- This topic has 5 voices and 39 replies.
-
Posts
-
But does that not raise the same question of fairness? Each person or family has an essential basket ofgoods and services that must be purchased to live a moderate standard of living--food, clothing, utilities, shelter, transportation etc . The low income person would pay a much higher percentage of his incomepurchasing these necessities than a wealthy person and have much less left over for inessential thingssuch as travel, educational opportunities such as museums, musical events and other cultural activities.Perhaps a hybrid could be worked out whereby people below a certain income paid no VAT or sales taxand establish another sliding scale depending on income for people above that level. I admit that theidea is attractive--no IRS, fewer intrusions into our personal lives by armed bureaucrats, no tax lawyers as there would be zero exemptions, no HR Block offices and no need for hordes of Lobbyists on K street chasing our representatives seeking special treatment under the tax code. I also know that manyEuropean nations have this--some in lieu of the income tax, some in addition to it. I have also heard that in order to meet the same dollar level as all other taxes it would exceed 25 percent!Still, it is an attractive alternative, but one sure to attract fierce opposition from all those who thriveunder the status quo. Would it not be wonderful to have no tax obligations each spring as you would be paying as you go--what a relief that would be. Has any serious politician had the intestinal fortitude topropose such a thing? I remember poor Mr. Forbes with his tax proposal. He looked like an overfedpatent medicine salesmen who earnestly believed in the efficacy and excellence his product surrounded by a host of less than credulous listeners.As a former Bureaucrat I leaned the iron rule of bureaucracy--grow or wilt! I do not think the IRS would go quietly into the night. They have all those files!
No it's the fairest tax imaginable. You buy, you pay. If you are poor, you don't buy as much, therefore, you don't pay as much. It's the only way I know that can allow people to basically decide how much tax they will pay. The system we have now doesn't allow choice, and it penalizes the the primary tax payers….the wealthiest 20%. It's not fair to the rich, and they count too.
Again, I have failed to make my point. If I make 17k a year any taxes extracted from me reallyhurt and my standard of living is pushed further down.If I make 1 million a year, my standard of living is not pushed down to the level of the working poorand I can live comfortable despite the ravages of the graduated and progressive income tax. I will continue to eat steak, get great dental work and drive a reliable car, all things that are probably notgoing to be available to of 17K guy after tax extraction. Taxes annoy guy 2--they hurt guy 1.Those who have more ought to pay more--it is the American way. It is in place now--really!Constitutional Convention anyone?
Again, I have failed to make my point. If I make 17k a year any taxes extracted from me reallyhurt and my standard of living is pushed further down.If I make 1 million a year, my standard of living is not pushed down to the level of the working poorand I can live comfortable despite the ravages of the graduated and progressive income tax. I will continue to eat steak, get great dental work and drive a reliable car, all things that are probably notgoing to be available to of 17K guy after tax extraction. Taxes annoy guy 2--they hurt guy 1.Those who have more ought to pay more--it is the American way. It is in place now--really!Constitutional Convention anyone?
No those who pay in more ought to get back more. You have it just the opposite. Taxes aren't supposed to be used to redistribute wealth in any way shape or form. Nor are they to be apportioned based on class or economic status. The wealthiest are the most penalized, therefore tax reform should begin with removing the burden from the wealthy who pay 80% of the taxes in this country.
From whence did you get the view that taxes are not to be used to distribute wealth? In what documentgoverning our actions might this be found. In practice it has been going on a long time--If I take your tax money and use it to help low income people pay your rent I am doing something wrong. Again, I am aiming for the greater good of the nation and slicing a bit of bacon from your ribs will not really hurt you.This is not Communistic or Socialistic--it is as American as pumpkin pie.
From whence did you get the view that taxes are not to be used to distribute wealth? In what documentgoverning our actions might this be found.
I would ask where it might be found that taxes are to be used to distribute wealth. Actually, what are the point of taxes in the first place? What is your opinion on this? I think this is the essence of the debate.
From whence did you get the view that taxes are not to be used to distribute wealth? In what documentgoverning our actions might this be found. In practice it has been going on a long time--If I take your tax money and use it to help low income people pay your rent I am doing something wrong. Again, I am aiming for the greater good of the nation and slicing a bit of bacon from your ribs will not really hurt you.This is not Communistic or Socialistic--it is as American as pumpkin pie.
No taxation without representation is American. Taxation is a necessary evil, note the keyword evil. It should be done equitably, as little as possible, and not to fund entitlement programs. Taxes are good for defense, roads, paying government employees who do the people's work, and very little else. If you want to help the lower income folks, there is the Salvation Army, your local Church or Synagogue, or your rich uncle who engages in generous philanthropic activity. Uncle Sam is not that rich uncle though.
Taxes are evil? I find this unacceptable and prefer the word a necessary and reasonable cost thatis part of living in a society that requires government at all levels to provide services. Is a fee for crossing a bridge an evil? Of course not. Our taxes are all in place passed by our legislatures--otherwise it would be extortion which it is not. Taxes are spent on what the government you elected elects not on those things that you personally have chosen as being worthy of receiving your donation. Where on earth do you get these ideas from? If you want to legislate==get elected. If not, pay what the law demands or suffer the consequences--the choice is yours.
Taxes are, and always have been, a redistribution of wealth; originally to pay for the specialized things that urbanization gave us. When we no longer, all, had to farm, some could do other things… those that provided services to the Crown and the general population had to be paid… taxes collected from the folks that benefited from those services were that pay. Simple.
The purpose of taxes in kind or money or labour or anything else is to defray the cost of government services. The fact that wealth is distributed is incidental. If I guard the walls of Sumer, I cannot farm andam supported by the ruler with distribution of grain, beer and other dainties. Taxes were not dreamed upby some cabal to sheer the sheep for no reason at all--that came later. Again I make the point--each government whether a despotism or a democracy decides how taxes will be spent. As an individual you have very little to say as to how much you pay, where or on what the extracted money should be spent.You do have to right to petition the government and elect your legislature as well as your President although that may be small comfort in most cases.
Nope, I'm a fan of V. Gordon Childe; he outlines the steps in the progress from a folk society to a civilized one, taxes being one of the steps. While the wikipedia article on the urban revolution (his term) doesn't mention it specifically it is part and parcel of #3 about using “surplus to fund gov't…”. Also pays for #'s 4 and 5 in the list.PS: I used this in a lesson.
I read his book too–a lovely blue and white cover–it is buried in my stacks somewhere. Yes–govt. must be paid for–nobody works for free at such a thankless task.
I reiterate, taxes are a necessary evil, as is government. Why evil? Because man should be independent and free to his own devises. However, because of the corrupt nature of man, and the complexity of civilization (primarily due to the corruption of man), government is necessary so that goods and services can be rendered equitably (in theory anyway). That being said, taxes and government must be designed to not over burden or intrude in the pursuit of man's happiness. Taxes should be cut wherever and whenever possible, and not levied at all if can be avoided. Ideally, if man were perfect, he would need neither taxes or government….alas, this is not the case.
