Newsflash – all taxes are at gunpoint and at arbitrary rates. The question is, “how do we pay for our government?”. If you want no taxes then you live in fantasyland – I suppose we could rely on gifts.

If we do the “bill for services rendered”, then what services do we all pay for?” I obey the crimes code – why should I pay for anyone to sit in jail? I’ll take my chances with a sidearm any day.

More to the point, I’d like an anwser to the following –
1.How do we tax?
2.Why not a per capita tax?
3. What services do we pay for?
4. Who pays for your brother’s jail sentence – Again why doesn’t your brother pay and if he can’t then why shouldn’t your parents pay? They raised him, right? Or in this case is it better for society to pay for it? When the collective is a better recourse than the individual – that leans to socialism.

Income tax apologist – priceless.

Scooby has it right, the ends do not justify the means.

This whole time, I’ve sorta been arguing for a flat rate vs a progressive rate, when I personally feel that both are immoral and unnecessary. I just don’t understand how an income tax apologist can think that the progressive rate is more fair than a flat rate.

“Here’s a question for you – how should this income be taxed
1. CEO earns $1,500,000 a year
2. Trust Fund Earns $1,500,000 for one year.
who pays more in taxes? and Why”

IMO zero and zero.

“Lastly, My lunch example is another way to see how the tax works. Paying taxes isn’t a gift; but it does keep the family happy and maintain the status quo. The Bar example does not consider this aspect.”

And this is the disconnect. I’m not looking for the federal government to attempt to artificially regulate the different classes of our society, and by means of armed robbery no less. And as Scooby said, if this means the end of our country as we know it, then so be it.

If you read my 1st post – I refer to the idea that the wealthy remain at the top. Look, much of the debate here has focused on fair. I look at the practical effect. At some point you tax too much and discourage achievment. Tax the rich too little and you overburden the poor and middle class. They become irate. If this persists, the 1930s and 1940s that the US faced will recur with another New Deal and legion of new bureaucrats. FDR didn’t seize power – he was voted in. Why -b/c a lot of people had it really bad and a few seeemed to still have a lot of money. This fact needs to be considered in any tax discussion. If not, it sows the seeds for revolt. Once that occurs bye bye mansion and facy cars. The fallacy of the revolt is that the new govt will be better – With the exception of US 1776, it rarely is.

As to the current tax system – Those at the top rarely pay 33% to the fed. With all the deductions and loopholes they do pay less. I am not against them paying less than 33 percent. But I think when setting a policy, a graduated tax is fairer

Here’s a question for you – how should this income be taxed
1. CEO earns $1,500,000 a year
2. Trust Fund Earns $1,500,000 for one year.
who pays more in taxes? and Why

Lastly, My lunch example is another way to see how the tax works. Paying taxes isn’t a gift; but it does keep the family happy and maintain the status quo. The Bar example does not consider this aspect.

“My point is that the billionaire receives benefits that are never discussed in the tax discussion.”

Could you elaborate on what these benefits are?

“Some argue a flat rate is the fairest. I could argue that it is fairer to add up the cost of all the services and divide it by the population #. Why not have everyone pay the same amount – money is money, right? Yet, why don’t we argue this? Is it because you believe it fairer for the wealthy to pay more money so long as it is the same percentage. That belief, too, is a step toward socialism, comrade.”

It’s not that I think a flat tax rate is necessarily the most fair system, just that it is more fair than a progressive tax rate.

“My brother example, though true, is not a pat on the back for me. It illustrates the point of a progressive tax vs. flat vs. per capita tax.”

I apologize if my response was vague. What you said in your example was that you pay for your brother’s meal not because it’s the fair approach, but because you felt that it is the “right” thing to do. You feel as though you have a moral obligation to do this for your brother, which is fine for you, but it should not be extended out to everyone by way of law.

“My point is that even under the current system – the rich still get to be rich and desrve no sympathy when they still win the game.”

I’ve never lost any sleep worrying about how rich guys are going to get by, so I understand how you feel. But to me, your point seems to effectively be “Bah, as long as they take home six figures they still seem rich to me. Screw em.” I’d still like to hear from you at what point you would consider the rate for the rich to be an injustice. Is 80% on income over $1,000,000 acceptable?

My billionaire example is to illustrate the point that there is more afoot than a simple 1 person = $ value for gov’t benefits calculus. My point is that the billionaire receives benefits that are never discussed in the tax discussion. Though “fairness” “achievement” etc. usually are discussed as though they are the sole considerations.

When people speak of tax policy – fairness is always the issue. It is based upon our income. Is that the fairest approach? Why is work taxed higher than investment income? Why should a CEO making several hundred thousand a year be taxed at a higher rate than a trust fund baby?

Some argue a flat rate is the fairest. I could argue that it is fairer to add up the cost of all the services and divide it by the population #. Why not have everyone pay the same amount – money is money, right? Yet, why don’t we argue this? Is it because you believe it fairer for the wealthy to pay more money so long as it is the same percentage. That belief, too, is a step toward socialism, comrade.

My brother example, though true, is not a pat on the back for me. It illustrates the point of a progressive tax vs. flat vs. per capita tax.
Progressive – i pay
flat – we determine our incomes and take the appropriate % to pay the bill in full
per capita – split bill 50/50

I believe we all pay too much in taxes. Yes, that is right we all do. The poor (and rich, too) pay directly and indirectly. My point is that even under the current system – the rich still get to be rich and desrve no sympathy when they still win the game.

So we should force him to pay a higher tax rate for his own good? What if he would prefer to take his chances, pay the same tax rate as the middle class, and risk society failing. Whether or not you think that’s a rational decision should be irrelevant.

“Regardless of the inequities of the tax system, the super rich still manage each year to stay super rich. How does that happen in a system which you contend is sooooo unfair?” – Joe

You obviously think that our current tax system is at least some what fair. How close to socialism would the tax rate system have to get before you declared it to be unfair?

“Another example of the tax code is as follows:
My brother and I go out for lunch. My brother, a student, has limited means. I a working professional, have way more spare change. I pay for lunch every time, no questions. ever. Why because it is the right thing to do.” – Joe

And that is certainly a nice thing to do for your brother. Helping an old lady cross the street, when the opportunity presents itself, is also a nice thing to do. So is volunteering at a soup kitchen. This slippery slope is long and terrifying to consider.

“Now, if they each get a 5% return, person A will receive $500 and person B will receive $15,000. Now, who needs the money more?” – Nando

Do you really want Washington lawmakers asking themselves questions like this when considering a new piece of legislation?

Without the LAW – we are all at war – everday would be chaos and no one person would win. The strong individual will be felled by an army of individually weaker individuals. That army will be felled by another. So what of it then. We set up a game – our society – where we all have the chance to succeed. Yet, to keep everyone “playing the game”, incentives are required. Why would the legion of poor stay in the game – incentives. If they are not enough – they will revolt.

One such incentive is a progressive tax – so that the poor feel that they rich man didn’t “get away.” My billionaire vs poor example is why law matters more to the billionaire. It is the difference between a ten story fall and a 3 ft fall.

As for our respective brother examples, your implies a problem with the “gov’t” progarm of continually supporting a ne’erdowell. Mine simply asks who is better situated to pay, and provides a reason for it (stability for the rich) That is the basis of my argument. We have to get the money from somebody – so who pays. How do we continue to convince evereyone to play the game? How each day to we convince those to not steal or kill us on our way to our luxury cars. Incentives. When those incentives are no longer worth it or the wealthy see to be “getting away” with it, many may “stop playng” and opt for a different, far more confiscatory game (i.e. revolt).

Your brother example relies on the fact that there is a jail cell where he can be placed to save us all. To avoid a personal attack, let’s assume we aren’t talking about your real brother. I could say that you and your family should pay for his incarceration. Why should I have to pay for what is arguably your parent’s mess? My parents raised two law abiding citizens. Why should my family pay for a problem another family visited upon the rest of us? That isn’t fair to my family.

Lastly, you said “I am actually kind of ill from all the richman-hate occurs. Why should I aspire to be successful and wealthy if I am a pariah among men? Oh wait, I would be hated by those who are :

1) jealous of my status for whatever reason (there may be many) or
2) disgusted at the appearance of waste and luxury.

We aspire to wealth beacause of the advatages it brings – security, stability and the ability to enjoy life. We can, despite a progressive tax, still do that here.

Again, if worry about being a “pariah among men” and you are a billionaire – you’re way off base.

From a Hobbesian perspective, that would be the price they pay for the security and freedom that comes with living in this country.

Never, ever said we should celebrate the rich in my post. Nor should I argued sypathy for anyone. Nor did I imply either idea. But you certainly inferred it somehow. I commented on your comments on one line of my post, in which you state:

“Really. You think that an inner city poor person and a multi-millionaire / billionaire have the same risks if the US falls. Really.”

And commented on that. Not your tax code discussion, not about anything else. Your reactive post shows a hostility toward rich folk. Itis ingrained. And I openly challenged it and publicly wondered why.

Your example of paying for your and your brother’s lunch is an interesting one, though. You said it is the right thing to do. Why? What makes it right? That would make your tax code a question of morals, I believe. You know your brother has limited means, so you happily supply him his portion. Its a non issue.

But..Who says my moral character is like that.

One of my brothers has been in and out of jail for years. I have ensured that he is taken care of when we meet. I have even posted bond for him on numerous occasions. However, he never quits doing what he does (and no, none of it is drug related. He is just a con). I finally stopped funding him. Did our relationship change? Am I doing the “right” thing? Shouldn’t I keep supporting him even though he does not take steps to rectifiy his own situation?

With your example, I should. No matter how many lunches you have, there is nothing to persuade your brother to stop being a student in the example. Yes, he may become better off later, but by providing the free lunch now just does not provide incentive for him to become less dependent.

It all comes back to means. Just because someone has more money than he needs to survive does not indicate he should pay more governmental costs. Where did that come from? It is social engineering anyway you slice it. And why should it stop there, then. Why stop with taxes? Why not consumable goods as well? If you are rich, you should pay $10 a gallon of gas, while those poor folks should get it free, etc. Its called subsidising. And its wrong.

Seriously, read my posts. Did I say I hated the rich. No. Am I a socialist. No. Jealous – hardly. I am doing quite well. However, I don’t feel sorry for those who consistently win the game.

Regardless of the inequities of the tax system, the super rich still manage each year to stay super rich. How does that happen in a system which you contend is sooooo unfair?

My 1st post poses the question – who wins after the taxes are imposed. The winner is the one who has the most money when the game ends.

I do not resent Bill Gates or even Paris Hilton. But I have no sympathy for them either. I save my sympathy for those who need it.

Another example of the tax code is as follows:
My brother and I go out for lunch. My brother, a student, has limited means. I a working professional, have way more spare change. I pay for lunch every time, no questions. ever. Why because it is the right thing to do. He gets a lunch and I get to feel good b/c I helped him in a way I would have appreciated when I was a student. The graduated tax code on a micro scale.

I am actually kind of ill from all the richman-hate occurs. Why should I aspire to be successful and wealthy if I am a pariah among men? Oh wait, I would be hated by those who are :

1) jealous of my status for whatever reason (there may be many) or
2) disgusted at the appearance of waste and luxury.

Thats it. The first point is common among Man. The second is cursed of those with socialistic and social levelling ideals. Which one are you?

Really. You think that an inner city poor person and a multi-millionaire / billionaire have the same risks if the US falls. Really.

However-
The only way the government could get the money it wants without a revolt or armed revolution would be to :
1) Punish the rich and penalize the ambitious (current system)
2) Indirectly punish the rich (Consumption tax)

At least with the consumption tax, you are aware of it and it is very straight forward. Not like payroll taxes.

And if it takes loop holes for the rich to save a mill, let them. Simple laws eliminate loopholes.

I believe it got into the economic stimulus by tangent. I never intended to debate that issue (although I do believe that putting $600 in the hands of the populous will just lead to higher debt. For example, some might think, “Cool, I get $600 so I’ll put this $1200 flat screen on my credit card and pay it off later!”).

What I do believe is fair is to give more back to those who need it. That, to me, is fair. To others, giving the same percentage back sounds fair, until you realize that you end up hurting the “little” guy, and, again, I call that unfair. I guess we all have an application for the same word.

As for where to draw the line, the line will always be arbitrarily decided by someone (or some agency). And, I dare to bet my bottom dollar that it will be based on how much they think they can get away with (i.e. what your threshold of pain is). If they think you’ll accept 50% but complain about 55%, you will be charged at 50%.

Also, I believe Joe put it well when he said that those who have more to lose benefit the most from the services provided by the government and, as such, should pay the higher share.