U.S Income Tax

[Sephiroth Crescent]

ololol Cuba.
I'd much rather be a Cuban under Castro then Batista.
Cuba was little more than an American state, Castro freed them. The people who didn't like Castro were the people that participated in the Bay of Pigs. Rich idiots who got rich by exploiting the workers.
So far, in reality, Communism hasn't worked. But I'll apply that realism to a flat tax.
No politician in America is going to allow people earning under $50,000 pa exemption from income tax.

Some will disgaree with me here, but in my opinion Fidel was a good leader until he got corrupted as many people do when they are in power, like Oliver Cromwell. What you said about the rich is only a quarter true at best, sorry, but yes Castro did free them.

That's a problem with the US tax system, not with a progressive tax. Congress IMO is plutocratic, and they like their wealth. Now obviously Ted and Al shouldn't being pay less than your father, but neither should they be paying the same. It's quite frankly insane to tax billionaires at the same rate doctors or any other profession.

Well of course it is! Note this whole thread is about the U.S income tax being corrupt, not neccesarily about the tax system being flawed. But I'm glad you agree with me. I only said flat tax would be better because then at least EVERYONE would pay.

When people start spending less it should worry Congress. That is a sign of recession, in the US they measure it in terms of goods produced, but it means the same. What you are describing is a recession. They are perfectly natural things, especially with America's very close to free market economy. It's more the fault of the credit crunch then tax. If your business can't survive with paying taxes, it isn't being competitive and therefore should close.

Our economy is not at its best right now, but its better than it was while Clinton was President. Currently we might be entering a reccesiion because of Liberals inabaility to spend money correctly. Now I'm not calling anybody out, but Conservatives, like Ron Paul know exactly how to handle money, and keep everything running smoothly. Liberals like Joe Biden do not.

Ahh poll taxes, that'll keep them uppity negroes down. Rich plantation owners pay for the poor white folk, and them negroes can't vote. Clearly politicians pre civil war weren't the best economists, and their outdated ideas of taxation are moronic. Even in the 1930s politicians had no idea about economics. Hawley-smoot tariff ftw amirite?
The economy did fine then? THEY USED SLAVES.

And that is the fault of a progressive tax, how exactly?
They aren't.
It's like making a bike with square wheelsand instead of just changing the shape of the wheels. You're getting rid of the whole design.

Again progressive tax itself isnt the problem, but the current system is wrong and needs to be changed. Every system will have its ups and downs, let me provide you with an example, I'm sure you'll agree 100%

In a democracy you need to make 51% of the people happy, and it wont matter if you piss off 49%, you dont neccesarily need to do whats right. In a dictatorship(Napolean imo is the best example) you can do whats right without worrying about pissing ppl off. Oui?

Sorry If I sound repetitive, I know your a smart guy, and dont take this as if I was talking to you like you were slow XD.


- Kuja

 

[Ness]

That's a problem with the US tax system, not with a progressive tax. Congress IMO is plutocratic, and they like their wealth. Now obviously Ted and Al shouldn't being pay less than your father, but neither should they be paying the same. It's quite frankly insane to tax billionaires at the same rate doctors or any other profession.

See, with a flat tax, they wouldn't be paying the same. If you take a higher percentage of the same number, the take will be higher. Also, the reason "Ted and Al" pay less than they should is because of the loopholes our excellent progressive system has provided for them. A flat tax knocks out all loopholes. There's one rule: pay x% of your yearly income in tax. Done and done.

Ahh poll taxes, that'll keep them uppity negroes down. Rich plantation owners pay for the poor white folk, and them negroes can't vote. Clearly politicians pre civil war weren't the best economists, and their outdated ideas of taxation are moronic. Even in the 1930s politicians had no idea about economics. Hawley-smoot tariff ftw amirite?
The economy did fine then? THEY USED SLAVES.

Ugh. Thanks for reading way too far into what I said. All I said was that there are other forms of taxation, and our economy did just fine. I'm not arguing the morality of those practices. Sure, it can be argued that they were used to hold people down, but can't it also be argued that the current system attempt to hold down the rich, in a sense? Though, given the loopholes, it's not doing a very good job.

The only point I was making was that without income taxes, we managed to retire our national debt. This is a feat that, as economics has become more modern, our government has not been able to duplicate. =\

No, however saying that there is no proof is ridiculous. Economics differs from science, in that economists can't experiment with an economy to get answers. It's like asking for proof that the meaning of life is 42.
However I don't see how anyone can fail to recognise that taxing everyone the same would widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Unless everyone were paid the same, Soviet Union!
You're missing the point, it is make everyone equally wealthy, but to make the wealth gap decrease.

Here is a definition:

ec·o·nom·ics
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

Seems economics is indeed a science....
And, regarding the continuing issue about the "class gap", it seems we're never going to agree on that. I don't think there is any system that will close the gap, I don't think that it can ever be closed, and I especially think that it's not government's role to attempt to close it.

And that is the fault of a progressive tax, how exactly?
They aren't.
It's like making a bike with square wheels and instead of just changing the shape of the wheels. You're getting rid of the whole design.

I never said it was the progressive tax's fault. It's how America has implemented the idea of a progressive tax that's the problem.

I've got problems with progressive tax for entirely different reasons than the loopholes with the American tax code.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

See, with a flat tax, they wouldn't be paying the same. If you take a higher percentage of the same number, the take will be higher. Also, the reason "Ted and Al" pay less than they should is because of the loopholes our excellent progressive system has provided for them. A flat tax knocks out all loopholes. There's one rule: pay x% of your yearly income in tax. Done and done.

This is true, I'm glad you mentioned this because I forgot XD. Basically lets take two ppl with different income and apply it to Flat Tax.

Person A makes $100,000
Person B makes $250,000

Flat Tax is set at 30%

Now would this be better than an income tax where everybody pays? Probably not...but places like Russia have shown that revenue under this system goes up. ut of course Placebo we've alrdy discussed this .

Something needs to be done, the middle-class isn't going to be able to hold the weight of taxes on their shoulders for much longer. Taxing them more is the dumbest idea anybody can possibly suggest. For now our only solution is to change the tax system. Now Placebo, Heres my response to your bicycle theory.

Its pointless to make the wheels round, not because its not a good idea, but because its impossible. Nobody is going to admit that our current tax system has any loopholes. And even so, nobody in Congress will be in favor of such a change. Thats why we need to change the system, Flat Tax while not the best idea will work ALOT better than our current tax system. Surely you agree .

- Kuja

 

[Donald Trump]

Here is a definition Seems economics is indeed a science....
And, regarding the continuing issue about the "class gap", it seems we're never going to agree on that. I don't think there is any system that will close the gap, I don't think that it can ever be closed, and I especially think that it's not government's role to attempt to close it.

Did I say economics was not a science? No.
Also your definition is rather irrelevant as all you did was try to make it look like I said economics wasn't a science.
As to you and I agreeing on the wealth gap, that's also irrelevant, as you are in the tiny majority that can't or won't see that the gap will widen.
There are historians who deny the holocaust, so minority opinions shouldn't be taken into consideration.

See, with a flat tax, they wouldn't be paying the same. If you take a higher percentage of the same number, the take will be higher. Also, the reason "Ted and Al" pay less than they should is because of the loopholes our excellent progressive system has provided for them. A flat tax knocks out all loopholes. There's one rule: pay x% of your yearly income in tax. Done and done

They're being taxed at the same rate. Which is great if you are a conservative, because nothing changes. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Ugh. Thanks for reading way too far into what I said. All I said was that there are other forms of taxation, and our economy did just fine. I'm not arguing the morality of those practices. Sure, it can be argued that they were used to hold people down, but can't it also be argued that the current system attempt to hold down the rich, in a sense? Though, given the loopholes, it's not doing a very good job.

How is it holding the rich down exactly? Their money isn't being taken from them, and they still earn more than anyone else. More tax = more government revenue which can be used to help the less fortunate. Rather than holding the rich down, it is trying to life the poor up.

I never said it was the progressive tax's fault. It's how America has implemented the idea of a progressive tax that's the problem.

I've got problems with progressive tax for entirely different reasons than the loopholes with the American tax code

Your problems with it are political ones, and therefore really have no place in a discussion about tax. From a purely economic viewpoint, a progressive tax is better than a flat tax.

The only thing that both of you are doing is pointing out that there are problems with the US tax system. And that you want a flat tax instead. However if someone were going to go to the effort of changing a tax system, they should choose the one that works best. The one that works best is a progressive tax, NOT a flat tax.

 

[Ness]

A few points:

-You said yourself that "economics differs from science". Don't believe me? Look a few posts up. I can see it, plain as day.
-You're getting into this habit of misquoting me or reading what I say incorrectly. Starting with the point on poll/head tax, and now this thing about the wealth gap. For the last time, I acknowledge the ever-widening gap between "haves and "have nots". I've said so multiple times. What I'm saying is that no one, NO ONE, can close this gap. It's always existed, and it always will.
-Also, the tendency for your arguments against me to include these appeals to pity has got to stop. Your past two posts, you've compared my reasoning to slavery and the holocaust (not directly, but you know what I'm saying).
-You say all we're doing is pointing out problems with the U.S. income tax system. That's exactly what this thread's basis was. So, at least I feel pretty justified in doing so.
-I'll repeat myself: I do not support a flat tax. I said this earlier, and apparently not everyone read it. I believe that flat tax is better than progressive tax, but it's not the best solution by far. If you wanted my solution, I would toss out all income tax and put a national sales tax in its place.
-You can't say that politics has no place in a tax discussion. Who do you think sets the tax policy? The two areas are tied together by their very natures. You can't discuss tax without the political ramifications, and vice versa. Making such a claim is absurd.
-Finally, you keep claiming that the progressive tax is best. However, you've never really proven it. You just keep saying it, over and over. From what I'm seeing, you're saying "Progressive tax works because it's the best system." and "Progressive tax is the best system because it works." See any problems with that?

All those points aside, we've reached a point where it comes down to my political views against yours. I also don't want to be here until the end of time going back and forth on this. Especially if I'm going to continue to be misquoted and not understood. =\

 

[Donald Trump]

A few points:

-You said yourself that "economics differs from science". Don't believe me? Look a few posts up. I can see it, plain as day.

Yes, I did say that. Economics is a science, but if you'd care to read my post, I said it differs because you can't experiment with an economy to prove a hypothesis. Either you can't read (irony) or your knowledge of economics is woeful.

You're getting into this habit of misquoting me or reading what I say incorrectly. Starting with the point on poll/head tax, and now this thing about the wealth gap. For the last time, I acknowledge the ever-widening gap between "haves and "have nots". I've said so multiple times. What I'm saying is that no one, NO ONE, can close this gap. It's always existed, and it always will

No, the examples you used were stupid. Poll tax and the state of the economy pre civil war are idiotic points to bring up and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, hence my lack of seriousness.
This also applies to me comparing your views to that of people who don't believe in the holocaust. It's not my fault you don't accept the truth.
I keep bringing up the widening wealth gap because it's an arguement against flat tax. It may always exist, but it is smaller with a progressive tax.

You say all we're doing is pointing out problems with the U.S. income tax system. That's exactly what this thread's basis was. So, at least I feel pretty justified in doing so.

Yes and then you talk about a flat tax. Surely since the thread already points out that there is something wrong with the US tax system and you agree with that, there is no need to keep bringing it up.

I'll repeat myself: I do not support a flat tax. I said this earlier, and apparently not everyone read it. I believe that flat tax is better than progressive tax, but it's not the best solution by far. If you wanted my solution, I would toss out all income tax and put a national sales tax in its place.

Firstly it isn't. Secondly it's naive to think that a tax on sales will be a panacea for your tax system. It's not.
No, system is perfect, but a progressive tax is as close as there is.

You can't say that politics has no place in a tax discussion. Who do you think sets the tax policy? The two areas are tied together by their very natures. You can't discuss tax without the political ramifications, and vice versa. Making such a claim is absurd

TITS or GTFO. srsly.
You don't understand, perhaps you don't have the intellectual equilibrium or you need me to elucidate matters for you.
I'll have a go at the second.
No one is disputing that politicians are the ones who decide on taxes. However, and here is some more irony for you, that is not what I meant. Politicians choose the tax system based on its effectiveness, not for political reasons. The same goes for free trade, there are arguements against free trade, all of which can be defeated by economic arguements. Except for the arguement of national security.
Tl;dr- making economic decisions due to political reasons is stupid.

Finally, you keep claiming that the progressive tax is best. However, you've never really proven it. You just keep saying it, over and over. From what I'm seeing, you're saying "Progressive tax works because it's the best system." and "Progressive tax is the best system because it works." See any problems with that

Irony, again. I don't recall you proving why a flat tax rate is better.
However, I can, and since you've missed me doing so, I'll prove why a progressive tax is better.

1) As interest rates rise, so does levels of consumption> Therefore demand can be created by reducing tax on low earning people and increasing it for the highest earning people.

2) The richest people have the highest disposable income and therefore can afford to have that income reduced by tax. Whereas, at the other end of the scale, these people just earn enough to survive, and cannot afford to pay as much tax as the better off people without reducing their standard of living.

3) Most of the taxes goes towards infrastructure and defense, and the rich benefit/have most to lose without these, whilst they don't have as much effect on the poorer people. Therefore they should pay more for something they make more use out of.

4) A progressive tax is more stable, as any loss of income will be compensated by not having to pay as much in tax.

5) A progressive tax best covers the externalities produced.

6) Since After tax continually increases, it creates motivation to work harder, as more will still be earnt.

 

[Soul Saver]

That's pretty much fiscal drag. Moving up a tax bracket will not result in a loss of earnings unless you are at the very top of the bracket and your income increases a little bit.
However as the person would know about this, they would be savvy enough to keep their income just in the tax bracket and then receive fringe benefits.

Flat tax rates(where people all pay the same percent eg 20%) don't work. One of jobs of the government is to allocate income evenly, which is why the rich people pay more tax than anyone else. Flat tax rates simply don't work. They may seem fairer, but they aren't.

Agreed completely. A person who earns very little cannot be expected to survive without 20% of their income. If you earn, say, £200,000 a year, you can do without a significantly greater amount of that, than if you earned £15000. The poor don't have alot, whereas the rich have plenty. You have a flat tax rate, and you either make the poorest suffer even more or be lenient on the wealthy. I don't agree with the notion that life should be a massive free for all. Governments need taxes to spend on infrastructure, the military; and in most European nations, social welfare and public services, especially healthcare and education, not to mention unprofitable, but essential services such as coastguards, ambulance services, postal services, and so on.
The amount of spending needed varies according to your particular political stance on the role of the government, but the principle remains the same. The wealthiest in society can do without 40% of their income and still be incredibly rich. That taxed income in turn can be spent on keeping nations running.