National sales tax, flat tax or ?

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

Sales taxes are unfair to the poor and property taxes are unfair to the elderly on fixed incomes.

Income tax is the one thing you can treat in a reasonably fair manner.

I am assuming that you are referring to a progressive income tax as being fair, and I am not responding to newsstand in particular, just thinking out loud.

I read statements about progressive taxes over and over, and I have thought about it over and over, and I think about what many people describe as the inherent fairness of progressive tax schemes as being equitable, and frankly, I don't get it. I fully understand it, but it is unjust and I don't buy into it. Just saying it is fair is not enough, show me how it is fair, show me how it is equitable. A greater ability to pay is not an element of equity or fairness.

If we expect the government to treat it's citizens fairly and equitably, we expect it to treat us all the same, without bias, I think most will agree with that. So when it comes to taxation, how can a biased or progressive tax be defined as being fair??? It is most certainly inequitable. If you consider the idea of treating all citizens the same as being a concept of fairness, how can a tax where you treat citizens differently according to their income be considered fair??

If we were to appply this same process to voting, there would be a progressive value placed on the votes of our smartest citizens, and the vote of a dumb ass would barely register. Would that be fair?
It's probably a good idea, but it would not be fair.

Since there are more votes at the bottom of the income food chain than at the top, I guess a progressive tax will always be popular and will always be a reality. That does not, however, make it equitable, just, or fair.........it's just popular.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[PhillyKev 0]

There have been a few threads on here where multiple people have provided info showing that the upper income tax payers receive a greater benefit in terms of government services than lower income groups.

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

There have been a few threads on here where multiple people have provided info showing that the upper income tax payers receive a greater benefit in terms of government services than lower income groups.

I read that "info", and I can't say that I agree with it. With due respect to the source, I think it is more opinion that information. Upper income tax payers don't need and rarely use government services, yet they still pay for them (as it should be, because they still have access to it). Fewer upper income taxpayers directly benefit from public education, few law enforcement assets are used in their neighborhoods, they don't use social services, they go to the better private and university hospitals, they don't use public transportation, etc. It is, however, fair and equitable that they pay their per-capita share of the cost burden for those services.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Sales taxes are unfair to the poor

Not if you exempt essentials.

Like jump tickets?

Who is to define "essential"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Maybe, it would get the low income people to think twice about buying $300 sneakers instead of food.

Typical Republican, wants to send poor kids off to school barefoot in the snow.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>So when it comes to taxation, how can a biased or progressive tax
>be defined as being fair??? It is most certainly inequitable.

Those two are not the same thing. We would not consider it fair if an old, crippled woman was made to stand while an 18 year old guy sat on a bus, even if the seats were assigned via an completely random (and therefore equitable) system.

Objectively, without taking any human notion of fairness into it (which has both equality and compassion at its roots) a flat FEE is the most equitable. Everyone pays $13,000 a year to live in the US. Everyone benefits approximately the same amount, so everyone pays the same amount. I think we all recognize that's an unworkable system; we would pay billions to build all the prisons we'd need for people who couldn't pay.

So we get to the next step in the "fairness" ladder, a flat percentage. This says that people who don't make as much don't have to pay as much. This is generally non-equitable, because it is often the lower income people who use more social services like medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance etc. Yet they pay less. Most people would consider this more fair, because it shows more compassion to people who can't pay $13,000 a year (i.e. they stay out of jail for not earning more than $16,000 a year) even if their failure to earn a lot may be their fault.

The next step up is a progressive tax, one in which the percentage goes up as income goes up. This is as inequitable as the flat percentage, but I consider it more fair (taken in a compassion sense) because, generally speaking, a family of four making $25,000 a year is going to have a much harder time making ends meet than a single guy making $120,000 a year.

>If you consider the idea of treating all citizens the same as being a
> concept of fairness, how can a tax where you treat citizens
> differently according to their income be considered fair??

"Treating everyone exactly the same" is a foolish goal. It would be a mistake to provide the same medical care to a woman as a man; men don't get ectopic pregnancies. It would be silly to ignore a criminal record when deciding whether someone should be hired for a sensitive job. It would not be good to be forced to hire bad pilots for an airline so that bad pilots were "treated the same" as good pilots. People are different. They make different amounts, they buy different things, they make different decisions in their lives. You can't treat them as if they were all identical carbon copies of each other.

Now, everyone should have the same _opportunity_ to do what they want; that's at the basis of most US civil rights. But that does not equate to "treat everyone the same."

>If we were to appply this same process to voting, there would be a
> progressive value placed on the votes of our smartest citizens, and
> the vote of a dumb ass would barely register. Would that be fair?

You've described a form of meritocracy, and there's nothing inherently unfair about it (provided intelligence could be judged in a fair and impartial manner, which I have doubts about.) Indeed, a system where the smarter people could influence the system more, such that bad (even deadly) decisions could be avoided, might well be more fair than allowing a less-educated voter base to make poor decisions that are disastrous. Again, that's not the same as "treat everyone the same" - there's that element of compassion that says that it is good to avoid human suffering, and a system that helps that happen may well be more fair than one that causes a lot of pain and suffering.

>Since there are more votes at the bottom of the income food chain
> than at the top, I guess a progressive tax will always be popular and
> will always be a reality.

There are people (myself included) who are nearer the top of the income "food chain" and prefer a progressive tax, even if it means I pay more. The US has allowed me the opportunity to be successful, and I do not begrudge paying more to support it (and indirectly, to support the people who don't make as much as I do.) I am more able to pay than they are, and thus I consider it fair that I am asked to pay more.

[gmanpilot 0]

That was a thoughtful reply, and a few things jumped out at me.

1. I see fairness and equity as being interchangeable. You don't, so we are kind of on different tracks from the start.

In your old lady/bus seat anology, you substitute fairness for humanity and grace. I don't think governments should be in the grace business. The random seat assignment was fair, but it is up to us as decent individuals to provide the humanity and grace. So if I'm on the bus, she will get a seat.

2. You said,

Quote

I am more able to pay than they are, and thus I consider it fair that I am asked to pay more.

And that gets to the very heart of my point. I don't think you should be asked to pay more. Your willingness to pay a higher percentage in taxes is noble, and contains humanity and grace. It is, however, unfair to institutionalize that willingness.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[billvon 3,120]

>It is, however, unfair to institutionalize that willingness.

Well, even a flat tax is not at all equitable, since if you make twice as much you are "penalized" twice as much. As mentioned before, a flat _fee_ isn't really workable. So the question becomes - what's the best blend of equity, fairness (in my sense of the word) and practicality? You will just plain get more money out of people with a flat tax than you will with a flat fee, since people in jail can't pay income taxes. A flat tax is OK from a practical standpoint as long as you are willing to accept the economic consequences (i.e. the poor will put less money back into the economy; the rich won't change much.) A progressive tax will do more for the economy in general, if you think there is value in having a taxation system that supports a strong economy. If not, flat tax may be the way to go.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Upper income tax payers don't need and rarely use government services, yet they still pay for them

The gov't provides a lot more than welfare to the public. In fact welfare is a very small portion of the federal budget. I believe it's 1/3 of the budget that goes to defense. The rich have more to defend. The rich fly more often, so ATC and the entire airline infrastrucutre including airline bailouts have more benefit to the rich then poor. Corporate susidies primarily benefit stockholders. The majority of stockholders are rich.

Take a look at the actual budget breakdown of what money is spent on and honestly consider who is receiving the most benefit from those things.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe, it would get the low income people to think twice about buying $300 sneakers instead of food.

Typical Republican, wants to send poor kids off to school barefoot in the snow.

I wanna see Kallend all decked out in ghetto bling bling.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe, it would get the low income people to think twice about buying $300 sneakers instead of food.

Typical Republican, wants to send poor kids off to school barefoot in the snow.

I wanna see Kallend all decked out in ghetto bling bling.

When did you last visit a big city ghetto? Does Palm Beach Gardens have one?

I work at 33rd and State in Chicago, I see it every day and very few of the kids wear $300 sneakers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhreeZone 20]

>I wanna see Kallend all decked out in ghetto bling bling.

You are more likely to see Kallend in Teva's with socks on.

I think some services like Amtrack could be cut (privatize it) from the government and the budget would be helped by it and it brings it closer to a flat tax working. What else could be cut?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Steel 0]

Quote

> Problem is that history has shown us who gets screwed the most by
>progressive tax. The middle class.

Oh, the middle class would be FAR more screwed by a flat tax. A flat tax would require everyone to pay 40% of their income (if all forms of taxation were replaced by a flat income tax.) Currently, someone who makes $40K with no deductions (around US average) pays 17%, and someone who makes $100K pays 22%. Even if you said that only half of the federal budget came from a flat income tax (i.e. an average of 20%) the middle class pays more and the rich pay less than the current system.

See you have layed the facts down on the table. If you keep going you'll see it doesn't change direction the more one makes the higher percentage they are paying. Is that fair? Or is it that there are more people at the bottom of the todom pole with class envy voting to set up laws that way? It has been said that true capitalism can never exist in a total democracy because the less wealthy (the majority) will always vote to take (steal) from the more wealthy (minority). Does that mean its the morally correct thing to do? I think, HELL NO! But maybe I am just an idealist who believes in fairness.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Steel 0]

a family of four making $25,000 a year is going to have a much harder time making ends meet than a single guy making $120,000 a year.
====================================

You know when I see things like this or worse because I have seen it much worse, I have even seen a family of 8 making $25K/year, it just sickens me. I shows tremendous irresponsibility or outright stupidity. Alot of people ask when they see my greatdane if I breed him, after all he is very attractive. My response if ofcourse not. There are greatdane rescue foundations out there trying to find homes for greatdanes as it is. So there are not enough responsible people out there for the Danes there are, why add more? Well the same principle applies here. If you can't afford to maintain your family, don't add to it. And if you do, don't expect me to pick up the tab.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[PhreeZone 20]

Accourding to some religions its their duty to produce as many childern as they can. Fundalmental Mormanism for example. In those cases you are talking about religion vs government, which do you choose?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Steel 0]

Quote

Accourding to some religions its their duty to produce as many childern as they can. Fundalmental Mormanism for example. In those cases you are talking about religion vs government, which do you choose?

Neither, I choose common sense. Recently I heard some statistic that an overwelming majority of Catholics practice birth control. The Catholic religion still opposes it because they have chosen not to change with the times. But most Catholics have enough common sense to know better. In any case I am not advocating making laws that control reproduction. I am simply advocating not making laws that provide and incentive for it.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[jdhill 0]

If they choose religion, let the church take care of them... if you can't make ends meet before you have kids, why do you think you can make ends meet with them?

In many cases (not all), the poor stay poor because they make bad choices... don't ask me to bankroll their bad choices.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, even a flat tax is not at all equitable, since if you make twice as much you are "penalized" twice as much.

I don't see how a flat rate is unfair, but a sliding scale where you make more you have to pay a higher PERCENTAGE is fair.

Try explaining that to me again in small simple words...Cause I don't see how a flat rate is unfair, but a higher rate is fair.

Quote

As mentioned before, a flat _fee_ isn't really workable

agreed, but I still don't see your issue with a flat rate.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,120]

>I don't see how a flat rate is unfair .. . .

Because we all benefit from being citizens. Why should someone who makes $100,000 a year have to pay ten times as much as someone who makes $10,000 a year? Do they use ten times the services? Definitely not. So in the sense of equity it's not fair; they are not billed equally. However, if you use my definition of fair (which includes compassion towards those who can't pay as much) it is somewhat fair.

>but I still don't see your issue with a flat rate.

Don't really have much of an issue either way. Neither a flat rate nor a progressive tax are "equitable", but I think both are pretty fair. If you want to use the taxation system to strengthen the economy, then a progressive tax will do that more than a flat tax will.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>I don't see how a flat rate is unfair .. . .

Because we all benefit from being citizens. Why should someone who makes $100,000 a year have to pay ten times as much as someone who makes $10,000 a year? Do they use ten times the services? Definitely not. So in the sense of equity it's not fair; they are not billed equally. However, if you use my definition of fair (which includes compassion towards those who can't pay as much) it is somewhat fair

Ok but its MUCH more fair than making a guy that makes more pay a higher percentage.

Lets just say the rate is 10%. Then the guy that makes 10,000 a year would pay 1,000.00 a year. The guy that makes 50,000 pays 5,000 and the guy that makes 100,000 pays 10,000.

But under a progressive tax plan the guy that makes 10,000 pays nothing (Which I could understand either way), the guy that makes 50,000 pays 5,000 but the guy that makes 100,000 pays 20,000.

How is that fair?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Don't you get it yet, Ron? The guy that made $100,000 couldn't do that on his own, Joe Public is too stupid. Only liberal actors actually deserve that much income or more (and guns).

The first guy must have stolen it from the other guy that only made $10,000. Therefore he should cover the other guys expenses.

Hope that is clear now.

I'm here to help.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>Ok but its MUCH more fair than making a guy that makes more pay a
>higher percentage.

It is definitely a bit more equitable. You're talking about making the rich guy pay 4 times more than the middle class guy instead of 2 times more. Unfortunately, in the real world, both people's taxes go UP in the case of the flat tax you proposed (vs. your progressive tax example) since you need to increase the flat rate to compensate for lack of income from the higher income people. Also, in our current scheme, the 50K guy pays 9000, and the 100K guy pays 22,000, so the difference is not as extreme as you describe. In other words, our current system is a compromise between a flat tax and the progressive system you proposed in your second example.

>ut under a progressive tax plan the guy that makes 10,000 pays nothing
> (Which I could understand either way) . .

I'm interested in this, though. Why is a flat tax fair, but a free ride also fair for some (low income) people?

[DrunkMonkey 0]

This one time, my dog farted on my sister. It was funny.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Unfortunately, in the real world, both people's taxes go UP in the case of the flat tax you proposed (vs. your progressive tax example) since you need to increase the flat rate to compensate for lack of income from the higher income people.

Still more fair than just sticking it to the rich guy.

Quote

Also, in our current scheme, the 50K guy pays 9000, and the 100K guy pays 22,000, so the difference is not as extreme as you describe

1,000 - 0 = 1,000. Thats a big difference.
9,000 - 5,000 = 4,000 Thats a big difference.
22,000 - 20,000 = 2,000 I consider 2 grand to be a big difference...Maybe not compared to 100,000. But 2 grand is still alot.

In this case it is the middle guy getting hurt the most while the low guy gets it free.

Quote

I'm interested in this, though. Why is a flat tax fair, but a free ride also fair for some (low income) people?

I'm not so cold as to take the last nickel form a broke guy. I also know you can't take what they don't have. I DO think that there are a large number of lazy folks that just live off the system...But if they don't want to quit being lazy there is not much I can do to change their life out look..And liberals will not let them starve.....So I HAVE to support them. I would rather let them keep what little they earn than pay to provide services to them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 4]

Quote

Ok but its MUCH more fair than making a guy that makes more pay a higher percentage.

Lets just say the rate is 10%. Then the guy that makes 10,000 a year would pay 1,000.00 a year. The guy that makes 50,000 pays 5,000 and the guy that makes 100,000 pays 10,000.

But under a progressive tax plan the guy that makes 10,000 pays nothing (Which I could understand either way), the guy that makes 50,000 pays 5,000 but the guy that makes 100,000 pays 20,000.

How is that fair?

You're assuming that the wealthiest aren't taking deductions.

To me, that is the most unfair part of the tax code anyway because in order to take deductions, you have to have had the money to begin with -- just spend it in the "right" ways and it becomes a deduction.

Less weathy people get to do this less because they have less money to begin with, so, therefor can take fewer deductions percentagewise.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver