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

[Lagboltz]

...
Everyone who earns an income should have to pay income taxes.
....
Everyone should pay their "fair" share. .... they'd finally have "skin in the game".

You repeat "everyone should have to pay income taxes" and "Everyone should pay their "fair" share" You never say why everyone should pay, or why "fair" is defined as a flat tax, or why they should have "skin in the game".

My nephew has a job doing condominium maintenance. He has two small kids. He can't make ends meet on his salary. He is on food stamps. If you tax him at 15%, he will have a difficult time buying just food, clothes, rent and utilities. He lives on hand-me-downs that my brother and I give him. He has little discretionary income to increase the economy of the US. 15% tax would take all discretionary income away from him.

I would guess that 50% of the US population are like him. A flat tax would devastate spending at retail stores.

I say "fair" is defined as a progressive tax with reasonably defined deductions. I think our difference is that basically you are looking at it from the viewpoint of the wealthy individual. I am looking at it from the viewpoint of what is required for America to prosper. What good is it to be wealthy if America falls apart economically. The wealthy - athletes, Hollywood, corporate executives, etc. have become wealthy from the pockets of the less wealthy classes. They should not complain if their taxes are higher than the rest.

Bush was scoffed at, when he said "go shopping" after 9/11. But he said made economic sense. We are a consumer economy, and the economy would collapse if people stopped shopping. That would happen to many people with a 15% flat tax.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think our difference is that basically you are looking at it from the viewpoint of the wealthy individual.

We have different definitions of "fair";

Fair: impartial, without prejudice or bias, free of favoritism.​

I believe your definition is the opposite,

Fair (Progressive definition): Marked by prejudice, bias and favoritism.​

The wealthy - athletes, Hollywood, corporate executives, etc. have become wealthy from the pockets of the less wealthy classes. They should not complain if their taxes are higher than the rest.

I don't share your contempt for people who are better off than myself and I certainly don't think they owe me, or anyone else, anything. I also find it morally reprehensible that anyone would use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to obtain a benefit at the expense of someone else.

 

[Lagboltz]

We have different definitions of "fair";

Fair: impartial, without prejudice or bias, free of favoritism.​

I agree with that definition of fair.

I believe your definition is the opposite,

Fair (Progressive definition): Marked by prejudice, bias and favoritism.​

Nope. That's not my definition. Our differences are based on how we apply the idea of fairness. I'm saying it is bias and prejudice to force the poor into an unlivable situation when there is an alternate solution that allows America to prosper more at relatively much smaller hit to the lifestyle of only 2% of the very wealthiest.

I don't share your contempt for people who are better off than myself and I certainly don't think they owe me, or anyone else, anything. I also find it morally reprehensible that anyone would use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to obtain a benefit at the expense of someone else.

That is such a tired argument; just because I favor progressive taxes is supposed to mean I have contempt for the wealthy? I don't hate them, I just want the government to make them pay more taxes. I didn't say that I think they owe anyone, I was saying that I think that they should feel that they owe it to America. Warren Buffet feels that way.

Let me say it again: I am looking at taxes from the viewpoint of what is required for America to prosper. What will happen is that the poor will get poorer without progressive taxes. There will be a great cultural divide. I'm afraid of having more and more poor dispirited people around. I fear looting will happen here again like it did in Watts and Detroit in the 1960's.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree with that definition of fair.

A flat tax is fair by that definition, it does not discriminate between taxpayers, there is no bias or favoritism shown toward any individual or group, it is totally impartial asking for 15% from every single income earner.

Nope. That's not my definition.

A Progressive tax is not fair by the first definition, it discriminates against people based on income, there is a strong bias against the wealthy and it favors the lower classes, it is not impartial.

Our differences are based on how we apply the idea of fairness.

That is probably true. I think our laws should be fair, evenly applied to every single citizen without bias, prejudice, or favoritism. You think our laws should be biased, prejudicial, and favor one group over another and you consider that to be "fair".

I'm saying it is bias and prejudice to force the poor into an unlivable situation when there is an alternate solution that allows America to prosper more at relatively much smaller hit to the lifestyle of only 2% of the very wealthiest.

Well that's a total line of BS... The Progressive income tax has very little impact, if any, on the top 2% of Americans. Raising the top marginal rates impacts at least 20% of the population, which is far more than just 2% as the Left continually claims. So it's incredibly dishonest to pretend that increasing the top marginal rates would impact "only 2% of the very wealthiest" individuals when such assertions are easily shown to be false.

That is such a tired argument; just because I favor progressive taxes is supposed to mean I have contempt for the wealthy? I don't hate them, I just want the government to make them pay more taxes.

So you don't actually hate the wealthy, you just believe everything they have was gained at the expense of everyone else, therefore, you see using the government's monopoly on the use of force as a legitimate way for the lower classes to reclaim those ill gotten gains. That sounds contemptuous to me.

I didn't say that I think they owe anyone, I was saying that I think that they should feel that they owe it to America.

But you believe we should force them to pay higher taxes, whether they feel that way or not.

Warren Buffet feels that way.

There is nothing stopping Warren Buffet from overpaying his taxes. If he wishes to cut a check to the federal government for whatever amount he thinks he should be paying, he has the freedom to do so... He just chooses not to.

Let me say it again: I am looking at taxes from the viewpoint of what is required for America to prosper. What will happen is that the poor will get poorer without progressive taxes.

So you believe the redistribution of wealth is "required for America to prosper"?

There will be a great cultural divide. I'm afraid of having more and more poor dispirited people around. I fear looting will happen here again like it did in Watts and Detroit in the 1960's.

You prefer legal forms of looting, like through the tax code.

Why not push for a new law, a new wealth tax, one that specifically applies only the top 2%, a law in which the government can confiscate whatever amount of their wealth you feel is necessary?

 

[Openmind]

A flat tax is fair by that definition, it does not discriminate between taxpayers, there is no bias or favoritism shown toward any individual or group, it is totally impartial asking for 15% from every single income earner.


A Progressive tax is not fair by the first definition, it discriminates against people based on income, there is a strong bias against the wealthy and it favors the lower classes, it is not impartial.


That is probably true. I think our laws should be fair, evenly applied to every single citizen without bias, prejudice, or favoritism. You think our laws should be biased, prejudicial, and favor one group over another and you consider that to be "fair".


Well that's a total line of BS... The Progressive income tax has very little impact, if any, on the top 2% of Americans. Raising the top marginal rates impacts at least 20% of the population, which is far more than just 2% as the Left continually claims. So it's incredibly dishonest to pretend that increasing the top marginal rates would impact "only 2% of the very wealthiest" individuals when such assertions are easily shown to be false.


So you don't actually hate the wealthy, you just believe everything they have was gained at the expense of everyone else, therefore, you see using the government's monopoly on the use of force as a legitimate way for the lower classes to reclaim those ill gotten gains. That sounds contemptuous to me.


But you believe we should force them to pay higher taxes, whether they feel that way or not.


There is nothing stopping Warren Buffet from overpaying his taxes. If he wishes to cut a check to the federal government for whatever amount he thinks he should be paying, he has the freedom to do so... He just chooses not to.


So you believe the redistribution of wealth is "required for America to prosper"?


You prefer legal forms of looting, like through the tax code.

Why not push for a new law, a new wealth tax, one that specifically applies only the top 2%, a law in which the government can confiscate whatever amount of their wealth you feel is necessary?

ONLY if the "basic needs" are not tax. Do you think it is fair to tax people for "staying alive" at the same rate as people who engage in conspicuous spending? I don't.

People who struggle to live from one pay check to the next to feed their family, keep a roof over their head, and get to work in their 1995 Ford Fiesta (if such thing existed in 1995!) shouldn't be paying tax on EVERY PENNY they make and spend.

In the other hand, people who choose to spend an additional $50,000 to get that new Mercedes demonstrate that they have plenty of "disposable" cash.

Basically, this is a different way of looking at taxes: Right now, we are looking at the wealthy paying "more" tax than the poor, because they pay a higher level of tax on a HUGELY greater income. .. but they still have a lot more "disposable" money left.

Now, look at tax in different way: Poor people and lower middle class people already pay tax on EVERY PENNY they make: That's taxation on 100% of their income. . .because they don't have a choice, to survive, they have to spend 100% of their income.

In the other hand, the wealthy and even upper middle class (to a lesser extent) can CHOOSE to spend what ever they want, past their "subsistance level." So. . .in a "flat tax" world, they would ONLY be taxed on the money they spend. . .so some may be taxed on only 25% of their income.

Is that a "fair" tax? I don't think so. That doesn't mean I am against looking into a "flat tax" or "fair tax" scenario. . .there would need to be some adjustments to deal with the "basic survival" spending though!

 

[Lagboltz]

A flat tax is fair by that definition, it does not discriminate between taxpayers, there is no bias or favoritism shown toward any individual or group, it is totally impartial asking for 15% from every single income earner.

A Progressive tax is not fair by the first definition, it discriminates against people based on income, there is a strong bias against the wealthy and it favors the lower classes, it is not impartial.

That is probably true. I think our laws should be fair, evenly applied to every single citizen without bias, prejudice, or favoritism. You think our laws should be biased, prejudicial, and favor one group over another and you consider that to be "fair".

I must have hit a hot button. I understand. You are probably rather rich and don't want to pay anyone anything.

Well that's a total line of BS... The Progressive income tax has very little impact, if any, on the top 2% of Americans. Raising the top marginal rates impacts at least 20% of the population, which is far more than just 2% as the Left continually claims. So it's incredibly dishonest to pretend that increasing the top marginal rates would impact "only 2% of the very wealthiest" individuals when such assertions are easily shown to be false.

OK. The Obama plan was that the top two income tax rates — now 33 percent and 35 percent — would revert to the levels before the Bush administration, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. That doesn't sound like much to cry about for the rich, and it would do a hell of a lot for reduction of the debt.

So you don't actually hate the wealthy, you just believe everything they have was gained at the expense of everyone else, therefore, you see using the government's monopoly on the use of force as a legitimate way for the lower classes to reclaim those ill gotten gains. That sounds contemptuous to me.

No, just sound business practice for the prosperity of America as a whole. "Government monopoly" that's an odd way to put it. You must be awfully contemptuous of the government.

But you believe we should force them to pay higher taxes, whether they feel that way or not.

Not just me. Around 80% of the people feel that way too.

There is nothing stopping Warren Buffet from overpaying his taxes. If he wishes to cut a check to the federal government for whatever amount he thinks he should be paying, he has the freedom to do so... He just chooses not to.

That's a cue card response. He thinks all the wealthy are taxed too little.

So you believe the redistribution of wealth is "required for America to prosper"?

You prefer legal forms of looting, like through the tax code.

Again you are using cue card responses. I believe that, better yet, we should go back to Clinton's tax codes, but I think repealing Bushes temporary increase should do for now.

Why not push for a new law, a new wealth tax, one that specifically applies only the top 2%, a law in which the government can confiscate whatever amount of their wealth you feel is necessary?

Now you are really overreacting.

 

[GenSeneca]

I must have hit a hot button. I understand. You are probably rather rich and don't want to pay anyone anything.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.​

Your response has, in no way, addressed the accurate points I made concerning the definition of "fair" in relation to the tax laws.

OK. The Obama plan was that the top two income tax rates — now 33 percent and 35 percent — would revert to the levels before the Bush administration, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.

There is a significant difference between a policy which affects "only 2% of the wealthiest", your original claim, and a policy which affects people in the "top two income tax rates", your revised claim. So I say again, claiming that increases in the "top two income rates" will affect "only 2% of the wealthiest" is a blatant lie.

That doesn't sound like much to cry about for the rich, and it would do a hell of a lot for reduction of the debt.

Earlier I asked if you could prove this assertion and you declined, yet here you are repeating the assertion once again.

No, just sound business practice for the prosperity of America as a whole.

I see no evidence that the forced redistribution of wealth creates prosperity.

"Government monopoly" that's an odd way to put it. You must be awfully contemptuous of the government.

I did make an error... That sentence was supposed to read, "government's monopoly on the legal use of force", which is not an emotional statement but an undeniable truth.

Not just me. Around 80% of the people feel that way too.

While I would dispute the accuracy of citing 80%, the basic premise is based on asking people if taxes should be raised on someone else. I bet if we had the forum members vote on whether or not BigRob should buy us all lunch, there would be a large majority in favor of getting a free lunch.

“Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.” - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

That's a cue card response. He thinks all the wealthy are taxed too little.

My statement was entirely accurate; Buffet can write a check to the IRS for whatever amount he thinks he should be paying in taxes, yet he chooses not to. Calling that a "cue card response" in no way addresses the very valid point I have made.

Again you are using cue card responses. I believe that, better yet, we should go back to Clinton's tax codes, but I think repealing Bushes temporary increase should do for now.

You did not answer my question: Do you believe the redistribution of wealth is "required for America to prosper"?

Now you are really overreacting.

Does that mean you would, or would not, support a wealth tax? Wouldn't that be "fair"?

How about making the Capital Gains Tax mirror our Progressive Income Tax, would you support that? That way the "wealthy", like Buffet, would have to pay the full 35% (39.6% when the BTC's expire) rather than being able to pay only 15% on their earnings (and then brag about how they paid less in taxes than their secretary). Wouldn't that be "fair"?

 

[Lagboltz]

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.​

Your response has, in no way, addressed the accurate points I made concerning the definition of "fair" in relation to the tax laws.

Fair enough. Let me reword my ideas. Tax law in a wealthy country that forces a significant percentage of the population into poverty level income is not fair tax law. I know that's not your idea of fair, but it's mine.

There is a significant difference between a policy which affects "only 2% of the wealthiest", your original claim, and a policy which affects people in the "top two income tax rates", your revised claim. So I say again, claiming that increases in the "top two income rates" will affect "only 2% of the wealthiest" is a blatant lie.

Right. I had poor wording. I changed my focus to be simpler and more explicit:
I like the Obama plan, and even better is Clinton's plan.

Earlier I asked if you could prove this assertion and you declined, yet here you are repeating the assertion once again.

You can check the assertion yourself. If you want to see how changing tax law affects the short term and long term budget go to this site. You can fix the budget in your own way and see the results immediately. Increasing taxes goes a long way toward that end.

I see no evidence that the forced redistribution of wealth creates prosperity.

I did make an error... That sentence was supposed to read, "government's monopoly on the legal use of force", which is not an emotional statement but an undeniable truth.

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

While I would dispute the accuracy of citing 80%, the basic premise is based on asking people if taxes should be raised on someone else. I bet if we had the forum members vote on whether or not BigRob should buy us all lunch, there would be a large majority in favor of getting a free lunch.

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

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.​

“Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.” - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

My statement was entirely accurate; Buffet can write a check to the IRS for whatever amount he thinks he should be paying in taxes, yet he chooses not to. Calling that a "cue card response" in no way addresses the very valid point I have made.

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

You did not answer my question: Do you believe the redistribution of wealth is "required for America to prosper"?

No. I don't know what you mean by that. I do believe that higher progressive taxes will more likely to lead to the prosperity of America.

Does that mean you would, or would not, support a wealth tax? Wouldn't that be "fair"?

Wealth tax? You are using a hodgepodge of terminology. If you mean progressive tax, I already said I think that's fair. If you mean something else, you will have to be more explicit.

How about making the Capital Gains Tax mirror our Progressive Income Tax, would you support that? That way the "wealthy", like Buffet, would have to pay the full 35% (39.6% when the BTC's expire) rather than being able to pay only 15% on their earnings (and then brag about how they paid less in taxes than their secretary). Wouldn't that be "fair"?

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. 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.

 

[Dr.Who]

You repeat "everyone should have to pay income taxes" and "Everyone should pay their "fair" share" You never say why everyone should pay, or why "fair" is defined as a flat tax, or why they should have "skin in the game".

If the gov taxed all black people at 11% but all white people at 10% then we would all agree that it was not fair. It would not matter if we were comparing hispanic and eskimos or men and women or rich and poor. The part that makes it unfair is that they pay different amounts not the reason that the discrimination exists.

My nephew has a job doing condominium maintenance. He has two small kids. He can't make ends meet on his salary. He is on food stamps. If you tax him at 15%, he will have a difficult time buying just food, clothes, rent and utilities. He lives on hand-me-downs that my brother and I give him. He has little discretionary income to increase the economy of the US. 15% tax would take all discretionary income away from him.

If he makes 12k, a rough estimate of minimum wage and we say that all people have a standard deduction no matter who they are. This year the standard deduction was about 11K so he would only be paying about 150 (12K - 11K X .15). But he is receiving food stamps of maybe $3,600 so he is actually still earning money from the government.

But he gets to feel that he is paying his fair share and know that he is contributing what he can. More importantly we are all paying a fair tax in which none of us pays a higher percentage and all of us get the same deduction.

Everyone should pay because it is not fair that some do not while others do. He has skin in the game because when he goes to see his congressman he can say "I am a taxpayer and I deserve to be listened to" He has skin in the game because as a taxpayer he can want taxes to be fair but if he did not pay any taxes at all then he would not care if they were fair.

I would guess that 50% of the US population are like him. A flat tax would devastate spending at retail stores.

50% of people are on food stamps?

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree with that definition of fair. Nope. That's not my definition. Our differences are based on how we apply the idea of fairness. I'm saying it is bias and prejudice to force the poor into an unlivable situation when there is an alternate solution that allows America to prosper more at relatively much smaller hit to the lifestyle of only 2% of the very wealthiest.

They are not forced into unlivable situations. The poor in this country actually do very very well.

The rich pay about 25% of their income (after deductions and exemptions etc), the very very rich pay about 17% and the poor get money back. That is not fair.

A man who makes ten dollars a year can pay 1 minus a deduction. A man who makes 20 can afford 2 minus a deduction. A man who makes 30 can afford 3 minus a deduction...They all pay zero. A man who makes 13K can pay $15, A man who makes 14K can pay $30. A man who makes 15K can pay $45... Meanwhile of the rich and the very rich both paid closer to 15 percent (only because that is the example) then it would be fair for those two groups and while the rich would still be paying more the rules would be applied fairly and the end results would be closer to each other and not as polarizing.

That is such a tired argument; just because I favor progressive taxes is supposed to mean I have contempt for the wealthy? I don't hate them, I just want the government to make them pay more taxes. I didn't say that I think they owe anyone, I was saying that I think that they should feel that they owe it to America. Warren Buffet feels that way.

If yo only want them to feel that way then maybe they do.

But I don''t think you only want them to feel that way you really want them to pay more. Taking the fruit of any man's labor must be done with the strictest of limits because it is a, necessary, violation of rights and it must be done fairly to ensure that all other rights are treated fairly.

If they don't owe anyone then why pay more? Shouldn't a person only pay what they owe?

Let me say it again: I am looking at taxes from the viewpoint of what is required for America to prosper.

For America to prosper we need rule of law and fairness in the law.

What will happen is that the poor will get poorer without progressive taxes.

Progressive taxes have never equalized anything. They do give the rich an excuse to get favors from congressmen that they use to get even more rich.

There will be a great cultural divide. I'm afraid of having more and more poor dispirited people around. I fear looting will happen here again like it did in Watts and Detroit in the 1960's.

Entitlements and welfare make poor people poor much more than progressive taxes could ever help them.

Treating everyone fairly and expecting all people to be productive honest citizens would help more people of all kinds than anything else gov could do.

 

[Dr.Who]

[
You did not answer my question: Do you believe the redistribution of wealth is "required for America to prosper"?

America was arguable MORE prosperous before the income tax was passed into law.

In fact of we really wanted to make America Prosperous then we could look at the policies that met that end the best and just do those. If I am not mistaken slavery made the South more prosperous than the North for quite a long time despite its relatively poor soil.

If we take that a a bit farther and learn from the Germans then simply taking the wealth of even a minority of the country could lead to quite a bit of prosperity. The key of course it to take if from someone no one likes and give it to someone who will make it grow. Blacks feel like no one likes them and the countries most successful businessmen have proven they know how to make money grow so...

So if our ONLY concern is prosperity then first we enslave blacks again then we take their wealth and give it to successful businessmen. In fact, we could just call this reverse redistribution and since it works a whole lot better than regular redistribution we can go with it.

Or we can make laws based on actual fairness and respect for all people and all of their rights. that too would create propserity.

 

[Lagboltz]

If the gov taxed all black people at 11% but all white people at 10% then we would all agree that it was not fair. It would not matter if we were comparing hispanic and eskimos or men and women or rich and poor. The part that makes it unfair is that they pay different amounts not the reason that the discrimination exists.

Race, etc. puts in different dimensions. Income alone is a financial issue, so is tax rate. That's what makes the concept of "fair" disjoint from the usual sort of discrimination.

If he makes 12k, a rough estimate of minimum wage and we say that all people have a standard deduction no matter who they are. This year the standard deduction was about 11K so he would only be paying about 150 (12K - 11K X .15). But he is receiving food stamps of maybe $3,600 so he is actually still earning money from the government.

But he gets to feel that he is paying his fair share and know that he is contributing what he can. More importantly we are all paying a fair tax in which none of us pays a higher percentage and all of us get the same deduction.

Everyone should pay because it is not fair that some do not while others do. He has skin in the game because when he goes to see his congressman he can say "I am a taxpayer and I deserve to be listened to" He has skin in the game because as a taxpayer he can want taxes to be fair but if he did not pay any taxes at all then he would not care if they were fair.

"Fair tax" is a word conservatives use to say "flat tax". I have a different idea of "fair" than they do. If a family would have to fear bankruptcy because a 15% tax would sink them, then that is not fair. 50% of the lowest level earners, who are not currently paying taxes, would have a burden. I'm sure my nephew would love to have a job where he earned enough to pay taxes and "have skin in the game." But he does not have that capability right now.

50% of people are on food stamps?

I was unclear. At that point I was referring to 50% have a low enough income that they pay no taxes. I think about 12% are on food stamps.

 

[Dr.Who]

Fair enough. Let me reword my ideas. Tax law in a wealthy country that forces a significant percentage of the population into poverty level income is not fair tax law. I know that's not your idea of fair, but it's mine.

There will always be someone who is one dollar above the poverty level after deductions who then is put into poverty by taxes. All systems will do this to someone. But the flat tax with or without a standard deduction respects the rule of law which increases prosperity for all. Progressive taxes actually punish propserity and reward sloth.

 

[Dr.Who]

Race, etc. puts in different dimensions. Income alone is a financial issue, so is tax rate. That's what makes the concept of "fair" disjoint from the usual sort of discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination!

"Fair tax" is a word conservatives use to say "flat tax". I have a different idea of "fair" than they do.

I believe there is such a thing as a "fair tax" I don't know the specifics of it and just happened to have those two words next to each other to reger to a tax that is fair by definition.

If a family would have to fear bankruptcy because a 15% tax would sink them, then that is not fair. 50% of the lowest level earners, who are not currently paying taxes, would have a burden. I'm sure my nephew would love to have a job where he earned enough to pay taxes and "have skin in the game." But he does not have that capability right now.

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[Lagboltz]

They are not forced into unlivable situations. The poor in this country actually do very very well.

The rich pay about 25% of their income (after deductions and exemptions etc), the very very rich pay about 17% and the poor get money back. That is not fair.

A man who makes ten dollars a year can pay 1 minus a deduction. A man who makes 20 can afford 2 minus a deduction. A man who makes 30 can afford 3 minus a deduction...They all pay zero. A man who makes 13K can pay $15, A man who makes 14K can pay $30. A man who makes 15K can pay $45... Meanwhile of the rich and the very rich both paid closer to 15 percent (only because that is the example) then it would be fair for those two groups and while the rich would still be paying more the rules would be applied fairly and the end results would be closer to each other and not as polarizing.

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.

If yo only want them to feel that way then maybe they do.

But I don''t think you only want them to feel that way you really want them to pay more. Taking the fruit of any man's labor must be done with the strictest of limits because it is a, necessary, violation of rights and it must be done fairly to ensure that all other rights are treated fairly.

If they don't owe anyone then why pay more? Shouldn't a person only pay what they owe?

By that I meant they would owe and pay more with progressive taxes because the top marginal rate is higher.

For America to prosper we need rule of law and fairness in the law.

We need fairness in many aspects of the laws such as regulation etc. And we need an economic paradigm that works. The current one does not work.

Progressive taxes have never equalized anything. They do give the rich an excuse to get favors from congressmen that they use to get even more rich.

That is not fair either.

Entitlements and welfare make poor people poor much more than progressive taxes could ever help them.

That is quite a general statement. I won't even hazard a guess on just what makes poor people poorer and what percent of the poor that statement might have some truth.

Treating everyone fairly and expecting all people to be productive honest citizens would help more people of all kinds than anything else gov could do.

Isn't that the truth. I wish people were more perfect than they are.