Hi, everybody! 

I'm creating this thread in order to discuss a specific topic with someone (The progressive tax & its effect on economic growth; Kasz216), but I don't intend to restrict it to that.  If you want to discuss the flat tax, the FairTax, whatever, it's fair game.  HOWEVER, I must insist that posters read the thread so that people don't retread the same exact ground with the same exact arguments. 

Speaking of which, if you want to discuss the FairTax, there was already a thread about it some time ago.  If you want to resurrect that, go right ahead, and if you want to talk about it here, that's fine too -- but I insist that you first read that thread in its entirety so that you have an idea of what has already been discussed. 

Please keep political agendas, attacks, etc. out of this.  This thread is to be about tax systems, theoretical or practical, not about Democrats and Republicans and libertarians etc.  Please also keep in mind that the current U.S. tax system owes its complexity to innumerable additions and alterations -- not the basic concept of a progressive tax. 

Here are the basic federal income tax rates in the USA as of 2007:  http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

Here's a handy calculator, just for fun:  http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I may amend this first post, but for now, let's keep this civil and keep our minds open to learning something we didn't already know. 

UPDATE:  Kasz216 and I seem to be focusing on THEORETICAL tax models, so be advised that the thread is currently taking that direction.  

THE DISCUSSION WITH KASZ216:  What has gone before: 

Sorry Kasz, I just got pulled away. But I haven't forgotten!

(1) Offhand, I'd say that harm would be the decrease in quality of living. I haven't given this deep thought, but that seems like a reasonable definition to me if we assume that basic needs are taken care of in any case.

(2) I don't have a formula for this. I'm not an economist. I guess I could make something up, but it would just be me throwing numbers together until it felt good.

(3) I realize that I'm kind of nebulous on this, but I think it would be a big mistake to say "I don't know what the ratio is so we'll just pretend there isn't any". Unless you're saying that you think I'm wrong that there IS any difference.

(4) The reason I don't favor that is that it would be disastrous for people with very little income who are living off their existing wealth, such as seniors. This is why I don't want to tax the wealth itself until the person dies. People with high incomes, on the other hand, are obviously able to compensate for the loss.

Plus I think that tax evasion would become a much bigger problem in a direct wealth-taxing system because the government would obviously have to go out and assess all of everyone's assets. It's bad enough with property taxes, and you can't hide a house or land like you can jewelry.

If it WAS practical, I would probably still favor a progressive wealth tax but not nearly as progressive as the income tax.

(5) I'm not sure what you're asking here. But the first amounts of income after paying for basic necessities improve the quality of life much more than an equal increase (even percentage increase) does for already very high income, unless I am GREATLY mistaken. Do you disagree with that statement?

(6) I agree.

(7) This is not a problem inherent to progressive taxation. I haven't studied that issue but I imagine arguments can be made on both sides. There are many special rates and exemptions, however, that should be removed from the tax code as it stands today. I think we can all agree on that.

(8) I can see the logic of your argument, but I don't think that it's plausible that government would react in the way you suggest. Anyway, wouldn't the government also want to improve the income level of lower classes as well? There are so many more people who make little money that cost-effective programs could cause the overall increase in tax receipts from them to outweigh the benefit of paying special attention to a small group of rich folks.

Anyway, are you really suggesting the government doesn't ALREADY do plenty of things that help the rich get richer?

My personal belief is that after we pull out of this reccession that we need to raise taxes across the board (not in a socialistic way), and cut back alot of Government programs, and get out of Iraq as soon as we can. As bad as the current crisis may appear the true danger is the massive amount of debt our nation is incurring. Raising taxes and cutting spending would allow us to balance the budget quickly. The only taxes that should not be raised is corporate taxes and business taxes. We can't let taxes destroy job creation.

I said in another thread some time ago that I am against deficit spending except in national emergencies. This qualifies, but even now we can't go totally nuts because of the crushing debt we've already accumulated. I would agree that now is not the time to take a hardline on balancing the budget.

I wanna believe McCain when he says he will balance the budget. He said that, "I will balance the budget"

I think he is taking a massive cut in spending direction. This is basically the only reason I am voting for McCain, his fiscal conservatism. The rest of the reason for my voting is more against Obama.

He wants a HUGE tax cut and his promise to balance the budget is an empty one even by Presidential-candidate standards.  NO one believes he'll do it and he has NO plan anyone knows of that's even remotely capable of coming within shouting distance of that goal. 

I freely admit I want you to vote for Obama, but that's not what I'm asking of you right now -- what I'm asking is that you find a better reason to vote for McCain. 

P.S.  You said you're mainly just voting against Obama.  Why is that? 

McCain is not going to cut spending. The NTU (National Taxpayers Union) studied McCain's proposals and concluded that McCain would increase spending by nearly $100 billion. If you couple that with his tax cuts...that, my friends, is not fiscal responsibility. Obama will also increase spending, but he will at least raise taxes on the wealthy.

The answer to your PS usually leads to a ban if the wrong mod reads it...

I think this election cycle all promises of cutting taxes are BS. Obama especially. Obama is saying that he wants to help the middle class to get elected, just like McCain pandered to the right to get the nomination. I believe McCain when he says he will balance the budget. Obama will not do that, there are just too many programs he refuses to cut funding from.

Obama does not like the people of the middle class at all, he just knows he needs their votes to win. Just look at the way he treats "heartland" americans. Attacking Joe the plumber, degrading Sarah Palin, saying the PA folks just cling to their Gun and God... I think those instances were him let some of how he really feels about them seep through.