Tax the Rich?

[Boxlicker101]

No, you've got it wrong.

Since when are Dems the party of evangelical Christians? Um, never.

I'm merely pointing out that if the REPUBLICAN Christian hypocrites want to live up the bullshit they use to pander to the Biblical fools in this country, the rich would be driven out. Jesus was a socialist, as far as I can tell.

Do you remember Jimmy Carter?

 

[NickStJohn]

,,,,,

,,,,,

 

[Boxlicker101]

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

Barry M. Goldwater

He's right, but you could say the same about any religious fundie.

 

[DawnODay]

I've outlined a more fair and equitable tax system....

I'm sorry, dan_c00000, i missed that. It would be helpful if you would link back to prior posts you reference. Can you please do that, or simply again "outline" your supposedly "more fair and equitable tax system"?

Just keep in mind...

 

[phrodeau]

I'm sorry, dan_c00000, i missed that. It would be helpful if you would link back to prior posts you reference. Can you please do that, or simply again "outline" your supposedly "more fair and equitable tax system"?

Just keep in mind...

What do gasoline taxes discourage? Damn, that’s stupid.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What do gasoline taxes discourage? Damn, that’s stupid.

Gas guzzlers and excessive driving.

 

[phrodeau]

Gas guzzlers and excessive driving.

The base price does that. Gas taxes are not sin taxes.

 

[Hypoxia]

The base price does that. Gas taxes are not sin taxes.

No, they're more like user fees. Motor vehicles require fuel. Fuel taxes pay maintenance on highways used by motor vehicles. Don't drive, don't buy fuel, and you won't pay those user fees.

Even nondrivers pay on state bonds for new public roads, the very roads on which truckers deliver your food, clothes, and toys. Thus you pay for the system that keeps you alive. Got a problem with that? You can always turn hermit, go offline survivalist, don't deal with money. Grow your own food. Watch out for bears.

As electric vehicles that don't buy petrol fuels abound, I foresee every vehicle with chips implanted to track mileage, with annual fees replacing or supplementing fuel taxes. Gas, grass, or ass -- nobody rides for free.

 

[DawnODay]

Gas guzzlers and excessive driving.

The base price does that. Gas taxes are not sin taxes.

Actually, you're both kind of right and both kind of wrong.

Phrodeau and Hypoxia are right, I believe, that gasoline taxes are really more about paying for roads (an important governmental function, one for which I don't mind paying appropriate taxes) than they are to discourage gas guzzlers.

On the other hand, there is an actual "Gas Guzzler Tax," called by those very words by Congress in Title II of the Energy Tax Act of 1978. See, also, T. Appel, What is the Gas Guzzler Tax?, Consumer Guide (Mar. 23, 2017).

So, the point of the meme is valid. We do tax certain things in order to discourage them. (Your attempt to avoid addressing this by focusing on a technicality was a good attempt, but it failed.) So please, phrodeau and Hypoxia, address the actual point: Given that tax policies like those listed above recognize that taxing things discourages them, does it make sense to tax income, which is the outcome of productivity?

Aren't we thereby discouraging productivity? Indeed, the fact that income taxes discourage productivity is exactly why there were economic booms following the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. Cutting excessive income taxes demonstrably increases productivity.

 

[phrodeau]

Okay Willy Wonka, if you say so. The people who work for a living are stupid. I guess we don’t need more jobs, then.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That's not exactly true.

First of all, it's more, if you're going to indulge in activities like smoking and chowing down to the point of obesity and destroying the environment, for which we ALL pay enormously, in the long run, then we might as well get some of that expense back now. I would say discouragement is only an effect: it's an economic rationale. The discouragement comes more from the accompanying ad campaigns.

Second of all, as you yourself admitted, not all taxes are based on the same reasoning. Some are for public works, etc.

So the income tax. Don't immediately classify it as a tobacco or obesity tax. if you want to, go ahead and make the argument. But it doesn't automatically mean what you want it to mean.

Is it a "punishment" tax for engaging in destructive activities which hurt the public and make the public pay in the long run? Prove it.

As to the income tax being unnecessary, harmful, an imposition, tyranny, blah blah blah. Ha ha. Ha. Go move to a third world hell hole and get back to us. Kansas or Alabama could work.

So please, phrodeau and Hypoxia, address the actual point: Given that tax policies like those listed above recognize that taxing things discourages them, does it make sense to tax income, which is the outcome of productivity?

 

[Hypoxia]

Aren't we thereby discouraging productivity? Indeed, the fact that income taxes discourage productivity is exactly why there were economic booms following the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. Cutting excessive income taxes demonstrably increases productivity.

GHW Bush had it right: it's voodoo economics and it doesn't work. Reagan's tax cut was followed by numerous Reagan tax hikes. And prosperous, productive areas tend to have higher taxes. Low-tax areas tend to be places you won't want your family to live.

Corporations don't use tax windfalls to develop new capacity; they buy-out competitors (that's a lot cheaper) and fire surplus workers er I mean free them to work in the fast-food industry. And corporations don't pay nominal tax rates, not if their bean-shufflers are competent. Expecting a boom? Hold not thy breath.

In the first century of the American democratic republic, corporations were tightly regulated, just as Adam Smith insisted in WEALTH OF NATIONS. Corporations now own USA politics. That meets the definition of Fascism of Mussolini, who invented the scheme. Have a nice year.

 

[DawnODay]

Okay Willy Wonka, if you say so. The people who work for a living are stupid. I guess we don’t need more jobs, then.

Is it a "punishment" tax for engaging in destructive activities which hurt the public and make the public pay in the long run? Prove it.

As to the income tax being unnecessary, harmful, an imposition, tyranny, blah blah blah. Ha ha. Ha. Go move to a third world hell hole and get back to us. Kansas or Alabama could work.

I did not suggest any of these things. You're arguing against strawmen to avoid the primary point of this thread.

I never used the word "punishment." I wrote that high taxes on something "discourage" it. That's true regardless of the intention.

"Prove it"? I'll give you a Wisconsin example. During the GHW Bush Administration, despite the "read my lips" pledge, the federal government imposed a luxury tax on yachts. It did not bring in much money. The rich just stopped buying yachts. The primary losers under this tax scheme were the yacht builders and their working class employees in cities like Manitowoc and Sturgeon Bay. See generally, J. Glassman, How to Sink an Industry and Not Soak the Rich, Washington Post (Jul. 16, 1993).

Taxes have consequences. They affect behavior. Here is a current example:

The Land of Lincoln is experiencing heavy losses of people and income to other states, new IRS data reveal. Illinois lost more than 86,000 people and $4.75 billion in adjusted gross income to other states from 2015-2016.

Illinois’ problem with wealth flight isn’t just persisting, it’s getting worse. That’s the takeaway from new data released by the Internal Revenue Service on Nov. 30. In terms of both people and income, the Land of Lincoln saw a record-breaking exodus in the 2015 tax year (2015-2016).

Illinois saw a net loss of nearly 42,000 tax returns to other states on the year, representing a net loss of more than 86,100 people (measured in exemptions), according to the IRS. That’s an all-time high.

And when people leave the state, they don’t just take their talent, drive and ingenuity. They take their wallets, too.

Illinois lost $4.75 billion in adjusted gross income, or AGI, on net to other states in tax year 2015. That’s also an all-time high. While residents saw $6.35 billion in adjusted gross income, or AGI, move into Illinois from other states, $11.10 billion moved out of Illinois to another state....

Since the 2011 temporary income tax hikes, the flight of wealth and people from Illinois has accelerated.​

A. Berg, New IRS Data: Illinois Sees Record Loss of People, Income to Other States, Illinois Policy (Dec.1, 2017). (According to the article, a good chunk of these people moved to Wisconsin. I wonder what that will look like when Foxconn is up and running.)

Getting back to your objections to my last two posts, the point of that meme, by its own terms, is "discouragement," not "punishment." I don't want government punishing anyone but criminals. At the same time, I don't want government discouraging productivity.

As I suggested, you're arguing against strawmen to avoid the primary point of this thread. This thread demonstrates that the current tax code, which has 1% of taxpayers paying 39.5% of income taxes and the top 50% of taxpayers paying essentially all the taxes, is bad public policy (bad public policy which the meager tax reforms currently struggling through Congress do little to remedy). It not only discourages productivity, it is simply unfair. Also, by allowing nearly half of all citizens to pay no federal income taxes, too few citizens have a stake in maintaining responsible federal budgeting. We need a more equitable federal tax policy.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Lol


What a whack job you are!

I did not suggest any of these things. You're arguing against strawmen to avoid the primary point of this thread.

I never used the word "punishment." I wrote that high taxes on something "discourage" it. That's true regardless of the intention.

"Prove it"? I'll give you a Wisconsin example. During the GHW Bush Administration, despite the "read my lips" pledge, the federal government imposed a luxury tax on yachts. It did not bring in much money. The rich just stopped buying yachts. The primary losers under this tax scheme were the yacht builders and their working class employees in cities like Manitowoc and Sturgeon Bay. See generally, J. Glassman, How to Sink an Industry and Not Soak the Rich, Washington Post (Jul. 16, 1993).

Taxes have consequences. They affect behavior. Here is a current example:

The Land of Lincoln is experiencing heavy losses of people and income to other states, new IRS data reveal. Illinois lost more than 86,000 people and $4.75 billion in adjusted gross income to other states from 2015-2016.

Illinois’ problem with wealth flight isn’t just persisting, it’s getting worse. That’s the takeaway from new data released by the Internal Revenue Service on Nov. 30. In terms of both people and income, the Land of Lincoln saw a record-breaking exodus in the 2015 tax year (2015-2016).

Illinois saw a net loss of nearly 42,000 tax returns to other states on the year, representing a net loss of more than 86,100 people (measured in exemptions), according to the IRS. That’s an all-time high.

And when people leave the state, they don’t just take their talent, drive and ingenuity. They take their wallets, too.

Illinois lost $4.75 billion in adjusted gross income, or AGI, on net to other states in tax year 2015. That’s also an all-time high. While residents saw $6.35 billion in adjusted gross income, or AGI, move into Illinois from other states, $11.10 billion moved out of Illinois to another state....

Since the 2011 temporary income tax hikes, the flight of wealth and people from Illinois has accelerated.​

A. Berg, New IRS Data: Illinois Sees Record Loss of People, Income to Other States, Illinois Policy (Dec.1, 2017). (According to the article, a good chunk of these people moved to Wisconsin. I wonder what that will look like when Foxconn is up and running.)

Getting back to your objections to my last two posts, the point of that meme, by its own terms, is "discouragement," not "punishment." I don't want government punishing anyone but criminals. At the same time, I don't want government discouraging productivity.

As I suggested, you're arguing against strawmen to avoid the primary point of this thread. This thread demonstrates that the current tax code, which has 1% of taxpayers paying 39.5% of income taxes and the top 50% of taxpayers paying essentially all the taxes, is bad public policy (bad public policy which the meager tax reforms currently struggling through Congress do little to remedy). It not only discourages productivity, it is simply unfair. Also, by allowing nearly half of all citizens to pay no federal income taxes, too few citizens have a stake in maintaining responsible federal budgeting. We need a more equitable federal tax policy.

 

[Hypoxia]

My partner, who watches TV while I don't, saw a report wherein numerous major corporate CFOs were asked what would happen to their tax windfalls. 99% said it would be distributed as dividends and premiums to shareholders. Many shareholders of USA firms are overseas banks and sovereign funds. That's where the middle-class tax increase is flowing, folks. Not into new production, only further enriching the rich around the world. Have a nice week.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My partner, who watches TV while I don't, saw a report wherein numerous major corporate CFOs were asked what would happen to their tax windfalls. 99% said it would be distributed as dividends and premiums to shareholders. Many shareholders of USA firms are overseas banks and sovereign funds. That's where the middle-class tax increase is flowing, folks. Not into new production, only further enriching the rich around the world. Have a nice week.

Not fucking the rich disproportionately hard does not = a tax increase on the middle class.

Which funny enough you love Obamacare, a DIRECT TAXATION of the middle class which was larger than anything the (R)'s have ever done to hose the middle/working class.

Not a fucking peep from the ride or (D)ie (D)'s like hypoxia.....ya'll fucking LOVE rat fucking the middle class, as long as (D) is doing it.

 

[dan_c00000]

Looks like dawn and bot are going to the poor house so their Nazi hero can keep his ill-gotten money. Have fun living in the third world!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Looks like dawn and bot are going to the poor house so their Nazi hero can keep his ill-gotten money. Have fun living in the third world!

That's just it, I'm not dependent on the government stealing for me.....unlike you.

California is the third world LOL....sure thing Dan.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

The 600 lb gorilla in the room is that income taxes were originally ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which is why it required the XVI'th Amendment to enact them (an amendment to the constitution to make the unconstitutional constitutional, just like prohibition). So the real answer is to repeal the XVI'th Amendment, just like prohibition was also repealed, and turn the responsibility for funding of the Federal government over to the states, thereby restoring the concept of checks and balances. No longer could the Federal government impose its will upon the states by threatening them with 'giving' them funding that already came from the citizens of those very states in the first place. And yes, that also means shuttering the IRS, ending the reign of terror of the ilk of Lois Lerner and her band of and brand of thugs.

We tried giving "the responsibility for funding of the Federal government... to the states" under the Articles of Confederation. That did not work. That failure led to the current constitution. (Several good books have recently been published that cover this. Of these, and for a broader perspective, I recommend Lynne Cheney's biography of James Madison, [Viking Press 2014].) On the other hand, I have no objection to repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. The country did fine for over a century without an income tax.

The problem with the income tax is that it is too vulnerable to demagoguery on one hand, and loopholes to benefit "special interests" on the other. That is how we've ended up with the rigged and inequitable tax system we now have. To the degree that we need to fund the federal government to a greater degree, we could adopt a Value Added Tax like they have in many European nations. I would only favor this if we did, indeed, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Otherwise, you know we would end up with both types of taxes.

Because it seems unlikely that we would ever repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, we should not adopt a VAT. Then, the best way to make the income tax fair is a flat tax. As I noted previously:

A flat tax remains progressive and fair. Think of a 20% flat tax with a $10,000.00 personal exemption. If a person is making $20,000.00 per year, he or she would pay $2,000.00 in tax. A person making $200,000.00 per year would pay $38,000.00 in tax. Thus the person making only ten times as much in income pays nineteen times as much as tax (this is because the more you make, the less tax savings you get from the exemption). That is very progressive and far more equitable than the current system.

 

[coachdb18]

A key point concerning taxes, is why we have taxes in the first place. There’s one reason, and one reason only. It is to fund the NEEDS of the government. What taxes are NOT are a means of funding government WANTS. When the government is allowed to WANT things, and then be provided taxation authority to fund them, you’ going to have greed, envy and corruption as centerpieces of your governing process. You need an entity equal to the Federal government to say “NO”. The only sovereign body in our government up to that responsibility are the states.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because it seems unlikely that we would ever repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, we should not adopt a VAT. Then, the best way to make the income tax fair is a flat tax. :

100%.

I would also say that we were to be more fair we would quit taxing/not taxing/giving breaks and subsidies to individuals but rather tax/credit the whole markets/industries.....that way everyone in that world including it's consumers, eats it/benefits equally.

A key point concerning taxes, is why we have taxes in the first place. There’s one reason, and one reason only. It is to fund the NEEDS of the government. What taxes are NOT are a means of funding government WANTS.

Define need vs. want......and there is the problem.

Some people think F-22's are a need....others laugh at the idea as a want and think we need to give prisoners and illegal immigrants free college educations before our own home grown boys and girls who don't commit felonies or sneak into the country get one.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

A key point concerning taxes, is why we have taxes in the first place. There’s one reason, and one reason only. It is to fund the NEEDS of the government. What taxes are NOT are a means of funding government WANTS. When the government is allowed to WANT things, and then be provided taxation authority to fund them, you’ going to have greed, envy and corruption as centerpieces of your governing process. You need an entity equal to the Federal government to say “NO”. The only sovereign body in our government up to that responsibility are the states.

One person's "want" is another person's "need." Is Social Security a want or a need? What about agricultural subsidies?

Instead of trying to define "wants" and "needs"...

The Constitution explicitly enumerates in Article One, Section 8, what the Founders intended to be the limited areas of federal regulation. This limitation was reiterated by the Tenth Amendment. If that enumerated limit were enforced, the federal government would not have become the expensive and oppressive colossus the Founders hoped to avoid. Unfortunately, Congress and the Supreme Court have knowingly read the powers granted by the Constitution more broadly than the Founders intended. That, right there, is the main problem.

 

[coachdb18]

‘Taxing the rich’ quite clearly is not now, nor will it ever be a ‘need’, and is so obviously not a valid reason for taxation. Social reorganization is not a reason for taxation either, as the ONLY valid reason for taxation is to pay for government services, and since the government can’t produce anything of value, it has to confiscate from those of us who do produce value.

 

[coachdb18]

Is Social Security a want or a need? What about agricultural subsidies?

NEEDS are those enumerated in the Constitution.SOCIALIST Security is a want, and an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. Agricultural subsidies are just government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

100%.

I would also say that we were to be more fair we would quit taxing/not taxing/giving breaks and subsidies to individuals but rather tax/credit the whole markets/industries.....that way everyone in that world including it's consumers, eats it/benefits equally.

Is "100%" your proposed flat tax?



As far as the rest of what you write, a flat tax would eliminate all of those issues. For individuals, everyone would pay the same rate, subject to the same exemption.

Same thing for corporations, if you tax them at all. Why not simply tax dividends and stock-traders' capital gains? That does away with the current double taxation and "corporate rate vs. pass-thru rate" problems.