Anti-socialists, gather 'round

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Simius

The goal of progressive taxes isn't to keep the rich from becoming richer. The goal of progressive taxes is to raise money without putting too much burden on any person. Obviously the rich bear more of the burden with progressive taxes... but they also have more disposable income so they can handle it better than a minimum wage worker could.

It seems to me that if the rich can still get richer even with our progressive taxes, then the tax system is reaching its goal just fine.

Clearly, progressive tax is the most fair system. Even if the day comes when Americans pay minimal taxes, it should still be progressive tax.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Clearly, progressive tax is the most fair system. Even if the day comes when Americans pay minimal taxes, it should still be progressive tax.

why a progressive tax? why not a flat tax? how is it more fair that some pay a higher percentage? why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage regardless of income?

get rid of deductions, get rid of corporate welfare, get rid of loopholes that allow people to get out of paying taxes, get rid of the ability to "hide" money, and have everyone pay the same percentage. what's "unfair" about that?

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by 7960

why a progressive tax? why not a flat tax? how is it more fair that some pay a higher percentage? why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage regardless of income?

That would work if the level of incomes rose in a somewhat linear line, but many rich people earn many times that of poor people, so a flat tax ceases to be fair. The rich have exponentially more surplus than those who make lower-middle incomes.

Originally Posted by 7960

get rid of deductions, get rid of corporate welfare, get rid of loopholes that allow people to get out of paying taxes, get rid of the ability to "hide" money, and have everyone pay the same percentage. what's "unfair" about that?

I agree with tax reform and i think tax rates should be much less, but I think that the rich simply have more to spare in terms of percentage of their income than middle income people

[Diamond Cross]

So you want to punish the rich by forcing them to pay more.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Simius

The goal of progressive taxes isn't to keep the rich from becoming richer. The goal of progressive taxes is to raise money without putting too much burden on any person. Obviously the rich bear more of the burden with progressive taxes... but they also have more disposable income so they can handle it better than a minimum wage worker could.

It seems to me that if the rich can still get richer even with our progressive taxes, then the tax system is reaching its goal just fine.

Why are taxes necessary? Part of the reason I created this thread was to illustrate how tax systems violate people's liberties. Is there a way that you could prove that they don't?

Why do you think you should have the privilege to violate my rights?

[Kytro]

The concept of progressive taxation is to make more "fair".

The reason why flat taxes are not considered fair by some is because they do not take into account the impact of the tax.

Taking the same percentage of everyone seems fair because it is simple to get. Progressive taxes attempt to cause similar impacts on the taxpayers

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Why are taxes necessary? Part of the reason I created this thread was to illustrate how tax systems violate people's liberties. Is there a way that you could prove that they don't?

Why do you think you should have the privilege to violate my rights?

Without taxes we wouldn't have hardly any of the infrastructure this country has. Without the infrastructure we would just be another Somalia or other 3rd world country. Not to mention, without taxes we couldn't have a military. Without a military we would be conquered by another country. Guess what they would do? They would levy taxes.

By living in this country you sign a metaphorical contract with society. In exchange for some rights, you gain a lot of benefits like a working economy, roads, police protection etc etc etc. You are free to cancel the contract by moving elsewhere. Until then you willingly give up some rights. Your liberties aren't being violated by taxes. Taxes are part of your obligation under the metaphorical contract you signed by living here.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7960

why a progressive tax? why not a flat tax? how is it more fair that some pay a higher percentage? why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage regardless of income?

get rid of deductions, get rid of corporate welfare, get rid of loopholes that allow people to get out of paying taxes, get rid of the ability to "hide" money, and have everyone pay the same percentage. what's "unfair" about that?

The Rich will still pay more in actual dollars thus provide more government services for the rest of us. It is still wealth redistribution. Get rid of the loopholes that protect the Super Rich!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Simius

Without taxes we wouldn't have hardly any of the infrastructure this country has. Without the infrastructure we would just be another Somalia or other 3rd world country. Not to mention, without taxes we couldn't have a military. Without a military we would be conquered by another country. Guess what they would do? They would levy taxes.

Even under monarchies people accepted a certain amount of taxes since the monarchs were protectors and did acomplish some measure of public works. Same with civilizations like the Romans. To have representation as taxpayers is the new thing. Too bad so many people vote for what they think they are getting out of government, not how many months they work to support it. General Tax money should only be spent on things justified by the terms "general welfare" not to any type of specific benefit or entitlement. That is where we went wrong in this country.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Simius

Without taxes we wouldn't have hardly any of the infrastructure this country has. Without the infrastructure we would just be another Somalia or other 3rd world country. Not to mention, without taxes we couldn't have a military. Without a military we would be conquered by another country. Guess what they would do? They would levy taxes.

Militaries can be privately funded by those that wish to protect their assets. Militaries can also be privately funded by sheer participation. Our economic infrastructure has always been stronger when we had less taxes and no central bank. So what does that tell you about the government running both?

By living in this country you sign a metaphorical contract with society. In exchange for some rights, you gain a lot of benefits like a working economy, roads, police protection etc etc etc. You are free to cancel the contract by moving elsewhere. Until then you willingly give up some rights. Your liberties aren't being violated by taxes. Taxes are part of your obligation under the metaphorical contract you signed by living here.

So you're one of those "If you don't like it, get out!" guys?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Militaries can be privately funded by those that wish to protect their assets. Militaries can also be privately funded by sheer participation. Our economic infrastructure has always been stronger when we had less taxes and no central bank. So what does that tell you about the government running both?

I disagree our economic infrastructure after the great depression was much stronger than prior

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I disagree our economic infrastructure after the great depression was much stronger than prior

Our economic infrastructure has always been stronger when we had less taxes and no central bank.




pro tip: our central bank was one of the causes of the Great Depression

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Militaries can be privately funded by those that wish to protect their assets. Militaries can also be privately funded by sheer participation. Our economic infrastructure has always been stronger when we had less taxes and no central bank. So what does that tell you about the government running both?

Miliraries could be privately funded. But those who chose not to throw money in the pot would unfairly reap the benefits from those who were prudent enough to pay for it. If nothing else, social goods should be paid for by the government because they benefit everyone more than they cost... but each individuals contribution towards it would personally benefit that individual less than it would cost them. As a crappy example: If there was a decaying dam that would cost $500,000 to fix, if it broke then an entire valley full of 10,000 $100,000 homes would be lost. No individual would pay $500K to save their $100K house. Yet clearly a tax of $50 a piece would be more than a worthwhile investment if it saved everyone $100K. If it was optional, I would just save myself $50 and let everyone else throw in a few extra cents. Either way the dam would be built. The only thing is, given the option everyone would save $50 and not pay to repair the dam, because they would assume everyone else could cover the cost. In the end a few people would have to pay a lot of money to save the entire valley... or the entire valley would flood because every single person did what seemed like what was good for them. Either situation is unfair or foolish. It is much better to "steal" $50.00 from everyone and save the dam.

I dunno if our economic infrastructure was stronger before we had a central bank and income taxes. I can't really think of one part of our infrastructure that was better 100 years back than it is today.

So you're one of those "If you don't like it, get out!" guys?

Fair enough, let me rephrase by getting rid of how one signs the social contract and how they can opt out. You get a lot in return for living in our society. (strongest economy in the world, a constitution that is designed to protect your civil liberties, the right to vote and influence our government). In exchange you have to give up some rights.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Militaries can be privately funded by those that wish to protect their assets. Militaries can also be privately funded by sheer participation. Our economic infrastructure has always been stronger when we had less taxes and no central bank. So what does that tell you about the government running both?


So you're one of those "If you don't like it, get out!" guys?

You're not considering the social implications private military forces would bring on society. Currently, the military we have defends us all equally because it is publically funded. The mafia style 'protection' that private militias would bring is WORSE for liberty than what we have now. It might be nice for super rich organizations which can afford them, but the lack of power balance makes them a threat to the liberty and personal safety of other citizens.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by R-Type

You're not considering the social implications private military forces would bring on society. Currently, the military we have defends us all equally because it is publically funded. The mafia style 'protection' that private militias would bring is WORSE for liberty than what we have now. It might be nice for super rich organizations which can afford them, but the lack of power balance makes them a threat to the liberty and personal safety of other citizens.

Why would you think that I'd be in favor of militias attacking U.S. citizens?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Why would you think that I'd be in favor of militias attacking U.S. citizens?

I didn't say you were.

[Rouger2]

I will vote for Biden or that is my choice right now. I'm tired of democrats who are socially liberal but when it comes to the economy they are more conservative than the republicans. Clinton was that way. Carter was the first of the new southern democrats who were socially liberal but in the pocket of big business. He not so much as Clinton. We need a Union man. I know they get a bad rap but it is mostly bull, republican spin. We need a new Teddy Roosevelt. I know Biden is no Teddy, but he is a friend of the Unions. I,m not so much a fan of public unions, but unions have done so much for the working man in the past and could today. Teddy knew how to take on big business. He knew Government has to be the rule maker and referee in the dog eat dog competition of big business, that can eat up the working man, and spit him out. Government should not take sides and politicans taking money from big business forces them to take sides. We need to go back to the democratic party being the party of the middle and lower middle class working man. They lost them to Reagan but they can get them back and Biden would be the best bet.

[Rouger2]

I will vote for Biden or that is my choice right now. I'm tired of democrats who are socially liberal but when it comes to the economy they are more conservative than the republicans. Clinton was that way. Carter was the first of the new southern democrats who were socially liberal but in the pocket of big business. He not so much as Clinton. We need a Union man. I know they get a bad rap but it is mostly bull, republican spin. We need a new Teddy Roosevelt. I know Biden is no Teddy, but he is a friend of the Unions. I,m not so much a fan of public unions, but unions have done so much for the working man in the past and could today. Teddy knew how to take on big business. He knew Government has to be the rule maker and referee in the dog eat dog competition of big business, that can eat up the working man, and spit him out. Government should not take sides and politicans taking money from big business forces them to take sides. We need to go back to the democratic party being the party of the middle and lower middle class working man. They lost them to Reagan but they can get them back and Biden would be the best bet.