Tax discussion thread (U.S. focused)

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
Your Hollifield "slippery slope" argument is an entirely other level of government intrusion. More like "eminent domain"! My "fruit" comment is clarified by the following sentence.

Transparency isn't a problem, nor is easiness (I mean inherently, not our actual current system); and "fairness" is the matter of opinion that we have been discussing.

I disagree... afterall why stop at money?   What makes money after being spent so different.

Aside from which though.  By transparency and easiness i mean by reasoning.

If you use a "how much can they really spend" arguement.... there is no transparency there.

Just a random vague "some amount" that can be gradually increased and decreased at will.

That's one of the reasons politcians love the progressive tax system.  Less people get upset over a tax one group then all.  Rather then a tax raise on all... with no ratios and values, you lead yourself to a lack of transparency letting people keep raisng the tax for whatever reason... and then other taxes one by one... to feed wasteful government programs.

If we had a flat tax do you really think we'd have as many wasteful government programs?  No way.  The majority wouldn't stand for it because ALL of their taxes would be raised.  It's the same premise behind how the government gets away with "Sin taxes".  Tax the smokers?  Sure I don't smoke.... and I get the benfits of taxing them!  Win win!

Do you at least agree that any progressive tax should have a fixed ratio?  In which once set down, tax raises would have to be across the board to all tax paying citizens. (which would be all in the case of a system where all needs are taken care of.)

With any change in ratio having to be met by a higher standard then usual congress voting.  (For example maybe the 3/4th rule that John McCain wants.)

Once again you've confused income tax with a direct wealth tax.  Not to mention the fact that it's not even seizure of specific property (as a totalitarian wealth tax might) but government USAGE of that property while it's still in his possession!  (At least, you didn't say it wasn't, and I don't see how the gov't would take a few rooms of a mansion.)  All in all I don't see how your example is anything less than completely absurd and totally irrelevant to what we were discussing. 

My "how much can they really spend" argument can be backed up by studies that will show a general trend of diminishing returns on the practical usefulness of money, and that trend's proportions.  I just don't happen to have that knowledge. 

You might be right about the consequences of a flat tax.  But then again, maybe not.  People haven't been rational about voting for tax cuts on the rich, why should they be rational about tax hikes on themselves?  And maybe they'll approve because they think it'll steer more government largesse to their locale than they pay extra in taxes, etc. etc.  Or maybe it'll just create HUGE new pressures to not raise taxes while people still want more government programs, increasing the pressure to add deficit spending we've done too much of already. 

I can't think of a reason off-hand why we shouldn't fix the progressive tax brackets' percentages at certain ratios (presuming we could be pretty sure of having the best possible ratios). 

3/4 is a ridiculous supermajority, though.  That's as hard as a constitutional amendment!  2/3 majority is more than enough and I'm not certain I support that either, but I'm not as opposed to it. [edit:  removed nonsense]  (Could you please tell me your source?  I didn't see it in his campaign economic briefing PDF.)