- 1,926
The rich have more money but don't deserve to pay more.... they had to WORK to get where they are today. In that effect, they don't deserve to pay more than your Average Joe just because his paycheck has 2 more digits than yours.
Eat the Rich
- Thread starter Danoff
- 196 comments
- 5,098 views
- 3,052
standard235
Not all of them do. Some lie, cheat, and steal. But that's a different story.
So you believe the poor should pay more than the rich? Or are you saying that income tax rates should be equal -- not graduated?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Who is arguing that taxes should be eliminated?
Me? No. I love taxes. Taxes are wonderful. Thank God for taxes. If only I could pay taxes every day... oh wait I do.
No I would not eliminate all (or almost all) forms of taxation. I (unlike some libertarians) understand the need to some income tax - and of course I understand the need for consumption tax. I would eliminate all "sin" taxes for sure, and probably property taxes... anything item-specific.
- 3,052
danoff
Maybe I'm under the assumption that Libertarians are mostly anarcho-capitalist. This may take some adjustment, bear with me.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
I don't think most Libertarians believe in "true" Capitalism (that is, absolutely no taxes). Since Libertarians want that the government still exists (police, courts, etc.), most freely accept the idea of a flat tax to keep that government running. It's the graduated taxes (and, as Dan noted, "item" taxes) that we're so vehemently against.
- 3,052
Read the platform.
- 3,052
danoff
I don't look at the platform as the carbon copy of all Libertarian beliefs. I look at it as a guide to give me an idea as to what you believe is important. I don't know what your positions are every single possible scenario -- therefore I can only make the assumption that some of what is outlined in the platform conforms with your beliefs.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
I'm still not entirely familair with the American tax system, how does it work? Is it just based on what you've purchased the past year? Or is it a just a flat charge based on how much you make regardless of how much you spent?
In any event, regardless of what it is, I think it should be based on your income. Everyone would pay a certain percentage of how ever much they make in a year, and the end of the year (March-May or w/e). It would go to hospital funding, public services etc.. I think I would be considered a Liberal.
In any event, regardless of what it is, I think it should be based on your income. Everyone would pay a certain percentage of how ever much they make in a year, and the end of the year (March-May or w/e). It would go to hospital funding, public services etc.. I think I would be considered a Liberal.
- 3,052
PS
As far as income tax is concerned its graduated so that the more you make the more you are taxed. They set it up into so called "tax brackets", which further widen the gap between the rich and the poor. I'm all for taxations, but a LOW FLAT rate would be best.
It is.
Nothing wrong with that.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I usually find it necessary to point out that we mean an equal tax RATE and not and equal amount of taxes. Proponents of the so-called 'progressive' tax system always say that it's fair that rich people pay more taxes than poor people, with the clear implication that any other system means that poor people pay MORE taxes than rich people.
But a flat tax RATE is ultimately fair: rich people pay more taxes because they make more money, but they are penalized no more heavily than poor people because the percentage rate is the same.
And personally, I prefer an honest flat-rate income tax with zero loopholes and minimal deductions to various forms of hidden tax like sales tax, etc. 1) it's clear and understandable, and 2) it doesn't discourage spending and economic vigor like sales tax or VAT does.
But a flat tax RATE is ultimately fair: rich people pay more taxes because they make more money, but they are penalized no more heavily than poor people because the percentage rate is the same.
And personally, I prefer an honest flat-rate income tax with zero loopholes and minimal deductions to various forms of hidden tax like sales tax, etc. 1) it's clear and understandable, and 2) it doesn't discourage spending and economic vigor like sales tax or VAT does.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Sure, but not the typical interest groups that people point to. We're talking about teachers unions and environmental groups here.
The reason we don't have a flat tax rate is because people see it as acceptable to tax others for certain behavior that they don't approve of. People think it's ok to tax smokers or tax drinkers or make children deductable or mortgage interest or tuition. People simply think that their lifestyle is good and should be rewarded and that others (minorities) should be taxed because there is something inherently wrong with their choices.
- 365
another reason could be that all the economists and experts in that area calculate that nations couldn't survive on flat rate?
im no expert on this at all, but having flat rate would mean that it has to be higher than lower rate now, and lower than higher rate. so, people who earn less, would have less, and people who earn more would keep more of their money. but in many societies, it is already hard for many average income people to make it through. wouldn't it be even harder with flat rate? for rich it wouldn't make much difference i suppose, cos they do not worry about budget for next month or week. they would just have money for another supercar. but people who earn little have to watch what they buy, and with flat rate, they would have to spend even less, no?
im no expert on this at all, but having flat rate would mean that it has to be higher than lower rate now, and lower than higher rate. so, people who earn less, would have less, and people who earn more would keep more of their money. but in many societies, it is already hard for many average income people to make it through. wouldn't it be even harder with flat rate? for rich it wouldn't make much difference i suppose, cos they do not worry about budget for next month or week. they would just have money for another supercar. but people who earn little have to watch what they buy, and with flat rate, they would have to spend even less, no?
- 365
government? no. i mean, flat rate has to be higher than lower rate to make up for loss of tax revenue from rich people. thats how i see it, but i dont know economy, it just seems logical. if you tax everyone the same rate, you loose income from rich people and, to keep spending on at least the same level, you will have to take this money from poor people [so lower tax rate will rise].
which won't make big difference for the rich, but will make for the poor. unless, with flat rate, you will limit spending on health, education and such. but that wouldn't be beneficial.
which won't make big difference for the rich, but will make for the poor. unless, with flat rate, you will limit spending on health, education and such. but that wouldn't be beneficial.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Let me try again. Why do we tax people? To fund government programs. You're saying that if we went to a flat tax rate - in order to fund all the same government programs taxes would have to go up and on the poor and down on the rich... and you're right.
So what's the real problem? We're funding too many government programs. If you go to a flat tax system AND reduce government expenses, you don't have to raise taxes on the poor because the flat tax rate would be lower.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
The main reason is not that the nation couldn't survive a flat rate, but that the politicians couldn't survive a flat rate. There are more poor people than rich people, right? So the dictatorship of the majority is safe in voting away the rights of the minority rich people, and they will elect representatives who will do just that.DemonSeed
It still doesn't make it right.
- 365
hmm, i dont know the numbers. i think that gov programs cost a lot of money and usually, most nations need more of those programs anyway.
and how could you make a flat rate the same or lower [??] than actual lower rate now? that would take away all the income form higher band, and i think it is quite substantial for any country. i mean, if you put whole uk on 20%, what programs would you have to close? would the country be able to exist without all this money it gets from people on 40%?
and how could you make a flat rate the same or lower [??] than actual lower rate now? that would take away all the income form higher band, and i think it is quite substantial for any country. i mean, if you put whole uk on 20%, what programs would you have to close? would the country be able to exist without all this money it gets from people on 40%?
i was thinking that flat rate would have to be, say 30% for all. so rich have more, and poor have less. you are saying that it could be 20% or less for all?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Hospitals don't have to be run by the government. You could remove that part of your governmnet immediately.
Here in the US if we went to a flat tax we could eliminate the IRS (or almost all of it) immediately. That would save us 10 billion per yer. We could (and should) eliminate welfare, medicare, social security, the FDA, OSHA, and countless other government programs that do not serve legitimate functions of government.
Edit: Plus we would actually collect our tax rate rather than just holding it out there as a ficticious amount while people find ways to take deduction after deduction to reduce their taxes.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
No. Politicians who tax the rich to feed, house, and treat the poor get reelected because there are more poor people doing the voting than there are rich people (since there are more poor people than rich people).DemonSeed
As I said, it is easy for the dictatorship of the majority to vote away the rights of the rich minority.
- 365
i dont know all that programs and what they do, but aren't there millions of people who use them? and if those programs weren't there, what would happen? say with medicare, people who do not have money would be left untreated and maybe die. if they didnt have money to be buried, they would drop them in a mass grave? or let them rot on the street?
as i see it, hospitals are needed. if you only allow people who have money to use them, you will have piles of dead bodies everywhere after some years and noone will clean them, because we dont pay for this form our taxes anymore. i know it is an extreme example, but it would be more or less like in meideval times. aristocracy had money and they were using them, the rest was rotting away in poverty without any help.
as i see it, hospitals are needed. if you only allow people who have money to use them, you will have piles of dead bodies everywhere after some years and noone will clean them, because we dont pay for this form our taxes anymore. i know it is an extreme example, but it would be more or less like in meideval times. aristocracy had money and they were using them, the rest was rotting away in poverty without any help.
