Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

It’s my body, not the governments

12346

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    So taxes on income would still be collected, the force of law would still be behind them even if one was writing a check to a congressional representative rather than the Department of the Treasury, correct?

    So if I considered those "institutional theft," what would you tell me?

    I thought I said this already, my view of the institutional theft is the different treatment. So if you are paying a marginal rate of 10% and I'm paying 28% marginal rates, the nearly 3x taxation on my marginal dollar is what I consider theft.

    If we are both paying 10% we may have a debate about if its being used well, but I'm paying the same fair share as you, 1 out of every 10 dollars earned.

    Ditto for the Social Security program. I believe I posted a link to the benefits formula. So the person getting 90% of his indexed income wasn't robbed. But those who reach the bend points of 32% and 15% benefits, but had to pay the same 6.2% FICA taxes plus either another 6.2% funded by self or the employer depending on how they earned their income, that person is being robbed when every dollar of indexed income does not result in the same 90% benefit.

    That's the institutional robbery, treating one person differently than the other.

    All should pay the same rate and get the same return. Do it differently and you have to rob one to pay the other a greater portion.

    I missed that when you wrote it earlier, thanks for clarifying.

    So if everyone paid the same rate to fund social safety net programs, you would still have issues with it, but they would no longer be the "institutional theft" issues, but just a debate over whether it was being used well? That is, the decision of the government to spend it would be a legitimate decision, just one that you disagreed with?
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    And, even if they are earning 20% of the income and paying 20% of the taxes, under a flat tax scheme, they will be bearing, as a group, 20% of the burden.

    In no way, shape or form will they be bearing the majority of a $4T burden under a flat tax scheme.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I see where we're miscommunicating. Once again, by "burden" I don't mean that they are paying more of the total money. I mean the impact will fall, disproportionately, on those who are making less. 10% of $55,000 is likely to make more of an *impact* on things like food budgets, transportation costs, saving for retirement/college than 10% of $500,000 will.

    Does that clarification make sense?

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.

    I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.

    This is exactly it. Thank you for expressing it so well.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.

    I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.

    The only disproportionate taxation system is the so-called progressive system where some have a bigger proportion taken out of their check.

    disproportionate - (adjective) not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number.

    If you take 10% from person A and 28% from person B, the amount taken from person B is disproportionate to the amount taken from person A.

    Therefore, a progressive tax system places a disproportionate burden on those taxed at higher rates. You correct this with a proportionate tax system where person A and person B are asked to provide the very same proportion of their income.

    I sometimes wonder if people understand the words they use. Suggesting that person B paying 28% while person A is paying 10% is proportional seems to defy the definition of the word proportional.


    Saying the only disproportionate system is the one you choose to recognize is disproportionate seems like a circular argument.

    Do you care to address the points that are being made about the different *burden* an equal tax rate would place on low and high income households? You don't have to agree that it's an obstacle to your plan, but I'd like to see at least what you have to say to reject it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    BTW, I never asked for taxes to be raised on anyone. I simply want those in higher brackets to have the same marginal rates as those in lower brackets. The burden placed on those in lower brackets would not rise. Instead, those in higher brackets would see relief from the disproportionate burden placed on them by the so-called progressive tax system.

    Then, we might see progress on the freedom front, where everyone faces a tax burden that is proportionally equal.

    The marginal rates are on income.

    For example (as an illustration, these are not accurate): 0% on the first $20K you make, 12% on the amount you make between $20-40K, 20% on the amount you make between $40-$80K, 25% on the amount between $80-$160K, 35% on the amount between $160-$400K, and 38% on all amounts over $400K.

    That's for salary, money earned in other ways gets treated differently (including some salaries which can be paid as if they were some other type of income).

    Then you get a deduction (I included that by saying the first $20K was tax-free, but in reality you will get it back because of the standard deduction), and in some cases the earned income deduction.

    And other taxes are paid (which many think are income taxes because they are handled through the same return, but aren't counted as such, really) for social security and Medicare.

    Thus, individuals are not given different rates. You can figure out what rate you paid averaged among all income (and throw in your property and sales tax and other local taxes if you like), but the higher rate is on marginal dollars above a certain point.

    If you get rid of the higher rates on higher incomes, you'd have to increase the flat rate beyond what many people currently pay when averaged over all their incomes. Almost certainly that would be the case for the median tax payer and likely the entire third quartile and into the fourth.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited April 2018
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.

    I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.

    The only disproportionate taxation system is the so-called progressive system where some have a bigger proportion taken out of their check.

    disproportionate - (adjective) not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number.

    If you take 10% from person A and 28% from person B, the amount taken from person B is disproportionate to the amount taken from person A.

    Therefore, a progressive tax system places a disproportionate burden on those taxed at higher rates. You correct this with a proportionate tax system where person A and person B are asked to provide the very same proportion of their income.

    I sometimes wonder if people understand the words they use. Suggesting that person B paying 28% while person A is paying 10% is proportional seems to defy the definition of the word proportional.


    I understand the words that I'm using just fine, thank you. I used the word disproportionate to refer to the burden placed on the taxpayers, not the rate of taxation. I don't think you understand how hard it is to just keep a roof over your head and food in the house when living with a poverty level income.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.

    I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.

    The only disproportionate taxation system is the so-called progressive system where some have a bigger proportion taken out of their check.

    disproportionate - (adjective) not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number.

    If you take 10% from person A and 28% from person B, the amount taken from person B is disproportionate to the amount taken from person A.

    Therefore, a progressive tax system places a disproportionate burden on those taxed at higher rates. You correct this with a proportionate tax system where person A and person B are asked to provide the very same proportion of their income.

    I sometimes wonder if people understand the words they use. Suggesting that person B paying 28% while person A is paying 10% is proportional seems to defy the definition of the word proportional.


    Saying the only disproportionate system is the one you choose to recognize is disproportionate seems like a circular argument.

    Do you care to address the points that are being made about the different *burden* an equal tax rate would place on low and high income households? You don't have to agree that it's an obstacle to your plan, but I'd like to see at least what you have to say to reject it.

    You go first. Suggesting that taxing person B more than person A isn't disproportionate is doing the same you accuse me. So go first. Own the fact that it's a disproportionate taxing system, but you are ok with that sort of inequality.

    I've lose faith in compassion because people want to be "compassionate" with other people's money. They don't trust others to be compassionate, so they must take more from person B in order that their vision of compassion is realized at the expense of the freedom of person B.

    Somehow, they've lost the plot on freedom when they think compassion is taking a larger percentage of what person B earns.

    I understand the rationale behind the so-called progressive tax system. I simply don't find it to be compassionate. If you have to TAKE from one to give to another, there is no net compassion. The so-called compassion shown to one is at the expense of the uncompassionate treatment of the other. At the very least, it's a wash, no more compassionate than before. In reality, it's uncompassionate to both because politicians gain more power in such situations and they tend to use the power to advance their careers, not solve problems.

    So you can argue it's not compassion. I believe just the opposite, that progressive tax systems that take from one and give to another are at best a push and more likely are less compassionate relative to equal treatment of income.

    I am okay with a tax system that is based on attempting equal *impact*. It's not something I'm trying to hide or cover up. Now that I make more money, I pay more total in taxes. This doesn't seem weird, unfair, or inappropriate to me. Placing a higher *burden* on lower income households to fund the government doesn't seem appropriate to me. Our tax system isn't perfect, I don't think anyone would argue that it is. But I think it's a better attempt at fairness than a flat tax rate on everything that a household is making.

    I'm sorry you feel accused of anything. I'm not trying to be accusatory, just trying to have a debate.

    I'm not sure why you're addressing comments about compassion to me. Are these meant for someone else? I haven't said anything to you about compassion.

    Someone indicated something to the effect.

    Again, perhaps I could have said some suggest....

    It's the "Royal" you, not the personal you. :)
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Well, for the sake of a graduated taxation system, @tbright1965 I hope you are unique and there is no royal “you”.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.

    I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.

    The only disproportionate taxation system is the so-called progressive system where some have a bigger proportion taken out of their check.

    disproportionate - (adjective) not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number.

    If you take 10% from person A and 28% from person B, the amount taken from person B is disproportionate to the amount taken from person A.

    Therefore, a progressive tax system places a disproportionate burden on those taxed at higher rates. You correct this with a proportionate tax system where person A and person B are asked to provide the very same proportion of their income.

    I sometimes wonder if people understand the words they use. Suggesting that person B paying 28% while person A is paying 10% is proportional seems to defy the definition of the word proportional.


    I understand the words that I'm using just fine, thank you. I used the word disproportionate to refer to the burden placed on the taxpayers, not the rate of taxation. I don't think you understand how hard it is to just keep a roof over your head and food in the house when living with a poverty level income.

    Actually I do. I grew up in a single parent home. I worked in the school cafeteria rather than take a free or reduced price lunch. I doubt schools do that today. I went to college on an ROTC scholarship because I knew my mom couldn't afford to send me.

    I made arrangements for trading my skills or labor for meals and education because even in grade school, I understood our family's finances. So I do understand and have lived that life.

    Then I'm not sure how else to explain that for people who are already living a very carefully balanced life could be placed at greater risk through a single rate tax system. You do realize that to maintain the current taxes collected, a single tax percentage would have to be higher than what the lower income brackets are currently paying. What do you propose is the solution for coming up with the difference?
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »

    Actually I do. I grew up in a single parent home. I worked in the school cafeteria rather than take a free or reduced price lunch. I doubt schools do that today. I went to college on an ROTC scholarship because I knew my mom couldn't afford to send me.

    I made arrangements for trading my skills or labor for meals and education because even in grade school, I understood our family's finances. So I do understand and have lived that life.

    Then I'm not sure how else to explain that for people who are already living a very carefully balanced life could be placed at greater risk through a single rate tax system. You do realize that to maintain the current taxes collected, a single tax percentage would have to be higher than what the lower income brackets are currently paying. What do you propose is the solution for coming up with the difference?

    Spend less.

    Do you really think we need to spend as much as the next 10 nations combined on defense? That's about 25% of the $4T the federal government spends each year. I'm sure there are some cuts to be made in that hairball of spending.

    Paying interest on our debt is 6% of Federal spending. We never pay any principle, just paying debt. If we were to stop deficit spending and start actually paying off some of that principle, we could free up more money for actually providing services to taxpayers instead of spending 1 of every 16 dollars collected paying interest to someone.

    Nearly 2/3rds of all spending is some sort of transfer payment. Twice as big as the DOD, there is probably some waste, fraud and abuse there. Start ramping it down. If states want to have these programs, let them have them. If people want out of Social Security, let them out. Something like you no long have to pay the 6.2% FICA taxes and we'll start crediting one or more years indexed contributions to SS for each tax year to your income taxes so you can invest the money yourself.

    The fewer beneficiaries there are, the less unfunded liabilities Uncle Sam has. And the money isn't taken out all at once, as those who opt out must take annual credits calculated based on their age and prior payments in FICA taxes.

    Anything that can be done by states is paid for by states. No need for federal funds to build roads, bridges, stop lights, schools. My state already self funds schooling at 93% Only about 7% of all education funds come from DC, so it's not a big hit. Much of the reason for that funding is federal mandates. Remove the mandates and much if not all the costs go away and it's a wash. Is it really proper for a rancher in Montana to fund a light rail project in Seattle with federal taxes?

    Or vice versa, people in Seattle funding a stoplight in Montana? If the community wants a stoplight, open your pocketbooks and fund it. Don't expect your congress critter in DC to go get the money.

    Besides, income taxes are only a small portion of the taxes collected. Many who pay at the lowest marginal rates, if they pay at all, pay far more in FICA taxes. So it's not like DC is going to go broke if income tax rates are equalized.

    DC will just need to be more selective about what it does.

    State and local governments have the freedom to do as they wish. So it's not like all taxes are going away.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.

    You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."

    We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.

    Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.

    Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."

    But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...

    I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?

    I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.

    OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.

    The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.

    The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.

    It simply isn't true. It's woo.

    I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.

    I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.

    The only disproportionate taxation system is the so-called progressive system where some have a bigger proportion taken out of their check.

    disproportionate - (adjective) not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number.

    If you take 10% from person A and 28% from person B, the amount taken from person B is disproportionate to the amount taken from person A.

    Therefore, a progressive tax system places a disproportionate burden on those taxed at higher rates. You correct this with a proportionate tax system where person A and person B are asked to provide the very same proportion of their income.

    I sometimes wonder if people understand the words they use. Suggesting that person B paying 28% while person A is paying 10% is proportional seems to defy the definition of the word proportional.


    Saying the only disproportionate system is the one you choose to recognize is disproportionate seems like a circular argument.

    Do you care to address the points that are being made about the different *burden* an equal tax rate would place on low and high income households? You don't have to agree that it's an obstacle to your plan, but I'd like to see at least what you have to say to reject it.

    You go first. Suggesting that taxing person B more than person A isn't disproportionate is doing the same you accuse me. So go first. Own the fact that it's a disproportionate taxing system, but you are ok with that sort of inequality.

    I've lose faith in compassion because people want to be "compassionate" with other people's money. They don't trust others to be compassionate, so they must take more from person B in order that their vision of compassion is realized at the expense of the freedom of person B.

    Somehow, they've lost the plot on freedom when they think compassion is taking a larger percentage of what person B earns.

    I understand the rationale behind the so-called progressive tax system. I simply don't find it to be compassionate. If you have to TAKE from one to give to another, there is no net compassion. The so-called compassion shown to one is at the expense of the uncompassionate treatment of the other. At the very least, it's a wash, no more compassionate than before. In reality, it's uncompassionate to both because politicians gain more power in such situations and they tend to use the power to advance their careers, not solve problems.

    So you can argue it's not compassion. I believe just the opposite, that progressive tax systems that take from one and give to another are at best a push and more likely are less compassionate relative to equal treatment of income.

    I am okay with a tax system that is based on attempting equal *impact*. It's not something I'm trying to hide or cover up. Now that I make more money, I pay more total in taxes. This doesn't seem weird, unfair, or inappropriate to me. Placing a higher *burden* on lower income households to fund the government doesn't seem appropriate to me. Our tax system isn't perfect, I don't think anyone would argue that it is. But I think it's a better attempt at fairness than a flat tax rate on everything that a household is making.

    I'm sorry you feel accused of anything. I'm not trying to be accusatory, just trying to have a debate.

    I'm not sure why you're addressing comments about compassion to me. Are these meant for someone else? I haven't said anything to you about compassion.

    Someone indicated something to the effect.

    Again, perhaps I could have said some suggest....

    It's the "Royal" you, not the personal you. :)

    Thanks for clearing that up. :)

    I wanted to make sure you knew that I didn't consider you to have a lack of compassion -- I know there are many different ways to demonstrate compassion that those who wish to make changes to/eliminate social safety nets do not necessarily hold that position because they don't have compassion.

Categories