In the country that already has the most progressive tax structure among developed nations in the world? We'll agree to disagree.
Fine, let's go back to the tax levels of the 1950s and 1960s, when the American economy was booming and dragging the rest of the world with it. Fair?
Sure, if we can first bomb the rest of the world into oblivion to ensure we're the only industrial power standing after a global war. Oh, and can we also go to inflation-adjusted revenue outlays as well? Finally, to really replicate the 50s and 60s, we'd better reinstall all those closed loopholes that allowed the wealthy to avoid those oenerous tax rates at the top. Kthx. P.S. You didn't really believe people paid those rates, did you?
1) Increasing taxes isn't the answer 2) What you consider "wealthy", I don't. 3) The system is going to break (even worse) if people always default to "increase taxes on those making more than me".
nicely put, but I did read Kingspeed say basically the same thing about feeling fine about paying more a while back STOMP
Thank you for answering my question by not answering my question. 21st Century Liberalism: Higher Taxes For Everyone Else.
They were both very stupid questions, neither deserves an answer. Democracy works best if everyone votes for their own interest. Why should a select few be entitled to a benefit that hurts the majority?
Why do people earning over $107,000 get a 12.4% tax break? Why does Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate (15% capital gains) than the cleaning lady emptying his garbadge who is in the 0% tax bracket. She pays 15.3% payroll taxes. I'd be all for a flat income tax if it was for ALL taxes and ALL income. The rich love to bitch about how one type of tax has a progressive income rate then totally ignore all the other taxes that are highly regressive.
What "tax break" are you referring to? Surely you aren't talking about the SS cap, since that would be a silly argument. When she retires and doesn't have an income, her payroll tax will also go to zero. It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare SS as a "tax" to other income tax. The point of the SS tax is that you get back, in proportion, what you put in. Regular taxes don't work that way.
You think individuals social security contributions go into a bank account they get to withdrawal from when they retire? That would an interesting idea, but the modern system doesn't work that way. Payroll taxes subsidized all forms of federal government general operations including defense, law enforcement, public health and business oversight. It’s very much been that way since the Democrats and Regan overhauled the system in the early 80’s. Remember all the talk about how Regan “cut” taxes? People are referring to Regan cutting taxes for the wealthy. All those tax “cuts” were packages that in total were revenue neutral! How can you cut taxes if the bill is revenue neutral? The Democrats and Regan decreased the proportion paid by higher income individuals and increased payroll taxes for people earning under six figures. So yes I consider payroll tax to be a tax.
Nice try. I constantly am lectured by wealthy people telling me I have to pay more. They are more than welcome to pay more to an inefficient organization like the Federal Government. Who knows? They may inspire some people. Instead, they just talk down to us simply by their supposed willingness to pay more. Put your money where your mouth is.
If they pay the taxes they advocate, they would be putting their money where their mouth is. Your line of reasoning is exactly as silly as saying to someone who supports war, "If you want a war, you pay for it out of your own pocket. Leave me out of it since I don't support it." Some things are too expensive for individuals to make a dent, but an entire nation can. As long as the supporters of a policy are also willing to bear the costs of it, there's nothing hypocritical (which doesn't mean what they support, whether a tax hike or defense spending, is necessarily the right thing).
Except for the fact that "provid[ing] for the common defence" is part of our constitution. I'll pay any tax I'm legally required to pay. For those still telling me I should be willing to pay more, actions speak louder than words.
I believe at an individual level everybody is free to minimize their tax liability. Peoples opinion of how to create a more effective tax structure for the good of the nation is an independent issue. The foundation of our democratic government is we can all have a voice and opinion of how public policies are impemenented. Having that input is not dependent on donating a certain amount to charities or donating to the government. It's a right. We have the right to voice our opinon of how everybody should pay taxes. How Obama should pay taxes. How a single mom should pay taxes. How a teenager should pay taxes. How an illegal immigrant should pay taxes. How a wealthy executive should pay taxes. And how maxiep should pay taxes.
Yes, and some people feel that more taxes should be legally required. There's no difference between that and a war in Afghanistan. The Constitution doesn't require either one, it simply allows for either one to be enacted by the government. All you really seem to be saying is, "Things I think should happen, people can advocate for. Things I don't, they shouldn't advocate for and just do it themselves." Obviously, you're free to feel that way, but there's nothing particularly socially coherent about that view.
The equivalent posture isn't your example. Rather it would be to say, "I think we should fight Iran" and then go over there with a gun. Or those who volunteer for the military because of the War on Terror. If you believe the government needs more money, you're free to give it. It's like pieces of flair. Brian wears 37 pieces of flair, and has a terrific smile. Others choose to do the minimum and wear only 15. I choose to do the minimum. Let Barack Obama and TehChad be Brian.
