Anyone else regret voting for Trump?

[Final-Fan]

Superman4 said:

Ok, I will try and go in order. 

On the first "survival tax" I agree that everyone has a base that is about the same depending on the number of people in their household. Yes that base could be the same for everyone however location plays a role in where that base is because of surrounding costs. In California at least there are programs for housing called Section 8, something Hillary loves. This allows for low income families including those on welfare to live in more affluent neighborhoods and pay little to nothing for rent. An example would be a neighborhood I grew up in that had houses going for upwards of 500K, since section 8 was allowed you had families moving in from the ghetto paying 4-500 a month rent, the rest paid for by the government through the subsidee so the owner gets paid regardless. You have 3 or 4 families living in that one house who have no respect for what it takes to own it or how much work goes into being able to afford it. Needless to say 5 years later you have a huge spike in crime, restaurants closing early or only allowing drive through customers during certain hours due to fights and robberies. This is a little out of scope on the living tax but does have context. Those Section 8 recipients are living in an upper middle class neighborhood for less money than they were paying where they came from, still collecting welfare benefits and driving around with new cars, beat and ridiculous rims. The people paying those inflated taxes on the money they earn over whatever percentage are the ones paying for those items. That story aside, I still believe that I or anyone else should not get penalized for making more money.

 

For 2b you essentially do lose money. That raise which brought you past your current tax bracket will be taxed at a higher rate. The government is basically getting a raise at that point and making more money on anything you make past that amount. It is essentially a growth tax that prevents you from increasing your wealth past a certain point. They already tax overtime at nearly double standard wages and bonuses are damn near 50%. Why should the government get more tax money because I did well at work or worked more hours? For those people I mentioned in my last paragraph, they don’t even pay taxes for the most part because they don’t make enough. Between Social Security, Disability and all of the aid they get they are making a killing off the working class. 

2a Again I see your logic but don’t agree with it. Fair is fair. Why should I pay more because I make more? Do my groceries cost more because I make more? Gas? Why should my taxes go up as I make more money? Even if it’s only on the money past a certain point, why should I get penalized? The tax breaks are where the rich get their break. They write off a ton so they bring their tax rate down to as low a rate as possible, the middle class don’t get that luxury. Eliminate the write offs and make those millionaires pay the same tax rate as everyone else, on all of the money earned.

 

I think I covered the last part already but will again just in case. I don’t believe in giving out free money to anyone if the source is tax money. If the Mega Churches want to help the people as they claim then they can step up and start helping the needy. Any money I pay in taxes needs to go to the programs I am paying for, not diverted into social programs. Gas tax to fix roads, income tax to fund the government, military etc. If I want Medical insurance I will buy it, if I can’t afford it then I won’t get it. Making anything mandatory like auto insurance or health insurance will only drive up cost. The companies have an income source for life, why wouldn’t they raise rates. Any and all social programs are being taken advantage of and always will be. Either you work for a living or you are truly disabled, if you are caught collecting disability insurance and not disabled you get to work off your debt in a government program. Social Security is only for retirement and not to be used for anything but.

[edit:  Perhaps I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be.  You are proposing a tax system that taxes the income that a person literally requires in order to survive and not die at the same rate that a person's tenth million dollars of income is taxed.  Despite the extra harm that the first tax rate causes compared to the second tax rate, even though they are the same rate.  I'm not okay with that consequence of that proposal.  If you accept that that is a consequence of your proposal and are willing to accept it in order to have the proposed tax system, then I think we have to just agree to disagree.  Please let me know if that is the case.  In that case, everything below is just a side issue.  If you disagree that the one tax is more harmful than the other, then never mind this paragraph and read below.] 

1 and 2a.  You agree about the "survival cost", with the caveat that there are regional differences in cost.  I agree with this but it doesn't account for most of the variation.  Your story, while sad, is completely irrelevant to this discussion.  You didn't tell me you disagree with "survival tax" vs. "lifestyle tax", so I can only assume you don't disagree. 

Do your groceries cost more?  No, the groceries you need to survive cost less, proportionally, if you are rich compared to if you are poor.  This is why I am against a completely flat tax because it is basically imposing a "survival tax" that falls disproportionately on the poor. 

Why do you think it's reasonable and "fair" to propose comparatively increasing the taxes people pay on what they absolutely need to survive and would literally die if they didn't have, in order to comparatively decrease taxes on money they don't absolutely need to survive? 

2b.  The top bracket is not 100% so you are wrong about being "prevented" from increasing your wealth.  And looking everywhere at corporate America also easily proves that the wealth incentive is alive and well in this country, or at least whatever might be damaging it is NOT simply taxes being too high. 

Why should the government get a higher percentage just because you make more money?  Well, look at it this way.  We are talking about taxes, not spending, in this discussion so assume the government needs a certain amount of money.  If they literally tax poor people to death that is bad both for poor people and for the economy (therefore ultimately rich people).  (To elaborate on this a bit, almost all those "working poor" are ultimately working for rich people one way or another, who make a profit off their labor, and spend money at businesses that aim to make a profit off those transactions.  Poor people with jobs are making rich people richer all the time.  Workers dying is bad for rich people.) 

So anyway, nobody sane wants to tax people to death.  Who doesn't die from extra taxes?  People who don't spend as much of their money on basic survival.  Who is that?  People who make more money.  Who makes more money?  People in higher tax brackets. 

Now, maybe the poor people aren't literally dying at a particular tax rate.  But by the exact same logic by which they die and rich people live, the poor people are being harmed (but not to the point of death) because of those taxes more than the rich people. 

This is the reason for the progressive tax income system.  To "even out the pain".  Higher income people can afford to pay more, so society makes them pay more.  But they do it in such a way that making more money is never actually a negative thing.  The government may take more ... but it doesn't hurt more.  (And please recall that even at the 0% tax bracket they are still paying sales taxes, payroll taxes etc.) 

2a again.  If you want to reform and simplify the tax system so very high income don't have a lower "effective rate" than the middle class, I'm all for it.  But "simplify the tax system" is a totally different discussion from "change the underlying basic structure of the tax system". 

3.  Most of this would just be going off topic, but quick rebuttal to "why wouldn't they jack up rates with guaranteed customers?"  Because of market competition.  Without a monopoly other companies should keep them in line.  Our current system has problems, I understand, partly because the system is so opaque both to individuals and often the companies involved.  It was having problems long before Obamacare and removing Obamacare isn't going to magically fix the pre-Obamacare problems.