fish82;654236 wrote:Then redo the tax code to make it a "Proportionate DOD Protected Wealth Percentage Tax," or some other convoluted bullshit. As of today, it's called Income Tax. And as of today, the rich pay more than their "fair share" of it. End of story.

Of course it's the end of the story. The found of capitalism in all likelihood wouldn't think the rich pay their fair share but hey I'm sure your opinion is better than his.

BoatShoes;654991 wrote:Of course it's the end of the story. The found of capitalism in all likelihood wouldn't think the rich pay their fair share but hey I'm sure your opinion is better than his.

1. Actually, yes...it is.

B. Let's look at Smith's quote.

Adam Smith, the founder of Capitalism, would agree. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

You honestly think ol' Adam Smith would be cool with the bottom 40% receiving the bulk of gubmint services whilst paying no tax whatsoever? Call me silly, but I think he might take issue with that.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the ratio of total AGI to total tax burden should be for the rich? If paying double your income share in tax burden isn't "fair," I'd be curious to know what you think would be.

AND... it's looking like Obama might face some heavy fire from the dems, starting with Harry Reid:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/27/harry-reid-obama-should-back-off-on-earmark-ban/....

One thing he said that I thought was particularly interesting was

Specifically, that means he and other lawmakers "have a constitutional obligation to do congressionally directed spending. I know much more about what's needed in Elko, Nevada . . . than some bureaucrat back" in Washington.

First of all, that screams contradiction to me, seeing as he is one of those bureaucrats (lol)!
Secondly, isn't that the way it should be? But since when has the states held that kind of power over their own states?
Harry Reid sure didn't think like that when he voted for the massive bureaucratic healthcare "reform" bill which allowed DC to once again exert its force and power over ALL of the states, not just the ones that wanted it.

Friggin IDIOT!

fish82;655005 wrote:1. Actually, yes...it is.

B. Let's look at Smith's quote.



You honestly think ol' Adam Smith would be cool with the bottom 40% receiving the bulk of gubmint services whilst paying no tax whatsoever? Call me silly, but I think he might take issue with that.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the ratio of total AGI to total tax burden should be for the rich? If paying double your income share in tax burden isn't "fair," I'd be curious to know what you think would be.

If the bottom 40% of the country makes 1 or 10% of the income then they should pay 1-10% of the total tax collected ideally. If hypothetically one dude made 90% of the income then that dude should be responsible for 90% of the taxes.

This is an overly simplified example of course.

I Wear Pants;655522 wrote:If the bottom 40% of the country makes 1 or 10% of the income then they should pay 1-10% of the total tax collected ideally. If hypothetically one dude made 90% of the income then that dude should be responsible for 90% of the taxes.

This is an overly simplified example of course.

www.fairtax.org

If we want to end this class warfare that is the fuel for Democrats and statists, then let's tax consumption and not earnings. That way EVERYONE pays their fair share and the IRS can kiss my ass.

BGFalcons82;655616 wrote:www.fairtax.org

If we want to end this class warfare that is the fuel for Democrats and statists, then let's tax consumption and not earnings. That way EVERYONE pays their fair share and the IRS can kiss my ass.

I knew I liked you. haha

BGFalcons82;655616 wrote:www.fairtax.org

If we want to end this class warfare that is the fuel for Democrats and statists, then let's tax consumption and not earnings. That way EVERYONE pays their fair share and the IRS can kiss my ass.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

I'm not claiming it's fact because it's from that site. I just thought the article had some interesting points and would like anyone more familiar with the Fair Tax or our tax code in general to either support or refute some of them.

fish82;655005 wrote:1. Actually, yes...it is.

B. Let's look at Smith's quote.



You honestly think ol' Adam Smith would be cool with the bottom 40% receiving the bulk of gubmint services whilst paying no tax whatsoever? Call me silly, but I think he might take issue with that.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the ratio of total AGI to total tax burden should be for the rich? If paying double your income share in tax burden isn't "fair," I'd be curious to know what you think would be.

For starters, I don't think it is correct to say that the bottom 40% receive the bulk of government services stemming from income tax expenditures. Medicare and SS sure but those are paid for by payroll taxes and the burden of those wage taxes falls disproportionately on middle and lower income earners. Anyways, the quote says "in proportion to the revenue"...which is income and therefore they ought to pay more depending upon the greater amount of income they receive. Nevertheless, Mr. Smith would have been a proponent of a national wealth tax anyways but I didn't include that quote as it's 1. Very difficult to do constitutionally because of the apportionment clause and has only been done once after the Civil War (back when we paid for wars) and 2. would face a massive back lash from states and localities who rely on such taxes.

Bottom line is, it seems to me, you're caught up in this idea of the sloth slurping away on the hard working man's dollar through social transfers...which, undoubtedly a problem...is among the lower level of real concerns out there. But that's off-topic anyways...

As to your question about what I think is "fair"; For starters, I once held what I gather to be similar beliefs to yourself and believed things like a flat tax is "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage...why should the percentage go up as income goes up?? That was before I learned about things like the declining marginal utility of dollars, the disproportionate burden flat and consumption taxes have on middle and lower income earners, the fact that as incomes rise income more and more of it tends to come from capital gains and dividends now taxed at highly preferential rate structures etc.

Here's a paper I was a research assistant for; I suppose I'm now sympathetic to my former professor's view and tend to believe the fairest system of taxation would be one wherein consumption based upon discretionary use of income is taxed and it would disproportionately tax higher income earners. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896353

But, in our current income tax regime; The Urban/Brookings Institute estimate that the effective tax rate on income for the top 1% is around 19%...their effective tax rate for all federal taxes is around 30%. Considering that the Feds collect around 18-20% of GDP in all taxes and about half of that comes from income taxes, I think I'd, in a perfect would, like to see the top 1%'s effective tax rate be somewhere closer to the top marginal rate of around 30-40% of the income taxes collected because they're the ones disproportionately gaining from our regulated capitalist system and have the most consideration that would require protection from foreign armies etc. And, we can know they're disproportionately gaining because in a true free market with strong competition, we wouldn't have so few market actors gaining such large wealth and income disparities that we have in our economy that now resembles a banana republic in that respect. I mean, the top 1% has gained 3 times the increase in earnings since 1990 and not because they're working 3 times harder or are that much more talented in most cases it would seem.

But, necessarily, the proportion of a taxpayer's income that ought to be garnered in many ways depends a lot on what those expenditures are allocated on. As a matter of principle, at bottom, I tend to believe that wealthier individuals and higher income earners ought to bear a significant portion of the costs of going to war because, if the justification for a war is for national security purposes, the assets by and large that are in need of security belong to these elite and since they are not the one's sending their children off to fight the wars, etc. by and large and in fact might find a good bloodbath very profitable on the contrary, it seems to me they ought to bear a large part of this social cost. How the tax burden is allocate. If a third of tax revenue was going to checks to the poor and indignant who in turn willingly and maliciously offer nothing to society or to high income earners through productive labor (and never have nor likely will) then I surely would think differently but really this is not the major thorn ailing our federal budget.

BGFalcons82;655616 wrote:www.fairtax.org

If we want to end this class warfare that is the fuel for Democrats and statists, then let's tax consumption and not earnings. That way EVERYONE pays their fair share and the IRS can kiss my ass.

How noble of you to ask to share more of your nation's tax burden.

BoatShoes;656130 wrote:For starters, I don't think it is correct to say that the bottom 40% receive the bulk of government services stemming from income tax expenditures. Medicare and SS sure but those are paid for by payroll taxes and the burden of those wage taxes falls disproportionately on middle and lower income earners. Anyways, the quote says "in proportion to the revenue"...which is income and therefore they ought to pay more depending upon the greater amount of income they receive. Nevertheless, Mr. Smith would have been a proponent of a national wealth tax anyways but I didn't include that quote as it's 1. Very difficult to do constitutionally because of the apportionment clause and has only been done once after the Civil War (back when we paid for wars) and 2. would face a massive back lash from states and localities who rely on such taxes.

1. It's true.
B. Please stop changing how you're interpreting Smith's quote. First you say it means the amount they receive from the gubmint, and now you're doing a 180...and looking silly in the process.

BoatShoes;656130 wrote:Bottom line is, it seems to me, you're caught up in this idea of the sloth slurping away on the hard working man's dollar through social transfers...which, undoubtedly a problem...is among the lower level of real concerns out there. But that's off-topic anyways...

As to your question about what I think is "fair"; For starters, I once held what I gather to be similar beliefs to yourself and believed things like a flat tax is "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage...why should the percentage go up as income goes up?? That was before I learned about things like the declining marginal utility of dollars, the disproportionate burden flat and consumption taxes have on middle and lower income earners, the fact that as incomes rise income more and more of it tends to come from capital gains and dividends now taxed at highly preferential rate structures etc.

1. It seems to me that you're caught up in typing as much professorial bullshit as possible to mask the fact that you're not doing well in the argument. Probably just me, though.

B. It was a simple question. Why is it so hard for to give a simple answer? (Rhetorical. I know full well why.)

BoatShoes;656130 wrote:Here's a paper I was a research assistant for; I suppose I'm now sympathetic to my former professor's view and tend to believe the fairest system of taxation would be one wherein consumption based upon discretionary use of income is taxed and it would disproportionately tax higher income earners. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896353

But, in our current income tax regime; The Urban/Brookings Institute estimate that the effective tax rate on income for the top 1% is around 19%...their effective tax rate for all federal taxes is around 30%. Considering that the Feds collect around 18-20% of GDP in all taxes and about half of that comes from income taxes, I think I'd, in a perfect would, like to see the top 1%'s effective tax rate be somewhere closer to the top marginal rate of around 30-40% of the income taxes collected because they're the ones disproportionately gaining from our regulated capitalist system and have the most consideration that would require protection from foreign armies etc. And, we can know they're disproportionately gaining because in a true free market with strong competition, we wouldn't have so few market actors gaining such large wealth and income disparities that we have in our economy that now resembles a banana republic in that respect. I mean, the top 1% has gained 3 times the increase in earnings since 1990 and not because they're working 3 times harder or are that much more talented in most cases it would seem.

But, necessarily, the proportion of a taxpayer's income that ought to be garnered in many ways depends a lot on what those expenditures are allocated on. As a matter of principle, at bottom, I tend to believe that wealthier individuals and higher income earners ought to bear a significant portion of the costs of going to war because, if the justification for a war is for national security purposes, the assets by and large that are in need of security belong to these elite and since they are not the one's sending their children off to fight the wars, etc. by and large and in fact might find a good bloodbath very profitable on the contrary, it seems to me they ought to bear a large part of this social cost. How the tax burden is allocate. If a third of tax revenue was going to checks to the poor and indignant who in turn willingly and maliciously offer nothing to society or to high income earners through productive labor (and never have nor likely will) then I surely would think differently but really this is not the major thorn ailing our federal budget.

So, finally we get to an attempt to answer my question. That didn't take long at all. :rolleyes:

Here's the problem though with your diarrhea of the keyboard...you didn't really answer it. Do you want a top marginal rate of 30-40%, or do you want the total burden of the top 1% to be 30-40%? (Hint, it's already 38%) Your attempt at an answer above is pretty much gibberish. Excellent attempt at masking it with pseudo-economist drivel, though.

I think we're done here, don't you? I don't get the feeling that you're going to just answer my friggin' question. You should probably just move on.

BoatShoes;656130 wrote:For starters, I don't think it is correct to say that the bottom 40% receive the bulk of government services stemming from income tax expenditures. Medicare and SS sure but those are paid for by payroll taxes and the burden of those wage taxes falls disproportionately on middle and lower income earners. Anyways, the quote says "in proportion to the revenue"...which is income and therefore they ought to pay more depending upon the greater amount of income they receive. Nevertheless, Mr. Smith would have been a proponent of a national wealth tax anyways but I didn't include that quote as it's 1. Very difficult to do constitutionally because of the apportionment clause and has only been done once after the Civil War (back when we paid for wars) and 2. would face a massive back lash from states and localities who rely on such taxes.

Bottom line is, it seems to me, you're caught up in this idea of the sloth slurping away on the hard working man's dollar through social transfers...which, undoubtedly a problem...is among the lower level of real concerns out there. But that's off-topic anyways...

As to your question about what I think is "fair"; For starters, I once held what I gather to be similar beliefs to yourself and believed things like a flat tax is "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage...why should the percentage go up as income goes up?? That was before I learned about things like the declining marginal utility of dollars, the disproportionate burden flat and consumption taxes have on middle and lower income earners, the fact that as incomes rise income more and more of it tends to come from capital gains and dividends now taxed at highly preferential rate structures etc.

Here's a paper I was a research assistant for; I suppose I'm now sympathetic to my former professor's view and tend to believe the fairest system of taxation would be one wherein consumption based upon discretionary use of income is taxed and it would disproportionately tax higher income earners. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896353

But, in our current income tax regime; The Urban/Brookings Institute estimate that the effective tax rate on income for the top 1% is around 19%...their effective tax rate for all federal taxes is around 30%. Considering that the Feds collect around 18-20% of GDP in all taxes and about half of that comes from income taxes, I think I'd, in a perfect would, like to see the top 1%'s effective tax rate be somewhere closer to the top marginal rate of around 30-40% of the income taxes collected because they're the ones disproportionately gaining from our regulated capitalist system and have the most consideration that would require protection from foreign armies etc. And, we can know they're disproportionately gaining because in a true free market with strong competition, we wouldn't have so few market actors gaining such large wealth and income disparities that we have in our economy that now resembles a banana republic in that respect. I mean, the top 1% has gained 3 times the increase in earnings since 1990 and not because they're working 3 times harder or are that much more talented in most cases it would seem.

But, necessarily, the proportion of a taxpayer's income that ought to be garnered in many ways depends a lot on what those expenditures are allocated on. As a matter of principle, at bottom, I tend to believe that wealthier individuals and higher income earners ought to bear a significant portion of the costs of going to war because, if the justification for a war is for national security purposes, the assets by and large that are in need of security belong to these elite and since they are not the one's sending their children off to fight the wars, etc. by and large and in fact might find a good bloodbath very profitable on the contrary, it seems to me they ought to bear a large part of this social cost. How the tax burden is allocate. If a third of tax revenue was going to checks to the poor and indignant who in turn willingly and maliciously offer nothing to society or to high income earners through productive labor (and never have nor likely will) then I surely would think differently but really this is not the major thorn ailing our federal budget.

Very good analysis. I remember this discussion in some of my policy classes long ago.

I Wear Pants;656076 wrote:http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

I'm not claiming it's fact because it's from that site. I just thought the article had some interesting points and would like anyone more familiar with the Fair Tax or our tax code in general to either support or refute some of them.

I'll read it later, i just perused it now. On the surface, it appears the "factcheck" folks decided to oppose it, rather than analyze it. The Fairtax organization has written a strong repudiation of "factcheck's" findings. As always, the devil is in the details. Remember, the Fairtax eliminates the majority of the IRS, it puts firms like H & R Block out of business, it eliminates thousands, if not millions, of tax attorneys, and even more tax accountants. Is it any wonder why people are against the fairtax???

So under the Fairtax the rich pay less taxes, middle class pays more, and the poor get more money back.

obama: misguided, and still an ultraliberal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012705928.html


Change we can believe in..........

QuakerOats;657283 wrote:obama: misguided, and still an ultraliberal.

No he's not. He has moved to the center. Why? Because he told us so in his SOTU speech.

Two years ago the media painted Obama as the Second Coming. He was the ultimate amalgamation of Lincoln, FDR, and JFK.

Now they're telling us Obama is almost Reagan-like...a real leader. What's not to believe?