aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Taxing The Rich and Business. Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Taxing The Rich and Business." Watch "Taxing The Rich and Business." New topic
Author

Taxing The Rich and Business.

Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
The concept that money is societies and not an individuals is really warped. This concept that you can just take money from the rich and corporations and everything will be alright is bunk. Corporations do not pay taxes. Oh sure, they are taxed but just pass that on as a cost of doing business. So increasing taxes on business increases the taxes on "the working man".
So someone has a talent whether sports or acting or music and gets rich. So what? Someone works hard in school and becomes a CEO. Big deal. I do have a problem with CEOs getting rewarded when all stocks go up and theirs just happens to follow along. The point is it is THEIR money.
Here is the tax break down again. Explain to me how the "rich" do not pay their fair share of income taxes.
Total income tax share (percentage):
1% 5% 10% 25% 50%
1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09
Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404

1% 5% 10% 25% 50%
1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54

Let us see if I'm reading these figures right. Numbers dazzle me, especially numbers on taxes.

25.75 ( million of the population ) paid 1% of the total tax share and have incomes averaging $118,000 ?
regards
paul wheaton
Trailboss

Joined: Dec 14, 1998
Posts: 20528
    ∞

When I was in San Diego I remember avoiding certain petroleum companies because they bought their oil from the mid-east. My cousin avoided certain oil companies because (I think I have this right) they would set their companies up in such a way that they would not pay their fair share of taxes. He said that if he supports companies that pay american taxes, that's less taxes that he is going to have to pay.


permaculture Wood Burning Stoves 2.0 - 4-DVD set
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Could you please add in sales and property taxes.
I would really appeciate it if you would calculate what percentage of income goes to taxes after subtracting what the government says is the level that brings one above the poverty level.
The concept that money is societies and not an individuals is really warped.

Many a person with this attitude has been fined, gone to jail, or been summarily executed. Section 8 of article 1 is very clear The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes... :roll:
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24183
    
  34


or been summarily executed

Are we talking about the U.S. of A. here? Don't think so.


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Let us see if I'm reading these figures right. Numbers dazzle me, especially numbers on taxes.

25.75 ( million of the population ) paid 1% of the total tax share and have incomes averaging $118,000 ?
regards

Not quite. The top 1% of wage earners in 1986 earned $118,000. You got that right. The top chart shows the percent of total taxes. So the top 1% of wage earners in 1986 paid 25.75% of all income taxes.
Matt Cao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 03, 2003
Posts: 715
Hello,
If you have the time and resource to hire people do research for you, I am sure you could get a break just like "those rich people". For example, during California recall event with an independent candidate named Arianna Huffington got away with expense related to career enhancement written as research, a deductive item. I, myself, beg company for budget to purchase books or articles and disappoint if it rejected. Duh.
Regards,
MCao
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Could you please add in sales and property taxes.
I would really appeciate it if you would calculate what percentage of income goes to taxes after subtracting what the government says is the level that brings one above the poverty level.

Many a person with this attitude has been fined, gone to jail, or been summarily executed. Section 8 of article 1 is very clear The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes... :roll:


Why we aren't talking about state and local taxes. We also aren't talking about payroll(FICA), medicare taxes, state income or local income taxes, sin taxes, or any other local tax.
If you want to talk about an unfair tax, talk about the FICA tax. What should be a flat tax percentage isn't for those earning more than a certain amount. You only pay on the first ??? earned.
Explain to me how letting someone keep some of their money is removing it from the government? Sure the government has the power to tax. That still doesn't explain why you think it is the governments money and not the earners.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Taxes are to pay for government provided services, and nothing more. It would seem intuitively that the more money one makes, the less one is dependant on government services. So of course a tax system where one pays proportionate to what they receive wouldn't work as the lower incomes would end up footing an unfair portion of the tax burden. Our current progressive tax system is completely assinine and there is really no way it can be justified, unless of course one is a socialist. The only just system of taxation would be where each citizen pays proportionately the same taxes. The "wealthy" would still pay more than the "poor", but it would be the same percentage of their income. I have no problem paying my fair share, but I have a huge problem with paying a disproportionately unfair share of the collective tax burden.
We all have ample examples of what dismal failures socialist welfare states are. Why on earth would anybody want to head in that direction when we know it just doesn't work, and is not remotely culturally compatible with our way of life? Despite what the social welfare spendthrifts would have us believe, its not more money that is needed to fund these programs, its fiscal efficiency and responsible spending that is needed. They already get enough money, learn how to spend it correctly.
There is a middle ground between Euro-Socialism, where the Dems apparently want to take us, and not funding any social programs. We've treaded on that line in the middle for quite some time and that's where we need to stay. We can be a socially compassionate nation, but we don't want to let people be dependant on the government to the point where it kills the drive, hard work, innovation, and motivation that got us to where we are today.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:
When I was in San Diego I remember avoiding certain petroleum companies because they bought their oil from the mid-east. My cousin avoided certain oil companies because (I think I have this right) they would set their companies up in such a way that they would not pay their fair share of taxes. He said that if he supports companies that pay american taxes, that's less taxes that he is going to have to pay.

Does he and you go out of your way to buy from american companies who actually manufacture in this country. Converse shoes as an example. Automobiles are very difficult to tell anymore. Their are actually Japanese cars that have more US content than some US cars.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It would seem intuitively that the more money one makes, the less one is dependant on government services.
Huh? The more one makes, the more one needs government services to protect what you made! Why do you think the poor masses aren't storming Beverly Hills mansions? The police stand in their way. The guy on the street living in a cardboard box doesn't need the police to protect his assets.
Of course, the whole welfare system is just a bribe to the poor from the rich so that he poor don't kill them and take their stuff. Or would you prefer millions of hungry, desperate people wandering the streets of your town?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
paul wheaton
Trailboss

Joined: Dec 14, 1998
Posts: 20528
    ∞

I give weight to products that are american, but I don't make any absolutes.
My cousin's point was that some gas companies are U.S. corporations that pay big bucks in taxes. Other gas companies are apparently set up in other countries (or something) and pay very little in taxes. His position was to support those companies that are routing money into the american tax structure so that the taxing beast would be a little less likely to come after him/us.
My impression was that he had done significant research in this area. Although I don't remember which gas station we stopped at that day.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Huh? The more one makes, the more one needs government services to protect what you made! Why do you think the poor masses aren't storming Beverly Hills mansions? The police stand in their way. The guy on the street living in a cardboard box doesn't need the police to protect his assets.

The majority of public safety (fire, police, ambulance) calls are in the poorer sections of any given town. In theory, public safety protection is needed by everybody equally, but the truth is that these services are used more by some than others. As for the rich needing protection from the rampaging poor, it would seem relevant that it is often their own neighborhoods that the "enraged masses" (usually the "poor") burn and loot during riots, not the more well-to-do areas. You are also more likely to find other types of property crime in the poorer sections of town. I suppose if the "rich" needed more protection, they would hire some.
[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I suppose if the "rich" needed more protection, they would hire some.
They do... it's called the police force. Why do you think the police make sure the riots stay in the poor neighborhoods and don't spread to wealthy neighborhoods? If you look at the recent riots in NYC and LA, the police did nothing as long as the riots stayed in the poor neighborhoods. When it looked like it might get out of hand and spread they stepped in.
You do recall where the modern welfare state in the US came from, don't you? FDR who was a very wealthy man created it as a way to stop left wingers from brining communism to the US. There was a great fear in the 30's that the poor would rise up and eat the rich. After all, it has happened before.
[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Why do you think the police make sure the riots stay in the poor neighborhoods and don't spread to wealthy neighborhoods?

I'm not an expert on law-enforcement tactics, but my best guess is that the first step in handling a riot is once you have sufficient forces, to contain the riot as quickly as possible to as small an area as possible, in order to protect life and property outside of the riot area. Only once it has been contained can any attempt be made to quell a riot. You can see that these are the same tactics they use during every riot regardless of location. The WTO riots are a good example of this. It's not a conspiracy.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It would seem intuitively that the more money one makes, the less one is dependant on government services.

Seems to me that if you wanted to fly your Leer jet from NYC to LA you would use a whole bunch of government services at a fraction of what it cost to provide.
Seems to me that if you were rich and got sick you would enjoy a medical system that's been highly subsidized by taxes. You could afford the insurance premiums to enjoy it.
Seems to me if you were rich and operating a business you would operate in an infrastructure that provided you with roads, bridges, rails and an educated workforce that were largely paid for with taxes. Your enterprise would employ/enjoy resources in such greater magnitude than the skid row bum who appreciates the ATF ensuring him quality distillation.
I guess I don't agree at all with you Jason.
Furthermore, IMO, many of the rich got that way trading an inefficient government services for taxes.
The idea that the way to correct an inefficient government is to starve it just doesn't make sense to me either. No, I don't have solution to the problem either.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
That still doesn't explain why you think it is the governments money and not the earners.

It is the government's money. People who cheat the government of its share go to jail for tax evasion. It's not the color of their skin, their poor attitude, that they are the product of a broken home, or discrimination on the basis of age. Taxes or the siezure of what you feel is the earners is as old as society.
We tried survival of the fitest. Way too many people became incapacitated or killed. Anarchy kept anybody from making very much progress. The government gets it's share because people like you have to sleep.
Why we aren't talking about state and local taxes. We also aren't talking about payroll(FICA), medicare taxes, state income or local income taxes, sin taxes, or any other local tax.

I read this as you have presented inaccurate data.
[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
The problem is that the terms "wealthy" and "rich" are not used correctly. In tax terms, the "wealthy" are those households with incomes of $92,000 or greater. I don't know what part of the country you live in, but a household income of $92,000 where I live is very much middle class. This is the reality of our tax system, not some fantasy about rich playboys flying around the country in their Leer jets.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The problem is that the terms "wealthy" and "rich" are not used correctly. In tax terms, the "wealthy" are those households with incomes of $92,000 or greater. I don't know what part of the country you live in, but a household income of $92,000 where I live is very much middle class. This is the reality of our tax system, not some fantasy about rich playboys flying around the country in their Leer jets.

Which is part of the problem. We have flattened the trax system so much that the guy making $75,000 is paying the same rate as the guy making $2.5 million. That is just silly.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
We live in a global economy, 5 Billion+, think $92K is rich. I'll be the first to admit one could envision a life a lot better than at $92K. But still, IMO the $92K person is enjoying more of the more of a prosperous life than the school custodian who makes $15K. I don't think riding the government subsidized bus to the school is more of an expense to the government than building 495 from GreenBelt to Bethesda so well paid software developer can drive his Audi TT to work.
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
We have flattened the trax system so much that the guy making $75,000 is paying the same rate as the guy making $2.5 million. That is just silly.
Indeed, it is silly. The rate of the guy making $2.5 million should be lower than that of the guy making $75,000. That's what I call a fair tax system next to no tax system at all.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

It is the government's money. People who cheat the government of its share go to jail for tax evasion. It's not the color of their skin, their poor attitude, that they are the product of a broken home, or discrimination on the basis of age. Taxes or the siezure of what you feel is the earners is as old as society.

I read this as you have presented inaccurate data.
[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

Your arguements makes no sense at all. How do you figure money that people earn is the governments? What does tax evasion have to do with what I said? I have know idea what you are arguing.
Also what inaccurate data did I present. The chart is directly from the IRS.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Your arguements makes no sense at all. How do you figure money that people earn is the governments?
And if the government did not exist how much money do you think those wealthy people would have earned? The government created a stable marketplace where wealth can be made. Those who make the wealth should be required to pay for the services that the government provides to make that wealth possible.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Let's assume for the sake of argument you have a salary of 50K.
Now let's really simplify, the only tax you have to pay is social security at 7%. Of course the company must match your 7%. So did you earn 46.5K, 50K or 53.5K? IMO your salary was 46.5 + a social security benefit. You are deluding yourself if you think you earned 50K. You seldom think you earned 53.5K, do you?
Chances are the company you worked for made 10K profit on your labor. Did you make 63.5K? You made the money why cannot you have it?
Chances are the company had 8K in expenses like desks, parking, electricity, and keeping the VP of Important Things concubine on the payroll. Did your really make 72K?
[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And if the government did not exist how much money do you think those wealthy people would have earned? The government created a stable marketplace where wealth can be made. Those who make the wealth should be required to pay for the services that the government provides to make that wealth possible.

Where did I ever say that people should not pay taxes? Show me where I said that. Your arguement is another so what. Look at the stats at the top. It shows that "the rich" pay their fair share. Services have nothing to do with that. How does that make the money that someone earns the governments and they just happen to let you keep some. If you want to debate services, I am not the one doing that. That has nothing to do with who pays what share.
I have no clue what Rufus is talking about. He made a statement that implies all money is the governments. I don't agree with that. Then he starts talking about tax evasion which doesn't have anything to do with the concept of all money being the governments.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Where did I ever say that people should not pay taxes? Show me where I said that. Your arguement is another so what. Look at the stats at the top. It shows that "the rich" pay their fair share.

I agree that generally the rich (whatever the rich are) pay their fair share. However, there seems to be a subset of people in this forum that think the rich pay too much.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
My argument is simply that nobody is paying their "fair" share of taxes. Is there any argument that our progressive tax system is just? Is there a reason a middle class dual-income couple in MD for example has to pay far more of their "fair" share of the tax burden?
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We all have ample examples of what dismal failures socialist welfare states are. Why on earth would anybody want to head in that direction when we know it just doesn't work, and is not remotely culturally compatible with our way of life?
If you're refering to the current brand of Euro-socialism (in all its various forms), in what way is it a dismal failure? How are the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Netherlands etc failing? I don't think pure economic clout is the only measure of success btw.
However I agree that Euro-socialism is not culturaly compatable with the US, a very important point. Any attempt to apply those sorts of models to America are doomed to fail. US-socialism would have to be very unique
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If you're refering to the current brand of Euro-socialism (in all its various forms), in what way is it a dismal failure?

Actually when I think of the failures of socialism, the first things that come to mind are the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Actually when I think of the failures of socialism, the first things that come to mind are the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Well that's all right then, I'll save my breath
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
We all have ample examples of what dismal failures socialist welfare states are. Why on earth would anybody want to head in that direction when we know it just doesn't work
How do you know it "just doesn't work"? Because when somebody tried to reform it the results of this reform were dismal failures? In the Soviet Union level of life constantly increased. I cannot imagine anyone being afraid to lose his house because he cannot pay for it any more! And not to be able to send kids to college -- what the heck *this* is? And what is "unemployment" about? Have you ever seen it? Oh yeah, on TV. 3 of my jobs in the USSR were in waking distance from my home, because I liked it this way, and I had at least 2 more variants in the same radius. (not that I was anything exceptional).
You said you "re-built" Germany by injecting billions in its economy, you know what, the USSR had to rebuild itself. Plus it had to make a stupid bomb to respond to our former ally threat and produce more and more bombs since then. Please, do not forget that clothes, like most other goods, was not imported from cheap countries, it was made by local workers who had to get a decent pay. Now try to apply all this to US economy and I'll tell you: it would crack much earlier
I read in some book that the Soviet Union collapsed because it "failed to provide for people's basic needs".
I wonder how to call what the current "democratic" government does to "people's needs" and why *it* hasn't collapsed yet?
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I wonder how to call what the current "democratic" government does to "people's needs" and why *it* hasn't collapsed yet?

And what basic needs aren't being met?
The USSR collapsed because they couldn't keep food on the table. A nation that should have been able to export huge amounts of grain had to import it from the US because they couldn't produce enough under the Soviet system.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
And what basic needs aren't being met -- well, to start with, people lost all their savings due to inflation. The new government said forget about your money, it was a joke. That's Ok, democracy probably worth it, but this mean you have nothing to rely on when you do not receive your salary and you do not receive it. It's democracy, which means there is no need to pay people for their work any more. It was probably a communistic propaganda trick -- to pay people. So you work, but you do not have money for months. When my father quit his job, his factory owed him money for 8 months. (thanks to inflation, when you later do get your money, it worth half of what it would if you got them in time, but these are details. Nobody complained too much, under democracy you are lucky to get anything at all ). So how people survived? They borrowed from each other. Money came in big chunks, your salary for several months, but do not you joy. As soon as you got them, there is a waiting line to borrow from you and how can you not give if you know people literally have no money to buy bread? And that tomorrow you will go and beg them?
Luckiest families were those with retired parents. Old people got their money more-or-less on time, which means there was food for their children and grand children. Not that the democratic government did not try to stop paying them also -- that would be really stupid. Of course, they did. But you see, when you are old, so you cannot work, and you do not get money for food and medicine, you do not really have much else to lose. Old people went to the streets and blocked main roads, and even our democratic government was too chicken to use police against them. So they paid off old folk pretty regularly - to keep roads clean.
[ September 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Of course this has nothing to do with this thread. It also isn't democracies fault.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Sorry for hijacking your thread, Paul.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
I don't care about that Map. Very few threads ever stay on track for long.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Ok, then regarding "it isn't democracies fault", I am not even sure how correct it is to call current Russian state "democracy". It's a vague term.
Map, who just hijacked "Fox News" thread. (Eugene started it, it's a Russian conspiracy).
[ September 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Which is part of the problem. We have flattened the trax system so much that the guy making $75,000 is paying the same rate as the guy making $2.5 million. That is just silly.

No, that is just.
Were he to pay the same AMOUNT it would be silly, not the same percentage!
Or are you a favour of the "base income" system that has been proposed several times in Europe where each person would get a standard income guaranteed from the government and all the rest is taxed away?
That way the money would be shared according to strict communist principles, everyone having exactly the same amount.
Problem of course in such a system is that noone would do any work at all (why do anything if you're paid the same whether you do or not?).
Or would you prefer the Soviet system where a streetsweeper would get paid more than a surgeon in a hospital because he has a larger impact on society (this is not made up, streetsweepers DID get paid more than surgeons in that sick society).


42
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
My argument is simply that nobody is paying their "fair" share of taxes. Is there any argument that our progressive tax system is just? Is there a reason a middle class dual-income couple in MD for example has to pay far more of their "fair" share of the tax burden?

That depends on what you call a 'fair' share.
Under communist (oops, they're called 'social democrats' in these enlightened days) 'fair' distribution of income means that everyone has nothing except the Party, and the Party will provide for all (meaning that Party officials get whatever they like and the rest of the population is left to pick up the scraps).
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

No, that is just.
Were he to pay the same AMOUNT it would be silly, not the same percentage!
Or are you a favour of the "base income" system that has been proposed several times in Europe where each person would get a standard income guaranteed from the government and all the rest is taxed away?
That way the money would be shared according to strict communist principles, everyone having exactly the same amount.
Problem of course in such a system is that noone would do any work at all (why do anything if you're paid the same whether you do or not?).
Or would you prefer the Soviet system where a streetsweeper would get paid more than a surgeon in a hospital because he has a larger impact on society (this is not made up, streetsweepers DID get paid more than surgeons in that sick society).

I said nothing that would lead one to the conclusions you make. if you want to argue with yourself you don't need to do it in public. You have created a straw man argument. We all agree with the premise that the base income system would be silly. But why is it silly to charge 15% on the the first $25,000 of income, 25% on the next $25,000, 28% on the next $50,000 and 30% on the next million and then 35% on everything above that? As long as the rates aren't excessive I see no problem with a system like that.
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Taxing The Rich and Business.