BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Dr.Who]

Some people here are promoting flat taxes with no deductions. It looks like you are promoting heavy deductions to the extent that there are no taxes for the lower classes.

My intention wold never be to create a system that was designed to give some people special breaks or burden some more than others. If it worked out that way then so be it but most importantly the law must apply to all people equally that is the most important thing. As soon as one law is made that does not apply to all people equally the door is open to make more laws that do not apply to all equally - I suppose that corporatism is largely the result of just such an open door.

I could support a flat tax with no deduction because the burden for a poor person would be very small (15% of a dollar is only 15 cents after all) and I could support a flat tax with a deduction because the deduction would be applied to all equally. If we should respect that people have non-disposable income that is used for basic necessities of life then obviously all people must buy the same basics and should receive the same deduction. If beyond those basics there exist a type of income called luxury then we must accept that all people have luxuries when they buy anything above the basics. The problem is that this puts the gov in the position of determining for every single person in the country what part of their expenses are basics and what part of luxuries. That is an awful lot of power and control. And if a loaf of bread is a basic is the more expensive loaf of gluten free bread still a basic for those with wheat problems? How about the organic produced versus regular produce. I bet the people who grow organics would have a strong lobby.

When the income tax was first presented it was argued that the privacy between employer and employee would be violated. And sure enough today we don't even see our money until uncle sam has first taken his share directly from our employer who told uncle sam exactly how much we made and how and why... The slippery slope has long since been sledded upon. So much so that people don't even understand just how much freedom they don't have.

 

[Lagboltz]

A fairer society in which everyone participated with equal protection under the law would give him a greater opportunity.

The present system does threaten some people with fear of being put under since someone is always 15% or less above the poverty level. You therefore think the present system is unfair. But of course you are using the word in a way that in no way relates to its definition. Fairness has to to with rules being applied equally and according to understandable rules not with weather or not anyone is hurt when the rules are applied. Every set of tax rules hurt someone so all tax rules are unfair by your definition.

Taxes are fair if they pay for things we use and couldn't afford otherwise such as schools, libraries, highways, etc.

Everyone should have some burden and participate in our democracy. 15% of a small number is a much smaller number and so it is actually not a great burden in any sense. With a standard deduction fairly given to all no one would pay any amount that is burdensome. Your nephew can no doubt afford $150.

I don't know how much he makes, but if it's $10,000 per year, he would have to pay $1,500 not $150. Either you are a factor of 10 off, or you haven't made your tax position clear to me.

If he is like most poor in this country he has a home, 2 tv's, a car, an air conditioner, clothing and food for all of his family (his wife is probably even fat), health insurance, jewelry, eats out (statistically more than people who are better off), a vcr or tivo or cable etc., a phone (or a couple of cell phones) ...

In all honesty, tell us which things he owns from the list and tell us that he cannot afford $150 to support his country.

Home, 1 glass tube TV, car, cell phone clothing etc. a computer with flat screen monitor that I gave them, and broad band that my brother is paying for. He is no doubt making more than $10,000, but even then a 15% tax of just $1,500 would be a tremendous burden to the family. If he were making $100,000 a year, a 15% tax of $15,000 would be very tolerable.

Furthermore, he is most likely poor because he went to a bad public school. The best way to help poor people is to give kids better educations.

He is very good mechanically, reasonably intelligent, but his mental capacity would not be able to grasp a higher education. He survived cancer and has two hip replacements and can not get job insurance for anything that requires a ladder.

 

[Dr.Who]

Taxes are fair if they pay for things we use and couldn't afford otherwise such as schools, libraries, highways, etc.

Are you saying that if taxes are used for things we need then they must be fair no matter how they are collected? Because if that were true then we could collect taxes from black people only or poor people only and it would be fair. Fairness is not about if the taxes are used correctly or not - that is a different issue. They are fair when they are collected from people using the same rules applied to all people equally.

I don't know how much he makes, but if it's $10,000 per year, he would have to pay $1,500 not $150. Either you are a factor of 10 off, or you haven't made your tax position clear to me.

He gets at least the standard deduction right? This year the standard deduction was 11K so he paid no federal taxes. With his home and kids he could have taken an even greater deduction and received money back. Clearly he is not burdened by federal taxes!!!

If there were no standard deduction but the size and reach of government were not so huge he could be paying a much smaller tax, maybe 8% total in taxes that were levied on a variety of products. If he could afford to buy the products (preferably only products in which the tax was directly related to the gov service we get, for example a tax on gas to pay for roads) then he could afford the taxes and if he could not afford to buy those products then e would buy the ones that did not come with a tax. (just one possible way to do it)

Home, 1 glass tube TV, car, cell phone clothing etc. a computer with flat screen monitor that I gave them, and broad band that my brother is paying for. He is no doubt making more than $10,000, but even then a 15% tax of just $1,500 would be a tremendous burden to the family.

He is not poor he is merely below the government definition of a poverty level. But since he can obviously provide himself with what he needs to survive and a whole lot more why should other people be forced to provide him with more? If he were to stop spending money on things beyond food and shelter then he could participate more fully and be a more productive citizen.

If he were making $100,000 a year, a 15% tax of $15,000 would be very tolerable.

It is not the governments business who has a lot and who has a little. There is no section of the constitution that gives he gov the right to snoop into peoples private lives to determine who is rich and who is poor to then tax the rich using different and discriminatory rules. I agree that a person making 1ook can afford to pay taxes. Right now they are not paying anywhere near that much and if they did it would in fact be a huge burden. A 100k is not that much. But if everyone paid the same rate with the same deduction then the gov would not need to collect 15% after all is said and done. We could spread the burden so it is not so hard on anyone.

He is very good mechanically, reasonably intelligent, but his mental capacity would not be able to grasp a higher education. He survived cancer and has two hip replacements and can not get job insurance for anything that requires a ladder.

I am glad however that he does have a job. If the gov where not hostile to the business environment he could get a better job that paid more. If the gov did not take payroll taxes he could be paid more. If the employer did not have to meet a million state and federal regulations about just about everything they could pay more. Clearly we need laws to keep companies from doing things that are harmful but if a thing is not harmful it does not need to be regulated. If going into business were not so made so hard by regulations and licensing requirements he could be selling something himself and keeping all the profits. This is a very real example of where government is hurting a very real person - your relative.

The thing comes down to this. If gov was logically organized and small then we could all pay for it without it being too much of a burden on anyone and we could all pay fairly. But as soon as it gets large and unweildy then the tax burden becomes too great for some people and the only way to fix that is to tax some people more than others in ways that are unfair. The unfairness is entirely due to gov itself.

 

[GenSeneca]

Tax law in a wealthy country that forces a significant percentage of the population into poverty level income is not fair tax law.

Now what definition of "fair" are you using?

You can check the assertion yourself.

I already have, using empirical data provided by the CBO, and your assertion has proven to be false.

Sounds to me like you are simply trying to reword the more popular phrase "progressive taxes". If not, please clarify.

Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. If I use a gun to take 35% of a "rich" mans money and then give that money to my sycophants, I'd be a criminal. If I used the tax laws to accomplish the same thing, I'd be a politician.

BigRob? I know he doesn't believe in free lunch, however....

My example about all of us voting to force BigRob to buy the rest of us lunch is germain because it's no different than Americans voting to raise taxes on the "wealthy". In both cases, a majority of voters want to gain some benefit at the expense of those in the minority - by force.

Buffet must have heard us!! He wrote an op-ed today to the New York Times! I will let him explain himself.

He did not answer my question:

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.​

Why must they be TOLD, i.e. forced by law, to pay higher taxes before they actually do so? I find it perplexing that Buffet, and his friends, think they should be paying more in taxes but refuses to do so voluntarily. Neither you, nor Buffet, have been able to explain why such people need to be "told" to pay higher taxes rather than doing so voluntarily.

I do believe that higher progressive taxes will more likely to lead to the prosperity of America.

How does raising taxes on the top two income brackets lead to prosperity for America?

Also, Buffet agreed with me in his article that raising the Progressive Income Tax will barely affect the "wealthy", if at all, yet this point has gone unaddressed by you and everyone else who demands that the PIT rate be increased in order to collect more tax revenue from the "wealthy".

Wealth tax?

A wealth tax is generally conceived of as a levy based on the aggregate value of all household holdings actually accumulated as purchasing power stock (rather than flow), including owner-occupied housing; cash, bank deposits, money funds, and savings in insurance and pension plans; investment in real estate and unincorporated businesses; and corporate stock, financial securities, and personal trusts.​

I think the tax on capital gains should be progressive, but I am not a macro-economist and I would leave it to those who do understand the dynamics to propose what would be best for all of America.

Why do you defer to the expertise of others when it comes to Capital Gains Taxes but feel perfectly qualified to speak on the topic of the Progressive Income Tax?

There are a lot of problems to be worked out such as how a higher tax on the wealthy would affect investment. However, it had been about twice the rate it is now during Clinton's era, and there were no bad effects. So that is a start.

In the article you quoted from Buffet, he said the CGT was 39.9% during the 70's and he didn't consider it an impedement to investors... So why aren't all the "TAX THE RICH!" people demanding a return to the Progressive CGT? That actually would have a significant impact on the "wealthy", whereas raising the top two marginal rates of the PIT would not.

 

[GenSeneca]

I could support a flat tax with no deduction because the burden for a poor person would be very small (15% of a dollar is only 15 cents after all)...

Let me begin in my remarks by saying I don't know if you were on vacation or what but I'm glad you're back and I've missed reading your replies. I could have quoted you several times over the last couple of pages and then agreed with, and complimented you on, your statements but where's the fun in that?

Instead, I will explain why I consider allowing deductions, of any kind, to be the foot in the door you're worried about.

...I could support a flat tax with a deduction because the deduction would be applied to all equally.

America goes to a flat tax of 15% and we set the deduction at the poverty level, meaning that anyone below 12k/yr will owe nothing on their income. Before long, people like Lag think it's too regressive and vote to increase the deduction so that people at twice the poverty level, 24k/yr, also pay nothing on a flat income tax.

Now the money coming in is getting kinda thin, so they want to raise the flat tax to 25%, however, they fear this would impact people at three times the poverty level too greatly, so those people are also exempted from the tax by once again increasing the deduction to 36k/yr.

This process will inevitably continue until the flat tax is only applicable to the wealthiest of individuals and the rate will have to be raised to 60% or more to cover the lost revenue of kicking so many people off the rolls... But it would still be "fair" under our definition since it applies to everyone equally.

My conclusion: Allowing deductions, of any kind, leaves the door open for politicians to continue using the tax laws as a way to drive a wedge between the classes. Politicians will continue to use the tax code to garner support from the lower classes, who would like to be exempted from paying taxes, and the upper classes, who foot the bill in return for political favors.

 

[Lagboltz]

Are you saying that if taxes are used for things we need then they must be fair no matter how they are collected? Because if that were true then we could collect taxes from black people only or poor people only and it would be fair. Fairness is not about if the taxes are used correctly or not - that is a different issue. They are fair when they are collected from people using the same rules applied to all people equally.

I had already discussed what I think is fair. There is no point repeating it here.

He gets at least the standard deduction right? This year the standard deduction was 11K so he paid no federal taxes. With his home and kids he could have taken an even greater deduction and received money back. Clearly he is not burdened by federal taxes!!!

If there were no standard deduction but the size and reach of government were not so huge he could be paying a much smaller tax, maybe 8% total in taxes that were levied on a variety of products. If he could afford to buy the products (preferably only products in which the tax was directly related to the gov service we get, for example a tax on gas to pay for roads) then he could afford the taxes and if he could not afford to buy those products then e would buy the ones that did not come with a tax. (just one possible way to do it)

I thought you were advocating flat taxes with no deductions. Apparently you are not. You are also talking about a sales tax. These concepts are way outside what I thought this discussion was about.

He is not poor he is merely below the government definition of a poverty level. But since he can obviously provide himself with what he needs to survive and a whole lot more why should other people be forced to provide him with more? If he were to stop spending money on things beyond food and shelter then he could participate more fully and be a more productive citizen.

All I was saying is that he could not handle a flat tax of %15 with no deductions. As far as he is concerned the current tax laws are fine for him.

It is not the governments business who has a lot and who has a little. There is no section of the constitution that gives he gov the right to snoop into peoples private lives to determine who is rich and who is poor to then tax the rich using different and discriminatory rules. I agree that a person making 1ook can afford to pay taxes. Right now they are not paying anywhere near that much and if they did it would in fact be a huge burden. A 100k is not that much. But if everyone paid the same rate with the same deduction then the gov would not need to collect 15% after all is said and done. We could spread the burden so it is not so hard on anyone.

All I was saying is that your idea of a 15% flat tax on $10K of earnings is much more of a burden than on someone making $100K, if there are no deductions.

I am glad however that he does have a job. If the gov where not hostile to the business environment he could get a better job that paid more. If the gov did not take payroll taxes he could be paid more. If the employer did not have to meet a million state and federal regulations about just about everything they could pay more. Clearly we need laws to keep companies from doing things that are harmful but if a thing is not harmful it does not need to be regulated. If going into business were not so made so hard by regulations and licensing requirements he could be selling something himself and keeping all the profits. This is a very real example of where government is hurting a very real person - your relative.

If the government didn't deduct payroll taxes, he would have no SS retirement funds. Federal regulations is getting outside the scope of the effect of flat taxes on a wage earner. I don't like arguing examples, but government regulations don't affect the particular job we are talking about.

The thing comes down to this. If gov was logically organized and small then we could all pay for it without it being too much of a burden on anyone and we could all pay fairly. But as soon as it gets large and unweildy then the tax burden becomes too great for some people and the only way to fix that is to tax some people more than others in ways that are unfair. The unfairness is entirely due to gov itself.

That I completely agree on. But, I find that most people that argue for less government don't consider what happens to the lowest classes, and they do not suggest viable alternatives for insuring that inner cities do not come so downtrodden that riots will break out like they did here in the 1960's and in the UK now.

 

[Lagboltz]

Now what definition of "fair" are you using?

I already went through my idea of what is fair. I'm not going to post it again.

I already have, using empirical data provided by the CBO, and your assertion has proven to be false.

False? That's a strong word for your opinion. I have no idea how you went through the details. The New York Times site gives a good way of communicating the details.

Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. If I use a gun to take 35% of a "rich" mans money and then give that money to my sycophants, I'd be a criminal. If I used the tax laws to accomplish the same thing, I'd be a politician.

You seem to have no use for both, the 16th amendment, and politicians. Sounds like you are getting close to anarchy. Of course I agree with you about politicians being self centered corruption units, but probably for different reasons than you do.

My example about all of us voting to force BigRob to buy the rest of us lunch is germain because it's no different than Americans voting to raise taxes on the "wealthy". In both cases, a majority of voters want to gain some benefit at the expense of those in the minority - by force.

If the 16th amendment referred to BigRob buying us lunch, then I would agree with you that it is germane. However, it's still a red herring.

He did not answer my question:

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.​

Why must they be TOLD, i.e. forced by law, to pay higher taxes before they actually do so? I find it perplexing that Buffet, and his friends, think they should be paying more in taxes but refuses to do so voluntarily. Neither you, nor Buffet, have been able to explain why such people need to be "told" to pay higher taxes rather than doing so voluntarily.

If Buffet and his friends do or do not want to do so voluntarily, so be it. In any case you are being silly.

How does raising taxes on the top two income brackets lead to prosperity for America?

Also, Buffet agreed with me in his article that raising the Progressive Income Tax will barely affect the "wealthy", if at all, yet this point has gone unaddressed by you and everyone else who demands that the PIT rate be increased in order to collect more tax revenue from the "wealthy".

If raising the Progressive Income Tax will barely affect the "wealthy", then we should go for it. I think its great that he feels that he will not be affected. But check the New York Times link. Results there show a large revenue increase for a higher PIT.

A wealth tax is generally conceived of as a levy based on the aggregate value of all household holdings actually accumulated as purchasing power stock (rather than flow), including owner-occupied housing; cash, bank deposits, money funds, and savings in insurance and pension plans; investment in real estate and unincorporated businesses; and corporate stock, financial securities, and personal trusts.​

The wealth tax would be a very bold move. It could never get through congress, so there isn't much point in thinking about it.

Why do you defer to the expertise of others when it comes to Capital Gains Taxes but feel perfectly qualified to speak on the topic of the Progressive Income Tax?

Stronger progressive taxes are in our history. I don't know anything about the history of progressive Capital Gains. As I understand it the CGT is already progressive to a small extent.

In the article you quoted from Buffet, he said the CGT was 39.9% during the 70's and he didn't consider it an impedement to investors... So why aren't all the "TAX THE RICH!" people demanding a return to the Progressive CGT? That actually would have a significant impact on the "wealthy", whereas raising the top two marginal rates of the PIT would not.

Why? I don't know. I have always thought a higher progressive CGT is a good idea. You are right. We should have a louder voice demanding that.

 

[GenSeneca]

I already went through my idea of what is fair. I'm not going to post it again.

You agreed that "fair" meant, impartial, without prejudice or bias, free of favoritism... Yet you consider laws that are fair by that definition, such as the flat tax, to be unfair. Instead you consider laws which are prejudiced, biased, and full of favoritism, like the Progressive Income Tax, to be "fair"... This shows an inconsistent application of the agreed upon definition of "fair".

False? That's a strong word for your opinion. I have no idea how you went through the details. The New York Times site gives a good way of communicating the details.

Yes, your assertion is false. That is not my opinion, it is fact, based on actual historical data. There is no causal link between higher PIT rates and revenue.

The NYT's site provides a speculative opinion about what might happen in the future, so any figures that it offers are fiction rather than fact. If you really believe that a website is capable of accurately predicting the future, I suggest you ask it for some winning lottery numbers.

You seem to have no use for both, the 16th amendment, and politicians. Sounds like you are getting close to anarchy. Of course I agree with you about politicians being self centered corruption units, but probably for different reasons than you do.

I do not seek to use the government's monopoly on the legal use of force as a means of coercing others into bending to my will, such behavior is immoral.

You think "rich" people should pay higher taxes but, for reasons unknown to you, they refuse to do so voluntarily. Since you cannot convince them to conform to your wishes voluntarily, you turn to government's monopoly on the legal use of force to make them comply with your wishes.

If the 16th amendment referred to BigRob buying us lunch, then I would agree with you that it is germane. However, it's still a red herring.

You are dodging my question... How does raising the top two PIT rates lead to prosperity for America?

And.. You think the 16th amendment should be used for the redistribution of wealth... Forcing BigRob to buy the rest of us lunch is a specific example of that general principle. In both cases, a majority of people vote to gain a benefit at the expense of the minority.

If Buffet and his friends do or do not want to do so voluntarily, so be it. In any case you are being silly.

It's silly that neither you, nor they, can offer an explanation.

If raising the Progressive Income Tax will barely affect the "wealthy", then we should go for it.

I agree, you should go for it... Raise taxes on the middle class under the guise of taxing the wealthy.

I think its great that he feels that he will not be affected. But check the New York Times link. Results there show a large revenue increase for a higher PIT.

Those results are:

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality.​

My conclusions are based on evidence, reason, and reality.

The wealth tax would be a very bold move. It could never get through congress, so there isn't much point in thinking about it.

Neither would a Flat Tax, yet you feel that topic is worth discussing.

Do you have any reason to oppose a wealth tax?

Stronger progressive taxes are in our history.

And if you looked at the history of our PIT rates, as I have, you would see that raising the rates does not have the causal effect of increasing revenue.

I don't know anything about the history of progressive Capital Gains. As I understand it the CGT is already progressive to a small extent.

5% and 15%, I see no reason why people who wish to raise taxes on the wealthy are not demanding that the CGT rates be brought in line with PIT rates.

Why? I don't know. I have always thought a higher progressive CGT is a good idea. You are right. We should have a louder voice demanding that.

Get on it.

 

[Lagboltz]

You agreed that "fair" meant, impartial, without prejudice or bias, free of favoritism... Yet you consider laws that are fair by that definition, such as the flat tax, to be unfair. Instead you consider laws which are prejudiced, biased, and full of favoritism, like the Progressive Income Tax, to be "fair"... This shows an inconsistent application of the agreed upon definition of "fair".

You didn't reread my earlier post. I know what "fair" means. My interpretation subsumes your more narrow application of the meaning of "fair" as applied to taxation.

Yes, your assertion is false. That is not my opinion, it is fact, based on actual historical data. There is no causal link between higher PIT rates and revenue.

That is your opinion; not fact. There is no causal link between lower PIT rates and revenue either. Trickle Down theory is quite in disfavor now. It has not been proven. Here is a funny quote. Well, you probably won't think it's funny.

Democrats know trickle down economics is a scam
Rich republicans know trickle down economics is a scam, but lie about it to gain millions
Poor republicans think trickle down economics works​

The NYT's site provides a speculative opinion about what might happen in the future, so any figures that it offers are fiction rather than fact. If you really believe that a website is capable of accurately predicting the future, I suggest you ask it for some winning lottery numbers.

I trust the NYT model of the future more than your's. It seems that anything you believe in is "fact" and anything I believe is "speculative opinion".

I do not seek to use the government's monopoly on the legal use of force as a means of coercing others into bending to my will, such behavior is immoral.

Wowee you are in an irritable mood. You seem to be challenging the 16th amendment still. Taxes are here to stay. You gotta learn to live with it.

You think "rich" people should pay higher taxes but, for reasons unknown to you, they refuse to do so voluntarily.

You are being silly. Of course they don't do it voluntarily.

Since you cannot convince them to conform to your wishes voluntarily, you turn to government's monopoly on the legal use of force to make them comply with your wishes.

Hey, don't make it personal. In place of the word "you" substitute "80% of Americans".

You are dodging my question... How does raising the top two PIT rates lead to prosperity for America?

It pays down the debt while allowing poverty level people to keep their current tax rate.

And.. You think the 16th amendment should be used for the redistribution of wealth... Forcing BigRob to buy the rest of us lunch is a specific example of that general principle. In both cases, a majority of people vote to gain a benefit at the expense of the minority.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Congress specifically declares that BigRob does not have this power.​

(I added the last sentence for clarity.)

It's silly that neither you, nor they, can offer an explanation.

If you want an explanation why Buffet doesn't give the gov money, you are going to have to ask him yourself. You are still being silly asking me how Buffet thinks.

I agree, you should go for it... Raise taxes on the middle class under the guise of taxing the wealthy.

Obama's plan was to raise the taxes on earnings over $250,000. That is well above middle class level. Again look at the NYT site to see just how much that would raise.

Those results are:

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality.​

My conclusions are based on evidence, reason, and reality.

LOL; including the definition is supposed to make your point stronger? C'mon. Just calm down. I don't think you have an objective enough perspective of yourself to claim anything about the merits of your conclusions.

Neither would a Flat Tax, yet you feel that topic is worth discussing.

Do you have any reason to oppose a wealth tax?

No reason to oppose one. My state taxes were a wealth tax. They have a sales tax. There is no income tax. But they phased the wealth tax out a few years ago. I don't know why. But it was not burdensome. In fact it was lower than the income tax I was paying when I lived in Michigan.

And if you looked at the history of our PIT rates, as I have, you would see that raising the rates does not have the causal effect of increasing revenue.

As you have. Yeah right. You are so rabidly against PIT that I'm sure you cherry picked just what you wanted.

5% and 15%, I see no reason why people who wish to raise taxes on the wealthy are not demanding that the CGT rates be brought in line with PIT rates.

Get on it.

Yep, that's what they should do. Maybe we should get the tea party on it.

 

[GenSeneca]

My interpretation subsumes your more narrow application of the meaning of "fair" as applied to taxation.

As I said in the beginning, your 'nuanced' definition of "fair" is the opposite of the dictionary definition.

That is your opinion; not fact. There is no causal link between lower PIT rates and revenue either.

There is no causal link between PIT rates and revenue, in either direction. That is a fact, not an opinion.

I trust the NYT model of the future more than your's.

I did not offer a "model of the future". My statements are based on historical fact, not future speculation.

It seems that anything you believe in is "fact" and anything I believe is "speculative opinion".

Projected Revenue is speculative opinion while Actual Revenue is fact. Therefore, your conclusions about tax rates are based on opinion while mine are based on fact.

Wowee you are in an irritable mood. You seem to be challenging the 16th amendment still. Taxes are here to stay. You gotta learn to live with it.

What I said is true, I do not seek to impose my will on others though government's monopoly on the legal use of force. Additionally, I have not challenged the 16th amendment in any way. My only challenge is aimed at the immorality of imposing your will on others by force of law.

You are being silly. Of course they don't do it voluntarily.

It's silly that they argue in favor of being forced to do something they refuse to do voluntarily. If they are in favor of paying more money in taxes, then they should do so voluntarily.

Hey, don't make it personal. In place of the word "you" substitute "80% of Americans".

I'm not speaking to "80% of Americans", I'm speaking to you. If it bothers you to be personally confronted with the truth, that you are seeking to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce others into bending to your will, then perhaps you should stop trying to impose your will on others by force of law.

It pays down the debt while allowing poverty level people to keep their current tax rate.

Claiming that raising the top two rates would pay down the debt is an opinion based entirely on speculation regarding projected revenue, it is not real. Such a claim also ignores the fact that revenue would have to increase enough to eliminate our annual deficits before any amount of revenue could be put toward the actual debt.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where in the Constitution is our Federal government authorized to redistribute wealth?

Congress specifically declares that BigRob does not have this power.

I never claimed he did.

If you want an explanation why Buffet doesn't give the gov money, you are going to have to ask him yourself. You are still being silly asking me how Buffet thinks.

I did not ask you how Buffet thinks. If you had a pocket full of $5 bills and wanted to give a homeless man $5, would you do it voluntarily, or would you push for government to write a law forcing you to give him $5 before you would actually fork over the money? The latter of the two is, in essence, what Buffet is doing and it doesn't make sense.

Obama's plan was to raise the taxes on earnings over $250,000. That is well above middle class level.

I do not recall any plans to create a 7th bracket for income taxes... With the current 6 brackets, the second highest bracket begin at $174,400, well below the $250,000 number that is being regurgitated.

Again look at the NYT site to see just how much that would raise.

Projected revenue is not the same thing as actual revenue, the first is fiction while the second is fact. Does the concept of reality so escape you that you cannot tell the difference?

LOL; including the definition is supposed to make your point stronger? C'mon. Just calm down. I don't think you have an objective enough perspective of yourself to claim anything about the merits of your conclusions.

The NYT's site is based on speculation, not reality. By embracing their imaginary numbers, you are forming your belief on what you consider pleasing to imagine, rather than appealing to evidence, rationality or reality. Thus your position, and the NYT's site, is nothing more than Wishful Thinking.

As you have. Yeah right. You are so rabidly against PIT that I'm sure you cherry picked just what you wanted.

Perhaps that is how you conduct yourself and arrive at your opinions but I have more honor and integrity than that. Lying to myself, and/or others, is neither rational nor logical behavior.

People who claim that lowering tax rates increases revenue, must cherry pick data to support their claim. People who claim raising tax rates increases revenue must also cherry pick data to support their claim. Neither claim can be supported when you look at all the data available because there simply is no causal link between tax rates and revenue. That much is fact.

The following is opinion: My conclusion was that tax rates should be consistent, at whatever their level, not because I believe that will increase revenue but because I believe that kind of stability helps bring order to the chaos. People, and markets, respond erratically to uncertainty, eliminating the uncertainty in our tax laws creates a more stable environment for people, and markets, to flourish.

Yep, that's what they should do. Maybe we should get the tea party on it.

I believe the TEA Party is against raising taxes, so I doubt they would embrace such a plan. Perhaps president Obama should make it part of his re-election campaign, as a means of pandering to the "80% of Americans" who want higher taxes on the wealthy, he could call it the "Tax ourselves into prosperity" plan... It would go well with his "Spend our way out of debt" plan.

 

[Dr.Who]

All I was saying is that he could not handle a flat tax of %15 with no deductions. As far as he is concerned the current tax laws are fine for him.

All I was saying is that your idea of a 15% flat tax on $10K of earnings is much more of a burden than on someone making $100K, if there are no deductions.

They would be less of a burden if he did not have to pay for the cost of regulation in every product he buys.

If the government didn't deduct payroll taxes, he would have no SS retirement funds.

Of course not. But he would have a paycheck that was about 14% larger and with it he could save for his own retirement.

Federal regulations is getting outside the scope of the effect of flat taxes on a wage earner. I don't like arguing examples, but government regulations don't affect the particular job we are talking about.

The effect him to a very large degree. the cost of regulation on every business, every worker and every price in the US is quite high.

The Obama admin added 9.5 billion dollars worth of regulation in July alone. How much does that cost every American? Now consider all the previous regulations by all the other admins.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2011/08/costs-of-regulation.html

That I completely agree on. But, I find that most people that argue for less government don't consider what happens to the lowest classes, and they do not suggest viable alternatives for insuring that inner cities do not come so downtrodden that riots will break out like they did here in the 1960's and in the UK now.

If the gov will keep them from being victims of crime, then permit the economy to reward them for work to the greatest extent possible many of them will not be downtrodden to begin with - they will be productive middle class workers.

For those who cannot work there are social safety nets other than government and yes others have been mentioning them for a long time and I am sure you have heard of them.

 

[Dr.Who]

You agreed that "fair" meant, impartial, without prejudice or bias, free of favoritism... Yet you consider laws that are fair by that definition, such as the flat tax, to be unfair. Instead you consider laws which are prejudiced, biased, and full of favoritism, like the Progressive Income Tax, to be "fair"... This shows an inconsistent application of the agreed upon definition of "fair".

I agree that the very nature of progressive taxation is unfair by definition. As long as they are so willing to support taxes that are unfair how about we decide that taxing the rich is ok after all - as long as we only tax progressive rich people who actually want to pay more in taxes anyway.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree that the very nature of progressive taxation is unfair by definition. As long as they are so willing to support taxes that are unfair how about we decide that taxing the rich is ok after all - as long as we only tax progressive rich people who actually want to pay more in taxes anyway.

We both know that the people who are forced to pay the most in taxes also receive the most political favors, and personal attention, from the ruling parties as a reward for their "sacrifice".

That's the only reason Buffet requires there be a law forcing him to pay higher taxes before he'd be willing to part with more of his money. If he were to voluntarily donate a few million more in taxes, the ruling parties would feel no obligation to reward him with any additional political favors or give him any more additional face time than they already do.

Buffet isn't being altruistic, he's being exploitative.

 

[Lagboltz]

As I said in the beginning, your 'nuanced' definition of "fair" is the opposite of the dictionary definition.

This definition of fair is more in line with what I was thinking.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.​

I know you will interpret it to your bias, but here is my bias: A flat tax of 15% with no deductions on a family that is living on $10,000 a year amounts to $1,500 and would put them much more deeply into poverty. The same tax on earnings of $100,000 is $15,000 and is very tolerable. That 15% tax on poverty level families is too significant and is not merited relative to the family with 10 times the earnings.

There is no causal link between PIT rates and revenue, in either direction. That is a fact, not an opinion.

That is what I have been saying.

I did not offer a "model of the future". My statements are based on historical fact, not future speculation.

We must model the future. That is where our destiny lies. How can you be so short sighted to live in the past. It's over.

Projected Revenue is speculative opinion while Actual Revenue is fact. Therefore, your conclusions about tax rates are based on opinion while mine are based on fact.

Of course it's speculative, it's a mathematical model of the future, not the past. If you want to look in the past, take a look at what our maximum marginal tax rate was for this century. If you want to live in the past, lets go to Reagan's or Clinton's tax structure, or earlier. The country was doing OK then.

What I said is true, I do not seek to impose my will on others though government's monopoly on the legal use of force. Additionally, I have not challenged the 16th amendment in any way. My only challenge is aimed at the immorality of imposing your will on others by force of law.

Imposing my will? You mean the government's will? Are you saying the 16'th amendment is immoral?

It's silly that they argue in favor of being forced to do something they refuse to do voluntarily. If they are in favor of paying more money in taxes, then they should do so voluntarily.

The Giving Pledge is a group founded by billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Many have joined it. Look it up. They would rather donate most of their money to special causes they care about. Why should they give it to the government? Why give it to fund wars, subsidies, etc. when the government is doing that?

I'm not speaking to "80% of Americans", I'm speaking to you. If it bothers you to be personally confronted with the truth, that you are seeking to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce others into bending to your will, then perhaps you should stop trying to impose your will on others by force of law.

It doesn't personally bother me that you are paying more taxes than I am. I don't speak for the 80% others though. You should ask them.

Claiming that raising the top two rates would pay down the debt is an opinion based entirely on speculation regarding projected revenue, it is not real. Such a claim also ignores the fact that revenue would have to increase enough to eliminate our annual deficits before any amount of revenue could be put toward the actual debt.

We already covered this point. See above. You can go wallow in your historic facts, I will try to see what the future has in store.

Where in the Constitution is our Federal government authorized to redistribute wealth?

If that's your fancy way of saying PIT, the 16'th amendment comes closest.

I did not ask you how Buffet thinks. If you had a pocket full of $5 bills and wanted to give a homeless man $5, would you do it voluntarily, or would you push for government to write a law forcing you to give him $5 before you would actually fork over the money? The latter of the two is, in essence, what Buffet is doing and it doesn't make sense.

I would directly give it to the man. That's what Buffet is doing with his billions through the program I mentioned above.

I do not recall any plans to create a 7th bracket for income taxes... With the current 6 brackets, the second highest bracket begin at $174,400, well below the $250,000 number that is being regurgitated.

That's what I heard. Maybe when you do the tax calculation by stepping up through all the marginal brackets, that number pops up as being the pivot point for lower income tax decreases to upper income increases. I'm not going to do the arithmetic.

Projected revenue is not the same thing as actual revenue, the first is fiction while the second is fact. Does the concept of reality so escape you that you cannot tell the difference?

The NYT's site is based on speculation, not reality. By embracing their imaginary numbers, you are forming your belief on what you consider pleasing to imagine, rather than appealing to evidence, rationality or reality. Thus your position, and the NYT's site, is nothing more than Wishful Thinking.

Aren't you going to print the definition of Wishful Thinking again?
Actual revenue? You mean now? or in the future? It's the future that I'm concerned about and that has to be projected. Do you have your own model of what the "actual revenue" is in the future? If so that would also make it projected.

Perhaps that is how you conduct yourself and arrive at your opinions but I have more honor and integrity than that. Lying to myself, and/or others, is neither rational nor logical behavior.

Well, personally I don't think you have much honor and integrity, nor rationality. Your logic is misguided. You are just trying to rationalize a way to keep all your money.
Yes, yes, I know, I know, you want to say the same thing about me.

People who claim that lowering tax rates increases revenue, must cherry pick data to support their claim. People who claim raising tax rates increases revenue must also cherry pick data to support their claim. Neither claim can be supported when you look at all the data available because there simply is no causal link between tax rates and revenue. That much is fact.

Yes, we went over that once before and that was always my point.

The following is opinion: My conclusion was that tax rates should be consistent, at whatever their level, not because I believe that will increase revenue but because I believe that kind of stability helps bring order to the chaos. People, and markets, respond erratically to uncertainty, eliminating the uncertainty in our tax laws creates a more stable environment for people, and markets, to flourish.

I like getting rid of uncertainty too. The damn politicians like to throw around uncertainty like they are cream pies.

 

[Lagboltz]

They would be less of a burden if he did not have to pay for the cost of regulation in every product he buys.

As far as housing, clothes, food, and energy, you are going to have to tell me what the unnecessary regulations are that would cost 15%.

Of course not. But he would have a paycheck that was about 14% larger and with it he could save for his own retirement.

You really can not depend on poverty level people to save for their retirement. Many don't have the means, will power, or are simply irresponsible. Then what happens when they can't work anymore. They become our burden.

The effect him to a very large degree. the cost of regulation on every business, every worker and every price in the US is quite high.

The Obama admin added 9.5 billion dollars worth of regulation in July alone. How much does that cost every American? Now consider all the previous regulations by all the other admins.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2011/08/costs-of-regulation.html

You have to understand that when I see the title of a document, Exposing liberal lies I am very wary that the contents are objective. They quote figures, but don't say how they got them or what regulations cost the most, etc. There is no backup information that I saw. There is no explanation to their statement,

"The annual cost of regulation—$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate..."​

"Frequently cited estimate...". Is that the best they can do?

If the gov will keep them from being victims of crime, then permit the economy to reward them for work to the greatest extent possible many of them will not be downtrodden to begin with - they will be productive middle class workers.

For those who cannot work there are social safety nets other than government and yes others have been mentioning them for a long time and I am sure you have heard of them.

You sure have a rosier outlook than I do. Over 80% of the workforce is in service jobs, only 10% are in manufacturing where the middle class used to be. One out of every 150 Americans are in jail. Robbery, B&E, drug dealing, prostitution, check fraud, car jacking, this is what we have in store for us with some of the downtrodden.

The government sure has a long way to go to reward them for their work. Industry and the rich really don't really give a crap about the problems of the lower class people of the US. Tell me about the social safety nets. I have not heard anything specific.