Which taxes are "fair"??

[sinecure]

In the US we have a graduated income tax. Lowest is zero percent, highest is [depending on many factors] around 40%. The United States income tax code is hopelessly complex and changes continuously. Corporate income is taxed at one rate, individual “ordinary income� is taxed at another rate, and long-term capital gains earned by individuals are taxed at a possibly different rate. Under current U.S. tax law, high-income corporations pay a federal tax rate of 35% and high-income individuals pay a 39.1% rate on ordinary income (gradually being reduced to 35%) and a 20% rate on long-term capital gains.

The table below is an attempt to summarize the U.S. tax code since 1971. I offer no guarantees regarding the accuracy of these numbers—if you want to sue someone, find a tax accountant! (Corrections are welcome.)



Reading from right to left, you'll find, Year; Corporate tax; Personal tax, ordinary income; Personal tax, long-term capital gains


1971–78 48% 70% 35%
1979–81 46% 70% 28%
1982-–86 46% 50% 20%
1987 40% 38.5% 28%
1988–90 34% 28% 28%
1991–92 34% 31% 28%
1993–96 35% 39.6% 28%
1997–2000 35% 39.6% 20%
2001 35% 39.1% 20%
2002 38.6%
2003 38.1%

[I tried to make this table work here... it looked OK while composing, but the spaces don't work out right when it is submitted. Apparently I failed. sorry.

Many Americans [especially the liberals] don't seem to understand that "income" part, and prefer to see it as a "wealth tax". That's when you see all the whining about the "Rich Guys" not paying their "fair share" of taxes. There are many years in which wealthy folks don't "make" any money at all. This obviously grinds on the libs to no end.:wall

I don't see any graduated-tax scheme as being fair at all. I'm not required to pay an increased percentage of tax when I fill-up my SUV, buy food, pay for an airline ticket, or any of a million different situations wherein everybody is taxed at the same rate. Only when it comes to "income" [and, in some cases, property tax] am I required to pay more than some, less than others.

Thoughts?

[~wildangel~]

It sucks!

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
In the US we have a graduated income tax. Lowest is zero percent, highest is [depending on many factors] around 40%.

Over here it can be as high as 65%.

[DustyBottoms]

I for one would much prefer a flat tax on income. It sure would eliminate a lot of loop holes and audits. It would also be completely fair for everyone. Everyone would feel they were doing their part for the USA. :clap

Property tax should be handeled just like sales tax. If you purchase a piece of property, you pay a one time sales tax. In this way you would actually own your property. Not like it is now where you automatically become an indentured citizen. :mad

The only tax that is fair right now is sales tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. If you don't want to pay it - don't buy it.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
I for one would much prefer a flat tax on income. It sure would eliminate a lot of loop holes and audits.
Sure but I don't thnik it would work, you either don't get enough money in or the poor are overtaxed.

Property tax should be handeled just like sales tax. If you purchase a piece of property, you pay a one time sales tax. In this way you would actually own your property. Not like it is now where you automatically become an indentured citizen. :mad

The only tax that is fair right now is sales tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. If you don't want to pay it - don't buy it.

I argee with that.

[sinecure]

What's that I'm hearing???

..."From each according to his ability... to each according to his need..." :question

Do whatever you Marxists/Socialists will, but it should never be the American way. :flag

Here's a paraphrased posting from another board:


Bring that dog to the field so we can all see how it really hunts, up close! :wink:

Everybody should realize that Socialism/Communism is fundamentally flawed, because it doesn't match up with basic human behaviour.

Humans are greedy, selfish beings (and this is a good thing, BTW). Nobody wants to live exactly like their neighbors are living, not for long anyways.

You can take the two most slovenly, lazy, good-for-nothing people, and one will still want more than the other one. More food, better clothes, the "hook up" inside favor, priviledges, money, recognition, status, anything. Even siblings in the same nuclear family will compete for a better position in the family. It doesn't have to be material things, but as long as I think I'm better than you, I'll be happy.

Socialism sells itself on everyone getting equal shares of things, and the lower rungs of society will initially accept that concept (of course) because it is a step up. But they won't last long on that first step up, people are gonna eventually want more. It's human nature, we always want more than what we have.

What is "enough"?
All public social programs: public school, universal health care, housing, food rationing, etc. have a tremendously big problem in deciding what is enough for people, and how it's going to be funded. I'm sure I could get a scientific study together to say that Volvo's (or pick your fav. car) are the safest car for people to drive. Therefore, in the best interests of society, we're gonna tax every family in America $40k, and give everyone a Volvo. Social programs are idealistic, but hardly ever affordable, across the board.

The Scam
The TRUTH about Socialism/Communism, that people will never hear, until it happens to them, is that it's nothing more complicated than your garden-variety scam. The "revolutionary leaders" who push for socialist/communist change in any given country will preach to the lower classes all the beauties of their new ideology. "We will take from the rich and give it to all of you".

Scam. The truth is "we will take from the rich and instead put ourselves in charge and live like kings, you poor will continue to be poor, screw you."

Ask any Romanian how Nicolae Ceausescu lived, was Ceausescu a poor man or a rich man?

As we've seen each socialist country fall, we discover that the "leader(s)" have been living like celebrities, with all the cars, houses, wine and women, etc, at their disposal. Pretty much like any multi-level marketing scam artist would be. These people are nothing more than petty criminals that want to help themselves to some national treasury. They sell Communism, but really don't believe in it themselves.

I'm sure Castro is one dirty rich old man, and he could care less about Communism as an ideology, nor Cuba as a nation, except in what he can gain personally from the deal.

It really irks me when I see socialists say that they are for the poor, when in reality, socialists are just as selfish and greedy as anyone else. The distortions about socialism having any good long-range qualities, at all, are just that-- distortions.

[aclu14]

The problem with a flat tax rate: say it's 10% (for example purposes)

One man gets taxed $0.10 because he has $1. Another man gets taxed $1 because he has $10. The first man is going hungry because that ten cents means a lot more to him than the one dollar means to the second man. The second man can still buy lots of food off the dollar menu at McDonald's.


:wink

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14
The problem with a flat tax rate: say it's 10% (for example purposes)

One man gets taxed $0.10 because he has $1. Another man gets taxed $1 because he has $10. The first man is going hungry because that ten cents means a lot more to him than the one dollar means to the second man. The second man can still buy lots of food off the dollar menu at McDonald's.


:wink

Wow... where DO you come up with these unique insights? I'm certain that nobody ever thought of that particular line of reasoning before.

However.... let me fill-in what you libs will come up with-- First, we'll raise the minimum wage to...oh... say $80,000/year, which is roughly $38.50/hour.

Why would we do that?? Well...so everybody can make a "living wage" and the "working man" can raise a family.... right? We might as well include 100% paid healthcare, child care, paid vacations, savings plans, company-held home loans, family/medical/bereavement/pre-and-post natal/OHMYGAWD I'M HAVING A BAD HAIR DAY leave, as well as a company car... nothing extravagant, maybe a nicely-equipped Saturn at about $25,00 each.... but oh LOOK!! the IRS is happy to say the poor man is now solidly into a much higher tax bracket... his percentage has skyrocketed.

....and why is it that now MacDonald's now has a "Thirty-five dollar menu" of cheap food??

Could it possibly be that Mickey D's is having to pay their button-pushers $38.50/hr, plus the stack of benefits?

Do the math... It's really NOT all that hard...

The man with only a buck ought to get his butt in gear and develop something to sell... either his brains, brawn, talent or time.

I am trying to pass along the beliefs and values that helped make my generation so successful: Chief among those is personal responsibility, work ethic, and a sense of competition. You can and will be successful, if you can out think, out work, and out hustle the guy next to you. Nobody is going to hand you success, you have to work for it and at it in a highly competitive world.

Instead of being jealous of others success and wishing to take from them, you may want to take a look at emulating their actions.

If you want to be successful, do what successful people do... :wave

:flag

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure Even siblings in the same nuclear family will compete for a better position in the family. It doesn't have to be material things, but as long as I think I'm better than you, I'll be happy.
Thats how 6 year olds and younger think.


Therefore, in the best interests of society, we're gonna tax every family in America $40k, and give everyone a Volvo. Social programs are idealistic, but hardly ever affordable, across the board.
Extreme socialisme wouldn't work but moderate socialisme would.


As we've seen each socialist country fall, we discover that the "leader(s)" have been living like celebrities, with all the cars, houses, wine and women, etc, at their disposal.
:lol :lol Our politicians still use bikes. And gets less pay than you think.

[nickdv]

The Scam
The TRUTH about Socialism/Communism, that people will never hear, until it happens to them, is that it's nothing more complicated than your garden-variety scam. The "revolutionary leaders" who push for socialist/communist change in any given country will preach to the lower classes all the beauties of their new ideology. "We will take from the rich and give it to all of you".

Scam. The truth is "we will take from the rich and instead put ourselves in charge and live like kings, you poor will continue to be poor, screw you."

Ask any Romanian how Nicolae Ceausescu lived, was Ceausescu a poor man or a rich man?

As we've seen each socialist country fall, we discover that the "leader(s)" have been living like celebrities, with all the cars, houses, wine and women, etc, at their disposal. Pretty much like any multi-level marketing scam artist would be. These people are nothing more than petty criminals that want to help themselves to some national treasury. They sell Communism, but really don't believe in it themselves.

I'm sure Castro is one dirty rich old man, and he could care less about Communism as an ideology, nor Cuba as a nation, except in what he can gain personally from the deal.

It really irks me when I see socialists say that they are for the poor, when in reality, socialists are just as selfish and greedy as anyone else. The distortions about socialism having any good long-range qualities, at all, are just that-- distortions.



Sin, I agree that Communism is a scam, and I already knew your "truth that most people won't hear." Of course Communism goes against basic human instincts, but so do a lot of things. The reason I despise communism is because of its militant attitude, forcing people to give all the have in the hopes that the establishment will actually return the favor.

However, I don't agree all the leaders of Socialism staged a huge scam. Some of them actually believe that one day, in the final stage of Socialism, there will be a eutopia, a place with no need for government, where everyone naturally comes bands togethor for the common good. It's a nice dream, but so is flying a magic carpet. In conclusion, what I'm saying is that natural instincts will always prevail, and there will always be those looking out for themselves and their intrests rather than those of the common good.

[aclu14]

American corporate heads get paid 419x as much as their lowest-on-the-totem-pole workers.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by nickdv

However, I don't agree all the leaders of Socialism staged a huge scam. Some of them actually believe that one day, in the final stage of Socialism, there will be a eutopia, a place with no need for government, where everyone naturally comes bands togethor for the common good. It's a nice dream, but so is flying a magic carpet. In conclusion, what I'm saying is that natural instincts will always prevail, and there will always be those looking out for themselves and their intrests rather than those of the common good.

Oh I suppose there are a few "commie leaders" who actually believe in what they are doing... but their beliefs isn't what I was pointing out... it was their lifestyle versus the average lifestyle of the run-of-the-mill proletariat Ivan. Therein is the scam.... telling everybody that "we should ALL be equal" and then having your driver [or pilot] take you to your lakeside dacha so you can eat fine food, drink fine wine, watch your imported TV, tryst with your chick-du-jour and check your Swiss bank accounts. THAT'S the scam.

:wink

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14
American corporate heads get paid 419x as much as their lowest-on-the-totem-pole workers.

Sez who? cite pls.

Well.... I suppose in the interest of "fairness" we should let Harold-the-new-mailroom-boy run the entire company for a little while just so he could pull-down the big bucks, huh?

What difference does it make? If the Board of Directors and the stockholders think the CEO is doing a good job [that's "making us money" in case you didn't know that] then let them pay him whatever they think he's worth.

I bet you subscribe to The Daily Worker too, huh?

:question :sleep :sleep

[Ateo]

Sin, in another thread you said:While there are property taxes, we are never truly owners of our land. While there are income taxes, we are nothing more than servants. Are you against taxes in general (on principle), or excessive taxation? Do you see any good in taxes at all, or are you one of those...kooky I'd-rather-isolate-myself-in-a-cabin-in-the-woods-than-surrender-my-manhood-to-the-IRS types?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
Sez who? cite pls.

Business Week reported that in 1999, top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326 to 1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42 to 1. I'll see if I can find a link for you somewhere.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
telling everybody that "we should ALL be equal" and then having your driver [or pilot] take you to your lakeside dacha so you can eat fine food, drink fine wine, watch your imported TV, tryst with your chick-du-jour and check your Swiss bank accounts. THAT'S the scam.

Now you have gone over the deep end. The dutch are basicly socialists, and we do tax higher on higher wages, but that doesn't mean that you don't hev less money with a higher tax.

And I am quite sure that our politicians get less money than yours.


Preak could you post the dutch tax-scales?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Preak could you post the dutch tax-scales?

The Dutch tax system is perhaps even more complicated than the American tax system, so your question is easier asked than answered. But when it comes down to taxable income from work and property, the 2004 tariffs are:

For people under 65:
Between €0 and €16,265: 33.4% (1% income tax and 32.4% social insurance contributions)
Between €16,265 and €29,543: 40.35% (7.95% income tax and 32.4% social insurance contributions)
Between €29,543 and €50,652: 42% (strictly income tax)
Over €50,562: 52% (strictly income tax)

For people over 65:
Between €0 and €16,265: 15.5% (1% income tax and 14.5% social insurance contributions)
Between €16,265 and €29,543: 22.45% (7.95% income tax and 14.5% social insurance contributions)
Between €29,543 and €50,652: 42% (strictly income tax)
Over €50,562: 52% (strictly income tax)

So richer people pay higher taxes, but they don't have to contribute to the welfare state.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Business Week reported that in 1999, top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326 to 1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42 to 1. I'll see if I can find a link for you somewhere.

What I'd like to see is HOW MANY CEO's hit that "419 times" and now you're saying that the comparison isn't top-to-the-bottom, of the payscale, but the top to the AVERAGE??

I don't believe it. Show me.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Sin, in another thread you said: Are you against taxes in general (on principle), or excessive taxation? Do you see any good in taxes at all, or are you one of those...kooky I'd-rather-isolate-myself-in-a-cabin-in-the-woods-than-surrender-my-manhood-to-the-IRS types?

Taxes are quite necessary. I just recoil from the "From each according to their abilitiy...To each according to their need.." crap.

Should that become America's social creedo, surely we will awaken some day to discover that we have ALL decided to become "needy".

Get out and talk to some of the older families in your area. I have relatives in the Northwest and they've seen their property tax burden increase [5X] to the point where they are unable to make the tax payments [ranching is a rough way to make money] and they've had to sell part of their holdings [and pay the taxes on the sale] to pay the taxes on the remainder. Property taxes are a form of "wealth tax". Simply not the American Way, IMO.

[w1che]

All Socialist suffer from the ROBIN HOOD SYNDROM as long as they are not the nobleman being robbed.. They are very simple to understand.

A 10% flat tax.. You make 100,000 a year you pay 10,000 if you make 30,000 a year you pay 3,000. Now I don't know about you but it seems to me that the less money you make the less tax you pay on the flat tax system also. So WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
A 10% flat tax.. You make 100,000 a year you pay 10,000 if you make 30,000 a year you pay 3,000. Now I don't know about you but it seems to me that the less money you make the less tax you pay on he flat tax system also. So WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? In your example the poorer person would be left with $27,000, the wealthier person $90,000. While they are paying the same percentage, the tax has more impact on the poorer person, because he's poor & doesn't have much of a safety net if any. You'd have a point if the wealthy had to pay a higher rate for groceries, gas, rent, etc, but the poor & wealthy live within the same economic system.

The purpose of the progressive tax is to make things fair. It's not to punish the wealthy, but to give the poor a break. It's based on the idea that America is a civilized, humane society.

[DustyBottoms]

How about this Tig...

We exempt the poor (people earning less than the current poverty level) from all income taxes. The rest of us pay a fixed percentage.

:question

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
In your example the poorer person would be left with $27,000, the wealthier person $90,000. While they are paying the same percentage, the tax has more impact on the poorer person, because he's poor & doesn't have much of a safety net if any. You'd have a point if the wealthy had to pay a higher rate for groceries, gas, rent, etc, but the poor & wealthy live within the same economic system.

The purpose of the progressive tax is to make things fair. It's not to punish the wealthy, but to give the poor a break. It's based on the idea that America is a civilized, humane society.

Well then... why don't we give the "poor" a break on everything?? Let's charge them less for whatever it is that they want to buy. We couldn't expect the stores and shopkeepers to do all the computing, so .....Uhhhh....Well, I suppose we could charge them much less in taxes...


...oh, wait...:question I guess that's what we already do, huh?


No... let's encourage the "poor" to do the correct things that will ensure that they will not remain "poor". [The definition of "poor" in America is/can be "I don't have enough money to get my VCR fixed or pay the cable bill." "I can't afford car insurance." and "I don't have enough money at the end of the month to buy Pampers for my five little babies..." This subject alone is worthy of its own thread.]

You guys already know that Marxism is fundamentally flawed. The major flaw is that it's not scalable. It sounds good on paper, and has a certain appeal, on an emotional level. One that Tig is so insistent upon showing us.

Did you ever consider that the traditional nuclear family is an ideal example of socialism at its very best? You don't make your little kids go off to work and earn their share of the groceries, mortgage, etc. Adult members of a family provide for the juveniles because it's the thing to do to make the family structure "work." Unfortunately, the larger the "family" the harder it is to make it work and, ultimately, socialism becomes a grand disincentive to productivity.

And a grand irony of socialism is that, while it sounds all touchy-feely and warm-and-fuzzy with the notion that everybody takes care of everybody else, the truth is that it only works with the full force of the law and all the law's Draconian sanctions supporting it. Why on earth would anybody willingly support complete strangers who are capable-- but unwilling-- to work? Because if you don't, you're jailed (or worse) for dissent.

What made America great isn't democracy, but capitalism. People work hard for the rewards and, more importantly, they get to enjoy those rewards. The more someone can be earn, the more they enjoy. If I can afford to buy my livingroom-on-wheels SUV, feed it gasoline, pay the insurance, etc.,-- and it isn't costing YOU anything-- why should anyone else give a damn whether it's bigger, more comfortable, has a much greater towing capicity and therefore is less efficient than somebody else's Prius?

I suppose to many of you socialism sounds oh-so-nice. Somebody will take care of everybody. Kind of like being a five year old and relying upon Mommy & Daddy to put food on the table, a comfortable bed, and a roof over your head. But then, people won't have to be responsible for any of their personal needs and won't have to hurt their atrophied brains thinking for themselves. And while somebody is making all the decisions for you, your dependence will bring you to unrecognized servitude.

[AWPrime]

I will give you one thing Sin, fo socialisme to work you would need a specific culture.

But if you have a culture of selfish *******s it won't work.

[w1che]

All we're doing is blowing a big stinky in the wind because we will not have a flat tax in America anytime soon. The tax system has seen to that by all the tax breaks different people have.

The poor on the most part pay no taxes. The middle income want their mortgage deduction along with the other church & charitable deductions that they lie about. The rich will never go for a flat tax unless it's 10% for them & 20% for the lower class.

Remembering here that about 80% of the people making the tax laws are very rich (Well maybe not as rich as Kerry and Edwards) but up in the cash pretty good.

Then along comes the upper middle income family with 3 to 5 kids who the government feels the need to help them raise by giving them big tax breaks. The more kids you have less taxes you pay.

Who gets the real big screw? Singles that rent & they don't have enough votes to make it worth while to buy them off.

There is the hill you have to get up before you get a flat tax and it's higher that mount Everest..

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by w1che
All Socialist suffer from the ROBIN HOOD SYNDROM as long as they are not the nobleman being robbed.. They are very simple to understand.

Then it's quite funny to see that the most prominent socialists in the history were noblemen or social elite. People like Lenin (noble), Marx (son of a lawyer IIRC, earned a doctorate at the age of 23, married the daughter of Privy Councillor Von Westphalen, whose brother would later become Prussian Minister of the Interior), Engels (son of a wealthy industrial entrepreneur), Trotsky (son of well-to-do Ukrainian jews) and many others.

[w1che]

Yep & they were all for the working man but none of them ever had a Real job..Kinda like the leaders of the pinko Commies we have in this country..

[Phreakmeister]

Out of curiosity: what do you see as real jobs?

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Out of curiosity: what do you see as real jobs?

Why... the kind of job the "Working Man" has, of course.

Now, you can ask any raving Democrat to further define that, as they pride themselves in being "The Party of the Working Man." :wave :wave :question :wink

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by sinecure
Why... the kind of job the "Working Man" has, of course.

Where does "working man" begin and end? Are white-collar workers "working men"? Some see only industrial labourers as working men. Others see all those who lend their crafts for wage as working men. What about you? (You used as a plural here)
(Note: I am simply asking this out of curiosity, not for the sake of any discussion or debate or argument or anything)

[sinecure]

You've caught it for once, Phreak.

"The Working Man" is a favored term used by Democrats and liberals to claim solidarity with those who are on the production force [often Union] or other mid-to-lows on the payscale as opposed to "management".

They never address the 60-hour-plus workweek that some management-types put in, preferring to exclude them from the category "Working Man".

The funny part is when you note which elitist candidates claim a connection with "The Working Man." :lol :lol