47% will pay no federal income tax (1 Viewer)

[N.O.Bronco]

Lets talk the philosophical issues of a flat tax, seeing as the economic aspect has been addressed earlier.

You know what, you actually changed my opinion on a few things. Helping the poor is exactly what is needed. It will solve so many problems. In fact, I have a suggestion. What if those that made under $75,000 paid zero taxes. Those that made more would have to give up everything over 75k and it would be distributed to those that make under 75k. 75k would be a living wage right? Now every single person in America would have a living wage and all of our problems would be solved. Crime would drop because nobody would have to steal. Education would be second to none because we could all afford to send our kids to private school. We would be the healthiest country in the world because we could all afford health insurance. No more living in the projects. No need for a flat tax, we would have flat income instead. No more tax loop holes. No more tax attorneys. An IRS that is only a fraction of the current size. No more politics. Our taxes would go down because there would be no need for taxes for health care, education, new prisons, housing projects, paying for day care, food stamps, CHIP and SCHIP. Wow... a simple plan that would save the country billions of dollars.

Kumbaya


I know, you are heading straight for the ignore button again.

My argument:
A flat tax is only "fair" and "just" insomuch as you can prove to me that markets produce a "fair" and "just" distribution of income.



I fear it will be rather difficult for you to prove that so I doubt you will be able to justify calling a flat tax a more "fair" and "just" system than a progressive tax.

 

[BHM]

My argument:
A flat tax is only "fair" and "just" insomuch as you can prove to me that markets produce a "fair" and "just" distribution of income.



I fear it will be rather difficult for you to prove that so I doubt you will be able to justify calling a flat tax a more "fair" and "just" system than a progressive tax.

The market does not produce a fair distribution of income. It is too subjective and is based on varying factors. I would never pay $100.00 for labor to change my brakes but others would pay $200.00 to have it done. NFL players are not worth millions but yet they can command that kind of salary. So yes, you are correct.

On the other hand, income is progressive but our tax system is and yet some think it is fair. The more I work does not always equate to more income. The harder you work does not always equate to more income. Using the logic that income distribution is not flat so a flat tax is unfair, our current progressive tax system is not fair as well.

 

[KardiacKat]

The market does not produce a fair distribution of income. It is too subjective and is based on varying factors. I would never pay $100.00 for labor to change my brakes but others would pay $200.00 to have it done. NFL players are not worth millions but yet they can command that kind of salary. So yes, you are correct.

On the other hand, income is progressive but our tax system is and yet some think it is fair. The more I work does not always equate to more income. The harder you work does not always equate to more income. Using the logic that income distribution is not flat so a flat tax is unfair, our current progressive tax system is not fair as well.

There isn't a perfectly "fair" tax system. We have to choose what seems to be most fair. And read your own words:

The more I work does not always equate to more income. The harder you work does not always equate to more income.

That's exactly right. But my dear, you seem to be implying throughout this thread that if poor people want to get ahead, all they have to do is work harder and not have too many babies. Your own words there show that things like that don't necessarily matter. There is another thread going in here that compares "worth" versus "value." The same comparison can be made to jobs and incomes. There are millions of people in this country who work hard every day, on their feet, physical labor. I asked early in this thread why a sanitation worker doesn't make $100K a year when he provides a service vital to the health of our community, and the answer is that we don't value it. We value the guy who invents Facebook. And because society has always had this cockeyed way of placing value on work, somewhere along the line the smart people said we have to balance it. So we tax the lower incomes at a low level, and we tax the bigger incomes at a higher level. And you know what? Doing that doesn't make one damn bit of difference in who is poor or lower income and who is rich and pays their bills without batting an eye.

 

[BHM]

There isn't a perfectly "fair" tax system. We have to choose what seems to be most fair. And read your own words:



That's exactly right. But my dear, you seem to be implying throughout this thread that if poor people want to get ahead, all they have to do is work harder and not have too many babies. Your own words there show that things like that don't necessarily matter. There is another thread going in here that compares "worth" versus "value." The same comparison can be made to jobs and incomes. There are millions of people in this country who work hard every day, on their feet, physical labor. I asked early in this thread why a sanitation worker doesn't make $100K a year when he provides a service vital to the health of our community, and the answer is that we don't value it. We value the guy who invents Facebook. And because society has always had this cockeyed way of placing value on work, somewhere along the line the smart people said we have to balance it. So we tax the lower incomes at a low level, and we tax the bigger incomes at a higher level. And you know what? Doing that doesn't make one damn bit of difference in who is poor or lower income and who is rich and pays their bills without batting an eye.

Over simplifying what I was trying to say. I have had to work two jobs before to make ends meet without government assistance. Perhaps more of the low income should give that a try. Working harder will not always make you richer. the value of your job is not always relative to your pay. A sanitation worker does provide a vital health service. But it does not take much brains or skills to ride on the back of a truck and that is why they don't make $100,000/year. Not many people can perform brain surgery and that is one of the reasons brain doctors get paid so much. Same reason NFL players get paid so much. There are just very few people that can play the game at their level.


The babies discussion was merely a suggestion that the poor save a little money before taking on another huge burden of having kids. No more different than what responsible people do that are not receiving government assistance.

 

[saintpack]

the question is...How do WE fix or resolve this issue?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

NFL players are not worth millions but yet they can command that kind of salary.

dead wrong.. NFL players make the money they make because they have a skill set that people pay to see, in the form of game tickets and television ad revenue, which in turn makes Billions for team owners... therefore, they are 'worth' every penny.

It is the same reason why Tom Cruise or Jim Carrey deserve $20 million per film-- they put ***es in the seats of theaters, thereby enabling studios and production companies to make money; there are only a handful of people on planet Earth who can do that, and they are rewarded commensurately.. If there were only a half-dozen people on Earth who could teach 6th grade, then we would pay teachers that amount.

 

[Ken-Bob]

dead wrong.. NFL players make the money they make because they have a skill set that people pay to see, in the form of game tickets and television ad revenue, which in turn makes Billions for team owners... therefore, they are 'worth' every penny.

It is the same reason why Tom Cruise or Jim Carrey deserve $20 million per film-- they put ***es in the seats of theaters, thereby enabling studios and production companies to make money; there are only a handful of people on planet Earth who can do that, and they are rewarded commensurately.. If there were only a half-dozen people on Earth who could teach 6th grade, then we would pay teachers that amount.

Almost, but not quite. It's about how people value skills, not the skills themselves. Do NFL players contribute more to society than a 6th grade teacher? Absolutely not. But people value the entertainment value of football and movies far more than they value education for the populace at large. It's more about demand than supply.

 

[iron error]

Almost, but not quite. It's about how people value skills, not the skills themselves. Do NFL players contribute more to society than a 6th grade teacher? Absolutely not. But people value the entertainment value of football and movies far more than they value education for the populace at large. It's more about demand than supply.

so why does everyone in the financial industry make so much? not being sarcastic, what do they do for me again? or for business?

 

[BIG E]

so why does everyone in the financial industry make so much? not being sarcastic, what do they do for me again? or for business?

They know how to BS better and make people think they are worth more.

 

[Ken-Bob]

so why does everyone in the financial industry make so much? not being sarcastic, what do they do for me again? or for business?

They have that level of value to those who pay them. The ones who make the money have demonstrated that they can make money for their clients and their clients are happy to give them their cut. This is also a supply issue, though, as these are people who are trained in how to make money. Just as a football player is born with certain aptitudes and is trained in how to use them. Just as a teacher is trained in how to be a teacher. To the people who pay the finance guys, they are worth the money they are paid. It is a narrow demand, but one we are willing to pay for. We actually don't pay nearly as much, per person, for an NFL player, but millions watch them play, so this is where a wider demand comes into play. The demand for a teacher is actually not that wide. One teacher covers around 20 or so kids. Simultaneously, we simply don't value their product (education) very much.

 

[KingBarkus]

We went over this myth of yours that tax cuts have increased revenue above and beyond what taxes would have been absent the cuts. It tends to go: you throw some numbers without context up. I tell you how wrong you are. You come back with some more numbers and some poor excuses for academic links you think support your argument. I show you how wrong you are. Than you go away from the topic for a little while and then come back and basically repeat the same thing all over again a few months later.

(You) can go over this "myth" until the cows come home but facts are facts. Revenues did increase after the Reagan tax cuts AND the Bush tax cuts. The tax burden of the rich also went up (which you liberals really care about).

You need to lighten up, Bronco, and open your closed, intolerant mind long enough to learn something. Read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

I'll return in a couple of months to see if you get it.

 

[dtc]

(You) can go over this "myth" until the cows come home but facts are facts. Revenues did increase after the Reagan tax cuts AND the Bush tax cuts. The tax burden of the rich also went up (which you liberals really care about).

You need to lighten up, Bronco, and open your closed, intolerant mind long enough to learn something. Read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

I'll return in a couple of months to see if you get it.

Your charts don't show the burden of the rich going up nor do they show the associated tax increases that happened after Reagan's cuts and before the revenue increases.

Perhaps you should come to terms with the idea that wealth for the richest increased faster than their percentage of tax burden. If you do, you'll see that while they did pay a higher percent of overall taxes collected the before, their proportion of wealth also increased by a greater margin.

Now, I don't care how any of it breaks down except that the facts are stated honestly. The one basic truth we can all understand is that those of us making the most can afford to pay more while those making nothing can't. Beyond that, the rest is nothing but stew.

 

[Bulletproof Tiger]

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax... many make a profit!

It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government. The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment. "We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1


Income redistribution via the IRS? I think so.

 

[brophy]

Heritage foundation

/RWA propaganda

Didn't we discuss this very same 'study' two months ago?

 

[Bulletproof Tiger]

Heritage foundation

/RWA propaganda

Didn't we discuss this very same 'study' two months ago?

Heritage didn't do the study, if you read the article. No politics in the article either... just simple facts.