klassekock
Proud Born Loser
+68|6557|Sweden

ghettoperson wrote:

At one point in Sweden the highest tax bracket was 80%! They did get 'free' if you can call it that heating and I think electricity though. Random fact for you.
I have no idea where you got those fact from? To my knowledge heating and electricity have never been for free. It is true though that we have one of the highest taxes in the world, but some people don't get much for it in my opinion. I have nothing against paying taxes but they should be divided correctly. At the moment we have problems here in sweden with cut downs in the budgets of hospital care, schools, social security and unemployment aid. It may have somethig to do with our new government, or just decline in the economy.

Last edited by klassekock (2007-03-18 14:16:17)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

The main problem with taxation is that when you give the government money, it wants to spend it.  It is a rare government that will tell you they did not need all the money you sent in, so here is a refund.  They will find things to spend the money on.  Pet projects.  Pork, as we call it.  It also inspires the government to start to spend money in areas that may not have been intended, thus spreading their influence.
Agreed, although the Canadian government has run a budget surplus for quite some time.  I wish we could....
Well, the majority of US governemnt spending is in the form of welfare... medicare and the like.  About 2/3, to be honest.
Closely followed by warfare...  If we intervened less in the world's conflicts and shifted most social programs to state governments, the federal government would be much smaller, and we could create a significant budget surplus to pay down the national debt with.
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|6558|sWEEDen
How can 2/3 be spent on healthcare when all (most) has to have their own insurance for heatlhcare if I understand it right?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

I would like lower taxes of course. Maybe if we weren't writing Israel a check for 2.4 billion a year. Get rid of that abomination called social security why your at it. Let me put more of my retirement money where I want it. I am for less government when it comes to handling my money. I think any reasonable person understands that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

How can 2/3 be spent on healthcare when all (most) has to have their own insurance for heatlhcare if I understand it right?
Our Social Security sucks (it's highly inefficient), and that 2/3 is actually including welfare as well (economic aid to the poor).  So, it's not all devoted to healthcare.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6620

klassekock wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

At one point in Sweden the highest tax bracket was 80%! They did get 'free' if you can call it that heating and I think electricity though. Random fact for you.
I have no idea where you got those fact from? To my knowledge heating and electricity have never been for free. It is true though that we have one of the highest taxes in the world, but some people don't get much for it in my opinion. I have nothing against paying taxes but they should be divided correctly. At the moment we have problems here in sweden with cut downs in the budgets of hospital care, schools, social security and unemployment aid. It may have somethig to do with our new government, or just decline in the economy.
Got it from an economics teacher. No idea whether it's true or not, but he did live there a long time ago (he's old) and he knows his stuff.
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|6558|sWEEDen
Ok I see....still a fantastic number that seems to pay off soo sadly.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

How can 2/3 be spent on healthcare when all (most) has to have their own insurance for heatlhcare if I understand it right?
Our Social Security sucks (it's highly inefficient), and that 2/3 is actually including welfare as well (economic aid to the poor).  So, it's not all devoted to healthcare.
You do realise welfare in the US is actually remarkably low?

Where does all the money go? Military expenditure is a BIG waste, the US could halve it, still have the most powerfull military by far and solve all these domestic issues (well, about $300 billion worth).
Fen321
Member
+54|6468|Singularity
Can anyone fill me in on why we can get double taxed -- income + sales tax?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

How can 2/3 be spent on healthcare when all (most) has to have their own insurance for heatlhcare if I understand it right?
Our Social Security sucks (it's highly inefficient), and that 2/3 is actually including welfare as well (economic aid to the poor).  So, it's not all devoted to healthcare.
You do realise welfare in the US is actually remarkably low?

Where does all the money go? Military expenditure is a BIG waste, the US could halve it, still have the most powerfull military by far and solve all these domestic issues (well, about $300 billion worth).
I agree, but try explaining that to the paranoid hawks that run this country along with the paranoid public.
ph4s3
engineer
+34|6799|Texas
Taxes are simply a way to spread the cost of government across to the board, equally, to the people it benefits.  It sounds to me like most of you are not in favor of taxes so much as state-sponsored redistribution of wealth.  That's a socialist concept.  There's a reason the income tax is called a "progressive" tax.

The only "fair" income tax is one that taxes all people equally -- as a percentage, not a dollar figure --, regardless of pay.  Say 10% or so, period.  Someone earns 50k, they owe 5k.  Someone earns 500k, the owe 50k.  Someone earns 50B, they owe 5B.  What the hell is wrong with you that you think someone who earned 50B needs to pay more than 5B in taxes?  That's a million times more than the guy who earned 50k, and you're gonna say that's not enough???  I guarantee you that this guy is doing more to stimulate the economy with his investments and consumption than the guy making 50k.  Yet you want to charge him MORE of a percentage just because he has it?!?!  That's not taxation, it's theft.

We all presumably have the same access to government institutions, programs, schools, etc.  Why should one person pay more than the next as a percentage of their overall income?  It's blatantly unfair but very easy to say since the "rich" are "evil" of course and didn't do anything to actually earn it like work hard, study hard, etc.  (please note the sarcasm in that statement).

I suspect most of you are young and haven't had the pleasure of working your a$$ off only to see 31% (my effective tax rate for FY2006) of your earned income taken from you by the force of government.  That's food off my table, gas out of my car, trips we didn't get to take to see the grandparents, etc.  I work HARD for my family and I resent it very much that someone takes any of it away from me or them.  I resent it even more when I think about how much time I had to spend away from my family to earn that money.  I accept the responsibility of it, though, as a condition of citizenship as well as a cost of the benefit of working in this economy and raising my family here.  However, when idiots start spouting off that higher earners should pay a larger percentage of their income I get offended and just damned mad.  I'm by no means in the upper income brackets, but F### you and F### anyone else that wants to take more than what I already have to pay.  I fully intend to move up in income brackets over the next 20-25 years of my career and it pisses me off to think how much more money I'm going to have to give to the government.

I guess my libertarian flat tax side is showing now.

All that being said, I think an income tax is actually unfair because it taxes people for something they've not benefited from.  Being paid $1 or $1M doesn't help anyone if they don't spend it.  I think the only fair tax would be a consumption (sales) tax.  By all means this can (should?) be progressive and luxury items like new cars should have a higher tax cost to them than groceries.  But I digress...

The answer to the question is... More than 10% is too much.  Make it a 10% tax, across the board, on every earner, individual and company alike.  Do away with all the tax loopholes, deductions, credits, etc and charge everyone 10%.  Stop using the tax code to further social, economic or any other agendas.  Furthermore, do NOT charge people taxes on government distributions such as SSI, etc.  That is money we've paid IN to the system, we shouldn't have to pay a penalty when we get it out.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I realize that reality must play a role here and there should be a minimum threshold under which no one pays taxes because even 10% would be an undue burden.  I propose it should be at approximately 2.5x the poverty level.  Because seriously, the poverty level for a family of four is like 20k.  That's insane.  Make under 50K for a family of 4 and you should pay no taxes.  From there it should go up say 1% per 1K over 50K, maxing out at 10% from 60K on up.

And I still think there should be a national consumption/sales tax, perhaps in lieu of the income tax.
BVC
Member
+325|6666
Re: Taxation in general
If a state wishes for the service of its citizens, and for its citizens to support it then it is bound both economically and morally to keep its citizens in the best posible condition, that in doing what is expected of them, they acheive to the best of their ability.  Typically, the easiest way of ensuring the welfare of a state's citizens is through taxation and the providing of services with income from taxation.  If you believe all tax is wrong, and state services are wrong, consider that in times of war and natural disaster, all citizens may be expected to serve their state.

If a state choses the path of taxation it is also bound, again both economically and morally, not to extract too much from its citizens.  To extract too much destroys the fruits of individual labour, and comes close to slavery.  If a state allows itself into this sort of situation, it may breed dissatisfaction, and thus its ruling government may change.

Sort of a "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, but stab my back and I'll stab yours" thing.

Re: Rates themselves, and welfare.
Every country is different.  That said, I'm a firm believer in the existance and purpose of welfare.  I also believe there should be a single flat tax rate on income earned over a set amount, that amount being a bit higher than whatever those on welfare are receiving.  It allows everyone to enjoy a basic, sufficient standard of living (slightly better if they're a low-waged worker), still extracts an income for the state to provide essential services, and does not unfairly penalise those who earn more, as "staggered" tax rates do.

Last edited by Pubic (2007-03-18 16:33:11)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

ph4s3 wrote:

The only "fair" income tax is one that taxes all people equally -- as a percentage, not a dollar figure --, regardless of pay.  Say 10% or so, period.  Someone earns 50k, they owe 5k.  Someone earns 500k, the owe 50k.  Someone earns 50B, they owe 5B.  What the hell is wrong with you that you think someone who earned 50B needs to pay more than 5B in taxes?  That's a million times more than the guy who earned 50k, and you're gonna say that's not enough???  I guarantee you that this guy is doing more to stimulate the economy with his investments and consumption than the guy making 50k.  Yet you want to charge him MORE of a percentage just because he has it?!?!  That's not taxation, it's theft.
When you consider how much more power rich people have over the average citizen through buying politicians with lobbyism, then it makes perfect sense that the rich should pay more.  They get more out of the system than the average person, because they can afford to buy the people in charge.

ph4s3 wrote:

We all presumably have the same access to government institutions, programs, schools, etc.  Why should one person pay more than the next as a percentage of their overall income?  It's blatantly unfair but very easy to say since the "rich" are "evil" of course and didn't do anything to actually earn it like work hard, study hard, etc.  (please note the sarcasm in that statement).
I'm guessing you're not poor or working class, are you?...  Life isn't an even playing field, and it never will be.  The least we can do is make it easier for working people to rise in income.  Some people do live off of the system, but most people on welfare spend a short time on it before adjusting into a new job.

ph4s3 wrote:

I suspect most of you are young and haven't had the pleasure of working your a$$ off only to see 31% (my effective tax rate for FY2006) of your earned income taken from you by the force of government.  That's food off my table, gas out of my car, trips we didn't get to take to see the grandparents, etc.  I work HARD for my family and I resent it very much that someone takes any of it away from me or them.  I resent it even more when I think about how much time I had to spend away from my family to earn that money.  I accept the responsibility of it, though, as a condition of citizenship as well as a cost of the benefit of working in this economy and raising my family here.  However, when idiots start spouting off that higher earners should pay a larger percentage of their income I get offended and just damned mad.  I'm by no means in the upper income brackets, but F### you and F### anyone else that wants to take more than what I already have to pay.  I fully intend to move up in income brackets over the next 20-25 years of my career and it pisses me off to think how much more money I'm going to have to give to the government.
This is why I suggest we lower taxes on people in the bottom four brackets and raise them among the top one.   In general, corporate income taxes should be higher than personal income ones.

ph4s3 wrote:

I guess my libertarian flat tax side is showing now..
I used to be Libertarian until I realized how unrealistic many of their beliefs are.

ph4s3 wrote:

All that being said, I think an income tax is actually unfair because it taxes people for something they've not benefited from.  Being paid $1 or $1M doesn't help anyone if they don't spend it.  I think the only fair tax would be a consumption (sales) tax.  By all means this can (should?) be progressive and luxury items like new cars should have a higher tax cost to them than groceries.  But I digress...

The answer to the question is... More than 10% is too much.  Make it a 10% tax, across the board, on every earner, individual and company alike.  Do away with all the tax loopholes, deductions, credits, etc and charge everyone 10%.  Stop using the tax code to further social, economic or any other agendas.  Furthermore, do NOT charge people taxes on government distributions such as SSI, etc.  That is money we've paid IN to the system, we shouldn't have to pay a penalty when we get it out.
You'd have to cut federal spending by at least half in order to implement this system.  Granted, I wouldn't necessarily be against that.

ph4s3 wrote:

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I realize that reality must play a role here and there should be a minimum threshold under which no one pays taxes because even 10% would be an undue burden.  I propose it should be at approximately 2.5x the poverty level.  Because seriously, the poverty level for a family of four is like 20k.  That's insane.  Make under 50K for a family of 4 and you should pay no taxes.  From there it should go up say 1% per 1K over 50K, maxing out at 10% from 60K on up.

And I still think there should be a national consumption/sales tax, perhaps in lieu of the income tax.
Well, at least we agree on the poverty aspect.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-18 16:38:42)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6256

ph4s3 wrote:

Taxes are simply a way to spread the cost of government across to the board, equally, to the people it benefits.  It sounds to me like most of you are not in favor of taxes so much as state-sponsored redistribution of wealth.  That's a socialist concept.  There's a reason the income tax is called a "progressive" tax.

The only "fair" income tax is one that taxes all people equally -- as a percentage, not a dollar figure --, regardless of pay.  Say 10% or so, period.  Someone earns 50k, they owe 5k.  Someone earns 500k, the owe 50k.  Someone earns 50B, they owe 5B.  What the hell is wrong with you that you think someone who earned 50B needs to pay more than 5B in taxes?  That's a million times more than the guy who earned 50k, and you're gonna say that's not enough???  I guarantee you that this guy is doing more to stimulate the economy with his investments and consumption than the guy making 50k.  Yet you want to charge him MORE of a percentage just because he has it?!?!  That's not taxation, it's theft.

We all presumably have the same access to government institutions, programs, schools, etc.  Why should one person pay more than the next as a percentage of their overall income?  It's blatantly unfair but very easy to say since the "rich" are "evil" of course and didn't do anything to actually earn it like work hard, study hard, etc.  (please note the sarcasm in that statement).

I suspect most of you are young and haven't had the pleasure of working your a$$ off only to see 31% (my effective tax rate for FY2006) of your earned income taken from you by the force of government.  That's food off my table, gas out of my car, trips we didn't get to take to see the grandparents, etc.  I work HARD for my family and I resent it very much that someone takes any of it away from me or them.  I resent it even more when I think about how much time I had to spend away from my family to earn that money.  I accept the responsibility of it, though, as a condition of citizenship as well as a cost of the benefit of working in this economy and raising my family here.  However, when idiots start spouting off that higher earners should pay a larger percentage of their income I get offended and just damned mad.  I'm by no means in the upper income brackets, but F### you and F### anyone else that wants to take more than what I already have to pay.  I fully intend to move up in income brackets over the next 20-25 years of my career and it pisses me off to think how much more money I'm going to have to give to the government.

I guess my libertarian flat tax side is showing now.

All that being said, I think an income tax is actually unfair because it taxes people for something they've not benefited from.  Being paid $1 or $1M doesn't help anyone if they don't spend it.  I think the only fair tax would be a consumption (sales) tax.  By all means this can (should?) be progressive and luxury items like new cars should have a higher tax cost to them than groceries.  But I digress...

The answer to the question is... More than 10% is too much.  Make it a 10% tax, across the board, on every earner, individual and company alike.  Do away with all the tax loopholes, deductions, credits, etc and charge everyone 10%.  Stop using the tax code to further social, economic or any other agendas.  Furthermore, do NOT charge people taxes on government distributions such as SSI, etc.  That is money we've paid IN to the system, we shouldn't have to pay a penalty when we get it out.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I realize that reality must play a role here and there should be a minimum threshold under which no one pays taxes because even 10% would be an undue burden.  I propose it should be at approximately 2.5x the poverty level.  Because seriously, the poverty level for a family of four is like 20k.  That's insane.  Make under 50K for a family of 4 and you should pay no taxes.  From there it should go up say 1% per 1K over 50K, maxing out at 10% from 60K on up.

And I still think there should be a national consumption/sales tax, perhaps in lieu of the income tax.
Well for a start a flat 10% tax on everyone means the US can kiss goodbye to pretty much their entire armed forces.

But now everyone starts to complaing because the government needs more money for an army.
'Wait a sec, we can raise the 10% tax!'
...raises taxes...

'Wait a sec, now the poor are absolutely screwed, we need more money for social security'
...raises taxes....

'Nope with these new higher taxes the poor have no hope of ever getting off welfare, so we'll have to keep everyone elses taxes real high so we can give the government enough money to subsidise the existance costs of the poor`

'Wait a sec. Isn't the amount everyone effectively paying in taxes now exactly the same as when we started, except the moderately well off are burdened with much more of the taxes that were being paid by the very rich?'

'Yes we should have thought about that one a bit harder!'
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|6558|sWEEDen
Well said ph4s3 I see where you are coming from....but I really beleive 10% is to little even if all chip in equally.... First years of my employment I wasn´t happy about paying taxes at all becuase I felt that I used very little of what I actually payed for...but I was using more then I would admit to myself, society is big and needs a big funding....I´ve been paying 33% in taxes for 11 years (27 years old), and I feel good about it.

A more general efficiant taxation and spending as you said very well....could most surely lower taxes to a much lower level for all of us. I also beleive that all should pay the same percentage of taxes, not more taxes just becuase you happen to be rich or less becuase you are not, unless as you said...it would be an undue burden considering your income.

All for one ...one for all.
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6450|Somewhere else

Taxes In the USA are FUBAR.  Until you get rid of greed and corruption, it wont be a "good thing".  If we could get the politicians to help the struggling instead of the super rich, it would ne alot better.  If the politicians truelly we acting for the good of the country, things would be much better.

If If If If.   Nothing will change.   Political corruption is a fact of human nature. from ancient times to the forsee able future, its gonna be screwed.

But as the origonal post-  If my taxed income DID go to social welfare for people who deserve/need it, social medical care like Canada, reasonable defense, Education (desperately need in the USA), and other worwhile programs instead of pockets, I'd pay half and be cool with it.

As of now, I hate lining rich mens pockets, supporting losers with twelve kids and no job, and paying for a losing war. Fubar.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

50%

...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-03-18 17:07:43)

imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Agreed, although the Canadian government has run a budget surplus for quite some time.  I wish we could....
Well, the majority of US governemnt spending is in the form of welfare... medicare and the like.  About 2/3, to be honest.
Closely followed by warfare...  If we intervened less in the world's conflicts and shifted most social programs to state governments, the federal government would be much smaller, and we could create a significant budget surplus to pay down the national debt with.
Got a better one for you.  If we cancelled all forms of social and corperate welfare, we could reduce our taxes by 2/3.  Not to mention get the government out of our daily lives.

And it is not so closely followed by military spending.  Note I did not call it warfare, as you did.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Well said ph4s3 I see where you are coming from....but I really beleive 10% is to little even if all chip in equally.... First years of my employment I wasn´t happy about paying taxes at all becuase I felt that I used very little of what I actually payed for...but I was using more then I would admit to myself, society is big and needs a big funding....I´ve been paying 33% in taxes for 11 years (27 years old), and I feel good about it.

A more general efficiant taxation and spending as you said very well....could most surely lower taxes to a much lower level for all of us. I also beleive that all should pay the same percentage of taxes, not more taxes just becuase you happen to be rich or less becuase you are not, unless as you said...it would be an undue burden considering your income.

All for one ...one for all.
NO.  no no no.  All right, I will consider that we view things from a different perspective.  I am all in favor of charity, when done by private charities and religious organizations.  But NOT by the government.  I do NOT want a nanny state.  I do not want cradle-to-grave care.  I want freedom.  Freedom, if I want, to be as stupid as I want to be.  Freedom, if I want to, to completely ruin my life.

I do not want a government with national health care.  Because then THEY have control of my well being, not me.  I do not want government schools, because then THEY have control of what my children learn, not me.  I do not want government control of business, because a government, by thousands of examples in the last 100 years, has shown a complete inability to run business without destroying it. I do not want government regulation, permission, liscence, or any of the other useless things a government comes up with to increase red tape and its own power and giving nothing back to the people.

The purpose of government is not to "help the poor," or any such rot. The purpose of a goverment is to provide a system of law and justice, and to provide protection of its citizens from other nations.  That is all.  Other than that, get your nose out of my business.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

How can 2/3 be spent on healthcare when all (most) has to have their own insurance for heatlhcare if I understand it right?
Our Social Security sucks (it's highly inefficient), and that 2/3 is actually including welfare as well (economic aid to the poor).  So, it's not all devoted to healthcare.
You do realise welfare in the US is actually remarkably low?

Where does all the money go? Military expenditure is a BIG waste, the US could halve it, still have the most powerfull military by far and solve all these domestic issues (well, about $300 billion worth).
Really?  I could have SWORN when I did my taxes this year that the little pamphlet said that in the fiscal year 2005.... (and I am going to correct some of my statements here, so hold on...)

1. Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement: 37%
2. National Defence, veterens, and foreign affairs: 24%
3. Social programs: 20%
4. Physical, human, and community development: 10%
5. Net intrest on the debt: 7%
6. Law enforcement and general government: 2%

Now, social programs and welfare programs (1 and 3) plus 4, since I have NO idea what it means but sounds pretty useless, adds up to 67% of federal spending.  My source for this information is my 2006 1040A Instruction booklet.
power9787
Member
+10|6552
poor people should pay more tax, they get all the benefits
poor people pay 40% income
average people 20-25%
above average 25-30%
rich 30-35%
super rich 35%to40%(1million a month or greater )
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6620
I don't pay taxes, but I do know my parents get charged the top amount relative to what they earn which is 55% of their income. Far too much, thats over half the income that you have worked hard and strived for..taken from you.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2007-03-18 23:19:37)

.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6800

power9787 wrote:

poor people should pay more tax, they get all the benefits
poor people pay 40% income
average people 20-25%
above average 25-30%
rich 30-35%
super rich 35%to40%(1million a month or greater )
Well done, you've failed to grasp the point social security.
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6602|Finland

Just for reference, here's the income taxes for 2007 here in Finland:
Yearly income, €Tax at lowest point, €Tax % of the amount above the lowest sum
12 400 - 20 40089.0
20 400 - 33 40072819.5
33 400 - 60 8003 26324.0
60 800 - 9 83932.0


On top of this, there are several other taxes which are added to the final tax. So in reality, e.g a person that makes 32 000€ in a year pays approximately 25% taxes altogether from his income.

But taxes aren't all about wages. The state needs an income to keep the social infrastructure in shape. A lowering of taxes might not help immediately, but it increases purchasing power. On the other hand, a higher income tax would allow a lowering of VAT, which in turn would keep balance in the purchasing power.

I'm all for taxation, as long as the state receives the funds it needs, and distributes the funds in a way that it optimizes benefit for the entire population. I'm ready to pay more taxes.
I need around tree fiddy.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
DonFck is too pro with his table.

I'm for taxation as long as it goes back to the community in some form.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard