TheRealMafoo said: Final-Fan said: I don't feel like getting dragged into this debate at the moment (though I reserve the right to succumb to the urge), but there is one point I want to make: Flat tax vs. progressive tax is a completely different subject from no loop holes vs. shitloads of loopholes. Saying we ought to junk progressive taxation in favor of flat taxation because of loopholes is just a bad argument. I agree. Flat tax, no loopholes is what I think we should have. And for all those who are worried about people not being able to eat with a flat tax system.. if everyone paid taxes, it would do two things... One is it would mean every bill that needs to be paid for, is paid for by everyone. This means a lot less bills will be passed. Right now, 40% of the US doesn't pay taxes, so what do they care what something costs. This would reduce the cost of government, thus reducing everyones taxes. Also, if everyone paid taxes and took home 20% less, then what it cost for the poor to have the same standard of living they have today, would be 20% less. The market adjusts to such things.

40% don't pay taxes?? Evidence plz.

And I presume this means you disagree with the solution mrstickball favors, which essentially has a big tax credit to give a flat tax a progressive face.

Why don't you think that an absolutely flat tax would burden low earners much more, when they have much higher proportions of their income that are necessary expenditures (food, basic amenities, etc.)?

Also, I'm far from expert in economics, but I find it hard to believe that the market is as fluid as it seems to me that you suppose. Sometimes, I recall, it isn't fluid, and I'd like to hear why basic purchases are not one of those times. I would think that the cost of the materials that go into such things would make it less flexible than for other things.

Finally, why doesn't your last paragraph imply that the government can tax at an almost arbitrary rate with no impact on people's standard of living?

P.S. That was fast.

Final-Fan said: TheRealMafoo said: Final-Fan said: I don't feel like getting dragged into this debate at the moment (though I reserve the right to succumb to the urge), but there is one point I want to make: Flat tax vs. progressive tax is a completely different subject from no loop holes vs. shitloads of loopholes. Saying we ought to junk progressive taxation in favor of flat taxation because of loopholes is just a bad argument. I agree. Flat tax, no loopholes is what I think we should have. And for all those who are worried about people not being able to eat with a flat tax system.. if everyone paid taxes, it would do two things... One is it would mean every bill that needs to be paid for, is paid for by everyone. This means a lot less bills will be passed. Right now, 40% of the US doesn't pay taxes, so what do they care what something costs. This would reduce the cost of government, thus reducing everyones taxes. Also, if everyone paid taxes and took home 20% less, then what it cost for the poor to have the same standard of living they have today, would be 20% less. The market adjusts to such things. 40% don't pay taxes?? Evidence plz. And I presume this means you disagree with the solution mrstickball favors, which essentially has a big tax credit to give a flat tax a progressive face. Why don't you think that an absolutely flat tax would burden low earners much more, when they have much higher proportions of their income that are necessary expenditures (food, basic amenities, etc.)? Also, I'm far from expert in economics, but I find it hard to believe that the market is as fluid as it seems to me that you suppose. Sometimes, I recall, it isn't fluid, and I'd like to hear why basic purchases are not one of those times. I would think that the cost of the materials that go into such things would make it less flexible than for other things. Finally, why doesn't your last paragraph imply that the government can tax at an almost arbitrary rate with no impact on people's standard of living? P.S. That was fast.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

That's just a quick link. It's from 2004 and is up to 32% back then. As you can see however, it's growing. 

And no, I do not agree with MrStickball's solution. Flat tax, no exceptions.

and to comment on the burdening low earners much more, I think it would. It would also burden the guy who makes a million a year far more then the guy who makes 100 million a year. That doesn't mean it's not his responsibility. A poor person is far more burdened feeding his kids, then a rich man. That does not mean he doesn't need to do it.

This country belongs to all of us. We all have an obligation to pitch in the time to keep it running.

Um, aren't groceries and stuff non-taxed anyways?

That Guy said: Um, aren't groceries and stuff non-taxed anyways?

Sales tax I think is all state tax, so each state does it however they like.

TheRealMafoo said: I think you might misunderstand my idea. In a flat tax, the doctor would pay a lot more, because for the same effort he earns a lot more. Let me put it this way. let's say two people go in on a boat, and they agree when they buy it, that it will take 250 hours to restore. They both pay half for the boat, so they both own it equally, and they agree to do the work themselves (125 hours each). Also, let's assume one guy makes twice as much as the other guy.  Each put 25 hours into it, and then the rich guy says "you know what let's just pay someone to do the other 200 hours". Now, you could do this three ways. 1. One is you could hire a guy to do it, and split the cost down the middle. The problem with that, is you obligated the guy who makes less money to work twice as many hours to pay the guy, and thus "working" on the boat twice as much as the rich man. 2. Or, the rich man could pay twice as much as the other guy, and then in turn they put the same amount of hours into the boat. 3. You could also just have the rich man pay for it all, and the poor guy not have to put any effort into finishing up the other 200 hours. of these three options, which seems the most right? If you picked 2, why not apply that to a country we all equally own?

Why not an option 4? The rich man pays for his half of the work to be done by someone else, and the poorer man sticks to his own 125 hours of required work done by himself?

Onyxmeth said: TheRealMafoo said: yle="width: 90%;" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#bbbbbb"> I think you might misunderstand my idea. In a flat tax, the doctor would pay a lot more, because for the same effort he earns a lot more. Let me put it this way. let's say two people go in on a boat, and they agree when they buy it, that it will take 250 hours to restore. They both pay half for the boat, so they both own it equally, and they agree to do the work themselves (125 hours each). Also, let's assume one guy makes twice as much as the other guy.  Each put 25 hours into it, and then the rich guy says "you know what let's just pay someone to do the other 200 hours". Now, you could do this three ways. 1. One is you could hire a guy to do it, and split the cost down the middle. The problem with that, is you obligated the guy who makes less money to work twice as many hours to pay the guy, and thus "working" on the boat twice as much as the rich man. 2. Or, the rich man could pay twice as much as the other guy, and then in turn they put the same amount of hours into the boat. 3. You could also just have the rich man pay for it all, and the poor guy not have to put any effort into finishing up the other 200 hours. of these three options, which seems the most right? If you picked 2, why not apply that to a country we all equally own? Why not an option 4? The rich man pays for his half of the work to be done by someone else, and the poorer man sticks to his own 125 hours of required work done by himself?

I am cool with that.

So to map that back into taxes...

We come up with some number that is the "effort" it takes to run the country, let's say 208 hours (10%). You can either work those 208 hours doing whatever it is you do, and give that money to the Government, or you can come in and work for the government for 208 hours unpaid.

It would be harder to do that logistically, but it would solve the problem.

TheRealMafoo said: Final-Fan said: TheRealMafoo said: Final-Fan said: I don't feel like getting dragged into this debate at the moment (though I reserve the right to succumb to the urge), but there is one point I want to make: Flat tax vs. progressive tax is a completely different subject from no loop holes vs. shitloads of loopholes. Saying we ought to junk progressive taxation in favor of flat taxation because of loopholes is just a bad argument. I agree. Flat tax, no loopholes is what I think we should have. And for all those who are worried about people not being able to eat with a flat tax system.. if everyone paid taxes, it would do two things... One is it would mean every bill that needs to be paid for, is paid for by everyone. This means a lot less bills will be passed. Right now, 40% of the US doesn't pay taxes, so what do they care what something costs. This would reduce the cost of government, thus reducing everyones taxes. Also, if everyone paid taxes and took home 20% less, then what it cost for the poor to have the same standard of living they have today, would be 20% less. The market adjusts to such things. 40% don't pay taxes?? Evidence plz. And I presume this means you disagree with the solution mrstickball favors, which essentially has a big tax credit to give a flat tax a progressive face. Why don't you think that an absolutely flat tax would burden low earners much more, when they have much higher proportions of their income that are necessary expenditures (food, basic amenities, etc.)? Also, I'm far from expert in economics, but I find it hard to believe that the market is as fluid as it seems to me that you suppose. Sometimes, I recall, it isn't fluid, and I'd like to hear why basic purchases are not one of those times. I would think that the cost of the materials that go into such things would make it less flexible than for other things. Finally, why doesn't your last paragraph imply that the government can tax at an almost arbitrary rate with no impact on people's standard of living? P.S. That was fast. (1)http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html That's just a quick link. It's from 2004 and is up to 32% back then. As you can see however, it's growing. (/1) And no, I do not agree with MrStickball's solution. Flat tax, no exceptions. (2)and to comment on the burdening low earners much more, I think it would. It would also burden the guy who makes a million a year far more then the guy who makes 100 million a year. That doesn't mean it's not his responsibility. A poor person is far more burdened feeding his kids, then a rich man. That does not mean he doesn't need to do it.(/2) This country belongs to all of us. We all have an obligation to pitch in the time to keep it running.

1. Zero income tax liability. Doesn't that mean they still pay payroll taxes and things? 

2. Well, if you think that it's right for us (by way of gov't) to inflict more hardship on the poor than on the rich (by way of taxes) ... I'm not sure what to say to that.  Your position as I understand it so far sounds an awful lot like, "Everyone needs to do their fair share, only the poor guy's fair share is harder than the rich guy's fair share."  I suppose you have a different concept of "fair".  Fair enough. 

3. And I noticed you didn't answer my final question.  While I'm at it I might as well expand on it.  This is the key thing I was reacting to:  "Also, if everyone paid taxes and took home 20% less, then what it cost for the poor to have the same standard of living they have today, would be 20% less. The market adjusts to such things." 

This says that you believe that if everyone made less money (take-home pay) then the market would adjust in such a way that their standard of living would stay the same.  So surely you can't also claim that (if everyone made less money due to increased taxes) this would not occur? 

(And for that matter, the inverse implied (by the initial claim) is that cutting taxes across the board would simply result in the market adjusting to erase any benefit to standard of living.)

MontanaHatchet said: Slimebeast said: Like Mafoo is saying, it's my time that is being stolen! Work work work 8 hours a day (over 10 hours if u include lunch break and transportation), do you think I am doing it voluntarily? Im fu***ing wasting my life and getting robbed!! As a doctor in Sweden I make just a measily $54,000 a year (before taxes) after almost 10 years of experience at this work, 6 years of med school and $75,000 in student loans. And then this myth, everyone I meet out there believes I'm wealthy because Im a doctor. My closest relatives were unfortunate in life, so they're pretty much living off of wellfare ($800-$1000/month) and it feels so wrong that I can't afford to help them because the state is robbing $3500 off of me every month and giving it to others. $3500 worth of services that I produce by treating and helping 20 patients every day. Instead of giving some of it to people I love I am forced to give it to leeches. Meanwhile my family gets to see the angry and irritated part of me because Im tired after work. It's so wrong. Really? Is this the idealogy of the right? "Me, me, me?" You even emphasized this my bolding "my time," as if somehow your time were holy and special. Anyone who values their time so highly would never spent a second of it playing videogames, since that is, in the end, a waste of time. Look, my tax dollars go towards building and repairing roads that I'll never use, and giving services to people that I'll never meet. And I'm happy to do this, because I know that other people are doing the same for me. You're not being robbed, stop being so sensationalist. The people who get services like welfare aren't leeches. If you were put in the same situation, or you lost your job and you needed assistance, should people just forget about you and think of you as a leech? It's a selfish attitude, and I don't like it.

What exactly is wrong with people looking after their own interests? Yes "MY TIME", bolded underlined and size 120 font if you like. 

You're wrong that someone who values their time so highly would never play video games.  Your mistake is in seeing the word value to mean the cash value of the time as opposed to understanding that it is the freedom of allocation that is highly valued and not just the time itself. 

Every second someone spends working unwillingly and uncompensated on another's behalf is slavery by definition. Without that "selfish" reqiurement of compensation that is exactly what it is, but you wouldn't call it "selfish" to desire not to be a slave.  And compensation is not simply a tangential benefit decided on by another, it is something the person actually wants, requests, and is agreed to before the work is done.  So to the extent that someone gets something they value for their tax dollars this is not slavery, but government corruption, waste, and yes for some even welfare...makes all of us slaves to the system and those who profit from this while others get no compensation for the money that is wasted, embezzled, etc....are made the masters of the slaves who pay those taxes. 

People need to have the proper disdain for taxes to fully appreciate the question of what kind of system we should use.  Specifically they should understand that taxation is inherently a form of national enslavement.  Every person will disagree with how their money is spent in some way.  No matter how we slice it forcing someone to work for something they don't want or even would like to prevent in many cases is slavery.  We can justify it a number of ways by, for instance, saying "Well the will of one man cannot be allowed to subvert the need of the nation." etc... But that is just another way of saying "Well tough shit...then that man will just have to be a slave to the nation."...only we phrase it in our mind in a way that allows us to sleep better.

I know some will point to democracy and say that is really what this goes back to but this ignores the distance between two points.  Specifically the points where any given man is given a vote in the booth and the point at which the policy which spends his money is actually put into effect. No man when he casts his vote has even the feintest illusion that he could control such a fine aspect of the government.  But even so, nobody votes for government waste and nobody votes for government ineffeciency so the problem persists regardless.

I'm sure this type of commentary will be found severe by many. But such is the severe reality of a tax system or really any system where a person's work is put to use for purposes out of their control.  We are told it is a necessary evil (I see alternatives) and given the political climate this is probably true.  But where I diverge from the left the most is that they seem happy with this slave and master based reality to the system...a position that, to me, defies logic.
 

PS - I'm not speaking of simply a symbolic slavery, but literal slavery - to view it any other way is fooling one's self into a false sense of comfort.

 

 

Actually Sqrl the definition would be closer to serfdom than slavery.

I find it ironic that MontanaHatchet says that Slimebeast is selfish when he's telling us that he can't provide for his relatives due to high taxation.

I really don't see how you, Montana, or anyone, could think that wanting to help relatives is a selfish thing, and shame on you, Montana, for saying that.