Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2010-02-22 12:09:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You think it's right that 47% of the population pays no taxes? Does a poor person use roads less? Get less benefit from military protection? Get less use out of the FBI or CIA? Receive less SS/Medicare benefits? Receive less benefit from the EPA? Have less/no kids and therefore don't use the school system?

Half this country is currently getting a free ride.
1) 47% seems high
2) roads are usually funded by city sales tax, unless you are talking about interstates...then I'd say, yes poor people use the roads less because they don't own a car or can't afford to travel.
3) Benefit from military protection?  Clarify
4) Less use out of the FBI/CIA? Clarify
5) receive less medicare benefits? Are you talking about old people who already paid into the system and now are getting benefits?
6) Less use of the EPA?  Clarify
7) Less/no kids in school system?  Funded by the state taxes, not federal.

I understand why you want it to happen, but until someone comes up with a solution where the minimum standard of living ramps up with same with your income bracket, then as a percentage a flat tax will equate to a larger percentage of tax bite for the poor.
Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxe … /index.htm

As for poor people not owning cars... everyone owns a car that doesn't live in a city and can depend on mass transit. Poor people are also more likely to use the interstates when going on trips because it is much less expensive than flying or taking the train.

The poor are equally protected by the military as the rich are. The military doesn't discriminate when it comes to protecting our borders. It provides it's services to all equally.

Same for the FBI and CIA.

Same for the EPA protecting water systems and punishing companies for violating dumping laws. Hell, the EPA does more for the poor than the rich because most of the polluted areas in this country are in the poorer sections. Rich people don't live next to Superfund sites.

Medicaid covers people who don't have to pay a dime into the system in order to receive benefits. Taxpayer funded.

Schools are generally paid from the district/state yes, but they do receive federal aid as well.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 12:14:30
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

As for poor people not owning cars... everyone owns a car that doesn't live in a city and can depend on mass transit. Poor people are also more likely to use the interstates when going on trips because it is much less expensive than flying or taking the train.
Why not have an annual car tax that costs more or less depending on how much your vehicle damages the road (ie more money for bigger heavier vehicles)? That's how we do it here.

Or have tolls for major roads, which is the way it's done in some of Europe - France being an obvious example (they've got lovely roads - a big chunk of which are paid for by foreigners).

You could even take it to extremes, like the Swiss do, and charge everyone road tax at the border...

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-02-22 12:15:37)

2010-02-22 12:15:34
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
lot of highways have tolls here
Tu Stultus Es
2010-02-22 12:16:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

eleven bravo wrote:

lot of highways have tolls here
Do they pay for all your roads?
2010-02-22 12:17:29
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
I couldnt answer that.  None in my area.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-02-22 12:19:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

As for poor people not owning cars... everyone owns a car that doesn't live in a city and can depend on mass transit. Poor people are also more likely to use the interstates when going on trips because it is much less expensive than flying or taking the train.
Why not have an annual car tax that costs more or less depending on how much your vehicle damages the road (ie more money for bigger heavier vehicles)? That's how we do it here.

Or have tolls for major roads, which is the way it's done in some of Europe - France being an obvious example (they've got lovely roads - a big chunk of which are paid for by foreigners).
We have both here, there's just generally no rhyme or reason as to how they are carried out. It's rather impossible to charge by usage strictly going off the odometer reading (which is what would make sense) because it can be disconnected (which is illegal). And charging by the pound when it comes to cars is rather silly since the difference between a 3000 lb car and a 2000 lb car rolling along the road is negligible. Some states do charge SUVs more for their registration fee though.

I personally pay $11 a day in tolls commuting to and from school (or $6 when I ride my motorcycle).

The problem with things like tolls and registration fees etc is that the money doesn't go directly into an infrastructure fund. It goes into the general tax fund used by the state (at least here in NY) and only a piece of it goes back into upkeep and maintenance. Tolls are used to subsidize mass transit instead or pay for the governors personal photographers salary

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-22 12:21:53)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 12:24:19
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
All good points.  Nice work

But the standard cost for necessities?
2010-02-22 12:29:05
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

As for poor people not owning cars... everyone owns a car that doesn't live in a city and can depend on mass transit. Poor people are also more likely to use the interstates when going on trips because it is much less expensive than flying or taking the train.
Why not have an annual car tax that costs more or less depending on how much your vehicle damages the road (ie more money for bigger heavier vehicles)? That's how we do it here.

Or have tolls for major roads, which is the way it's done in some of Europe - France being an obvious example (they've got lovely roads - a big chunk of which are paid for by foreigners).
We have both here, there's just generally no rhyme or reason as to how they are carried out. It's rather impossible to charge by usage strictly going off the odometer reading (which is what would make sense) because it can be disconnected (which is illegal). And charging by the pound when it comes to cars is rather silly since the difference between a 3000 lb car and a 2000 lb car rolling along the road is negligible. Some states do charge SUVs more for their registration fee though.

I personally pay $11 a day in tolls commuting to and from school (or $6 when I ride my motorcycle).

The problem with things like tolls and registration fees etc is that the money doesn't go directly into an infrastructure fund. It goes into the general tax fund used by the state (at least here in NY) and only a piece of it goes back into upkeep and maintenance. Tolls are used to subsidize mass transit instead or pay for the governors personal photographers salary
Well it should go back into the same system it came from. I know in France the roads are run by private companies who are granted licenses by the government. They make profits on the roads. Why shouldn't governments be able to do the same?

You have an annual road tax? I didn't know that. I thought you just paid a one-off registration fee. How much is it? I pay a little over £200/year for my Alfa 156 - surely that sort of level of taxation would be sufficient to cover road maintenance.

If you government is recovering more money in tax and tolls on the road than they are spending then you can't really criticise (purely on the roads aspect) people who drive but don't pay income taxes, because the tax they pay for their vehicle and the roads they use should cover the governments costs.
2010-02-22 12:33:56
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

All good points.  Nice work

But the standard cost for necessities?
Valid point if one assumes a top end for 'necessities'. Sure, a rich guy could live off of PB&J sandwiches like the poor guy and survive but he's earned more, no? You may not agree that his caviar is a necessity but it is something that he's earned. Does the poor person have a much smaller window to fall back on in case of job loss or whatever else? Yes. Am I silly enough to believe that a rich man and poor man don't have the same base level for their needs? Hardly.

I understand your point but it's impossible to define exactly how much anyone needs to make to pay for necessities. I mean if you want to get right down to it, a bum on the street is meeting his own bare necessities. He's got clothes on his back (albeit smelly), food in his belly (albeit secondhand) and shelter (even if it's a cardboard box or a subway station). He's surviving. How do you define the needs of a man that owns a farm? He can grow his own food and provide his own clothing from his cattle if he really wanted to while erecting a log or turf home.

That's the major flaw in what defines poverty. It's all relative and the majority of the time it's a politically defined term.

Do I understand you wanting to protect those at the bottom from being pushed into starvation? Absolutely. Do I think it could happen with a flat tax? Maybe. What it is more likely to do is push wages up at the very bottom and depress prices at the same time in order to equalize around the new taxes that those at the bottom would be forced to pay. No one will work if working doesn't alleviate starvation.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-22 12:35:23)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 12:41:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Well it should go back into the same system it came from. I know in France the roads are run by private companies who are granted licenses by the government. They make profits on the roads. Why shouldn't governments be able to do the same?

You have an annual road tax? I didn't know that. I thought you just paid a one-off registration fee. How much is it? I pay a little over £200/year for my Alfa 156 - surely that sort of level of taxation would be sufficient to cover road maintenance.

If you government is recovering more money in tax and tolls on the road than they are spending then you can't really criticise (purely on the roads aspect) people who drive but don't pay income taxes, because the tax they pay for their vehicle and the roads they use should cover the governments costs.
Should? Of course. Does it happen? Never. The taxes I pay on my cigarettes should go directly into paying for the state Medicaid fund and anti-smoking counseling/aids like they said it would when the taxes were proposed (this was their justification). Did it happen? Of course not. My state is wholly owned by union interests. If they get a whiff of a tax increase the teachers/firefighters/police/nurses/transit workers and government employees unions instantly have their hand out. Hell, most of my states budget is allocated to paying public employee pensions at this point. We're bankrupt.


And it varies from state to state but you have to register your car every year or two. Required to get it inspected as well.


Edit - Also, take what I say with a grain of salt because it doesn't apply to the country as a whole. My state is far and away the most corrupt in the country though so it definitely adds to my governmental hostility and distrust.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-22 12:48:50)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 12:49:48
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

All good points.  Nice work

But the standard cost for necessities?
Valid point if one assumes a top end for 'necessities'. Sure, a rich guy could live off of PB&J sandwiches like the poor guy and survive but he's earned more, no? You may not agree that his caviar is a necessity but it is something that he's earned. Does the poor person have a much smaller window to fall back on in case of job loss or whatever else? Yes. Am I silly enough to believe that a rich man and poor man don't have the same base level for their needs? Hardly.

I understand your point but it's impossible to define exactly how much anyone needs to make to pay for necessities. I mean if you want to get right down to it, a bum on the street is meeting his own bare necessities. He's got clothes on his back (albeit smelly), food in his belly (albeit secondhand) and shelter (even if it's a cardboard box or a subway station). He's surviving. How do you define the needs of a man that owns a farm? He can grow his own food and provide his own clothing from his cattle if he really wanted to while erecting a log or turf home.

That's the major flaw in what defines poverty. It's all relative and the majority of the time it's a politically defined term.

Do I understand you wanting to protect those at the bottom from being pushed into starvation? Absolutely. Do I think it could happen with a flat tax? Maybe. What it is more likely to do is push wages up at the very bottom and depress prices at the same time in order to equalize around the new taxes that those at the bottom would be forced to pay. No one will work if working doesn't alleviate starvation.
Actually, I'm getting at the point that if you do make any adjustments away from a flat tax rate, you get a bracket...
2010-02-22 12:52:04
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6908|Hanging in the Balance
JohnG, check again. 47% may not pay income tax: they do pay payroll taxes, which is about 8% up front for Soc. Security/Medicaid under around 90k, which is an upper limit they won't touch. So don't act like they don't pay any Soc. Security or Medicare. Moreover, yes, they do receive less social security at the end.
2010-02-22 12:52:23
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

Actually, I'm getting at the point that if you do make any adjustments away from a flat tax rate, you get a bracket...
Which is generally why proponents don't believe in deductions or credits of any sort.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 12:53:39
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Ghandi767 wrote:

JohnG, check again. 47% may not pay income tax: they do pay payroll taxes, which is about 8% up front for Soc. Security/Medicaid under around 90k, which is an upper limit they won't touch. So don't act like they don't pay any Soc. Security or Medicare. Moreover, yes, they do receive less social security at the end.
So they pay SS and Medicare, big deal. They aren't paying for any other service they use. Freeloaders the lot of them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 12:57:48
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

Actually, I'm getting at the point that if you do make any adjustments away from a flat tax rate, you get a bracket...
Which is generally why proponents don't believe in deductions or credits of any sort.
True, but I'm saying it becomes unfair to the poor due to a larger % of their income going for necessities in comparision, which means a set flat tax rate would mean a larger bite, which means a bracket is necessary.

So modify it a bit and it should work fine.  People will always bitch about inequities.

Now, I'm against flat tax completely, but the above would work, until the government wants to pump up the non-taxpaying households again by throwing out another tax stimulus check.
2010-02-22 13:01:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

Actually, I'm getting at the point that if you do make any adjustments away from a flat tax rate, you get a bracket...
Which is generally why proponents don't believe in deductions or credits of any sort.
True, but I'm saying it becomes unfair to the poor due to a larger % of their income going for necessities in comparision, which means a set flat tax rate would mean a larger bite, which means a bracket is necessary.

So modify it a bit and it should work fine.  People will always bitch about inequities.

Now, I'm against flat tax completely, but the above would work, until the government wants to pump up the non-taxpaying households again by throwing out another tax stimulus check.
You're proposing a parabola are you not? How is that different from and less severe than the current graduated income tax system? Why should people only be allowed to keep enough money for 'necessities'? As I said, necessities are defined differently for different people. I personally need a forty room mansion and six Jaguars in the driveway. Prove me wrong.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 13:03:26
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
You are assuming YOU will set the level...which never would happen

Second, it's not different.  Which is why I'm pointing it out.
2010-02-22 13:05:09
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
You still haven't come even close to defining what a necessity is outside of broad terms which is why the argument for a progressive tax system fails utterly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 13:06:21
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
A couple:
EPA, Military, Schooling, FBI/CIA, Unemployment, Medicaid.

Familiar, no?
2010-02-22 13:07:50
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
Why is it a tragedy to make a man making $30,000 a year live like a man making $27,000 a tragedy but making a man earning $300,000 live like a man earning $200,000 justice?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 13:14:26
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
Didn't say that.

Let's say cost of living is $10k, tax rate is 20%, flat.

$30k guy pays $6k in tax, and $10k for cost of living = $14k take home.  He has $14k/$30 = 46% salary left.

$300k guy pays $60k in tax, and $10k for cost of living = $230k take home.  He has $230k/$300k = 76% salary left.

His jag and six homes are optional purchases.

That's why its progressive.
2010-02-22 13:16:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

Didn't say that.

Let's say cost of living is $10k, tax rate is 20%, flat.

$30k guy pays $6k in tax, and $10k for cost of living = $14k take home.  He has $14k/$30 = 46% salary left.

$300k guy pays $60k in tax, and $10k for cost of living = $230k take home.  He has $230k/$300k = 76% salary left.

His jag and six homes are optional purchases.

That's why its progressive.
Cost of living is irrelevant, so is disposable income. They've both earned their wages and have equal right to whatever disposable income they have because of this. It's not the fault of the man making $300k that the other man makes $30k, it's that mans own fault. If he wants extra income to throw around he should do something to advance himself in his profession or choose a new one.

The progressive tax system punishes success and rewards failure with subsidies.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-22 13:17:54)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-22 13:19:39
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
Absolutely it is relevant.  If you are forcing a tax on somebody, you have to consider expenses that aren't optional to determine whether it's fair or not.
2010-02-22 13:21:22
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
How exactly is it's someone's fault to start their first job at $30k/year?  Hell, you don't think everyone starts at $300k do you?
2010-02-22 13:21:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

Absolutely it is relevant.  If you are forcing a tax on somebody, you have to consider expenses that aren't optional to determine whether it's fair or not.
Any enumeration of 'living expenses' is entirely arbitrary.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard