I don't think we need to cut everything. If I was dictator, I would, but given the realities of what it takes to get a bill passed, I'd be willing to cut corners (no pun intended). I support just about any budget that halves the military budget.
Since 1980 the amount we spend on education has doubled, but our test scores are the same. I don't trust that Congress wouldn't throw money at education to keep defense as high as it is without actually fixing anything.
If they decided to go with something like Finland, as unlikely as that is, and have all education be free I would not mind the increase in funds there. Maybe scores would not go up but it would give more people the opportunity for college education.
They don't pay the same rate, because the poor can't afford to save. Haven't we been over this with you yet? With a "flat" sales tax, the rich pay a much, much lower portion of their income because they don't spend all of their income buying things.
They don't pay the same rate, because the poor can't afford to save. Haven't we been over this with you yet? With a "flat" sales tax, the rich pay a much, much lower portion of their income because they don't spend all of their income buying things.
But how do you implement a progressive scale on a sales tax? And I'm not talking a seriously large tax, like 10% or so (not much higher than Kentucky's sales tax)
They don't pay the same rate, because the poor can't afford to save. Haven't we been over this with you yet? With a "flat" sales tax, the rich pay a much, much lower portion of their income because they don't spend all of their income buying things.
But how do you implement a progressive scale on a sales tax? And I'm not talking a seriously large tax, like 10% or so (not much higher than Kentucky's sales tax)
That's why we have a fucking income tax.
And, in any case, taxes should be progressive, because paying the government 10% of the $14k you make waiting tables for a year makes life much harder than paying the government 10% of the $1.4m you make as a corporate executive.
Honestly, the logistics and paperwork involved in a progressive sales tax would probably outweigh the benefits. With an income tax, it makes sense because you're dealing with a much longer time between reconciliations, and you're working directly with the agency. With a sales tax, that'd have to be calculated every transaction, through a middle man.
Honestly, I'd rather just have something like Canada's GST or Britain's VAT, where it's charged once and just added straight up to the price, so I never notice it. Make it at a national level, and give each state a portion based on need.
Also, Linkigi, you're jumping topics in an odd manner. First sales tax, then with no warning income tax....
Also, Linkigi, you're jumping topics in an odd manner. First sales tax, then with no warning income tax....
I was first addressing his concerns with making a progressive sales tax by pointing out that we already have a progressive income tax, then I meant to attack the idea that everyone should pay the same tax rate.
They don't pay the same rate, because the poor can't afford to save. Haven't we been over this with you yet? With a "flat" sales tax, the rich pay a much, much lower portion of their income because they don't spend all of their income buying things.
But how do you implement a progressive scale on a sales tax? And I'm not talking a seriously large tax, like 10% or so (not much higher than Kentucky's sales tax)
That's why we have a fucking income tax.
And, in any case, taxes should be progressive, because paying the government 10% of the $14k you make waiting tables for a year makes life much harder than paying the government 10% of the $1.4m you make as a corporate executive.
I think that gets to the heart of my thought process really. Why do we feel the need to cut a person who makes more money deeper than a person who makes less money? Why does it have to be about how bad it "hurts?" The taxes are meant to raise revenue for the government to provide all of its wonderful services, and 10% of the 1.4 million is still more money that 10% of the 14K. They were not meant to "hurt" anyone. Why do they have to be malicious, and again why must we punish people for making more money than others?
Of course call me a heartless jerk all you want, I'd rather approach things like this in a detached manner and without emotions tied to it.
So why the arbitrary choice of a "flat" tax, then? After all, 10% still costs the richer person more money. Based on your reasoning, why not just tax each person $5000 or so?
It's not "punishing", and your choice of those words is a linguistic trick to try to shift the debate from "taxes as a way of enforcing the Social Contract" to "Taxes are punitive".
A person should be taxed in such a way that there's an equal burden, do you agree? Even though it's "fair", in the sense that the numbers are the same, to tax the 14,000 guy and the 1.4 million guy at 10%, the burden on each is not the same. Taxing the Taxing the 14,000 guy at 10% leaves him with 12,600 dollars to live on, which is a larger impact on someone trying to live on that than taxing the 1.4 million guy, leaving him with "only" 1.26 million. One is clearly an easy number to live on, the other clearly isn't. So, we "tax" the 14,000 guy at, say, -10% to give him some money to survive and live on because we're not savages (see? I can use linguistic tricks, too), and we tax the 1.4 million guy at, say, 20%. 1.4 million guy now has 1.12 million, still more than enough to live on, and the quality of the life of 14,000 guy has been improved immensely.
Or, to but it succinctly, "A dollar isn't the same amount to everyone". You have to look not just at the "fair" numbers, but at the impact that those numbers have in the real world.
So again, at the end of the day it is still about equal outcome, making the businessman feel just as bad as the waitress. Tax him out the wazoo so he has to live off $12,600 as well! See how he feels about it!
So again, at the end of the day it is still about equal outcome, making the businessman feel just as bad as the waitress. Tax him out the wazoo so he has to live off $12,600 as well! See how he feels about it!
You're either incapable of understanding what I'm saying, or unwilling too. Please choose wisely.
Well, consider it this way: Through just the mechanism of protecting private property, a rich person benefits much much more from the existence of the government than a poor one does. A rich person also, for example, uses roads more, benefits from regulations on the stock market that protect his investments, benefits from all of the regulations on consumer goods that make his house and his food and his cars and his planes and his electronics actually safe to use. A rich person actually benefits more from effective, stable government than a poor person does. Why shouldn't the government take more taxes from him?
Comments
I'm not sure if you've heard, but a "flat" tax is incredibly regressive.
And, in any case, taxes should be progressive, because paying the government 10% of the $14k you make waiting tables for a year makes life much harder than paying the government 10% of the $1.4m you make as a corporate executive.
Honestly, I'd rather just have something like Canada's GST or Britain's VAT, where it's charged once and just added straight up to the price, so I never notice it. Make it at a national level, and give each state a portion based on need.
Also, Linkigi, you're jumping topics in an odd manner. First sales tax, then with no warning income tax....
I still think it's bullshit that sales tax and meal taxes aren't part of the listed price.
Of course call me a heartless jerk all you want, I'd rather approach things like this in a detached manner and without emotions tied to it.
A person should be taxed in such a way that there's an equal burden, do you agree? Even though it's "fair", in the sense that the numbers are the same, to tax the 14,000 guy and the 1.4 million guy at 10%, the burden on each is not the same. Taxing the Taxing the 14,000 guy at 10% leaves him with 12,600 dollars to live on, which is a larger impact on someone trying to live on that than taxing the 1.4 million guy, leaving him with "only" 1.26 million. One is clearly an easy number to live on, the other clearly isn't. So, we "tax" the 14,000 guy at, say, -10% to give him some money to survive and live on because we're not savages (see? I can use linguistic tricks, too), and we tax the 1.4 million guy at, say, 20%. 1.4 million guy now has 1.12 million, still more than enough to live on, and the quality of the life of 14,000 guy has been improved immensely.
Or, to but it succinctly, "A dollar isn't the same amount to everyone". You have to look not just at the "fair" numbers, but at the impact that those numbers have in the real world.