Am I Wrong to Think the Rich Should Pay a Higher Percentage in Taxes?

[maxrandb]

Since * came into office, the marginal rates on the wealthiest Americans have been cut dramatically. Those right-wingers who say that "John F Kennedy cut taxes" should be happy to go back to the marginal rates under JFK.

This tax-cut was supposed to make the economy boom and generate even more tax revenue. If that's the case, then why are we operating with such a deficit?

I'm not an Econ major, but I feel strongly that the wealthiest Americans, and the big Corporations benefit more from the services provided by taxes, and therefore should pay a higher percentage. Please let me know what is wrong with my thinking, or if what I am saying makes any sense.

-I pay taxes to maintain roads and highways. However, unlike Wal-mart, I don't have 15,000, 18 wheelers tearing up those roads 24/7. Since they use the highways and bi-ways of this country a lot more than I do, shouldn't they pay a higher percentage. If not, then I would like to see them deliver their goods over one-lane dirt roads.

-I pay taxes to support public education. However, unlike IBM or Microsoft, I have not hired one employee in my life. Shouldn't they pay a higher percentage since they reap most of the benefit? If not, then I challenge them to operate their business without a well educated workforce.

There are so many more examples where those with the money are using more resources and services than the rest of us. Why not demand that they pay more?

I've heard Sean Hannity say that a poor man never gave him a job, but a corporation and business has also never survived without the services our tax money provides.

[trotsky]

1. 9/11 changed everything!

Just wanted to throw that standard response out there. :eyes:

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. OMG! You're right!!! *doh!*

:rofl:

Thanks for the laugh! It's been very entertaining here at DU today. I'm still LOL at your response!

[ProfessorGAC]

92. But, But, But. . .

. . .they've been promoting tax cuts since the late 70's as the economic panacea. Didn't 9/11 just happen less than 4 years ago.

HmmM! I'm thinking 9/11 DIDN'T change everything! Who woulda thunk it?
The Professor

[Randi_Listener]

2. I want the fucking rich to suffer more than the middle class on tax day.

[maxrandb]

3. What's So Frustrating is that

Some middle class folks think that if they just keep supporting * and the Repukes, then someday they'll be millionaires and can finally enjoy that $75,000 tax-cut (just like the one Cheney got last year).

I mean, I know some of it is the fundy crap, abortion and gay marriage issues...., but how any one in the middle class could vote for these guys is beyond me. It's like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

I'm not looking for anyone to suffer, but damn, if you consume most of the pie, you should pay more for it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. The looming stock market problems...

And associated economic problems are going to change that attitude. Big time.

[Randi_Listener]

8. The fucking chickens roosting will correct that shit real fucking fast

[trotsky]

11. Yes, exactly.

"I'll be rich someday, and I don't want to pay high taxes then!"

There is a term for people who think like this: idiots.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Horatio Alger is DEAD.

They won't even be serving the rich someday - thanks to the cheap-labor cons they vote for, college degrees are becoming more worthless than the paper their printed on. Soon you'll be needing a masters just to get your foot in the door.

And yes, the rich SHOULD be taxed. Who has the greater income/cost-of-living burden? Pardon me if I'm not shedding tears because a guy who makes 500,000 a year only gets to keep 300,000 of it. He isn't starving by ANY means.

[maxrandb]

24. Yes

"I'm not shedding a tear because a guy who makes 500,000 a year only gets to keep 300,000 of it."

But how do we make that argument to the American people, and especially the "red-staters" that think the government is just "robbing those rich people blind"?

How do you convince people that their piddly little $600 tax-cut has just been sucked up by higher gas prices and inflation?

They've drilled it into peoples heads for so long with the rhetoric "It's your money". Which is partially true, but it is also "Your Services"!

[Randi_Listener]

29. The Fuckface voters cannot be reached with rational means.

They think that any tax is fucking thievery.

[kittenpants]

91. I have my Masters and I still don't have a foot in the door.

[Pockets]

43. Another term other than "idiots" is

"brainwashed" by their employers.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Yep

They have more money so why shouldn't they pay more then the average citizen? During Clinton's years they did and look how it happened. The rich got richer and the poor got richer.

[AP]

55. Everyone should suffer the same -- the tax burden should be spread fairly.

That means that people who have more money should expect to pay a slightly hire marginal rate on an additional dollar in income.

[Randi_Listener]

78. No, the motherfucking rich should suffer substantially more than middle

class.

That's the only way to make the tax burden fair.

[AP]

81. As a Dem, I do not believe in punishing hard work and success.

I believe Dems should encourage work, and part of that is in believing that there should be a proper reward system for achievement.

However, I do believe that the burden should be spread fairly, which means the easier it is for you to make money, the more you should pay in tax on an additional dollar in income.

Right now, the wealthier you are, the easier it is to be guaranteed another dollar in income, so the rich probably would pay a significantly higher % (say 39% on income over 400K, and another .5% at reasonable increments over that).

But I can aslo imagine a time in the future when spreading the burden fairly might mean flattening the progressive tax structure just a little bit.

Bottom line: the tax code shouldn't be punitive for anyone.

[lukasahero]

95. Just for giggles

and to see just who you might be able to offend in the process, who do you consider to be the "motherfucking rich"?

I don't believe taxes were developed to make anyone "suffer". I believe they were developed to help our nation as a whole. I do believe the rich should contribute a higher percent, I'm just curious what you think constitutes "rich".

[Randi_Listener]

107. The people that out fucked the middle class on their way to the top.

They are the people who would slit someone's throat for a commission check. The people that have too much at the expense of their employees. They are trust fund babies who siphon from this society and contribute jack shit.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Was Clinton rich?

I don't know so I'm just asking. :shrug:

[democracyindanger]

27. A lifetime working as a civil servant?

Not likely. He may have been well-paid as an AG, governor and President, but not Chimpy-wealthy; not even Gore-old-family-money-wealthy.

[rinsd]

30. When he entered office?

As President, yes by most definitions we would consider him rich. He certainly has dough since he left office by way of speaking engagements and his book.

As Governor, I think he was more middle class than anything.

Of course he grew up poor though.

[democracyindanger]

28. Yawn. So we should trust St. Ralph, right?

If you think Nader isn't rich, you're sadly mistaken.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Beside that, we have a Progressive tax rate because those at the lower...

... end of the income scale simply can't AFFORD to pay the same %.

So a flat tax is "fair" because everyone pays the same amount.

Yeah, right. It's real fair to ask a single mother to feed her kids Mac'n'Cheese every night so she can pay the same tax rate as a multimillionaire.

[orwell]

7. Insanity Inanity

There are a lot of poor ill-informed people who pay Insanity's salary. He just doesn't care to see it that way.

As far as progressivism in tax rates, it is true that the asset holding class gets far more from "big gubmint" than those on the lower rungs of the ladder. This is an unspoken subsidy from the taxpayers to the asset holding class.

The whole tax system is grossly unfair. It has been rigged by the political donor class. But it is also true that federal, state and local governments represent far too much of GDP, currently around 50%. In fact, it is government that has been keeping the miserable job market afloat. The private sector is outsourcing any and all jobs it can as fast as possible. It is the only way they can keep profits rising, to keep Wall St happy.

The US is in the late stages of empire, where financialization replaces real economy in a casino society structured to punish savings and reward consumption. The road to ruin has always been paved with these stones of societal decline.

[Gothmog]

9. Progressive taxation is a good thing

The conservatives really hate progressive taxation which is very strange to me. Progressive taxation is a good idea and makes economic sense. The tax burden on the higher income brackets is fair because they have more disposable income to pay taxes with.

[GaYellowDawg]

13. Bingo.

If I make $25,000 a year, and you make $250,000 a year, then if we both pay $5,000 in taxes, it hurts me a hell of a lot more than you. If I pay 10%, and you pay 10%, it still hurts me a hell of a lot more than you. I have $22,500 left to live on. You have $225,000.

Here's where the conservative idiocy starts. They claim that a progressive tax system discourages people from trying to make a better life for themselves. With the previous salaries, if I'm taxed 10% and you're taxed 20%, I have $22,500 and you have $200,000.

Let's make it more lopsided. Let's say that I make $10,000 and I'm not taxed at all, while you make $250,000 and get taxed 50%. I have $10,000 to live on, while you have $125,000. According to the Wall Street Journal, that makes me a "lucky ducky." So I've got to pay for food, housing, and utilities out of $833.33 a month and you've got $10,416.67 to do the same thing. Who's lucky? Are people going to be willing to work for that? Are you kidding?

[maxrandb]

22. Excellent Points!

Not only does he have a hell of a lot more to live on than the person making $25,000, but he also might run a business that employs people.

Say for example he owns a small grocery store. He counts on public education to provide him with employees that know how to read and write, and can make change. He also counts on "publicly educated" people to read inventories, invoices, project sales of a certain product, etc.

It's great that he is able to provide jobs for people, but he also must realize that, without public education, he would not be able to staff his store. IMHO, he benefits more from the services our taxes provide (public education), and should pay a higher percentage.

Also, he relies on his inventory shipment to come via truck. His trucks cause a hell of lot more wear and tear on the roads than my car does. Without roads, his business would fail. He should again, pay a higher pecentage of his income to cover the fact that he uses more services.

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. The fact is neither side ever wins a tax debate.

It's a never-ending, round and round, argument over a necessary evil in civilized society. If you had a 10% tax on income for every one, the wealthy would be defended as paying more dollars (because they make more, of course :headband: ). And if you had a flat dollar rate it making it in effect a regressive contribution, there would be screams from the other side.

I agree with you, though. It's my moral and core values...ideology, if you will. Unlike the Grover Nordquist's of the world that want to take government to the point you can "drown it in the tub".

[Sway]

39. My husband and I got discouraged

We were a two income couple, making great wages, but, without a crumb snatcher to write off, we were paying THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes.

When we started reviewing all our expenses/income, we realized that 62% of one income was going to taxes (federal, state, sales, etc.). We did the math and discovered that it would be more economically feasible for one of us to quit working altogether.

Therefore, it reduced our "productivity".

I find most taxes, except for a flat 10%, totally unfair.

Why do I say that, you ask? Because there is NO accountability with the way the tax structure is set up. The top 1% of tax payers pay over 50% of ALL taxes! The next 20 - 25% pay the next 35%. That leaves 25 to 30% of people paying NO TAXES and some even getting more money back than they paid.

Therefore, no one does anything about it.

If we were to devise a 10% flat tax, EVERYONE would force the government to be accountable. If we were ALL forced to pay up 10% of our income to taxes, and I'd say pay by check once per month, people would get much interested in exactly WHERE our tax money is going, and maybe then the goverment would have some accountability.

As it is now, we pay more than our fair share. Just because we can't have kids.

[yankeedem]

47. How are you paying 62%

Isn't the top Federal MARGINAL rate 31%? Add the highest sales tax in the country, about 9 1/2% (of what you spend), and state income tax maybe at 10% (again, MARGINAL rates)for a VERY high wage earner, you have about 50%. Add 6.2 FICA and 1.5 Medicare and you have 57%, but that is MARGINAL, assuming that you spend all of your money on sales taxable items (impossible, considering that 1/2 of your money can't be spent because of other taxes, according to you).

Sorry, just sounds like bullshit to me.

BTW, you say that the top 1% of tax payers pay 50% of all taxes, that is untrue. While the top 1% pay 50% of INCOME tax, they also own more assets than the bottom 90% combined.

Check out other sources than the Heritage Foundation and get back to us, ok?

[Sway]

50. You forgot some taxes

We also pay exorbitant property taxes and taxes on investments. It does add up to 62%. Because we have no children, we are crucified by the Feds and the State.

I don't expect you to agree, but I have absolutely no reason to lie. I quit working. Now we actually save more money (parking, gas, car repairs, lunch money, etc.) than when I was working, in addition to being in a lower tax bracket, which helps out come tax time. Though, it has made us more "unproductive" in the governments eyes. But, this is what happens when you tax your citizenry too much. It ruins productivity.

Yet, I did have my % wrong in my post. It is actually the top 50% (since 1999) of income earners pay approximately 97% of all taxes. The bottom 50% pay no taxes and most get money back on top of no taxes.

Here: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

The NTU certainly ISN'T the Heritage Foundation.

Additionally, if everyone had to pay their far share, more people would force the government to be more accountable. They would surely want to know where their money is going. Whether it's spent on the "war on terror" or PORK!

[yankeedem]

56. ok, how exactly does leaving a job

reduce property taxes?

Gee, I'm in the bottom 50% of wage earners, I am surprised to find that I pay no taxes. You mean that Federal tax I paid was an illusion? And the sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes (we pay them also) were all an illusion too, huh?

See, INCOME taxes aren't the only tax, and that is the problem.
Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on gas tax.
Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on property tax.
Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax.
Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on tolls (where there are tolls).
Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on Social Security tax.
Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on Medicare tax.

You say that it wasn't worth it to have two wage earners, but you were rich enough to be able to make that choice. Poor people (the bottom 50% that you talk about that don't pay taxes) can't make that choice.

[Sway]

63. The bottom 50% don't pay ANY federal income tax

The only reason I brought up property taxes, etc., was because of our particular situation.

You are right about ONE thing. The bottom 50% couldn't choose to stay home. But, if we had a flat % tax, I think they'd become just as outraged as we all SHOULD be that our money is being run through an inefficient, corrupt system that allows the government and cronies to get paid FIRST, than what piddly amounts are left over MIGHT help out the poor and needy.

My only point (that might have been lost) is if everyone had to pay a %, we'd have a helluva lot more accountability in our government.

We decided to rebel in our own way by becoming unproductive. We aren't giving as much to THEM as we did in years past. Now, they have to figure out how to live without that money (although a drop in the bucket. Only if more people rebelled, they'd have to listen).

I'm sick of government waste. You couldn't run your business like they run the government. Hell, you couldn't run your household the same way the government is run.

You'd be bankrupt!

By the way, if you paid any federal income tax and you are in the bottom 50% of wage earners, you filed wrong. Unless you don't have kids. Than you aren't considered in the bottom 50% because you have more disposable income.

[yankeedem]

65. Don't give me that song and dance about running the gov like a business

Obviously, you don't understand the bloat that is in corporate America. I defy you to find any government employee that is making even a million dollars per year, as tens of thousands of employees in the private sector do. Not to mention the cronyism, kickbacks, and inefficiency (have you EVER worked? How can you not see these things?)

All I see is Medicare, which runs with about 1/10 of the administration costs of the average HMO, and Social Security, which has about 1% administration costs.

Of course, if you're talking about the debacle in Iraq, I might agree with you. Every dime spent in Iraq is wasted, as it doesn't serve a real defense purpose. But unlike corporate boards, people actually get a chance to VOTE on who spends money for the government.

You should be happy, we have the self-proclaimed "corporate president" in office.

[maxrandb]

84. Hear, Hear!!!

and one of the things that is mostly unreported and not commented on is the "largess" in corporate CEO salaries.

At one point in this country, the difference between the lowest paid corporate employee salary and that of the CEO was perhaps 15-25%.

Now the difference between what the lowest paid corporate employee makes and the CEO is 300-1000%.

Now, CEO's have a lot of responsibility, and many may work very hard. Good for them! But, are we really saying that they work 300-1000% more than their employees?

Something is pretty darn screwed up there. Like that line from the movie Wall Street...."How many yachts do you need to ski behind?"

[SlavesandBulldozers]

64. "taxing your citizenry too much ruins your productivity"?

taxes have nothing to do with productivity.

"Now we actually save more money (parking, gas, car repairs, lunch money, etc.) than when I was working, in addition to being in a lower tax bracket, which helps out come tax time."

So YOU'RE THE GUY who they always keep saying actually loses all incentive to make money because of progressive taxation! Wow, i thought you were a complete myth!

[Telly Savalas]

72. What's your annual income?

I'm kind of guessing it's so high that you have nothing to be whining about.

[maxrandb]

83. You Are So Wrong On So Many Levels I don't Know Where to Start

"The bottom 50% pay no taxes and most get money back on top of no taxes."

Your either kidding, disingenuous, or getting your talking points from the Heritage Foundation or Grover Nordquist.

Most everyone I know (I'm an active duty military liberal) fall into that bottom 50%. So, if your argument is correct then all of these people that I know...

-Don't pay sales tax on the merchandise they buy
-Don't pay property taxes
-Don't pay FICA or Payroll taxes
-Don't pay gasoline taxes
-Don't pay personal property taxes

Of course, none of the above is true, so your statement that "they pay no taxes" is specious at best.

Right now the only Americans that I know that pay no taxes are those friends of mine serving in a combat zone with a tax exemption. I guess using your reasoning, and that of the Wall Street Journal, they would be called "Lucky Duckies".

Of course the combat exclusion zone does not relieve you of paying sales tax, or property tax..so I guess even those risking their lives for America are still paying some tax.

and...

how does quitting your job increase your income? Seems to me, if you make a million $$'s, even if the government takes 62% (again a dubious number) you would have $380,000 to live on. I'm sorry, but that is more than that Staff Sergeant that is securing your $2 a gallon gasoline, makes in a lifetime.

Yes, you're right. The rich have it so terrible in this country. I think we would all be better off if they just quit their jobs.

[lukasahero]

98. Excellent post - thank you. eom

[ProfessorGAC]

100. Nonsense

Property taxes are offset by the rising value of the property itself by a factor of at least 40, and depending on the state in which you live, as much as 75.

If you can't afford the property taxes, you move! It's that simple. If you overbought, that's on you, not on the rest of society. Your mistake, your responsibility.

Besides, quitting a job to reduce you marginal tax rate would only work if one of you is making 85% of the whole or so. Your figures are seriously in error, and i will reiterate: NOBODY BUT NOBODY PAYS 62% OF INCOME IN TAXES! It's an impossiblity.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

96. NOBODY, But NOBODY Pays 62%

This is completely in error. Sounds like a Norquistian lie, to me. You on his mailing list, or something?
The Professor

[lukasahero]

97. 1% of the population does not pay 50% of the taxes

not by a very, very long shot. Please read "Perfectly Legal" to get a clue as to how stilted TOWARD the very rich our tax system really is.

[redqueen]

109. Perfectly Legal should be REQUIRED READING for all Americans. n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

62. excellent post

nt

[Telly Savalas]

69. Necessary evil?

If we want public roads, schools, health care, defence, and other services, we have to pay for them. How is this evil?

[zoeb]

14. A poor man never gave Hannity a job?

sounds like a smart man to me!:applause:

[sweetheart]

18. I support a flat tax

The tax code is way to complex, and any appearant benefits are lost as
the rich can afford to invest in shelters and whatnot.

A flat tax can be applied at simply the corporate level, rather than on
individuals, so the number of filers the taxman need bother goes down
from 130 million to 8 million businesses. That would remove the need
for you to explain your income to the taxman at all, and this liberty of
no invasive taxman is worth the loss of the progressive rates.

This also reduces the burden on the tax courts and all, as money is
simply collected, and tax compliance costs in government are reduced
significantly. All this savings means the tax rates themselves go even
lower lower.

Yes, the house deduction and all the fancy tax bullshit goes as well,
and i'm totally fine with that, as the simplicity would reduce economic
friction on job and wealth creation... that the tax code is fair for the
first time in our lives.

The first dollar you make is taxed the same as the last dollar, and
thus there is incentive to earn as much as you want, and no disincentive
to stop working. For the most economically productive amongst us,
this means the economy benefits from not providing a disincentive to
earning even more.

I support a road tax by the mile, and not a flat rate. Then trucks
and people who use the roads more, pay for them. That the general
tax fund is tapped to make roads smacks of subsidy to the vehicle
industry.. and disincentive for those who wish to save by using a
bicycle.

SOme of the arguments you make could just as well be said of any tax
system, flat tax or progressive. The problem really, is that the
tax code is so complex and arcane, that only the rich can afford the
tax advise to pay less tax, and in this regard, the progressive
element is mostly lost. As well, a fair amount of tax is uncollected
again, as it falls between the billions of complex boxes in the
tax code... when a flat tax provides no such loopholes.

But all that is window dressing. The main reason for a flat tax, in
my view, is that the invasive powers of government to force me to file
and report my income is entirely eliminated and liberty restored to
the individual citizen.

[oscar111]

21. co-ops give jobs: no rich man there: Hannity is dumb

PS didnt read all of the re above, but flat tax in general is a RW trick.

For progressive taxes, WITH simplification of the insane tax code,

just have a "clean-step" tax system.

progressive by means of steps up in the rate,

and simple by means of "clean steps", with NO clutter of the current code.

[sweetheart]

32. Indeed, that is left PC

I agree with left positions on most things, but i think the arguments
are artificial in this regard.

Funnily, the nations of eastern europe and russia all have flat tax
systems now, and they're collecting more revenues than when the systems
were "unclear". Are these "new europe" nations not progressive... hardly.

Rather they are decidedly trying to root out corruption and special
favours that, in practice, the current tax code is all about. As well,
they are decidedly not fascist nations, and are willing to put all the
burden of tax reporting and collections on the back of businesses only
and not on the individual.

It is no suprise that the democratic party supported by tax attournys
and accountants, people with a vested interest in keeping the code
arcane, support this banal status quo with fluffy arguments that it is
progressive.

There is nothing progressive about the tax court system. It is
anticonstitutional, as well as the system of forcing people to report
their incomes. The fact is, that an "income/wealth" tax system can
only function if people are forced to report all their sources of
income, that the progressive rates are appplied.

In a flat tax regimen, we dispense entirely with hastling the
individual, but it seems democratic underground folks are much rather
in to having the tax man up their ass. As well, for all the talk
about "bill gates can afford to pay more", bill gates is not the
person talking. Bill already pays many times over what such posters
pay, and in this regard, a flat tax system is fair.

Fair. Taxes are withheld at the paycheck and that's that.

[deadite]

37. Nobody is "in to having the tax man up their ass"

And most Democrats do not support Progressive taxation because it is "PC" to do so, as you would have seen if you'd bothered to read the rest of this thread before you launched into a populist rant against lawyers and the IRS.

And I just don't get your last paragraph. So, Bill Gates (or any other billionairre- I've nothing in particular against him, he's just a recognisable figure) already pays more tax than me, so I shouldn't to suggest he should pay more? I explained in my post below precisely why I personally feel he should pay more- but I guess I'm just trying to cover up the fact that i'm a slave to PC and get a hard-on thinking about getting audited.:eyes:

For all the obfuscation about "simplification", a flat tax adds up to a shift in the tax burden from the rich to the working and middle classes- at a time when America's corporate leaders are wallowing in greater profits than ever before. There is NO justice in that. But hey, at least if we run into deficit problems, we can tackle them by jacking up the sales tax like they did in Slovakia- hey, if we're gonna stick the boot into the poor, we might as well jam in it in there real hard!!

[sweetheart]

41. nobody called for a consumption tax

We're talking income tax. Over the years on DU, i've participated in
quite a few discussions on this subject and have actually written the
arguments for the progressive income tax, as any person savvy enough
to discuss should be able to argue both sides of an issue.

This time round, i'm taking the less popular position.

The existing system is NOT progressive. It is a series of corporate
and rich giveaways packaged as a giant gift to K street lobbyists. The
democratic party, IMO, could benefit significantly by becoming tax
revolutionaries of simplicity, and overthrowing the kneejerk...
and indeed, it pretty much is kneejerk, rejection of flat tax
principals. I think that the democratic party should be more willing
to consider negotiating in this area, and trading this flexibility as
a poker chip in getting K street out of government.

The withholding tax out of your paycheque basically means you must
survive for a year+ without the money anways, even if you get it back.
Money you can survive a year without is extra, not critical.

Sticking it to the poor happens largely by the grey economy at the
bottom of the ladder, fruit picking, gardening, child baby sitting,
housecleaning, dogwalkers and whatnot. Here, the economy often pays
less than minimum wage, mostly because to file formal wages is so
complex and arcane, employers avoid it. With a flat tax regimen, the
simplicity would enfranchise the workers in this bottom area, that
they ARE reported and get legal wage.

If you want to help the poor, then cut the military budget, ditch
the empire, and stop sending them overseas to be killed for the
hubris of the corporate rich. Making it simpler to hire and pay
employees has benefits in job creation, something that people huff
about as "supply side bollocks", but then again, they are too
sure of themselves to test their religion. Rather lets observe the
new europe economies for a while longer and see who is doing better
for their poor. IN all these regards, the FACTS, suggest that
the american tax system is anything but progressive, and the boot
is shoved all the way up the bum of the poor with the status quo
of justice for the corporations, enfranchised and wealthy.

Hipocrasy stinks, even if it is PC.

[deadite]

66. I'm not saying you called for a consumption tax

And I agree with you 100% about cutting the military budget and ditching the Empire- my reference to sales tax was simply to illustrate the situation in Slovakia, where they switched over to a flat tax and promptly found themselves with deficit problems, leading to a sales tax hike that resulted in a clear shift downwards in the burden of taxation. There's no doubt that if we cut the military-imperial structure down to size the decrease in the tax burden would mean that the introduction of a flat tax would be more feasible and less damaging- but I would personally oppose it because I believe the money would be better off re-invested in services and infrastructure, and if possible tax cuts for the working and middle class. But the fact is, for the time being, the Empire aint going nowhere (especially as the party more in favor of flat taxes is the party more in favor of the empire); if we're stuck with it, I'd rather the rich (who get more out of it anyway) pay as big a share of what's required for it as possible.

I also agree that the current tax system leaves much to be desired. But as I see it, proponents of flat taxes seek to throw the baby out with the bath water, and, frankly, to make an injustice go away simply by legitimising it. There are many loopholes in the system which allow the rich to pay less than they should- and we should seek to close them. Employers who pay less than minimum wage should be clamped down on, although generally i think that problem has more to do with employer avarice than the complexities of filing formal wages, although that process too should be simplified where possible. In fact, as far as possible, the tax system should be simplified- the majority of complexities are not directly connected to progressivity (generally speaking, they actually act to make the system less progressive, as you yourself indicated). And, in my opinion, the brackets of the tax system should be made markedly more progressive than they are at present. Obviously all of these reprsent huge challenges, but I believe it is infinitely preferrable to tackle these problems and create a truly progressive system than it would be to simply throw in the towel and adopt an intrinsically unjust flat tax.

Obviously we are in disagreement here, but, as I tried to say in a way-too-tetchy for my own good manner in my previous post, i have considered this issue very closely- my views, however much you may disagree with them, are not "knee-jerk", and to be honest i don't think the many economic, social and moral arguments put forward in favor of progressivity in this thread can be written of so easily.

[sweetheart]

67. fairly put

I agree with you. I believe in the empowerment of the poor via the
tax system and am very impressed with Gordon Brown's work with HM
Treasury. As well, i wish the old country (usa) would do likewise.

Instead, the graft is so rife, and the likelihood of taking back congress
to fix it, so far off... that i'm willing to comprimise. It means we
agree, and as well, that i'm willing to sell out this territory for
gains in other areas.

In my experience of operating US businesses, the payroll and tax
process is painfully complex that i had to outsource it to ADP that it
not be buggered up. Who has the funds to do this with a baby sitter?

The American state is based on exploiting labour to create wealth. To
disagree with this is to be light years away from political mainstream.
I really believe we should become "clean slate/blue sky" about this,
as that is what our opponents are." Computers now allow us to calculate
tax in real-time. It is time the law catch up with the people, that
we are not tied to filling in 130,000,000 paper forms to flood the
government with pointless information.

At present, the IRS has enough auditors to check up on each corporation
1 day every 11 years. Clearly the ground is set for the corporate
graft we see today. The corporation can pay for the corporate jet,
and then any american with a corporate jet need only follow the
dots and it becomes a write-off, because we are all entitled to the
fraud that dick cheney uses.

Until the revolving door of corporate halliburton, harken, enron,
military/aerospace whatnot is closed, what can we expect but more and
more corporate graft to replace FDR's progressive state. In this sense,
there is the wishful thinker in me that wants to re-take the congress
and the executive to reform this spot on progressive... and the
pragmatist who sees the next 10 years as critical to the survival
of the nation.... in which a likely comprimise is indeed a flat tax.

Do we hold out for utopia and die waiting? I've stopped waiting
myself and have moved abroad because i see it only getting worse and
worse ending only in an ugly federal bankruptcy. These are not the
words of an enemy, but a pragmatic patriot. What can a realist do?

Bush wants to reform the tax code. I loathe this corporate congress
and their K-street-only sense of obligation. Politics is giving and
gaining ground through negotiation. I realize i'm the slut on DU
willing to sell out on this one, but what are we gaining in the
ivory tower of ideals and no results?

[deadite]

19. no- you are most certainly right!

"Flat taxes" may apply equal tax rates to people of different income, but they do not apply an equal burden- think about it, if you're on minimum wage, $1000 dollars will make a big difference to your life. If you're Bill Gates, what the fuck is $1000? Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more.

Of course some people will scream about how wrong it is that the rich should pay higher rates on money they've earned with their immense hard work and vision. And I guess that if you subscribe to the decidedly 19th century belief that rich people are harder working and more virtuous than poor people, well, I guess that proposition makes sense.

[UdoKier]

20. Unlike ExxonMobil, you don't have the US military securing...

... new oil exploration territories for you.


Unlike Halliburton, you don't have the pentagon creating "work" for you (reconstruction that could be done for a fraction of the cost by Iraqi contractors)


There are a million examples.

Take a look into "enterprise zones" in your area, and see who gets to take advantage of the NO-INTEREST LOANS, with NO OBLIGATION TO PAY in those "impoverished areas". Here's a hint - it ain't poor folks.

[blindpig]

23. fuck income, let's tax wealth

They SHOULD pay rent for their privilige. Starting at about $500K less primary residence(perhaps 1%). Guess that makes me a leveller.

[dcfirefighter]

25. Exactly

I'd lower the exemption, and exempt any labor-built wealth: I don't want to decrease the demand for labor.

I've seen a paper that describes the rent available from natural resources and government-granted rights as north of $4T. That covers existing government spending and leaves a ~$4,000 Basic Income Grant for each and every man woman and child in this country. All of this based on some privelege "we the people" grant to some people.

[Egalitariat]

26. Would the gov't accept wealth as payment of those taxes?

Or would they require cash? Converting wealth to cash is a sometimes expensive activity, and would greatly affect anyone with a union pension that is tied to the stock market.

And what about people who are land rich, but cash poor? Converting land to cash is not only expensive, it can sometimes take a long time to do?

Are there any well-thought-out "Wealth Tax" plans? I'd love to read about the nuts and bolts.

[blindpig]

35. I don't know

I do know that at the end of the last rethug reign of horror there was talk of a one time, one percent wealth tax to balance the budget.

Which was well and good for then, but considering the nuisance they have proven to be in recent years I think a more permanent leveling might be in order.

[tinonedown]

31. They already do.

As they should.

[indepat]

33. Before GWB came to office, BLS data suggest the lowest 20% among us

paid as high a percentage of their income in taxes at all levels of government as do the highest 20% among us. Guess what has hereinafter happened? Worry not, though, for that some three trillion dollars in additional Federal debt now reposes as part of the wealth of the most affluent among us (the top very few percent). This would seem to beg the question why the Federal government would want to proverbally shoot itself in the foot, why it would want to weaken the US fiscally and economically and therefore make us much more vulnerable to every possible bad thing that could possibly happen/go wrong. There is a reason IMHO and if so, what is that reason?

[Pockets]

45. Two possible reasons

Deficits will negatively effect the next President, probably a Democrat, so that:

1) The next Pres won't be able to accomplish anything, since there will be no money to spend.
2) The next Pres will have to raise taxes which will make him look bad.

[prole_for_peace]

34. Why do you hate America?

:eyes:

[Sewsojm]

36. Yes because ,

Rich people need more money than poor people cause they have to pay more for property taxes, utility bills, gardeners, butlers, chauffeur's, nanny's, maid's, vehicles (Mercedes,Hummer's, Lexus, Porsch, etc.), vacations oversea's, 2 to 6 residences or more, education (private schools, ivy league collage's, music lessons, etc.), food (lobster, prime rib, etc.), stock's, savings accounts, clothing (only the best and most expensive), huge swimming pools w/jaccuzi's, sauna's, party's, private planes (John Travolta comes to mind), private island's (Mel Gibson comes to mind), jewelry, art collections, furniture, imported tile from Italy, imported wine from God forbid France, imported cigars from God forbid Cuba, electronics ($100,000 home theater systems, etc., So you see Rich people deserve a tax break seeing as they have so many expenses that the Lazy poor suckers never will have.

[Sway]

42. Looks to me like this rich guy

is helping the economy by purchasing <i>"vehicles (Mercedes,Hummer's, Lexus, Porsch, etc.), vacations oversea's, 2 to 6 residences or more, education (private schools, ivy league collage's, music lessons, etc.), food (lobster, prime rib, etc.), stock's, savings accounts, clothing (only the best and most expensive), huge swimming pools w/jaccuzi's, sauna's, party's, private planes (John Travolta comes to mind), private island's (Mel Gibson comes to mind), jewelry, art collections, furniture, imported tile from Italy, imported wine from God forbid France, imported cigars from God forbid Cuba, electronics ($100,000 home theater systems, etc.,..." </i>

And he's helping the employment figures by hiring <i>"gardeners, butlers, chauffeur's, nanny's, maid's.." </i>

Shouldn't that be a "good" thing?

[orwell]

46. Oh Brother

Helping "the economy"? By doing what? Pursuing the rabid consumption products from predominately foreign suppliers? Such a patriot...

I wonder why the US balance of trade is so appalling...

[Sway]

52. So that's it.

They buy too much "stuff"?

[NoSheep]

53. Read below about the "stuff" my rich boss buys.

[NoSheep]

51. Read my post below.

[yankeedem]

57. Those poor downtrodden rich

How do they do it?
:eyes:

Let me explain how tax cuts work-

If a rich person gets a $1000 tax cut, they may invest it in stocks, they may put it in the bank, they may spend it also. They don't need the money so their is no incentive to spend it.

If a poor person gets a $1000 tax cut, they WILL invest every cent in bettering their life, paying their bills, supporting JOBS up and down the ladder.

[maxrandb]

87. Wow, You've Got Your Talking Points Down Pat!

I guess next your argument will be that we should raise taxes on the poor. Hell, according to your post they do nothing to support the economy so we should tax them even more.

It's frightening how some people think. I would love for just one day, have everyone of us "bottom feeders", (that lower 50% you talk about) call in sick, and purchase nothing. Not even a stick of gum, or a box of matches. What do you think would happen to your economy then?

Hell, even Welfare Reform (which I support) and reduction in Food Stamps (which I'm not sure about), had negative consequences. Go talk to the "small business owner" that relied on the poor to spend their money at his business. Sorry you can't, because his business doesn't exist anymore.

Not to get off topic, but I would also like to see the so-called "minutemen" on the Arizona boarder run for the hills when a head of lettuce reaches $5.

You are creating a "serfdom" and you don't even realize it. It's so obvious that we don't even have a Republic anymore. You know one way to tell we no longer have a Republic? The Bush twins aren't in Iraq in uniform.

[sandnsea]

38. You're exactly right

What's more, the wealthy used to know that and supported estate taxes and higher marginal taxes for that very reason. Not to mention they knew that we DO need wealth redistribution because it isn't healthy for a democracy to create quasi-nobility through the consolidation of wealth into a few families.

But look at how many people are blind to the obvious, even right here on DU. How does a Democrat win when people in our own party are so susceptible to the simplistic allure of right wing lies?

[Pithlet]

75. It's maddening, isn't it?

I would love to have ONE thread about taxes at DU without someone coming in and schlepping flat tax. I just want to scream.

[barb162]

40. No

[Pockets]

44. Whereas I like taxing the rich

there are also other things we can do too, like require them to actually hire more Americans.

[ComerPerro]

48. A poor man never laid me off without cause either

just so he could get an extra $100k in profits.

[NoSheep]

49. I'm not sure that they do! My boss is rich as shit and he writes off

everything he buys for himself, personally, on the business. His landscaping at his mansion=production costs for infomercial account. His ski trip to Banff with his 13 yr old son=travel expenses. The cell phone calls from Canada-utilities.
His electric fucking bicycle=production costs
His sailboat (where he does NOT entertain clients) he gets a write off for that too!
Every penny he spends on his SUV and Jag=transportation expenses.
Oh the list will only continue to bore you!!!!
I write him checks for 16,000 or so at the end of every year for "unreimbursed expenses".
He doesn't even pay employment taxes!!! I'm the miserable schmuck who manages his business and I'm classified as an "independent contractor".
Do I think the rich should be taxed more???? Hell fucking yeah!! IF you can get them to pay it! Wealthfare is what we have now.

:mad:

[sweetheart]

54. You make the argument for a flat tax in spades

Rich people avoid tax, and they could not avoid a flat tax. All of
what you described would be taxed, no funny business.

Rather your boss has the wealth to hire avoidance counselling, that his
expenses are corporate, reimbursable, and the corporate entity is not
obliged to care, as he owns it.

If the corporation paid a flat tax on its income, and a flat tax on its
payments to "entities", the fancy shennanigans would get him nowhere.

Those who defend progressive taxation, are inevitably in tax brackets
where they don't have experience with "the corporate dodge". Had they,
they'd be less trusting in their religion.

[yankeedem]

58. I hear what you're saying

but it sounds like the old "Rich people find ways to dodge taxes, so let's not even bother taxing them".

That to me is like saying "Let's not call burglary a crime because they will find a way to get out of going to jail".

Step up auditing of people like this person, instead of stepping up auditing of poor people using the EITC, and those trips to Banff will not negate the tax burden.

Past Congresses have closed hundreds of tax shelters over the years, a progressive Congress would close the new ones.

It's just that the Puke Congress and most of the Democratic members don't care to close these loopholes because it may choke off their campaign funding.

[LiberallyInclined]

68. a flat tax that exempts the first $35-$40,000 would be great.

nt

[Telly Savalas]

70. So income in the 4-5 million range should be...

taxed at the same rate as the 40-50 thousand range? Why is this great?

[sweetheart]

73. It would be great because the poor would not pay the burden

I agree it would be great. THe challenge, IT-wise, is to achieve
such a thing without forcing people to file tax forms or file at all!
This would then require the computer-IRS to be able to withhold in
real-time, with secure-tax-identity knowledge, that were you deriving
your income from 4 different sources, that there were no cockups, and
once the threshold met, much as with the existing FICA payroll tax,
the rest is flat taxed.

This anti-wealth bullshit on this thread is just crap. Rich people
are just as likely to vote democratic as republican and this is a bunch
of, sorry it sounds like this, but losers complaining they did not
win the lottery... willing to fuck the winners out of spite.

The issue is not about rich or poor, but fair. A flat tax is decidedly
fair except in the lowest brackets, where it is most unfair, given
the poverty factor. When you're eating brown rice for weeks on end
to make ends meet... broke... and we should not prey on the weak and
poor, ... the values of a buddhist culture, let alone a christian one...
or even a secular one... its not right.

If the flat tax is say 15%, then someone earning 10 million pays in
1.5 million a year.... a hell of a contribution.... and that is more
than fair, that people pay more.... those that have a punative
mentality, like the ugliest fact of USSR communism... a worst evil
than the GOP. Thuggery is no system of taxation, and that is why
we should have no part in it.

[Pithlet]

76. There is no anti-wealth bullshit

Holding poor people to the same tax burden as the rich is right wing anti-poor bullshit.

The flat tax is just another way to sock it to the poor. Nothing more. Enough of the anti-poor rhetoric.

[sweetheart]

82. Did you read the post you replied to?

We're exploring a 0% tax up to a cutoff of say 45,000 dollars, and a
flat tax above that. HOw is this holding poor poeple on the screws?

This is not anti-poor rhetoric, that would be the status quo. The
existing system is anti-poor, designed to keep the proletariat broke,
without savings, working month to month. In my own life, i've worked
as an adult cleanup worker in west haven macdonalds, a 2dollar/hour
waitperson at albuquerque dennys and so many working poor jobs, i don't
even record them, except for the pay slips stuffed away somewhere in
old tax folders. I'm more than aware of how the poor get stiffed in the
existing system. Rather here, we have some folks exporing a fair
simplification of the tax system that would foster job creation and
fair treatment of the lowest paid amongst us.

I have as well, formed businesses and been the boss, where i was
confronted with the blizzard of employment-red-tape designed to keep a
steady stream of dosh going to the depository banks, payroll
services, accounting companies and tax filing companies... you might
as well be a lobbiest for those chappies the way you're talking.
The status quo is not progressive.... and all the folks bullshitting
about the progressive tax (that in their religion, they think they
have), are in fact, defending doling out the favours to the wealthy.

For a party of people claiming to be fact-based, on the ground, in
realpolitic, there is some distinctly wooly rhetoric coming from
some quarters here... wholly regressive, wishing for the mythical
great democratic majority in all houses of government to fix it all
up, and unwilling to come to terms with political reality.

[Pithlet]

88. A flat tax

is about as regressive as they come. The more money you make, the less of a burden it places on you. And 45,000 doesn't cut it, particularly when social safety nets are quickly becoming extinct.

You are unwilling to come to terms with mathematical reality. Not to mention your ill conceived all or nothing mentality. We can't have it all, so give in to them all the way. Which is EXACTLY what implementing a flat tax would do. It is an enormously stupid idea. What makes you think that the poor would be exempt from a flat tax? Talk about wishful thinking!

[LiberallyInclined]

89. so- what kind of a system do you suggest?

I still don't see how a $40,000 exemption before a flat-tax kicks in would hurt the working poor?

where do you think "poor" starts, annual income-wise?

look at a comparison between two different incomes under such a plan-

a $50,000 income, and a $5 million income-

a $50,000 earner would only pay taxes on $10,000, or 20% of income-
a $5 million earner would pay taxes on 4,960,000, or 99.2% of income.

please explain- how is this regressive?

[Pithlet]

94. So, screw the middle class?

For one thing, don't tell me that giving in to the right on a flat tax means the poor and middle class are never screwed. That they will hold to the exemption. Because it won't happen. There is a reason right wingers salivate over a flat tax. Because it would greatly reduce the burden that they already have too little of. That money has to come from somewhere. It will be the rest of us. The only ones mentioning any sort of "exemption" are those who are less than conservative who are buying the argument for a flat tax and trying to push it on everyone else.

It's regressive because they're paying the same rate. Even if you include the exemption, you're going to leave out literally hundreds of exemptions that working people depend on. The EIC. Deductions for college. Mortgage deductions. A whole range of things. Not to mention property and local taxes that they will still have to pay. And a flat tax wouldn't raise enough income unless you had an extremely high rate. Certainly not enough to support what is left of the safety nets we still have.

There is no way around it. A flat tax in almost any conceivable form would screw the poor and working class, while the rich enjoy a lesser tax burden. There IS a reason why conservatives overwhelmingly favor it. I just hope that too many center to left people don't fall for it.

[LiberallyInclined]

99. i'm still not seeing YOUR suggestions...

or are you just another nattering nabob of negativism?

It's regressive because they're paying the same rate
ummm...you didn't do too well in math, did you?
with an exemption on the first $40,000 of income, they are definitely NOT paying the same rate on their total income.

:eyes:...sheesh.

[Pithlet]

101. I'm not arguing for a particular tax scheme

I'm arguing against one. Hell, the current tax system, as regressive as IT is, is a hell of a lot better than a flat tax. I could write paragraphs on suggestions on how to improve THAT one. Hell, why not return to a time when the rich paid more of their fair share? Once upon a time they did, before the Republicans changed things. Why not start by removing all of those tax breaks? I'll even throw in higher taxes on unearned income. I could write paragraphs of suggestions easily. I'm not going to, because a) I don't have the time, and b) not doing so doesn't change the fact that a flat tax is a stupid, right wing supported idea. Your proposals for an exemption don't change that.

Ummm, you're the one who seems to have a fundamental problem with comprehension. An exemption doesn't change the fact that you're taxing the rich and the not so rich at the SAME RATE. It doesn't change the fact that it eases the burden off of the rich. The more money they make, the more that is so. That is entirely regressive. Where does all the money that the rich will save on a flat tax going to come from? You failed to answer that question. You entirely ignore the fact that a flat tax would fail to come up with needed revenue. Surely you know what happens when the rich get more tax breaks. State and local governments get starved of federal money. How do they make up for that? Three guesses. There is no way states are going to give up their property tax and sales tax revenues. They couldn't, if they wanted to survive. I don't know about you, but I enjoy maintained roads, police protection, and public schools for my kids. If the state and local governments can't get rid of them, and your flat tax proposal eliminates the tax breaks the poor and middle class get, then who gets hurt the most? The poor and middle class.

Speaking of tax breaks, you also conveniently ignored how a flat tax would eliminate thousands of dollars of tax relief that the poor and middle class still manage to get. You conveniently ignored those aspects of my argument. All you can come up is "What are YOUR suggestions?" As if that somehow weakens my argument against the flat tax.

[LiberallyInclined]

103. the rich won't save money from a flat -tax.

Where does all the money that the rich will save on a flat tax going to come from?

how are they going to save all that money if deductions and loopholes are taken out of the mix? do you honestly believe that the rich currently pay the rates the tax tables say that they should?

a loop-holess flat-tax with a fairly high basic-exemption/starting point is NOT regressive- you've just been conditioned to respond to any "flat-tax" proposal as "regressive".

i guess the nattering nabob label fits.

[Pithlet]

104. To make up for those tax breaks

You'd have to make that flat rate huge. So huge than anyone who isn't filthy rich will be crushed. Way to get rid of the middle class in a huge hurry. Let's give the right wingers a hand at that, why don't we?

Why do you conveniently ignore state and local taxes? Do you think they'll go away? Give the poor and middle class their exemption. And then watch it get eaten away by all the rest of the taxes that won't disappear just because the federal government implements a flat tax. Without protections like the EIC that the current tax system uses.

Nattering nabob? How about someone with a clue. Your arguments are weak. I've given you plenty of valid reasons to be against the flat tax, and you just keep regurgitating the same lines. You've refuted almost none of my points. You're just using lines. Lines fed to you by the right wingers who are praying for a flat tax. Talk about conditioned responses.

Edited for punctuation.

[LiberallyInclined]

105. i don't consider your "reasons" valid at all-

nothing solid- just a lot of nattering and negative conjecture on your part- and still no suggestions as to how you think the system should be set up...:shrug:

i guess you must really like to hear yourself talk without really saying anything.

[sweetheart]

112. People are being unrealistic about the negotiating position

Its hardly like "progressives" are leading this tax reform effort to
start with, but in DU fiction, authors can rewrite the present, that
"we" have a majority in both houses, AND the white house, that all of
"us" are bent on simplifying a progressive income tax structure.

The negotiating position is hardly that strong. It is rather one that
will, when giving the least ground in a sinking island, would best
preserve "the" palm tree.

The tax code needs drastic reform, and anyone who can watch C-span for
even a microsecond, clearly can gain that there is no impulse to change
the corporate tax breaks. It worries me that some of the democratic
ilk, are rather given towards an alternate fundamentalist utopianism
little different than the end-of-times folks. Facts and realpolitik
are ignored in favour of biblical visions of "how it should be."

People that make more money form corporations, and use the corporate
vehicle to "write off" expenses. Some corporations save hotel money
by keeping a flat in paris, as hotel rates in Paris are rather high.
If you want a flat in paris, then best form a corporation and pay for
it with corporate funds as a corporate flat. This sort of thing is the
de-facto normal use of the tax system by the corporatocracy, and
progressive tax rates do NOTHING to change this whatsoever. The flat
tax, is when the corporate conservatives come clean and are ready to
put something back by making an honest recommendation... as they've
already defeated the tax system.... only the poorly advised pay the
full burden, and inevitably this is the lowest income brackets.

Realpolitic for a democrat these days must be in mapping out negotiable
ground, and some ground cannot EVER be sold, like abortion, womens
rights, and civil rights. Rather than focus on the high ground
people want to take the whole cake home, and, gosh, it just ain't
gonna happen. Hillary Clinton is making this resolve appearant in
her centrist and "right" consensus approach, that her best and
brightest cannon fodder stay dry.

I guess talk is cheap in one sense, and we can natter about anything
without ever having to touch ground, reality or any concept of how
things will actually be passed in to law.

One consensus IS clear, however, and that is a universal sense that
the existing tax code is WAY way to complex and riddled with
inconsistency and giveaways. Would that we could move from that
consensus towards an actual simplification and steal the thunder of
our political opposition.

[Pithlet]

114. Progressives

aren't the ones giving tax breaks to the rich left and right! It isn't the Oh So Scary and Complicated Tax code that is hurting the poor and middle class. It's the tax cuts to the rich. It is the sales taxes and taxes on earned income. Stuff that progressives fight against, when we're not arguing against ludicrous flat tax plans with people who should know better.

Jeez. Let's just counter regressive taxes with more regressive taxes. That makes sense! And just dismiss anyone who points out that it is regressive as typical liberal negativism.

The answer to a complicated tax code isn't one that punishes people who make less money. And there is no getting around that is what a flat tax does. You cannot do away with proportionality and call it progressive. You cannot tax everyone at the same rate and call it fair. Anyone with basic math skills can understand that. That is why I don't understand why I see this stupid argument here at DU from obviously otherwise intelligent people.

[Pithlet]

113. Where are your valid reasons?

All I've seen is "You're a nattering nabob!!! *Squawk!*" How clever and colloquial. But addresses none of what I said. So, how about that local and state tax issue? No answer to that, huh? Don't worry. I'll save you the carpel tunnel and do it for you. "Nattering nabob!!!!" So much fun to type that.

I've said plenty. You don't want to refute it. You basically just want to pull an "I can't hear you!" and call me names. Childish.

[LiberallyInclined]

74. incomes in the 40-50,000 range -

would only be taxed on the amount above the $40,000 threshold- say $10,000 for a $50,000 income- that means that they are only being taxed on 20% of their income- whereas someone making $5 million will be taxed on the portion of their income above the $40,000 threshold,- $4,960,000 or 99.2% of their income.

so- one person is paying tax on only 20% of their income- the person who makes much less, whereas the wealthy person is paying tax on 99.2% of their income...sounds pretty damn progressive to me.

[New Dealer]

59. Yes, you are wrong, you Commie!

Just kidding! Of course the rich should pay a higher percentage.

[leftofthedial]

60. no

I think we are nearing the point where it will be necessary to eliminate the rich and redistribute their wealth.

[Terran1212]

61. I just think of it as a moral issue...

You have so much. Others have so little. Give a lot more for those less fortunate. It's a simple matter of morality.

[Telly Savalas]

71. Especially in light of the fact that the efforts of those who...

are less fortunate play a crucial role in the more fortunate obtaining their fortunes.

[ogsball]

77. You are correct

#1 It's a sound economic model to have a progressive tax structure and it has worked well for years in the US and works well other places. But sound economic theories are a rarity in the current political climate.

#2 It has to do with the marginal utility of money. The less you have the more it actually is worth more to you. Banks understand this that's why poorer people are willing to pay higher prices (in the form of interest) for money than rich people are.

#3 As stated else where. The societal benefits that the government provides are more valuable to the wealthy. I like nice roads to drive my '91 accord on but it is absolutely necessary for my Doctors BMW to be on smooth roads. How much justice am I gonna get out of the court system, where the wealth guy across town can use that expensive system to condemn my neighborhood to build a new mall with good access to the highway.

And I'm just getting started.

[otohara]

79. Especially When They Make More Money Than Dr.'s

or scientists, I'm talking the CEO's who make unGodly amounts of money, or those assholes at Enron, lobbyists, Qwest, on and on.

There aren't enough hours in a day to justify some of these salaries.

[Ironpost]

80. That's all fine and dandy but I believe that the corporations

would only pass that cost down to us the consumer so it would only be raising our taxes indirectly, wouldn't it. I would rather have the amount of taxes I pay on the table for all to see not have a lot of hidden taxes. But yes I agree the higher income bracket should pay a larger percentage.

[porphyrian]

85. Nope. Greater wealth, greater responsibility. - n/t

[blindpig]

93. if the responsibility were assumed you'd have a point.

but the wealthy elite have failed miserably in their supposed leadership role. The only place that they are leading us is over a cliff. Their privilege is thus forfeit and their influence(wealth) should be redistributed.

[porphyrian]

110. Well, I don't agree with your assertion, though I see your point.

I have no problem with individuals having wealth, as long as they accept the responsibility of the power that entails. However, as you point out, many individuals don't assume that responsibility, rather they use their power solely to obtain more wealth and to protect it at the expense of the rest of us. My thought is that they should be forced to pay more in taxes, as that is the least they can do, especially given the enormous number of ways they can avoid paying any taxes. I do not agree that we should just take all the wealth from individuals and redistribute it. However, if corporations are to be given the rights of an individual citizen, they should be held equally accountable as an individual citizen. Incorporation allows wealthy individuals to act unscrupulously without fear of direct retribution, and this is what we should focus on changing. Everyone should be held equally accountable for their actions. Redistribution of wealth does not assure this.

[blindpig]

111. don't want wealth killed, just neutered

Please note I was referring to the elite, not the McMansion level of wealth. Those well off types might make their contribution to society by way of a progressive tax structure. The seriously rich, those with so much jingle that they can and do influence government and macro economic activity, need to have their fangs pulled. Look at the state of the world: peak oil, overpopulation, climate change, biodiversity crash, it seems that these issues have been treated with benign neglect at best. If I was aware of these problems 20 years ago why weren't they?

Corporate personhood might have seemed like a good idea in the early 19th century but it has turned into a socially irresponsible monster. Surely we can find a better way to organize things.

Considering the great disparity of wealth today some redistribution is in order. My customers are working class and working poor, sometimes working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. I cannot see how their contribution to society is properly reflected by the current state of affairs.

[rman]

86. Well, since it doesn't trickle down,

we might need some other way to get the rest of the people to benefit from the nation's wealth.

[Quixote1818]

90. The Rich have more disposable income. They should pay more. nt

[XemaSab]

102. Why do you hate America?

Don't you support the troops?

[quaker bill]

106. A truly enforced progressive income tax and inheritance tax are right

There is a lot of talk about flat taxes and consumption taxes going about. Both are poor ideas.

The business owner benefits most from the free public education his employees come with. He makes a profit off of every hour they work. He benefits from a secure market and policed environment to conduct business in. He benefits from the highways and airports that keep his shipping timely and relatively dependable and inexpensive. The list goes on and on. They take a bigger slice, they owe a bigger slice back.

Drop the loopholes and enforce the law. It is just that simple.

On the consumption tax front we have a proposal that takes 23 cents on the dollar at the register and then refunds to the poor to reduce the burden. Alternately, you have a complex program where some are charged at checkout and others not, so the cashier needs to know your income. Both propositions are flatly absurd.

Imagine the bureaucracy needed to rebate consumption taxes to the poor. The poor simply cannot do without 23 cents on the dollar for very long. Because of this, you would have to rebate several times a year, perhaps monthly. People change jobs and incomes monthly, so an entire new calculation would have to be rendered every month to assure that they qualify for the rebate. To get your rebate you would have to file new forms every month. Think of the number of people needed to process them. It is simply absurd and completely unmanageable.

Finally a consumption tax is automatically regressive. Wealthy people do not spend their entire income on consumption. The wealthier they are, the less they spend in proportion to their total income. You can try to doctor it up with a rebate for low incomes, but making it progressive or even "flat" is virtually impossible.

[redqueen]

108. Hell no you're not wrong.

Not IMO, anyway.