cut wasted social spending


ODB can cash a welfare check .... this is wasting money .. and has not been reformed

10/20/2008 5:37:29 PM

no, actually,

he's dead.

10/20/2008 5:40:07 PM

^^social spending is not wasted.

And even if we DID cut social spending, that's even LESS of a reason to go to a regressive tax, because that would mean instead of most of the current spending aimed at the lower ~50% or so, you'd have most of the extra spending being aimed at the upper ~10% which not only would be hard to sell, is just a dumb way of doing things.

In other words, if we cut social spending, a progressive tax would still make more sense, and it'd likely be even MORE progressive (although still lower) that how things are now.

ps what is "ODB"

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 5:40:16 PM

^ Something notable about that graph you posted - note what the two largest tax burdens on the lower quintiles are - FICA and excise taxes. Both are the highest, and both are generally regressive.

One "compromise" toward a flatter income tax, I think, would be in recognizing what Social Security / Medicare are (which is not social insurance), and simply ending the fiction thereof - instead simply folding that tax into General Revenues and adjusting the tax rates accordingly. (Which would mean, effectively, eliminating the cap on income for FICA, for instance.)

10/20/2008 5:42:44 PM

Quote :

"Evaluating the effects of adopting a flat tax Analysts find it hard to predict with precision the effects of minor tax changes, and heated debate continues about the effects of the major 1980s tax reforms. Hence, efforts to evaluate the effects of uprooting the entire tax system must be appropriately qualified. (The economic effects of the flat tax are addressed by a number of contributions in Aaron and Gale 1996.) A central issue in tax reform is always who wins and who loses. Under the flat tax, low-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370. Although the flat tax is more progressive than a VAT, it is more regressive than the current system. A flat tax would provide huge gains for 156 Flat tax high-income households, both because their marginal tax rate would fall and because they consume relatively less of their income than do low-income households. As a result, if a flat tax were to raise as much revenue as the current one, the tax burden for the middle class would have to rise. Consumption taxes are generally less regressive when viewed over longer periods of time because income changes from year to year, but they would raise tax burdens on lower- and middle-income households over any time frame. (For further discussion, see Gale et al. 1996 and Gentry and Hubbard 1997). Perceptions of fairness may also be difficult to retain when, under the flat tax, some wealthy individuals and large corporations remit no taxes to the government while middle-class workers pay a combined marginal tax rate above 30 percent on the flat tax, state income tax, and payroll taxes. "

--
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000530.pdf

10/20/2008 5:43:21 PM

^^ I support phasing out social security, and I thought I noted that somewhere in that post...

I honestly don't know too much about how medicare works to say if I would dismantle it too.

10/20/2008 5:45:30 PM

Social Security is a totally different beast. Keep that discussion elsewhere.

10/20/2008 5:50:09 PM

Quote :

"He's talking about effective tax rates, and he's wrong. The poor pay approximately jack shit, as the bottom third of filers have zero income tax liability. And the ones with children get most of their payroll taxes refunded through credits. If he's basing his argument on sales taxes, that doesn't hold water. The upper class are paying a 35% rate on most income, and the highest marginal rate at the state level."

You don't understand what we're arguing. Go back and try again.

Quote :

"^^^people who spend 100% of their money on food and shelter don't make enough money to pay income taxes in the first place, so i don't see how thats a fair comparison...i'd imagine anyone who spends 100% of their income on food and shelter is one of the 40% of americans who already don't pay income taxes"

We're discussing a counterfactual situation in which we adopted a flat tax. Try and keep up.

Quote :

"equality is people being treated equally...I would say a (hypothetical) 15% flat tax rate across the board would be more equal than Joe Plumber paying $10,000 of his $30,000 salary while Joe Millionaire pays $10,000 in taxes of his $1,500,000 salary"

15% across the board is certainly more fair that Joe Plumber paying 1/3 of his salary while Joe Millionaire pays a mere fraction of that percent. What could your point possibly be in this case?

10/20/2008 5:50:13 PM

^that an equal percentage across the board is fair...try and keep up

you have yet to prove that taxing everyone the same percentage is unequal...it is by definition, equal

but apparently it doesn't punish the evil greedy rich people enough so that will never be equal in your eyes

10/20/2008 5:52:24 PM

Quote :

"people who spend 100% of their money on food and shelter don't make enough money to pay income taxes in the first place, so i don't see how thats a fair comparison...i'd imagine anyone who spends 100% of their income on food and shelter is one of the 40% of americans who already don't pay income taxes equality is people being treated equally...I would say a (hypothetical) 15% flat tax rate across the board would be more equal than Joe Plumber paying $10,000 of his $30,000 salary while Joe Millionaire pays $10,000 in taxes of his $1,500,000 salary"

Well Said

Quote :

"cut wasted social spending"

To be fair to the libs we should decrease the money we spending playing world police (war in Iraq, random military bases all of the world, etc) and on the war on drugs

Quote :

"even if we DID cut social spending, that's even LESS of a reason to go to a regressive tax"

Actually social spending is the reason why I so support a flat tax. The way I see it half the gov't social programs
are there due to the inability of many Americans to budget, plan, and spend responsibly. So they need to be paying into the
program that gives their 10 children health insurance versus using that money to go lease a Lexus.

So I guess I agree with you here

Quote :

"FICA and excise taxes. Both are the highest, and both are generally regressive."

FICA should be REGRESSIVE. FICA is there only to pay for americans in retirement who did not set aside money to do so
during their careers (regardless if it was their fault). Most those who make income at the cutoff value approx. ~90K will
never see a dime. They are already making a "contribution" to society; why should they than be forced to pay more.

Quote :

"I support phasing out social security"

Agreed especially with the wide availability of 401k and IRA. They should start cutting benefits, especially that anyone
with a brain knows SS will be bankrupt by their retirement, every decade such that today's entry level work force does not expect it.
To compensate they have 40 years to save.

10/20/2008 5:53:30 PM

Quote :

"^that an equal percentage across the board is fair...try and keep up"

You're saying an equal percentage is fairer than charging the poorer guy a higher percentage.

You've established a trivial case which everybody agrees on. You've failed to establish anything that supports the direction you'd like to endorse.

Can you at least see the structure of the argument here?

10/20/2008 5:53:55 PM

Quote :

" You don't understand what we're arguing. Go back and try again."

Perhaps you should return to ENG 101 and come back when you know how to put together a fucking argument more than "I am right you are wrong nanny nanny boo boo"

Quote :

"You're saying an equal percentage is fairer than charging the poorer guy a higher percentage."

Who is arguing for regressive taxes?? (except for social security of course)

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : L]

10/20/2008 5:55:16 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you should return to ENG 101 and come back when you know how to put together a fucking argument more than "I am right you are wrong nanny nanny boo boo""

You're about as confused as somebody can be while remaining part of this discussion.

10/20/2008 5:56:05 PM

^^^

Quote :

"equal percentage"

exactly...please explain how equal != equality

10/20/2008 5:56:14 PM

See the hilarity here is that only Str8foolish and I have actually sat down and researched this.

You guys seem to think that the bottom income brackets would continue to be exempt from paying tax. This is not the case, and if you read on the topic you'd know that if the did implement such a system,the government would be put into a severe income loss that couldn't sustain current spending. The flat tax then would have to be a lot higher then 15%, or it would be 15% across the board making it instantly regressive.

Furthermore

Quote :

" equality is people being treated equally...I would say a (hypothetical) 15% flat tax rate across the board would be more equal than Joe Plumber paying $10,000 of his $30,000 salary while Joe Millionaire pays $10,000 in taxes of his $1,500,000 salary""

I don't quite know what tax system you're referring too, but income taxes of 1.5 million in earned income is far greater then 10,000$ and income taxes for 30,000$ is far less then 10000$ with our current system . Please don't confuse fantastical elements with reality.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:58 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/20/2008 5:57:59 PM

^^ I'm really confused how you can't tease this out of what I've said so far, seeing as how I've basically laid it out in plain letters for you.

You argued that charging an equal percentage is fairer than charging a poorer person more than a richer person. Okay, good.

However, that doesn't establish that it's fair (simpliciter, or maximally fair, or whichever) to charge them both the same amount. If you can't see that I don't have a fucking clue how to approach explaining it to you, because it means you have so many holes in your background and ability to put together a basic argument that I don't have the time to educate you.


[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 5:58:31 PM

Quit going off on a tangent and dwelling on an unimportant part of my post...forget that I said anything about a $10,000 flat tax...go back to the percentages

Please explain how taxing everyone the same percentage is not fair

10/20/2008 5:59:31 PM

Quote :

""people who spend 100% of their money on food and shelter don't make enough money to pay income taxes in the first place, so i don't see how thats a fair comparison...i'd imagine anyone who spends 100% of their income on food and shelter is one of the 40% of americans who already don't pay income taxes"

This is just blatantly wrong.

People who spend 100% of their money on food and shelter WOULD pay taxes under a flat tax. They'd be living prebate-to-prebate, which is just as much suckling from the gov. as not taking any money out of their paycheck to begin with, or sending them an EITC check yearly.

Or, if you expect a prebate to essentially keep that same 40% not paying taxes, why just not tax income below that threshold anyway? Or if 40% is a good number to you, just have a floating tax rate or tax bracket that only hits the top 60%.

Ironically, I don't think any flat-taxers that have posted so far have actually advocated what a flat tax calls for.

10/20/2008 6:01:24 PM

^^ Because the relevant aspect of somebody's income (when it comes to fairness) isn't the size of that income over-all, but the size of the income that's spent on essentials.

Otherwise you end up with the unintuitive result that taxing one person into debt is as fair as taxing a fraction of another person's play-money.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM. Reason : It's really simple, man.]

10/20/2008 6:01:42 PM

We've stated it five times in this thread. Maybe if I use official wording, you'll understand:

Quote :

"Under the flat tax, low-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370. Although the flat tax is more progressive than a VAT, it is more regressive than the current system. A flat tax would provide huge gains for 156 Flat tax high-income households, both because their marginal tax rate would fall and because they consume relatively less of their income than do low-income households. As a result, if a flat tax were to raise as much revenue as the current one, the tax burden for the middle class would have to rise. "

Wealthy individuals consume a smaller percentage of their income for living expenses then do poor individuals




[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/20/2008 6:02:12 PM

^ No sandsanta you just don't get it, you need to explain why it's not fair

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:06 PM. Reason : /sarcasm]

10/20/2008 6:06:13 PM

Quote :

"the relevant aspect of somebody's income (when it comes to fairness) isn't the size of that income over-all, but the size of the income that's spent on essentials."

so what are you saying, that people should be taxed the same (or none) on the amount it takes them to buy food and shelter (even though people have very different monthly costs for food and shelter based on a number of reasons) and then be taxed more on anything they make above that?

Quote :

"Wealthy individuals consume a smaller percentage of their income for living expenses then do poor individuals"

probably because they make more money? maybe because they've worked harder?

how come your argument seems to be for the purpose of establishing 'fairness', yet its somehow fair to tax someone more for working harder?

10/20/2008 6:07:25 PM

Thats easy too

Republican dichotomy in effect: Tax isn't fair, Call it Fair.

10/20/2008 6:07:59 PM

Quote :

""Wealthy individuals consume a smaller percentage of their income for living expenses then do poor individuals" probably because they make more money? maybe because they've worked harder?"

haha, you completely misunderstand that statement.

He's saying the minimum cost of living is fixed, there's a floor on what you need to live that's not based on your income in any way. Because of this, a flat tax CAN'T be fair on its own, even flat-taxers know this, which is why they propose a prebate. Before I proceed, does this make any sense to you?

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 6:08:09 PM

Quote :

"This is just blatantly wrong. People who spend 100% of their money on food and shelter WOULD pay taxes under a flat tax..."

i wasnt talking about the flat tax, good job reading what i was responding to, moron

Quote :

"the minimum cost of living is fixed"

fixed where? from city to city? from income bracket to income bracket? there is no concrete national minimum cost of living

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:09:27 PM

Quote :

"so what are you saying, that people should be taxed the same (or none) on the amount it takes them to buy food and shelter (even though people have very different monthly costs for food and shelter based on a number of reasons) and then be taxed more on anything they make above that?"

Holy shit -- WHAT? How could you possibly think this is what I've been saying?

Quote :

"probably because they make more money? maybe because they've worked harder? how come your argument seems to be for the purpose of establishing 'fairness', yet its somehow fair to tax someone more for working harder?"

Making more =/= working harder.

There's no necessary connection between these two, and you require it to defend your claim.

10/20/2008 6:09:32 PM

^^ i realize that, but if you weren't talking about a flat tax, your statement is irrelevant. I was hoping beyond hope that maybe you would be trying to post relevant information in the thread. I'm sorry to see I was wrong.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 6:10:14 PM

Quote :

"Making more =/= working harder."

actually a lot of the time it does...i know that goes against your entire philosophy, so you'll ignore the fact that many people actually do work hard and get more money compared to other people who don't put forth the effort, but its true

^shut the fuck up with your false criticisms of my posts when you're not even willing to read the post that i'm responding to...this thread isnt about a flat tax and only a flat tax in case you missed the thread title or the first 2 pages...if you did you'd know that i wasnt answering any question about a flat tax, we were still talking about overall tax cuts and fairness...but if you all feel the need to call me an idiot in order to make your point, oh well

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:11:50 PM

Quote :

"actually a lot of the time it does...i know that goes against your entire philosophy, so you'll ignore the fact that many people actually do work hard and get more money compared to other people who don't put forth the effort, but its true"

Actually, no. Plenty of poor people work their asses off -- in fact, much more than lazy office workers that scoop ~40K a year.

10/20/2008 6:12:40 PM

Quote :

"i know that goes against your entire philosophy, so you'll ignore the fact"

10/20/2008 6:13:29 PM

^^^ frankly you are an idiot if you can't see after all these threads why a flat tax could be unfair. Even flat-taxers know this. And i'm not calling you an idiot, you're making yourself out to be an idiot, it's sad you don't see that, we're only trying to help you.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 6:14:23 PM

lots of things COULD be unfair and ARE unfair, welcome to life

thats when personal responsibility comes into play, which is clearly a "fundamental difference" in the way i see things, and the way some of you see things.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:15:14 PM

Quote :

"lots of things COULD be unfair and ARE unfair, welcome to life"

Not sure what you're referring to here. Let's go back to the arguments we've been making and how you don't understand them. I feel like it's really important you get what we're saying so we all get ahead here. We've spent a lot of time trying to get you to understand.

Quote :

"thats when personal responsibility comes into play, which is clearly a "fundamental difference" in the way i see things, and the way some of you see things."

Sure. I like to weigh the consequences of social policies.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:16:45 PM

^^Is that an admittance that a flat tax might not be as fair as you've been saying?

Because that's a relief to know you see this.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 6:16:51 PM

in soviet obamaland, all comrades make equal wages, flat tax is fair

10/20/2008 6:17:29 PM

^ can Palin see that from Alaska?

10/20/2008 6:18:03 PM

Quote :

"in soviet obamaland, all comrades make equal wages, flat tax is fair"

It's too bad you chose "meltdown" over "comprehension."

10/20/2008 6:18:36 PM

its too bad you chose "but omg man that wouldnt be fair!" over "tough shit, life isnt fair, work harder or shut the fuck up you pussy"

you prefer living in fantasy land instead of reality

i live in the real world, not in your NC State philosophy classes

10/20/2008 6:19:02 PM

Quote :

"Please explain how taxing everyone the same percentage is not fair"

Quote :

"lots of things COULD be unfair and ARE unfair, welcome to life"

10/20/2008 6:21:07 PM

I make more then large portion of this country, yet I don't hold the attitude that I'm more special then they are and they can suffer more of a financial burden then me. Yes, we could return to ancient systems where the top social classes payed little in the way of tax and the bottom classes shared all the burden. I however, don't believe thats what would make a good America or even a good Democracy.

You can naively believe in a Randian world where hard work is all it takes to succeed. I however take the realistic approach that there are institutions larger then the individual, with more power and wealth, who won't consider the rights of the individual. And our only defense against such institutions is Government, representing the people united. That to me is a true democracy.

10/20/2008 6:23:10 PM

the only reason a flat tax isnt fair is because some people dont earn enough to pay that tax...so why not just have a flat tax that only taxes people who make at least 10,000 or 15,000 or whatever the current tax floor is? what would be unfair about that?

Quote :

"You can naively believe in a Randian world where hard work is all it takes to succeed"

and you guys can keep up with your sob stories about how its impossible to work hard and succeed and how theres always too many burdens holding people down and that nobody succeeds with hard work unless they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth already

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:23:24 PM

Quote :

"its too bad you chose "but omg man that wouldnt be fair!" over "tough shit, life isnt fair, work harder or shut the fuck up you pussy" you prefer living in fantasy land instead of reality i live in the real world, not in your NC State philosophy classes"

You don't understand my argument, congrats. In fact, you don't even understand what we're arguing anymore because you're attempting to troll at all costs and have gotten mixed up.

(BTW I know I took philosophy as a major at NCSU in addition to comp. sci, but you have little room to criticize me. I'm not going to even bother bringing up my current work and where I am, because it would seem pretentious. Just realize it's shit you'd never have a chance to do.)

EDIT:

Quote :

"the only reason a flat tax isnt fair is because some people dont earn enough to pay that tax...so why not just have a flat tax that only taxes people who make at least 10,000 or 15,000 or whatever the current tax floor is? what would be unfair about that?"

Now we're arguing something much different, but in order to do so we've already moved away from the premise that a flat tax is "fair."

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:24:28 PM

Quote :

"the only reason a flat tax isnt fair is because some people dont earn enough to pay that tax...so why not just have a flat tax that only taxes people who make at least 10,000 or 15,000 or whatever the current tax floor is? what would be unfair about that?"

I've already explained that and the link that I posted explains it as well. The income gap the government would face would then necessitate an increase of the Flat Tax whereby placing a majority of the burden of taxation on the middle class.

Its been covered in this thread, over and over.

10/20/2008 6:25:57 PM

^^i understand your argument perfectly, but thanks for informing me that you're doing "shit i'll never have a chance to do"...maybe i deserve to not pay taxes since with my hard work i still won't ever have a chance to do the shit you're doing

Quote :

"because it would seem pretentious"

no, it still seems quite pretentious

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:26:30 PM

Quote :

"and you guys can keep up with your sob stories about how its impossible to work hard and succeed and how theres always too many burdens holding people down and that nobody succeeds with hard work unless they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth already"

This is clearly untrue (people do succeed due to hard work in some cases) but still you're not establishing anything you want to establish.

10/20/2008 6:27:22 PM

Quote :

"and you guys can keep up with your sob stories about how its impossible to work hard and succeed and how theres always too many burdens holding people down and that nobody succeeds with hard work unless they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth already"

This isn't what we're saying at all either. Furthermore the 'many' you refer too isn't remotely close to a majority as a vast majority of Americans are one paycheck away from bankruptcy.

Even more ironic is that both Str8foolish and I are more successful then you.

10/20/2008 6:27:56 PM

Quote :

"the only reason a flat tax isnt fair is because some people dont earn enough to pay that tax...so why not just have a flat tax that only taxes people who make at least 10,000 or 15,000 or whatever the current tax floor is? what would be unfair about that?"

that's not neccesarily unfair to have a system like this, but it's not "flat" now is it?

And it would generate very little revenue.

And it would cause wealth to concentrate, drifting society towards an oligarchy (witness turn of the last century America).

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 6:28:20 PM

Quote :

"people do succeed due to hard work in some cases"

"in some cases"

you meant to say "only a handful of people succeed with hard work, most people have insurmountable burdens through no fault of their own and need lots of government assistance"

you're not fooling anyone, except yourself

Quote :

"Even more ironic is that both Str8foolish and I are more successful then you."

heres that pretentious shit that you two were just now supposedly above

let alone the fact that its a baseless claim and you dont know shit about how successful i am (nor do i know shit about how successful you are, but i'm not some elitist shithead who claims he does)

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:28:28 PM

Quote :

""in some cases" you meant to say "only a handful of people succeed with hard work, most people have insurmountable burdens through no fault of their own and need lots of government assistance" you're not fooling anyone, except yourself"

*carlface*

The closest thing you've said to something correct, and you were mocking it for being wrong. Holy Christ.

Quote :

""in some cases" you meant to say "only a handful of people succeed with hard work, most people have insurmountable burdens through no fault of their own and need lots of government assistance" you're not fooling anyone, except yourself"

Let's ask the blackberry support technician how to set public policy, especially when he has no knowledge of inferential statistics or the mathematics that grounds it (reference: you arguing against the validity of polling).

10/20/2008 6:31:57 PM

You maybe a self made successful individual but nothing you've ever posted has convinced me of this fact.

Case in point:

Your argument against progressive tax systems amounts to little more then

"WELL IF YOU USE YOUR BOOTSTRAPS!"

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/20/2008 6:33:55 PM