Ding Dong, the witch is dead

[Rock Steady]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

... If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple. ...

This makes no sense at all. So, if you make no income one year, you still pay 10.5 percent of your wealth. This is clearly unworkable. Usually this wealth is already taxed as income when it was received.

A graduated income tax makes the most sense. Higher earners have more vested interest in keeping societal infrastructure working and are getting more out of the system, so we should pay higher marginal tax rates. My bartender gets less value from the Securities Exchange Commission than I do.

[DanaC]

The trouble with a flat tax, as I see it, is that 10% of $400,000 per annum, is a significantly lower burden in terms of living standards as 10% of $30,000.

A sliding scale of tax takes account of the fact that the higher the income (and face it, most people with high incomes also have significantly higher holdings than those on lower incomes also) the lower the impact of the tax, despite the fact they are paying more.

This works particularly well, if the income brackets are set so that you are only paying the higher rate on the money you earn above the threshold. Then the majority of that $400,000 gets taxed at the normal rate, but the amount over $300,000 (random figures:P) gets taxed at say 40% or 50%. The person earning, still comes away with a big wage cheque.

The impact of 10% on wage of $30,000 is still higher than the impact of that supertax on the $400,000 earner. But, to me it seems a great deal fairer. Yes, that person earning the high wage has done so with their own work.....but they've done so in a country that belongs to you all. They've benefitted from the particular set of circumstances provided by that country and if they're earning such a high wage, likely they've also benefited from the labours of someone earning considerably less.

Shawnee, don't let Noodle get to you. You know how the world works, pity him, he is blind.

[Rock Steady]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The trouble with a flat tax, as I see it, is that 10% of $400,000 per annum, is a significantly lower burden in terms of living standards as 10% of $30,000.

Yes, you are right. Income Burden is the salient feature.

But, in comparision to weath tax, this graduated/progressive INCOME tax WORKS as opposed to a WEALTH tax which is completely rediculious.

Hypothetically, say I make a company that generatings big profits and I sell it for X times my investment. Then, I see another big opportunity where I can invest/work and create jobs off the capital gains of that first company. I create new jobs, why should the government tax me more between these opportunities to create new jobs?

If I just go off and spend my first investment on cars, clubs, women, and wine, sales tax me heavily. Making a new company and creating new jobs should be handled differently.

I am so under the influence, that I am thinking that I am no longer making any sense.

But, yeah, let's bury "Borrow and Spend" Republicans. Why isn't there a third party of "Tax and Save"? They might get some votes in this century.

[9th Engineer]

In my perfect world I'd definately like to see a tax system like Dana suggested, as well as inheritence taxes funding a merit based system of scholorships for education and afterschool programs to supliment school ciriculums (kind of like subsidized intense study schools). I wish society had to obey the Law of Conservation, you get out exactly what you put in, schools and work would be the converter for effort into rewards. But unfortunately humans are, at this point, incapable of operating under a better system than what we have now on large scales. It gets easier with smaller and smaller groups (one reason why I don't think you can compare the health care of a small country to one with 100 times its population), but human nature rules out a completely just system of government on any level. What we have is pretty good, needs to be tweaked, but doesn't need an overhaul in my opinion.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The trouble with a flat tax, as I see it, is that 10% of $400,000 per annum, is a significantly lower burden in terms of living standards as 10% of $30,000.

A sliding scale of tax takes account of the fact that the higher the income (and face it, most people with high incomes also have significantly higher holdings than those on lower incomes also) the lower the impact of the tax, despite the fact they are paying more.

This works particularly well, if the income brackets are set so that you are only paying the higher rate on the money you earn above the threshold. Then the majority of that $400,000 gets taxed at the normal rate, but the amount over $300,000 (random figures:P) gets taxed at say 40% or 50%. The person earning, still comes away with a big wage cheque.

The impact of 10% on wage of $30,000 is still higher than the impact of that supertax on the $400,000 earner. But, to me it seems a great deal fairer. Yes, that person earning the high wage has done so with their own work.....but they've done so in a country that belongs to you all. They've benefitted from the particular set of circumstances provided by that country and if they're earning such a high wage, likely they've also benefited from the labours of someone earning considerably less.

Shawnee, don't let Noodle get to you. You know how the world works, pity him, he is blind.

I am not trying to make taxes punitive... just equal and fair.
The way it works now, the very rich don't have to pay any... you think that is better?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The way it works now, the very rich don't have to pay any... you think that is better?

This is nonsense, rkz. You seriously believe that the very wealthy pay ZERO taxes? Any evidence to back that up? Do you even know any wealthy people who claim to pay no taxes?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Rock Steady

But, yeah, let's bury "Borrow and Spend" Republicans. Why isn't there a third party of "Tax and Save"? They might get some votes in this century.

Because that would be silly. The government shouldn't be saving money; it should figure out what it intends to spend, and tax the appropriate amount to pay for it.