Why? I don't like linear functions. I think some kind of exponential function would be much nicer, because it has a nice curve to it. We could do a polynomial or logarithmic function too, they have curves. Oooooh, curves.
Now, is this realistic?
Why not? Why not tax everyone $8000 (Wolfram Alpha says $8253.05)? This is a serious question, and I'm looking for a serious answer.
1) You didn't actually answer my question. I was taking the "flat tax" as an example, and asking what the justification for it was, whereas you offered justification for a different tax system. I suspect if you had quoted properly you would've realised the mistake and instead said something like "I disagree with the flat tax because it's unfair; I support a system where everyone pays the same amount, not the same percentage"
No, I thought you "what's a dollar worth" scenario was inherently flawed. I'm Greek, I jokingly describe my ethic group as the Christian Jew. We place extremely high value on our money and haggle endless to part with as little as we can. Yet I'm still a high payed IT consultant. My value of money hasn't changed since I got went from making less than $10K to a nice salary. So money is worth what it's worth, trying to judge it's value based on a person's salary is plain silly to me.
2) The quoted material isn't enough to give context for my statement. Sure, as you said, people can read the whole thread, but then why quote at all?
To establish that I'm responding to the post made by you. It works better on the more traditional forums where you get a link that takes you to the whole post. So point made, I'll quote more stuff.
No, I thought you "what's a dollar worth" scenario was inherently flawed.
No, it's not inherently flawed. It's an open-ended question. You've given an answer - a dollar is worth the same amount to anyone. In other words, someone with only one dollar would treat that dollar the same way that a person with a million dollars would treat a dollar. That's what you're saying.
The percentage at which we can have even basic services is far too high for most people to pay and still afford to live. Taking 30% of my income wouldn't even affect me, but taking 30% of the money out of someone's pocket who only makes $20,000 a year is enough to drop them into poverty.
Why? I don't like linear functions. I think some kind of exponential function would be much nicer, because it has a nice curve to it. We could do a polynomial or logarithmic function too, they have curves. Oooooh, curves.
Because there's just no point in taxing people an amount that they simply can not pay. What I'd like is a tax amount that gets everyone interested in what the government is doing. I feel like the majority of this country doesn't care what the government does because they don't pay much. Kinda an out there idea I know.
The percentage at which we can have even basic services is far too high for most people to pay and still afford to live. Taking 30% of my income wouldn't even affect me, but taking 30% of the money out of someone's pocket who only makes $20,000 a year is enough to drop them into poverty.
Does anyone know the actual average salary in the US? All I can find reliably is the median. I found $42K and at that we're looking at roughly a 25% flat tax to match our current revenue. Damn.
Why not have a debt tab on them? If they start making more money later, we can collect the debt they built up by being poor.
Why not have a debt tab on them? If they start making more money later, we can collect the debt they built up by being poor.
Hmmmm, go on...
When you first get a job, the government will take pretty much all of your money for quite a while to pay for the amount of time you spent being a useless child, availing yourself of the government's services (particularly education since that's especially for children) for free.
/Side note: This is what the block comment button was needed for. It should've been renamed to "View Source"
Alright, as much fun as it is to get battered around by a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, I have work I need to do. I concede this round. A flat government fee and a flat tax just can not support current government budget. The expense is just too great to too many people.
Why not have a debt tab on them? If they start making more money later, we can collect the debt they built up by being poor.
Hmmmm, go on...
When you first get a job, the government will take pretty much all of your money to pay for the amount of time you spent being a useless child, availing yourself of the government's education services.
You'd be better off espousing anarchism and calling yourself a libertarian. It makes for a much more interesting discussion than the one we were just having on why a fixed tax (fee), or even a proportional tax (the so-called "flat tax") doesn't work and isn't fair.
The expense is just too great to too many people.
This is exactly what we're saying! Losing $8000 when you have $8000 is much worse than losing $8000 when you have $1 million, therefore losing $1 when you have $8000 is much worse than losing $1 when you have $1 million, and so $1 is worth a different amount to you depending on how much money you have.
Why not have a debt tab on them? If they start making more money later, we can collect the debt they built up by being poor.
Hmmmm, go on...
When you first get a job, the government will take pretty much all of your money to pay for the amount of time you spent being a useless child, availing yourself of the government's education services.
Just want to be clear that was a joke.
Sure, but the things I've put forth are logical results of your definition of fair. Either your definition is wrong, or the things I've put forth are also fair (Unless you wish to dispute the intermediate steps). That's why I linked to the Wikipedia article on "reductio ad absurdum."
I hope you mean the "Block Comment" button, the "Block User" button was a pile of shit that worked like the "Block Comment" button, but more annoyingly.
Good point. Fixed.
EDIT: Also, you copycat, making absurd reductions after I did.
Sorry, I assumed you were being serious because you're Dutch.
Sure, but the things I've put forth are logical results of your definition of fair. Either your definition is wrong, or the things I've put forth are also fair (Unless you wish to dispute the intermediate steps). That's why I linked to the Wikipedia article on "reductio ad absurdum."
This is what drives me nuts though, the fact you try to keep reducing everything to "what's fair." Taxes are not about "fair," they're about collecting money and paying the bills.
Sure, but there's an infinite number of ways to pick how to collect money and pay the bills. What criteria do you suggest to differentiate one way of collecting 2.52 trillion from another way of collecting 2.52 trillion? What is there apart from fairness?
Sure, but there's an infinite number of ways to pick how to collect money and pay the bills. What criteria do you suggest to differentiate one way of collecting 2.52 trillion from another way of collecting 2.52 trillion? What is there apart from fairness?
Sure, but there's an infinite number of ways to pick how to collect money and pay the bills. What criteria do you suggest to differentiate one way of collecting 2.52 trillion from another way of collecting 2.52 trillion? What is there apart from fairness?
My rationale for progressive taxation is not that people who make more money should pay higher taxes because they can, but because the only reason they are able to make that much money is due to the circumstances they are in, largely the society of the country they reside in. People with higher income owe the fact that people are able to request their goods and services in the society they live in. They have a higher stake in keeping that society going and therefore they shouldn't just pay more, they should actually feel obliged to pay their taxes.
Rym is actually a prime example for that thinking.
Just wanted to say, being someone who doesn't make very much at her current job - that the totals and percentages being thrown out hypothetically and by gdavids really -would- leave me no longer able to support myself. I am not well versed in anything related to finance, government, or taxation, but I know that much. And I know that a government that would bankrupt a hard-working American just because he/she has a low-paying job is the antithesis of what America is supposed to stand for.
There are people out there who work even harder than I do and get paid even less. A flat tax system would devastate those people. It's easy to make all of those statements from a comfortable computer desk, but it's not a pleasant thought for those who struggle for a comfortable life.
And governments SHOULD try to be fair to their people. People treated unfairly don't react well.
My rationale for progressive taxation is not that people who make more money should pay higher taxes because they can, but because the only reason they are able to make that much money is due to the circumstances they are in, largely the society of the country they reside in.
Saying "only reason" is quite plainly wrong. If the society around us is the only reason people end up making a lot of money, why doesn't everyone from those kinds of circumstances end up making a lot of money? The fact is that there are plenty of examples of people becoming rich through hard work and talent. For the purposes of accuracy, I'd say that society is necessary (but not sufficient) to support high-income earners, but that's trivial - money doesn't even make sense without society anyway.
They have a higher stake in keeping that society going and therefore they shouldn't just pay more, they should actually feel obliged to pay their taxes.
In a fair taxation system, everyone should feel equally obliged to pay the amount of tax asked of them (That is basically a rephrasing of what we've said previously in this thread about fairness). Also, why give to the government when they can support society-helping projects instead? Might not the latter be a better way to help society anyway? Overall, I really don't like your rationale.
Yes, "only" was a word too much in my post. Though the thing I was talking about feeling obliged to pay taxes was not to say that rich people should feel more obliged, but they should just feel obliged because apparently as evident by the constant cries for tax cuts or changes in the taxation system they don't seem to.
Why are taxes better than donations to non-government groups: As you said, those donations are trying to better society. Taxes is what keeps society running in the first place.
Again, "selfish" and "fair" are relative. I don't see a problem with me putting in what it costs for me. Would you split up the dinner check based on your respective salaries?
I do this quite often with my group of friends. If we get food somewhere, and someone is a bit skint, they pay way less. And those who can afford it pay more. This way we all get to eat out together (nobody excluded) in a much nicer place than if we only went where the poorest friend could afford.
Yes, "only" was a word too much in my post. Though the thing I was talking about feeling obliged to pay taxes was not to say that rich people should feel more obliged, but they should just feel obliged because apparently as evident by the constant cries for tax cuts or changes in the taxation system they don't seem to.
Summary: "quit your bitching, you should be happy you get to pay taxes."
So we're supposed to pay the majority of the taxes and have no say in the matter?
I do this quite often with my group of friends. If we get food somewhere, and someone is a bit skint, they pay way less. And those who can afford it pay more. This way we all get to eat out together (nobody excluded) in a much nicer place than if we only went where the poorest friend could afford.
Comments
/Side note: This is what the block comment button was needed for. It should've been renamed to "View Source"
Rym is actually a prime example for that thinking.
There are people out there who work even harder than I do and get paid even less. A flat tax system would devastate those people. It's easy to make all of those statements from a comfortable computer desk, but it's not a pleasant thought for those who struggle for a comfortable life.
And governments SHOULD try to be fair to their people. People treated unfairly don't react well.
/all hotter than your mother
Why are taxes better than donations to non-government groups: As you said, those donations are trying to better society. Taxes is what keeps society running in the first place.
So we're supposed to pay the majority of the taxes and have no say in the matter?