its unfortunate the jobs data is unavailable for Bain capital on just how many jobs they created; there is working paper on private equity firms and job loss here (http://www.nber.org/papers/w17399.pdf), but the data is aggregate across all PE firms, but showed 'a modest net impact on employment." --ie job losses. Regardless of whether Bain did or didn't create jobs, I believe the wages paid to those jobs doesn't hold a candle to the capital returns on investment-- which i have no problem with. I understand the assumption investment creates jobs, it just isn't necessarily the case; and I don't see a reason why their cap gains need be taxed any different than earned income. Its not as though people aren't going to invest because they'd have to pay more taxes. What are they going to do with their money; stuff it in a mattress. They'll still invest, albeit not as much to RE-invest since they'd pay higher taxes, but the upper middle class, the high wage earners, could pitch into the investment pool if we did away with the AMT; which is, by far, the most heinous policy in the progressive tax system.


I meant like the ows. Should've specified.
I'm fine with helping, to an extent. So long as not being used.

Here's my view on helping people, not just throwing money into it.
"give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for life."

As it works out, its more like "...teach a man to fish, and earn public revenue through licensing and permits."

[fj1200]

I'd say fairness in forgone opportunity

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[MtnBiker]

Is it fair that the government taxes citizens, gives hundreds of millions of dollars to a solar panel company and battery company then those companies go bankrupt?

How big is our debt? It doesn't matter what tax rate Warren Buffet or his secretary pay, these assholes deciding to waste our money is not fair. Obama needs to show some fairness and quit lecturing us on fairness.

[logroller]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Eliminate the disparate impact only. Meaning don't use taxes to make things fair, just assess them fairly. For example, EIC is great, but it shouldn't place one in a negative tax bracket and deliver money-- a zero tax should be the lower limit, as this would neither provide opportunity, nor limit those opportunities forgone by paying tax. Similarly, Cap gains should be like any other income, as the opportunity forgone is additional income, not the investment opportunity itself. Meaning capital investment should be discounted on the investment side, rather than discounting divestment-- sorta like a 401 investments are... AMT is just bad, need I describe why?

[ConHog]

Is it fair that the government taxes citizens, gives hundreds of millions of dollars to a solar panel company and battery company then those companies go bankrupt?

How big is our debt? It doesn't matter what tax rate Warren Buffet or his secretary pay, these assholes deciding to waste our money is not fair. Obama needs to show some fairness and quit lecturing us on fairness.

"tighten your belt"


"well, I'm off to Hawaii for two weeks, on YOUR dime"

[fj1200]

Eliminate the disparate impact only. Meaning don't use taxes to make things fair, just assess them fairly. For example, EIC is great, but it shouldn't place one in a negative tax bracket and deliver money-- a zero tax should be the lower limit, as this would neither provide opportunity, nor limit those opportunities forgone by paying tax. Similarly, Cap gains should be like any other income, as the opportunity forgone is additional income, not the investment opportunity itself. Meaning capital investment should be discounted on the investment side, rather than discounting divestment-- sorta like a 401 investments are... AMT is just bad, need I describe why?

There's a reason cap gains get preferential treatment; it's good for the economy. Not to mention that that the effect on revenues is the inverse of the direction of rates.

The pattern shows that every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital gains tax revenues have risen. Every time the capital gains tax has been
raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen. The following are some clear
examples:
http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/capital-gains-tax.pdf

What would the disparate impact be to raise the CG rate which then lowered CG revenues potentially hurting economic growth? Would those that suffer from the hike be the rich who will simply move some money around, or not, or will it be the workers who are denied employment opportunities.

A large part of the benefits of capital does not accrue to the owners of capital, but to the workers whose wages depend on it. And the higher productivity
which makes higher wages possible can also mean lower unit costs and lower
prices in real terms, making ordinary consumers also beneficiaries of capital
investment.
If fairness is a factor in determining where taxes should be levied, it should
also take into consideration those who ultimately benefit from tax changes,
and those who stand to suffer from them. Capital investment benefits the
economy and most of its participants, high and low, and taxes on capital
punish them.

[tailfins]

If there were a poll asking that all laws be cancelled except that "All decisions of the government are mandated to promote fairness", what do you suppose the poll results would be? Also, what do you suppose the implementation of such a thing would look like?

[SassyLady]

You don't believe that would bring down sales? I believe that those who make below a certain level of income shouldn't have additional burdens placed upon them. And I don't get the ideas that those above a certain income level shouldn't pay more. The "job providers" do a good job of finding way to pay fewer taxes. Taking away their loopholes would merely put them more in line with average folks who don't have access to such methods.If you take away their profits by making them put into tax coffers, what is their incentive? Instead of raising taxes, make corporations share profit with employees. They helped earn it.

[fj1200]

If you take away their profits by making them put into tax coffers, what is their incentive? Instead of raising taxes, make corporations share profit with employees. They helped earn it.

They do, it's called wages.

[logroller]

There's a reason cap gains get preferential treatment; it's good for the economy. Not to mention that that the effect on revenues is the inverse of the direction of rates.

Well I don't contend CG gains tax increases, alone, to be solvent of all the problems in the tax structure; not to mention government revenues and the deficit. You should know by now I favor free market business; but government isn't business; in that decisions shouldn't be made primarily based on fiscal priorities. Any more than I expect a business to make decisions prioritized by the fair and equitable principles of the social interest.


What would the disparate impact be to raise the CG rate which then lowered CG revenues potentially hurting economic growth? Would those that suffer from the hike be the rich who will simply move some money around, or not, or will it be the workers who are denied employment opportunities.

You seem to operate under the assumption that if people don't get to protect investment income they will cease investing. I would contend the opposite; that if there were a greater disincentive to keep profits, more of those profits would be reinvested-- and this would provide for greater economic growth. Either way, whether I one gets paid x dollars from stamping widgets, or x dollars from shares of widget stock-- its not 'fair' those who invest their money keep more of their net income than someone who labors for it. To say that you keeping more investment income is your justification for investment is hardly accurate. Is it not the profit you seek? The cap gains break isn't why you invest. Income is a reward in and of itself, and it should be treated according to its monetary value, not its source.

Let's say you flipped an investment and earned $10 on an initial investment of $20;

Condition 1: Cap gains @ 30%

option A - keep $30 and pay $3.00 to tax: net 27$, no investment value.
option B - reinvest $30 and pay no tax; invested value $30
Condition 2: Cap Gains at 15%

option A - keep $30 and pay $1.50 to tax: net $28.50, no investment value
option B - reinvest $10 and pay no tax; investment value $30.
Please explain to me how the lower cap gains rate affects investment positively; b/c I only see it as a disincentive to reinvest.

[fj1200]

Well I don't contend CG gains tax increases, alone, to be solvent of all the problems in the tax structure; not to mention government revenues and the deficit. You should know by now I favor free market business; but government isn't business; in that decisions shouldn't be made primarily based on fiscal priorities. Any more than I expect a business to make decisions prioritized by the fair and equitable principles of the social interest.

Right, government isn't business but it interjects itself into business ALL the time. I would contend that decisions SHOULD be made on fiscal priorities. For the same reason that business should maximize shareholder value business should favor policies that lead to economic growth. For the same reason that maximum shareholder value is beneficial for society maximizing economic growth is beneficial for society. We've had government force social engineering on to the backs of business because it seems "fair" but in the end it becomes counterproductive because they've added so many mandates that it disincentivizes business. If they were to allow growth then it would have people become employed and self sufficient leaving government to THEN focus on the safety net issues. It's quite the paradox I recognize but it is one that is becoming more and more evident.


You seem to operate under the assumption that if people don't get to protect investment income they will cease investing. I would contend the opposite; that if there were a greater disincentive to keep profits, more of those profits would be reinvested-- and this would provide for greater economic growth. Either way, whether I one gets paid x dollars from stamping widgets, or x dollars from shares of widget stock-- its not 'fair' those who invest their money keep more of their net income than someone who labors for it. To say that you keeping more investment income is your justification for investment is hardly accurate. Is it not the profit you seek? The cap gains break isn't why you invest. Income is a reward in and of itself, and it should be treated according to its monetary value, not its source.

Let's say you flipped an investment and earned $10 on an initial investment of $20;

Condition 1: Cap gains @ 30%

option A - keep $30 and pay $3.00 to tax: net 27$, no investment value.
option B - reinvest $30 and pay no tax; invested value $30
Condition 2: Cap Gains at 15%

option A - keep $30 and pay $1.50 to tax: net $28.50, no investment value
option B - reinvest $10 and pay no tax; investment value $30.
Please explain to me how the lower cap gains rate affects investment positively; b/c I only see it as a disincentive to reinvest.

I don't know where you get this "protect investment" issue. It is well known that a high CG rate creates the environment that people will not invest because of the taxes that they would have to pay IF they liquidate their investment. Conversely a low rate lowers the transaction costs of moving between investments, if the rate is low then you have more incentive to seek out a new investment. I think your "keep profits" analogy is completely backwards; the reinvestment you speak of is exactly where the CG tax would come into effect. High CG taxes are the reason people DON'T reinvest.

[logroller]

Right, government isn't business but it interjects itself into business ALL the time. I would contend that decisions SHOULD be made on fiscal priorities. For the same reason that business should maximize shareholder value business should favor policies that lead to economic growth. For the same reason that maximum shareholder value is beneficial for society maximizing economic growth is beneficial for society. We've had government force social engineering on to the backs of business because it seems "fair" but in the end it becomes counterproductive because they've added so many mandates that it disincentivizes business. If they were to allow growth then it would have people become employed and self sufficient leaving government to THEN focus on the safety net issues. It's quite the paradox I recognize but it is one that is becoming more and more evident.

Not necessarily. Profits trump social impact. The paradox between doing both is a paradox within govt, but not business. Profits trump all else.




I don't know where you get this "protect investment" issue. It is well known that a high CG rate creates the environment that people will not invest because of the taxes that they would have to pay IF they liquidate their investment. Conversely a low rate lowers the transaction costs of moving between investments, if the rate is low then you have more incentive to seek out a new investment. I think your "keep profits" analogy is completely backwards; the reinvestment you speak of is exactly where the CG tax would come into effect. High CG taxes are the reason people DON'T reinvest.

Well quoted is more like it. CGtaxes are a disincentive to sell an profitable investment, not a disincentive to invest. If you wish to make the claim that moving profits from one investment to another is a free-market activity which is beneficial, of course I agree. By the same token, offsetting capital gains is often accomplished by selling losing investments, driving investment towards more successful ventures.

Speaking of losses-- corps get to go back 3 years and offset gains, and carryover 5 years of losses...what do individuals get? Oh yeah, one year forward...totally fair :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Not necessarily. Profits trump social impact. The paradox between doing both is a paradox within govt, but not business. Profits trump all else.

You just agreed with my statement. Maximize shareholder value.


Well quoted is more like it. CGtaxes are a disincentive to sell an profitable investment, not a disincentive to invest. If you wish to make the claim that moving profits from one investment to another is a free-market activity which is beneficial, of course I agree. By the same token, offsetting capital gains is often accomplished by selling losing investments, driving investment towards more successful ventures.

Ask an economist. You're mixing metaphors with that last statement; Offsetting is just another artificial transaction forced because of tax laws and not germane to the issue. I don't understand your issue if you're agreeing that moving profits is beneficial, high CG tax rates don't encourage capital to find its highest and best use, it encourages tax strategies which are not necessarily preferred overall.


Speaking of losses-- corps get to go back 3 years and offset gains, and carryover 5 years of losses...what do individuals get? Oh yeah, one year forward...totally fair :rolleyes:

You assume I disagree?

[LuvRPgrl]

^^:shakes head: The CEO does pay higher taxes. Do you realize that tax rates do not determine tax revenues​? Macroeconomically speaking of course.


^^:shakes head: The CEO does pay higher taxes. Do you realize that tax rates do not determine tax revenues​? Macroeconomically speaking of course.

understanding such an idea requires actually, GASP, wait for it, THINKING !!!!
Kids today are not taught to think for themselves
They are taught to depend on machines and the experts

They are taught if someone is making alot more than you, its not fair, even if you are doing better than 10 years ago.
They are taught that the way to correct it is to take from the rich and give to the poor.
Yet I dont see obama the great orator, going to poor neighborhoods and giving them his money

They are not of the idea that something that helps all americans is the goal
and that the dems /liberals plans help some, at the cost of others.

if you simply give money to the poor, it doesnt increase productivity. and the producers will simply respond by increasing prices.
increase in productivity is the key, and the only way to improve the economy, anything else is simply class warfare
to get votes

Those who are 'poor', should be informed, and working for improving their lot in life by getting better educations and skills, those increase productivity

but hey, obama needs votes, not solutions for our problems

OBAMA '' I cant solve any of our problems, so i will simply take money from the few rich and give it to the many poor ( of course taking my own 15% on the way), so vote for me,

that kinda sounds like extortion to me


Well I don't contend CG gains tax increases, alone, to be solvent of all the problems in the tax structure; not to mention government revenues and the deficit. You should know by now I favor free market business; but government isn't business; in that decisions shouldn't be made primarily based on fiscal priorities. Any more than I expect a business to make decisions prioritized by the fair and equitable principles of the social interest.



You seem to operate under the assumption that if people don't get to protect investment income they will cease investing. I would contend the opposite; that if there were a greater disincentive to keep profits, more of those profits would be reinvested-- and this would provide for greater economic growth. Either way, whether I one gets paid x dollars from stamping widgets, or x dollars from shares of widget stock-- its not 'fair' those who invest their money keep more of their net income than someone who labors for it. To say that you keeping more investment income is your justification for investment is hardly accurate. Is it not the profit you seek? The cap gains break isn't why you invest. Income is a reward in and of itself, and it should be treated according to its monetary value, not its source.

.,

the govt's role is not to provide fairness, but rather to provide opportunity for all
by creating fairness thru govt, it gives the govt puppeteer controls over those its giving to, and that is the antitheisis of freedom, the basic concept our country was founded upon


If there were a poll asking that all laws be cancelled except that "All decisions of the government are mandated to promote fairness", what do you suppose the poll results would be? Also, what do you suppose the implementation of such a thing would look like?

surveys arent fair