It's not a penalty. If you conceptualize it as a penalty, of course you won't understand the logic. It's a usage fee. Nobody can get rich without the rest of society, from workers to infrastructure. If you doubt this, run a thought experiment of how rich you think Bill Gates or <your favorite billionaire> could get on a deserted island. It's great that they worked hard (though many people work as hard or harder--wealth is not purely a function of hard work) and got rich--their reward is that they're rich. They need to pay into the society that allowed them to get rich. If they don't think society helped them, they're free to donate all their wealth, move to a deserted island and show us all how successful a man or woman on their own can be.
I'm sorry buddy. That is a really ignorant comment to make. You want someone that is likely struggling to put a roof over their head to pay the same amount in taxes as someone that could afford multiple roofs over their head? Ridiculous.
Actually, no. However, I've reinvented myself (career-wise) around five times over the decades. And, yes...I've been on unemployment in Bend, OR. That said, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, moved to Tennessee, got my real estate license, and am on track to make around $300k this year. So what?! The point is? I took a chance, bro.
So why aren't you rich? Did you turn down your opportunities to be rich? Did you just not want to be rich? You just told us that everyone has exactly the same opportunities to be rich.
OK, what I'm relating is, just because I'm not "there, doesn't mean that the guy/gal who's arrived at that status (whatever that may be) should be penalized. It's a journey, my friend.
It's not being penalized. You give back to society. It is a privilege to pay taxes. That usually means you are doing well. Should someone born with a permanent disability "pull themselves up by the bootstraps?" Do they have the same opportunities as everyone else?
I agree. I also don't think they should be penalized. I think that it's fair for them to pay back into a society that helped enrich them. Not only is it fair, it also helps seed a prosperous society that can create the kinds of opportunities that give birth to more successful people, "rich" or not.
I can see a valid arguement to everyone pays, “x” percent of their income in taxes. What I think most people (at least myself)are frustrated with is all the loopholes and means for the ultra wealthy to get out of paying their fair share.
No they don't. Let's all agree, then, to give them a home in Carmel and complete compensation for life needs.
The problem with a flat tax is that if you set "X" too low, you don't collect enough taxes to run our society and if you set "X" too high, it's extremely damaging to lower income individuals and families. To be more clear, 10% of one's income (to pick a number arbitrarily because the exact number doesn't matter for this example) is a lot more meaningful to actually living for someone who makes 30k per year than it is to someone who makes 330k per year. The person making 330k per year will pay a lot more, but it'll barely impact their lifestyle. The person making 30k a year will be crushed by paying their "mere 3k." That's why we have "progressive taxation." It allows meaningful taxation on those who can afford it without killing those who can't.
You know what? I don't really oppose that proposition. So long as it's not completely disproportionate. OK, what does that mean? I'm not entirely certain. I would imagine that's negotiable, though.
That goes against your socialist agenda though. If the government isnt providing the services required for the person making 30k then in socialism (something you seem to be advocating maybe I am incorrect here), then its a failure of the system in your words. Also if were going by what you've said, like with health care it should be cheaper for the government to do it (and it might be) and they don't need to make a profit because its the government and if you haven't been able to tell our government seems to run perfectly fine on a ridiculously large deficit. They obviously arent collecting enough on taxes to keep up with our bills now, with a progressive tax rate. So it seems like we have the same issue with a flat tax as we would a progressive one if no ones going to keep spending under control.
My socialist agenda? Am I Bernie Sanders now? I promise you, I'm not that young. Jokes aside, I'm not sure what the contradiction is here. 1. Problems are approached from more than one angle. It makes sense to provide social programs for those in need, and it makes sense not to tax them into financial ruin. No one that I've seen, among the major candidates or on this forum, has suggested the government should pay for everything a person needs. There are some things that some of us liberals would like to be considered essential staples (housing, food, health care and education, for example) and other things (like appliances, vehicles, etc) that people need to purchase for themselves. So money still matters. 2. We don't currently live in Sanders' socialist haven, so what system is "failing?" The existing status quo? Agreed. Seems like a good argument for a new system.
I should not have said your socialist agenda, Im just saying in general that seems to be the POV your arguing for at least thats how I read it. Let me ask though if all those things are provided then someone making 30k if they’re crushed by a 3k bill then its probably their fault... The government no matter what they do, how much they tax cannot regulate out people making bad decisions. How would you even go about doing that...? The question of this very thread though is Bernie and Liz are proposing a tax that doesnt seem constitutional to get their desired “socialist haven” or parts of it and haven’t even attempted to answer how they can make that happen when their tax gets shut down. What Im saying though is a flat tax or progressive tax doesn't matter if spending is out control. Which part of your argument was well if they dont charge enough the government cant pay their bills. They arent paying their bills now, nor have they since the start of the 2000’s. So I guess my point is the progressive or flat tax really has the same sorts of issues if spending is out of control, and the government isnt providing people with what they need. Which is the real head scratcher those budgets are pretty freaking ridiculous for a country with so many homeless people.
Again, the government isn't currently providing those things and isn't likely to any time soon. So why would we abandon a progressive tax? Based on a theoretical system that doesn't currently exist? It's unlikely that we'll ever provide housing and food entirely--subsidies for those in need are the most likely, which means even in the far future where a Sanders-like agenda exists, this theoretical individual is still paying some money for housing and food. If they need a car (as many do in cities without great mass transit, which is a lot of them, and more rural areas where they need to go a long distance for work), the car itself costs, and insurance and maintenance are generally pretty significant costs. Since no one is advocating communism, it's likely that the poor will still struggle even with social assistance. All that said, we can always re-evaluate the need for progressive taxation when we've reached that point of social assistance. We're nowhere near it yet. They are paying their bills. Running a debt at the national level means that their bills are debt service--paying interest to their creditors. And the US pays those. Things would fall apart pretty quickly if the US stopped paying that. Beyond that, the federal government has mandatory spending built in--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those can also be seen as America's "bills."
