how much should the goverment take?

[seafox]

what is fair?
how did we get to the idea that one person pays nothing to suport the goverment and another pays something aproching half of their money, and thats fair?

christian religions typically ask a tithe 10% of income. should goverment take more than GOD?

the adverage cost of goverment is over 50% of american individuals income. Last I heard cost of goverment day is july third. tax freedom day I belive is in may, that is the day the actual money taken would be paid off if the goverment took everything first and then let you keep what you make there after. the cost of goverment includes all the book keeping,cost of regulations and unfunded mandates.
the extra 10 percent homes cost because of goverment regulation and that is just an example of all the cost regulations force people to suffer.

[formerlyknownasprince]

Mate - it depends on what they take it for.

If they take it so as to employ people - they oughta get zilch.

If they take it to create infrastructure - great - provided they don't do the building.

If they take it to provide essential services - like fighting wars - oops, I mean defence - then you get into a debate about how many services to provide

Mostly - they take it to make sure they get looked after - oops, I mean so that they can be of "public service" :D

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I think our tax free day is somewhere in June...

That's okay with me. I have no problem giving my money to fund social programs, as long as it's spent properly.

[Bruce Hooke]

Try visiting a country where the government has very little money available to do much of anything. I think you'll realize that you are getting a pretty damn good return on your tax money here in the US.

If the church had to do all the things that we expect of government, from supporing a military to building roads, I'd bet that they would need a whole lot more than 10% to get much done...

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

If you think the tax bite at present is bad, just wait. Somewhere down the line we will have to pony up for massive treasury hemorage going on know.
We are supporting an army in combat. This takes big money. We have another army of "contractors" (they're really mercinaries) and and you don't want to know how much those bad boys cost. We are simultaneously fighting a war and trying to repair war damage. You should be in this business. Unfortunately, all these juicy contracts have been let. And because we want to get the hell out of there we are trying to recreate the army we so successfully destroyed. More big dough.
Then there is all the military hardware we have used up in this war. The Pentagon is already crafting a request for all new stuff for the Regular Army and for the Guard and Reserve (their stuff got used up too).
And, as the money dissappears the President is hell bent on tax cut after tax cut.
The bill will come due.
About the only way I can see to get out of this is for the government to sell off all our natural resources including all the salt in the Great Salt Lake.
Charlie

[George Roberts]

seafox ---

First, you make the usual false claim: that we should pay taxes based on income. Second, you fail to make that claim clear.

I am all for making taxes equal. We will put a flat tax on all "property."

A man with $1 million in "property" will pay $20,000 a year in taxes. A man with $30 billion in "property" will pay $600,000,000.

Since income is a form of transfering property, income get taxed in this system.

Is taxing property a valid way to pay for government? Perhaps. After all the government protects our property as much as our persons. The infrastructure produced changes the value of property, increasing or decreasing it.


Seems fair to me.

The reason that the income tax will not be changed is that most have a very good tax situation.

[joejapan]

.

You've gotta' pay to live in paradise. :D

[ 11-13-2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: joejapan ]

[crawdaddyjim50]

The Fair Tax plan put forth by John Linder is a real solution to the problem of equal taxation and putting the power back into the hands of the people and getting the fox out of the hen house. Check it out..

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by crawdaddyjim50:
The Fair Tax plan put forth by John Linder is a real solution to the problem of equal taxation and putting the power back into the hands of the people and getting the fox out of the hen house. Check it out..OK, I'm a lying scum. I promised nothing but boats for three days, and I only made through one. I hope you will forgive my intrusion in a policy-wonk thread, even though I am still supposed to be in self-imposed exile from the bilge.

The biggest problem with Linder's plan is tax evasion. At a 30-50% sales tax rate on everything you buy (including medical care, attorney fees, consulting services, food, and utilities) the temptation to cheat on taxes goes up. The underground economy might well be even larger than it is now. A national sales tax rate of less than 10% combined with other consumption taxes and the "prebate" Linder recommends to avoid the regressive hit on those with lower incomes would probably be better -- and still eliminate the personal income tax return.

As an article in Money Magazine (http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/index.htm) says, just eliminating the personal income tax industry would save the economy $110 billion a year. Just think of all those accountants and lawyers freed up to take over the jobs of recently deported illegal aliens?

[Phillip Allen]

Presently, I'm not in the mood to take on this topic but that doesn't mean I don't have something to day about it. The topic is not so much about taxes as it is about the nature of our government. From my perspective, the question is do we exist to service government or does government exist to service us. My belief is that government is a service to the population and answers to the population (We the People). In that regard, we purchase government as needed. My cousin believes the opposite, that is, the government owns the people and as such we are chattel…he likes big central government and I do not. He thinks this way because he thinks he is a small fish and may get by with more and have more freedom because he is too insignificant to bother with…he may simply pay what is demanded and walk away from the responsibility of everyday governance. I believe that large central government is an indulgence and we pay for it by shaking down our neighbors. If I don’t want to drive on dirt roads or over pot holes, I may get the money to “improve” those roads by taking it from my neighbor. If my neighbor doesn’t want to pay for the pavement, then I through government, kill my neighbor. That is how taxes are pressed upon the population…pay or die. Yes there are many steps between non-payment and being bayoneted but that logical extreme exists none the less. The larger the government, the more coercive and the more likely the bayonet.

[George Roberts]

Phillip Allen ---

I guess I share much of your view of government.

But then there are those who want to share in benefits of government projects but not pay for them. Roads are a great example. Without the interstate highway system (a project built to benefit the military) life even for those who think they don't benefit would be so much different I don't know where to start.

In any case the people in the US are supposed to be the government and we are the blame for the government we have.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by seafox:
christian religions typically ask a tithe 10% of income. should goverment take more than GOD?
I always wonder whiy God needs even that much.

I mean, he is God, isn't he?

Maybe being omnipotent doesn't pay the bills.

[Paul Pless]

ljb5,

Tithing is not fundamentally a purpose for God, but rather is much more about bringing believers closer to Christ by making them rely on God more, and on money( and thus themselves) less. In its ultimate expression, Jesus states in the Bible, to become like small children, or in other words, become completely dependent upon God.

Most monotheistic religions and even many philosophies, think lessor Buddhism, express similar views for the promotion of happiness.

Paul

[ljb5]

So maybe the comparison to government taxation isn't particularly apt and anyone who makes such a comparison ought to feel darn silly?

[Paul Pless]

back on topic, "How much should the government take?"

The issue I have, and most people in my position have regarding taxation is the following: Sure I make what is generally regarded by most people as alot of money, however, I worked very very hard for what I have accomplished. What right does the government have to take that money that I have earned, through taxation, and treat it as a simple transfer of wealth and give it to those that have not shown an inclination to work - or at least an incilnation to work as hard as I have.

I will not argue that a large part of the reason for my success is that I live in a society that has allowed me to succeed financially. I have no problem with paying for an infrastructure that promotes industry and trade. I have no problem with taxes that fund schools and colleges, because surely I have benefited from an educated populace. But for the government to arbitrarily take what I have worked for and give it to another individual rather directly and awefully ineffieciently based solely on the merit that I have more money than that person seems rather greedy and presumptious and even evil by some extension.

Paul

[ 11-14-2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Paul Pless ]

[Paul Pless]

So maybe the comparison to government taxation isn't particularly apt and anyone who makes such a comparison ought to feel darn silly? I didn't say that.

[joejapan]

.


I always wonder why God needs even that much. 'Specially since he can't smoke, drink alcohol, tea, coffee or cokes.....! :D


Tithing is not fundamentally a purpose for God, but rather is much more about bringing believers closer to Christ. The Mormon Church collects at least $6 billion a year from its members, and generates at least another $5 billion in sales from its various business enterprises; total church assets exceed $30 billion. (At least 100 companies are controlled by the Mormon Church, and its total annual business revenues last year exceeded $20 billion!)

Just how much money does The Church need to get it's people close to God...?

Does The (tax exempt) Church pay a fair share of taxes...?

How much should The Church take.....?

How much is fair.....?

[emichaels]

Originally posted by joejapan:
.

You've gotta' pay to live in paradise. :D I've been to Norway many times and that is my paradise !

[emichaels]

Originally posted by Paul Pless:
back on topic, "How much should the government take?"

The issue I have, and most people in my position have regarding taxation is the following: Sure I make what is generally regarded by most people as alot of money, however, I worked very very hard for what I have accomplished. What right does the government have to take that money that I have earned, through taxation, and treat it as a simple transfer of wealth and give it to those that have not shown an inclination to work - or at least an incilnation to work as hard as I have.

I will not argue that a large part of the reason for my success is that I live in a society that has allowed me to succeed financially. I have no problem with paying for an infrastructure that promotes industry and trade. I have no problem with taxes that fund schools and colleges, because surely I have benefited from an educated populace. But for the government to arbitrarily take what I have worked for and give it to another individual rather directly and awefully ineffieciently based solely on the merit that I have more money than that person seems rather greedy and presumptious and even evil by some extension.

PaulThat right Paul, it's called socialism welcome to America. For those that did NOt pay attention to civics class in HS, congratulations you may have found the truth.. I agree with you 1000% Paul. This is a wierd way to run a society.

Eric

[ 11-14-2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: emichaels ]

[joejapan]

.

I've been to Norway many times and that is my paradise ! I understand, and I agree...! smile.gif Incredibly beautiful cruising, and the park in Oslo where Vigland's sculptures are...? Incredible ! :cool:

Boy, they pay some high taxes though, don't they..! :eek:

When you go back, and if he's still there, go over to the Embassy and meet John Ong. I know him from someplace else. ;) He's a great guy and, even though he's busy, you can probably get in to meet him. He can sure help you get some good travel connections.

[Keith Wilson]

How much should the government take? That question is analogous to walking into a large department store and asking, "How much does your merchandise cost?" The government should take just enough in taxes to do with reasonable efficiency what the citizens want it to do. So what should the government do? There's a question worth discussing.

"Who should the government tax?" is another question entirely, and only marginally related to he first one. For any given level of government spending, there are many different ways of raising the money. The question of which type of taxation is most fair and just (or perhaps least unfair and unjust - it amounts to the same thing) must be discussed independently from the question of government’s proper functions.

The functions we want government to perform determine tax rates. How taxes are structured is a separate issue.

The percent of GDP taken by the federal government in taxes has been roughly constant for 50 years. The percent of GDP in state and local taxes has been roughly constant for the last 30 years. While one can certainly argue that it's too high, it has not been increasing for a long time. I have a link to a pretty good chart that shows the changing ratios of the various taxes, but I can't find it right now; I'll post it in the morning.

And emichaels, calling the US "socialist" is simply silly. The word has a specific meaning and it does not describe this country. You may want the government to do much less. That's certainly one reasonable opinion, but it does not make the US socialist; that's just name calling.

[ 11-15-2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Keith Wilson]

Here's the chart. Note that federal tax reciepts have been roughly constant as a percent of GDP since around 1955, and state and local taxes since around 1975. It would be interesting to compare this on a similar chart with government spending and borrowing over the same period, particularly the large increases in borrowing during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but I don't have good data at hand.

http://www.urban.org/PublicationImages/1000556/chart1.gif

[Rick Tyler]

Interesting chart, Keith, but it doesn't go back far enough. The disturbing interpretation is that the federal tax bite hasn't gone down since WWII. There has never been a "peace dividend." I wonder if this is Parkinson's Law for government spending -- the people in charge will spend whatever is available.

[Keith Wilson]

It doesn't go back far enough? Well, perhaps.

Sometimes it seems to me there are folks on the right who really want to go back to the sort of federal government we had in the 1890s, when men were men and capitalism was free to flourish without any of these nasty modern innovations like income tax, wage and hours laws, food and drug laws, safety regulations, antitrust laws, any of that. I think in most cases this comes from a profound ignorance of what things were really like at that time, but there's no accounting for taste.

The point was, however that, the government is NOT getting bigger and bigger; it hasn't for fifty years. One can certainly argue that it has been too large the whole time.

[ 11-15-2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

It seems that the general concensus from most rational people here is that taxes are necessary... and we disagree on 1) how MUCH tax is necessary, and 2) how we decide to levy taxes.

Speaking for the largely unknown but most significant political force in this country (namely, moderates! ), I am happy to pay taxes that support programs that are necessary and efficiently run.... and I oppose wasteful and ineffective tax expenditures.

I'd also agree, to a limited degree, with the conservatives (well, with the 'paleo' variety, not the 'neo' variety), that I'd like to see the least amount of government possible.... consistent with supporting the infrastructure, providing for defense, and also providing those social programs that are indeed necessary, practical, and efficient.

As for HOW we levy taxes, I really don't care.... as long as the tax plan is:

1) progressive, and
2) promotes savings and investment as the ONLY vector into economic engineering via tax policy.

I oppose the flat tax... 'fair' tax... sales tax... and all other plans IF their net effect is the reduction of progressivity. There is no question whatsoever that these tax proposals, as plausible and fair as they might seem on the surface, all have the same net effect, namely, shifting the tax burden more towards the middle class.

After decades of increasing income inequity in this country, that's the LAST thing we need.

[peb]

Keith, yes the government's tax bite has been getting bigger!!! In 1950 years ago it was less than 24%. In 2000 it was around 29%. Since we are talking about a percentage of GDP, a >5% increase is significant.

This is assuming that the dropp off in everything except state and local taxes in 2000-01 was temporary and due to the stock market collapse. Which I am pretty sure is a safe assumption.

And when talking about tax burden on the economy, we need to include deficit spending. It is often said that these huge debts have to be paid by our grandchildren, and I suppose this is true, BUT... Deficit spending is a real tax on our economy today!!!. It is money the government is either borrowing, which could go to somewhere else in the economy or "printing", which is a tax by devalueing our exiting money.

[Norman Bernstein]

Keith, yes the government's tax bite has been getting bigger!!! In 1950 years ago it was less than 24%. In 2000 it was around 29%. Since we are talking about a percentage of GDP, a >5% increase is significant.
If we consider the rather dramatic increase in certain benefits, especially Medicare, I think that the increase in the past 60 years is shockingly modest.

[ 11-15-2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Keith Wilson]

peb, look at the chart; it's from the government’s own figures. There are fluctuations year to year, but the trend line for federal tax receipts has been essentially flat since 1955. 2000 is a bad year for comparison, because it's a local maximum, the last year of a long economic expansion. Likewise, if you ignore year-to-year fluctuations resulting from the state of the economy and minor changes in law, and look at the trend line since 1975, total tax receipts for all government entities has been roughly constant. Yes, you can pick years for comparison that will show either expansion or contraction, (federal taxes in 1991 were about 16% of GDP, as opposed to 18% in 1953) but the trend line is more or less flat. As Norm points out, the increase in benefits has been significant, but so has the increase of GDP per capita. Again, tax rates are determined by what we want the government to do.

And I agree with you about government borrowing. National debt relative to GDP has been steadily decreasing since WWII (that’s the peace dividend, I think) with the exception of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Note that between 1980 and 1992, the national debt went from 35% of GDP to 65%. The very large increases in borrowing (even relative to GDP) under Reagan and both Bushes don’t show up in the first chart above. If you have a graph that shows both the federal deficit and national debt relative to GDP on the same chart, it would be helpful. For now, this is the best I can find.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

[ 11-15-2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[emichaels]

Originally posted by joejapan:
.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I've been to Norway many times and that is my paradise ! I understand, and I agree...! smile.gif Incredibly beautiful cruising, and the park in Oslo where Vigland's sculptures are...? Incredible ! :cool:

Boy, they pay some high taxes though, don't they..! :eek:

When you go back, and if he's still there, go over to the Embassy and meet John Ong. I know him from someplace else. ;) He's a great guy and, even though he's busy, you can probably get in to meet him. He can sure help you get some good travel connections.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes they do pay high taxes but they get an awful lot for it. There is no question that the people of Norway on average are much better off and enjoy a more free life than we do in America.

Vigiland Park is a stopping point each time we go. Munch museum also. We are lucky in that my wife's sister married a Norwegian. We go often and enjoy the unrestricted freedom boaters have to access private property. They own several boats and have their own mooring field and dock in Sandefjord. It is where I learned to sail and pilot a large motor boat.

[ 11-15-2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: emichaels ]

[Keith Wilson]

Here's a chart showing the federal budget deficit or surplus over roughly the same period. Down is deficit, up is surplus. I guess the national debt would be the integral of the deficit curve.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/162/1754/640/2.jpg

[ 11-15-2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George.]

http://www.urban.org/PublicationImages/1000556/chart1.gif

It looks like the big leap in government uptake was WWII. Understandable.

After the war was over, the gov. kept taking a similar percentage of national wealth. The Cold War was on. Understandable.

During the 1960s, when most of the American "socialist" programs came into being, the percentage didn't rise visibly. ;)

And now that the Cold War is over, the percentage remains.

I wonder: how much of what the government "takes" is spent on maintaining the world's largest military force, and enough bombs to blow up the planet several times over?

And why do right-wingers always cite social programs when they whine about taxes, but never mention "defense" spending?

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Paul Pless:
Tithing is not fundamentally a purpose for God, but rather is much more about bringing believers closer to Christ by making them rely on God moreThe church is doing me a favor by taking my money. Now that takes faith.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Paul Pless:
to become like small children, or in other words, become completely dependent upon God.
If God wanted you to be a small child, why did He allow you to become an adult? If you want to become really dependent on God, why stop at giving away your money? Why not get a lobotomy, stand on a street corner and beg? Chop your arms off? Stop breathing?

The analogy to Buddhism fails entirely. No self-mutilation necessary. Possession is only one of the delusions which you must overcome so as not to waste your life in childlike attachment to delusions.

[Keith Wilson]

Here ya go, George. The one odd thing is that veterans' benefits are included under "social programs" not defense. I also don't see any spike in spending for the occupation of Iraq; I think the administration did some accounting magic so it doesn't show up in the normal defense budget. :rolleyes:

http://home.comcast.net/~andy_dunn/defense_fraction_gdp.png

http://home.comcast.net/~andy_dunn/defense_per_person_constant.png

http://home.comcast.net/~andy_dunn/defense_fraction_spending.png

I'm not absolutely sure sure if the last chart includes Social Security as part of federal spending, but I think it does.

[ 11-15-2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Paul Pless]

Osborne Russel,

Don't be a jackass. The religious suggestion for believers to tithe, is completely voluntary. If you don't believe in God or subscribe to another philosophy of self sacrifice, then what purpose does it serve for you to ridicule those that do believe? Is this the type of behavior that is promoted among the 'intellectually elite'?

Paul

[PatCox]

Ah ha, so the idea of "redistributive" taxing has arisen, someone asked "why should my money be taken to give to another just because he has less."

Well, for one thing, even the most redistributive tax scheme ever took from the rich to give to the poor simply to even out wealth. The only people who actually are given money don't have less, they have nothing.

The redistribution is accomplished by taxing larger incomes at a higher rate, and lower incomes at a lower rate.

Its not really socialism, so much.

Of course people will violently disagree, but its really kinda like market regulation.

Its just a fact that society as a whole is better off when there is less income and wealth disparity. Not to mention that democracy becomes pretty much impossible when there is extreme wealth disparity, as wealth equals power and the powerful get their way.

The fundamental truth of the world is that in the absence of government intervention, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This goes on until the poor get so fed up they rise up and kill the rich. In the meantime, those societies with enormous wealth and income disaprities, are pretty ugly, nasty places. There is massive poverty and squalor and crime, while the few rich, even though they are very wealthy, have to hide in walled compounds surrounded by armed guards. This describes much of the third world, all thsoe great places where there is no government intervention in the marketplace and the invisible hand is doing its work.

On the other hand, where there is relative equality, society is better, just plain better. All of the pleasant places in the world that people like to visit have redistributive tax structures, or had them until recently. All of the squalid hellholes are places where taxes are low, of course.

So the answer to why the rich should be squeezed even tighter, is simply because extreme wealth disparity is a social negative that the government has determined to discourage.
Its been true throughout history that countries that have extreme wealth disparity tend to be despotic ****holes, whereas countries with relative equality or reasonable equality (I am not suggesting noone should be allowed to get rich) in wealth tend to be free and pleasant places.

So thats what you are paying for.

[PatCox]

Oh, and as for tithing, according to Acts, the original followers of jesus, those who knew him and met him, essentially tithed 100%; they held all they owned in common. The penalty for holding back anything for yourself, as the illustrative anecdote of barnabas shows, was death. The christian bible is the source of the axiom "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need," not Marx, Marx was just paraphrasing Luke the evangelist.

[peb]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
peb, look at the chart; it's from the government’s own figures. There are fluctuations year to year, but the trend line for federal tax receipts has been essentially flat since 1955.

Keith, I can see that federal receips ere flat, but the total tax burden on the economyt has gone steadily up. And the only reason why the federal tax receipts have because an overall increase in the national deficit has been how the federal government is "taxing" us.

[ 11-15-2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by George.:
And why do right-wingers always cite social programs when they whine about taxes, but never mention "defense" spending?According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending fell from 9.4 percent of GDP in 1968 to 3.8 percent in 2003. The "peace dividend" has been consumed by non-defense spending.

[PatCox]

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. Acts 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. Acts 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"). Acts 37 He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

[Keith Wilson]

Ah, here it is! This is the graph I've been looking for, although it only goes through 2000. peb, I think we're both right, depending on how one looks at the data. Federal tax receipts have been roughly constant. Federal spending as a percent of GDP increased some in the late '60s and early '70s, took another jump in the '80s, decreased significantly during the Clinton administration, and I think has gone back up a lot since 2001 (I'll see if I can find the most recent data). In this we see the effects of the large increases in national debt during the Reagan and Bush administrations. The ironic thing is that the data shows exactly the opposite of what is claimed by politicians, that it is mainly the Republican administrations since 1980 that have increased the size of government relative to GDP, not by increasing taxes, but by borrowing a bunch of money.

http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/rosGDP081501.gif

[ 11-15-2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Paul Pless:
Osborne Russel,

Don't be a jackass. The religious suggestion for believers to tithe, is completely voluntary. Ever been to Utah? Merely one example.


Originally posted by Paul Pless:
If you don't believe in God or subscribe to another philosophy of self sacrifice, then what purpose does it serve for you to ridicule those that do believe? Is this the type of behavior that is promoted among the 'intellectually elite'?[/QB]I don't know the intellectual elite. I doubt they exist. If they do I doubt I'd like them, or they, me.

As for believers, it's not ridicule, it's the refusal to gloss over hypocrisy.

As has been shown, Jesus was a Communist. American Christians would rather be crucified than admit it.

Christianity has striven to live up to Jesus' high standards, and is to be commended in proportion to it's success, in that regard. As you say, it's about self-sacrifice. Hm, don't see much of that, though I hear a lot of talk.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration, while promoting the "power" of the faithful, by giving them my money, so they can be more faithful, are put to the test by Katrina and the torture, among other things. This administration, its policies, and its supporters are said to represent the true Christian Nation of America. If that's true, then it's Civil War II. Is it true?

What does it have to do with a fair rate of taxation? Fairness depends a lot on what the money is being spent for. The truly fundamental common interest, of everybody? Or is the state supposed to serve something even more fundamental, such as The Creator's desire for states erected in His name?

[Paul Pless]

... So thats what you are paying for. Pat that's arather interesting and compelling arguement that I shall have to mull over for a while. My initial reaction is that in these other societies that you suggest that the poor overthrew the rich; the poor actually worked and were being exploited by the upper class. Whereas, now I feel that a not insignifigant portion of the population feel as though they are entitled to receive something for nothing.

For instance, just this last week, I saw an interview on my local news of a woman who was upset because her home was being torn down and replaced with a new one in a gated community. She claimed it was racist for her to be 'locked' up away from the rest of society. What really bothered me was the fact that this woman was living in public housing, and had done so since 1969 - for 36 years straight. To me, it inexcusable for a condition to exist such that money is taken from me and given to an individual who is unwilling to attempt to care for themself.

Paul

[Norman Bernstein]

The fundamental truth of the world is that in the absence of government intervention, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This goes on until the poor get so fed up they rise up and kill the rich. In the meantime, those societies with enormous wealth and income disaprities, are pretty ugly, nasty places. There is massive poverty and squalor and crime, while the few rich, even though they are very wealthy, have to hide in walled compounds surrounded by armed guards. This describes much of the third world, all thsoe great places where there is no government intervention in the marketplace and the invisible hand is doing its work.
PatCox, thank you for expressing the obvious in such an elegantly simple way... thank God at least SOMEONE else around here gets it! smile.gif

[Keith Wilson]

The fundamental truth of the world is that in the absence of government intervention, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This goes on until the poor get so fed up they rise up and kill the rich. Thanks Pat. That this should need to be said at all is kind of depressing, but it was very well said.

[Paul Pless]

The fundamental truth of the world is that in the absence of government intervention, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This goes on until the poor get so fed up they rise up and kill the rich. Alright this quote has been cited a number of times now with nary an arguement. Describe, give me an example of where this has truly happened - without governmental intervention.

Or, has some government almost always been in place that actually led to the exploitation of the poor.

[PatCox]

Paul, there are sociologists who suggest we are buying peace from the poor, that we are buying the freedom from social unrest, with social programs.

Many childless people bitch about schools and school taxes and say "why should I pay for their brats to go to school." And the answer is, because by doing so, you prevent their brats from growing up to be criminals and robbing your nice mansion. (You also help ensure they become productive members of society who contribute taxes to share their burden of the load).

Its similar. Fox-Piven and Cloward wrote a book called "Regulating the Poor" which argued that social welfare programs promote unemployment, which ensures lower wages and a steady supply of workers.

Beyond that, there are and will always be a certain percentage of the population that for whatever reason just cannot hack it, they are not made of tough enough cloth. We do support them; its called charity precisely because it is not deserved, if it were deserved it would not be charity.

But that shouldn't be your major concern because I doubt it makes up 5% of your total tax burden. The overwhelming majority of spending on social programs right now goes towards our parents SS pensions and their medical care, programs for middle class people.

The rest, the flat out welfare and housing for able bodied non-workers, its peanuts in the budget.

[PatCox]

Paul, prior to democracy, "government" and "the wealthy" have been pretty much synonymous. And in almost all non-democratic societies, there has been a very very small number of rich people (the kings and nobles) and a very large number of desperately poor people, the serfs or slaves or whatever. Examples abound in history.

Progress in freedom and advancement in technology and almost everything else that makes a country great seems to be linked to the development of a middle class, with the larger number in the middle, the better the society.

[George.]

Originally posted by Paul Pless:
Describe, give me an example of where this has truly happened - without governmental intervention.

Pat just answered your qualifying phrase - "without government intervention." Government is the rich.

Having said that, France and Russia for starters. Spain had a very bloody civil war to keep it from happening there. And I won't even start on the third-world examples - although I might cite Mexico, China, and Vietnam, just for kicks.

[Jagermeister]

It seems to me that the examples quoted can be interpreted as demonstrating that the rise of the middle class and the increased distribution of wealth has occurred as a result of the restraint of government. The Magna Carta, Des Droits de l'Homme, the Bill of Rights, and so forth. As governments have become more constrained, so people have become better off.

This would argue for a curve with an optimal level of government at neither extreme. If effect, it implies to me that too much government concentrates wealth in a few hands, just as readily as no government.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . I feel that a not insignificant portion of the population feel as though they are entitled to receive something for nothing.
The rest, the flat out welfare and housing for able bodied non-workers, its peanuts in the budget.A thought experiment: How many people of working age do you actually know that are living off government handouts? (Leave out Social Security for retirees.) I know precisely one, and she has rheumatoid arthritis so bad that she can barely walk, let alone work. I understand that the people I know are not a necessarily a representative sample, but if you look up the numbers, the percentage of tax money that supports people who are capable of supporting themselves is pretty small. Welfare is very very diffrerent than it was a generation ago, but popular perception, at least on the right, has not caught up with reality.

Jägermeister, (gotta keep Martin happy ;) ) I entirely agree; too much is at least as bad as too little. However, a one-dimensional measurement of “size of government” may not be the best measure. Let’s just consider government intervention in the free market. With too little, one ends up with El Salvador in the 1930s where something like twelve families owned most of the land in the country, and almost everybody was dirt poor. Too much, and you have East Germany. The problem is that concentration of wealth breeds concentration of power, which is then used to write the rules to increase the wealth and power of those who already have it. In the case of state-dominated economies, there is already too much concentration of power, which usually serves its own interests rather than those of The People in whose name it’s supposed to be running things.

[ 11-15-2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[peb]

PatCox posted:

The fundamental truth of the world is that in the absence of government intervention, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This goes on until the poor get so fed up they rise up and kill the rich. This is a ridiculous statement. By no means is this a fundamental truth. I would not attribute the rise of the middle class in 20th century America to government intervention. The government did very little about the enormous concentration of wealth that arose during the industrial revolution. Labor unions and farmers gave us much of the wealth distribution that occurred without that much help from the government.

Norman Bernstein posted:

As for HOW we levy taxes, I really don't care.... as long as the tax plan is:

1) progressive, and
2) promotes savings and investment as the ONLY vector into economic engineering via tax policy.

I oppose the flat tax... 'fair' tax... sales tax... and all other plans IF their net effect is the reduction of progressivity. There is no question whatsoever that these tax proposals, as plausible and fair as they might seem on the surface, all have the same net effect, namely, shifting the tax burden more towards the middle class.

After decades of increasing income inequity in this country, that's the LAST thing we need. Well, this is all well and good. But the problem is no one wants to address the parts of the tax system that cause it to not be progressive at this time. Payroll taxes are largely regressive. No one wants to do anything about them except remove the cap so higher income people pay the same percentage as lower income. But this does not do anything to reduce the payroll tax burden on the lower income population (which is much more regressive than the tax burden is on the middle class).

I think I would structure a federal tax system as follows:

1) Keep a progress personal income tax. Get rid of most excemptions except for retirement accounts, medical accounts, etc. Simplify it, but keep it at the same levels. It actually seems pretty fair to me right now.
2) Transfer corporate tax burden to shareholders 3) Get rid of the payroll taxes for SS, medicare
4) Get rid of the AMT tax system
5) Replace the payroll taxes and AMT with a national sales tax. So that it does not provide a burden on the poor, don't tax food, utilities for modest homes and a few other essentials

I think this would make the overall tax system more progressive, it gets rid of two non-progressive taxes: corporate income taxes and payroll taxes. The tax that it replaces them with would be progressive for lower income people. I don't think the burden would not shift from the rich to the middle class.

Keith Wilson wrote:

A thought experiment: How many people of working age do you actually know that are living off government handouts? (Leave out Social Security for retirees.) Very good point. While we are at it, can we get rid of the myth that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes.

[Keith Wilson]

peb, do you think labor unions became powerful enough to take on commercial interests without changes in law, i.e. government intervention? Look up the Clayton Act of 1914 for one good example. The reason that unions were able to have as much influence as they did was because of laws that forced employers to deal with them somethat fairly, and restricted the tactics that could be used against them. One major reason that they have declined in influence has been subtle changes in the law which have shifted the advantage in the the other direction.

[ 11-15-2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[peb]

Keith,

Well, the Clayton Act made our economy function better from a market and competitive viewpoint and deterred monopolies. I am not saying the government did nothing to aid the rise of the middle class, that would be rediculous. I am only saying that it is ridiculous to say it is "fundamental truth of the world" that the government is the only means of income distribution (which is what PatCox stated).

Of course, his statement would be fact if you consider that the government has to enable ANY economic system so it is obvious that is the case. But then I could answer that unless a government enabled it, it would be impossible for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Either way it an absurd argument. A government has to enable/permit ANY economic system.

BTW, I thought you denied the ability to for us to know of any fundamental truth of the world. So I would think you would agree with me smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

[Gonzalo]

Practically every prosperous, developed nation in the world today has a fairly large middle class and some form of what I call a high-service, high-tax government. Examples are obviously most of western Europe, Scandanavia, Canada, and the USA.

All of these countries are first and foremost functioning democracies. I think this is important, because democratic governments force broad interests to be considered in governing.

All these countries have in common some form of regulated capitalism, with most business in private hands. Their economies are more or less heavily regulated to promote corporate responsibility, workers rights, infrastructure development, education, and other "public goods". Also included in these countries's economies is a social safety net, some degree or another of a welfare state.

All of these countries have a large and stable middle class.

I am not making the case here that governments offering high services at the expense of high taxes are necessary for prosperity. However, conservatives have been making saying for a couple of decades that prosperity is best produced by low tax, low service, low safety net governments. As a layman, not an economist, I look around at prosperous, western economies and say "It ain't necessarily so."

All nations have problems. You make choices, and some work out better than others. Sometimes efforts by govenments to solve one problem create others. For example, the strong worker protection regulations in Germany are often cited as cause of the high unemployment.

As Jagermeister said, both the extremes of over-regulation and government control at one end, and the lack of government concern for the broad interests of the population at the other, seem to limit prosperity. Between those extremes, however, there is a broad middle ground.

Characteristic of the middle ground are variations of the high-service, high-tax governments in the most prosperous developed western democracies.

[Dan McCosh]

Labor unions and farmers gave us much of the wealth distribution that occurred without that much help from the government. Don't know about farmers, but labor unions were a criminal conspiracy during the 19th century. Are you arguing that outlaws were the only counter to unregulated capitalism? It's an interesting perspective.

[seafox]

"the welfare system exists to garintee a level of unimployment that supplys plenty of workers and keeps wages low"

I think that is close to a statement that some one said a book argued.

I would argue exctly the oppisiste we may be buying peace from the poor by suporting them but if tomarrow we ended welfare their would be a flood of desperate people trying for every job willing to take any wage at all. that is the best way I know to kill unions. when unions can limit the supply of labor ( ie union shops, requirements to hire journeymen AND two helpers) then they can force wages up.

there have been some well delivered arguements from the liberalsiders on this thread and their was a chart ran several times showing that goverment take of the GDP was constant which runs contrary to an oft heard figure and was repeted today by michael medvid. federal tax rates of (GDP or personal income?) are currently 18% while durring the clinton presidency it tied the all time high of 1944 at 22.4% are the conservites lying? is that chart lying?

their was an artical I belive i read in readers digest. the author when he started in the newspaper bisness in 1952 made 84 cents an hour 2 cents of which went to the union. their was no with holding and no taxes on that wage. if you use gold as a constant that wage today would be around $8.50 an hour and roughtly 2.25 would be taken for taxes today

some one else said conservites ( and I am very much one though I got a laugh out of the term paleo-conservite not only because my joints feel very old, but I have decited if I ever run for office I will not use the republican eleiphant espewcly the styalized bump cirrently being used but would use a mamoth with full cural tusks and trunk rampent)

they said consevited want to take us back to the 1890s and the fact is I very muchwould live to do exactly that I want jurys to be told by the judges that it is their right and their duty to judge not only if the defedant did what he is acused of doing but also weather or not it was wrong and weather or not it is correct that the law is being applied to that person. it was in 1898 that the mere fact the judge did not include that in his instructions to the jury was grounds for a mistrial.
it was in 1906 that public schools went nation wide. they were imported from germany and started in massitusits in the 1850s to train and regiment the flood of catholic imigrent childern ( never really has been about eduicating the masses just teaching them to take orders and respond to bells eduication is just a cover and an axcident. see my spelling as an example)
in 1912 we got the income tax. it had been instuted before durring the civil war and in the hearings to get rid of it the comissioner of the IRS said he could think of nothing more obcene than asking a gentalman how much money he made in a given year. now that is a mannorly goverment. then they tried to instatute it in the 1890 and the supreamcourt said it was unconstutional. so then they passed the 16th amendment under what many claim were suspisious cercomstances.
the worst part of it was it was passed and claimed it would only apply to a very small part of the population. this is wrong very wrong bo in the fact that people are voting for a tax that does not fall on themselves and that some are taxed while others not.
then durring world war one the income tax that had been passed saying it would only be on the very rich and the ultra rich was spread over a wider income range of people. women got the vote around 1920 and goverment spending exploded. I often think how much we have of a mommy goverment and how if womens sufferage had not beep passed how much closer to the founding fathers vision of the proper role of goverment we would have.
durring would war two they instatuted withholding and the democrats in power said it would only be for the war. wars been over for 60 years but we still have with holding

in 1913 they first asked doctors to keep records of who they gave perscriptions to for cocaine and opiets. before that it was anover the counter product. they said they would not ban them and they have pretty much done so and the ones you buy now cost a huge amount . when my mom had cancer she asked me to go buy her some joints I was too much of a chicken so insteed of a 2 doller joint she paid 80$ and the insurance company paid 720$ for the antinozia medisan.

it should be pointed out that the spending of goverment and taxation has been under the control of congress since 1974 before that the president could embargo money he felt was wastefull spending since then he can only try to persuade ( yes the presidency is a persusave position)

george W bush is a crying shame to the republican party his first priority was eduication. which proable is not the proper role of goverment but is definitely not the role of the federal goverment

[PatCox]

In response to Jagermeister, I would argue that the US started as maybe the most egalitarian nation, and the one with the most equal distribution of wealth, in history.

In short, we started out with a large "middle class" (the chattle slavery system of the south excepted) because of the fact that we had, for the first 75 years or so, essentially unlimited opportunity for anyone with gumption, because of the existence of the "frontier," the ability of ambitious people, even those starting with nearly nothing, to "go west" and find their fortunes.

You cannot compare the experience of the US with that of any european nation, in which every inch of land was owned by someone (generally the nobility) for a thousand years, and even every trade protected by guilds and government granted monopolies for the last 400 years.

Europe has been involved in the process of creating a middle class for the last 400 years. The US has been involved, since the closing of the west, in maintaining the middle class.

During the early years of the industrial revolution, the US probably lost some equality, since then, only government intervention, the labor union laws and FDR's social programs, built the middle class back up.

I stand by the observation that the power of wealth results in solidification of wealth, creation of binding class structures, and weakening of eqaulity of opportunity and of political equality, democracy, unless actively countered by the government. In other words, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, unless the government puts in place systems which tend to promote equality of opportunity, the most succesful of which have been redistributive taxation and social programs.

And even the most extreme of these government policies does not prevent people from getting rich. The Rockefellers and many other famous wealthy dynasties grew and mainained their fortunes throughout the period of the highest taxes and greatest growth in social programs.

[peb]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Labor unions and farmers gave us much of the wealth distribution that occurred without that much help from the government. Don't know about farmers, but labor unions were a criminal conspiracy during the 19th century. Are you arguing that outlaws were the only counter to unregulated capitalism? It's an interesting perspective.</font>[/QUOTE]Farmers: the widespread distribution of land in the United States led to the small farmer developing into part of the middle class throughout the 19th and early 20th century. As a matter of fact, at the end of the 19th century, the small farmer was the only exception in our county to an unbelievable concentration of wealth that early industrial age capitalism gave us. The small farmer, at that time and place, and the rural communities they formed would be an excellant example of how distributionism (wide spread property ownership) has worked.

Labor Unions: the rise of the middle class in urban United States is largely due to labor unions in the early 20th century. Since this is a boat forum, I would suggest the book "Atlantic: The Last Great Race of Princes " by Scott Cookman. The first chapter gives a good idea of how wealth was concentrated at the beginning of the 20th century. At that time, the problems of industrial age capitalism were going to be fatal to any society. Something had to change.

Luckily, in the United States, the labor unions fought for wages, working conditions, etc. It was not always pretty, but it was effective and our economy prospered a great deal because of it.

In Europe the labor unions fought for change through the government. Mainly via socialism and state ownership of industry. It did not work out so well.

I am not argueing that the labor movement has been effective or beneficial lately, but at one time, it helped a lot. Labor has been a whipping boy for conservatives for sometime. But it has not always been the case. There was a book that came out last year called "The Conservative Bookshelf" by Chilton Williamson Jr. It gives a list of writings and books that are the cornerstones of conservative thought. In the chapter on economics, the first book listed is the papal encyclical "Rerum Novarum" by Pope Leo XII. That encyclical is quite favorable to labor unions.

Was labor associated with organized crime at times? yes. Some of the early conflicts were ugly. But the end result of these conflicts between labor and capital (at that time they were totally seperate) struck a pretty good balance.

[George Roberts]

Keith Wilson ---

You asked: "A thought experiment: How many people of working age do you actually know that are living off government handouts?"

The Wall Street Journal indicates that the US government is paying $1.3 TRILLION per year in entitlements.

While that includes payments to retired people, it also includes payments for price supports for milk. I cannot enumerate all the payments but ...

I expect we all benefit from these payments.

[Keith Wilson]

George, when reading the WSJ editorial page, a fair dose of skepticism and fact-checking is in order. They rarely actually lie, but are unusually skillful at presenting the part of the truth that appears to support their position. I don't know whether the 1.3 trillion figure is accurate, but checking their definition of "entitlement” might be useful. Generally it is used to mean a government program that does not target money to a specific project, (as building a dam or buying an aircraft carrier) but to all those who meet certain specified criteria. Medicare, for example is an "entitlement"; anyone who meets the eligibility requiremnts can get benefits. This may be good or bad; the difficulty, of course, is that it's more difficult to predict year-to-year expenditures.

My point was that the folks the conservatives love to hate, those who are supposedly too lazy to get off the couch and therefore live off government largesse, are mostly mythical, and account for a very small portion of goovernment spending.

Here's a chart of federal expenditures for 2004:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/images/federal_budget/ffbudgetExpenditures.jpg


. . . I want juries to be told by the judges that it is their right and their duty to judge not only if the defendant did what he is accused of doing, but also whether or not it was wrong, and whether or not it is correct that the law is being applied to that person.Right, that’s a great idea. :rolleyes: It is also why almost no one was every convicted of a lynching. Twelve people on a jury (or actually, just one or two stubborn ones) should be able to overturn any law they wish. Government of laws, not men? Not that way.

[ 11-16-2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[PatCox]

Housing assistance, 2%, welfare, 1.1%, medicaid, 7.7%, food stamps 1.8%, all of the "handouts" come to less than 13% of your taxes.

Now what percentage of those "handouts" are "deserved," and what percent are undeserved? Hard to tell, isn't it? For medicaid, you have to be penniless and in need of medical care. Hands up, anyone want the job of deciding which 5-year old should die because their parents are "lazy?"

The majority of all these programs go to white people, its pretty much presumesd a white person is just "down on their luck," whereas a black person is "lazy," isn't it?

In any event, I think saying that half of those who get handouts are just "lazy and undeserving parasites" is probably way way overstating it.

So 6.5% of our taxes go to the lazy and undeserving. I think its pretty miserly to obsess over that small percentage.

If I am going to make a mistake, I would rather help someone who doesn't deserve it than deny someone who does.

Besides, Jesus did instruct, in no uncertain words, that one is to give charity without question, it is God's prerogative to judge whether the recipient deserved it, not ours.

[ 11-16-2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: PatCox ]

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by peb:
PatCox posted:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The fundamental truth of the world is that in the absence of government intervention, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This goes on until the poor get so fed up they rise up and kill the rich. This is a ridiculous statement. .</font>[/QUOTE]How do you figure? In the drive to control resources, who is going to come out ahead, the one who starts with more, or the one who starts with less?

PatCox posted:

I would not attribute the rise of the middle class in 20th century America to government intervention. The government did very little about the enormous concentration of wealth that arose during the industrial revolution. Labor unions and farmers gave us much of the wealth distribution that occurred without that much help from the government.
Here is the American Middle Class creation myth. First of all, it was the government that took the land itself. Second, it was the government that established and defended the right of labor to organize. After the depression it was government that stabilized agricultural markets. Government, government, government.

[Keith Wilson]

The government did very little about the enormous concentration of wealth that arose during the industrial revolution. Actually this isn't true at all; ever heard of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century? Trust-busting? A lot of people though that the enormous concentration of wealth and power was a very bad thing, and there were many changes in law (aka government action) to reduce the concentration of wealth and concentration of power. These changes were, of course, bitterly opposed by the conservatives of the time, with much the same arguments that we hear today. The income tax and inheritance tax were the most obvious examples, but there were many many others. Labor unions required significant changes in law (government action, again) before they were able to operate effectively. Before the Clayton Act they were often violently suppressed, sometimes by the National Guard, as illegal conspiracies in restraint of trade.

[George Roberts]

Keith Wilson ---

I don't think the Wall Stree Journal needs to be all that accurate for the point of their article. I think it is unfair to chose one entitlement and claim it is wrong.

Dairy farmers are paid by the government for the amount of milk produced. In addition, a minimum price is guaranteed. I think both are entitlements.

I think FEMA assistance is an entitlement.

All entitlements start out with a valid purpose.

If you want to give up all of your entitlements (like the benefit of lower milk prices), I will give up mine.

Perhaps it is easier to just give up the big items in the budget. The military and SS. (See the above chart for the other big items. No cuts. Just get rid of them.

[Norman Bernstein]

Well, this is all well and good. But the problem is no one wants to address the parts of the tax system that cause it to not be progressive at this time. Payroll taxes are largely regressive. No one wants to do anything about them except remove the cap so higher income people pay the same percentage as lower income. But this does not do anything to reduce the payroll tax burden on the lower income population (which is much more regressive than the tax burden is on the middle class).
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if we were to remove ANY cap on S.S. taxes, we COULD indeed reduce the percentage of tax, thereby helping to relieve the burden on the lower income population.

You are indeed right, though; despite whatever progressivity exists in federal income taxes, the existence of S.S. tax, along with local and state taxes, makes our OVERALL tax system more or less 'flat' already, with most people paying somewhere between 18% and 23% of their total income.

I think it's worth exploring the idea that S.S. ought to be changed so as to fund it as a general tax obligation instead of a separate tax system. Yeah, I know, conservatives will get apoplectic at the notion, but the idea of a distinct and regressive tax may have outlived it's usefulness.

[seafox]

how about taking the 1803 budget times each line by constant dollers to get the same value in todays money. I would add an amount equel to the army dispensation for the airforce. I could even see times the numbers by the population increace ie if the population in 1803 was 6 milion and its now 300 milion times the numbers by 50.

if it wasn't in the budget when the founding fathers were still alive its not in today budget. send the unfunded departments home.

and for heavens sake stop congress from passing more than one law a day and each law must have only one subject no omnibus bills doing thousands of things

[Keith Wilson]

Right. Those who ran the government in 1803 were SO much wiser and more virtuous than we are today, and they got it EXACTLY right. And there is nothing the government should do now that it didn't do in 1803 (except run the air force). Have some sense, man! YOU can live like people lived in 1803 if you like, but pardon me if I decline to join you.

:rolleyes:


A brief stab at tax policy;

One must consider all taxes, not just federal, when proposing a comprehensive reform. State and local taxes are far less progressive than federal taxes; they’re actually regressive in most states. States depend on sales taxes (highly regressive), property taxes (variable) and some have income taxes (generally progressive, although less than federal income tax.) Here's a very comprehensive report that goes state by state. (http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf)

Consumption taxes are almost always regressive, for the simple reason that people with more income have more discretion about how to spend it, and spend a smaller percentage of what they have on taxable consumption. Exemptions for food and certain other essentials help some. Most state sales taxes also exempt services and all really expensive items (purchases of land, houses, businesses, for example) resulting in a highly regressive tax.

The regressive social security tax is a national disgrace. It only continues because of inertia and lack of agreement on a better way to do things. Lifting the income cap would be a very reasonable first step, and I bet would go a very long way to finding Social Security for the long tem, but conservatives wouldn’t stand for it.

Taxes on wealth or assets often have unintended consequences because a lot of wealth is in the form of houses and land. Forcing someone out of their home because they can’t pay the property taxes is unpalatable to most people, even when the house is far more valuable than it was when originally purchased.

I think the most reasonable thing to do would be some mix of taxes on income and wealth, with perhaps a sizable homestead exemption on the latter. A consumption tax with exemptions for essentials might be reasonable (in addition to a progressive income tax) if it did not exclude services and larger sales. Relatively high taxes on inherited wealth make eminent sense as well; inherited fortunes re not of benefit to society. Considerable savings could result from simplification; in fact it would be difficult to design a tax code that is much more complicated that works at all.

[ 11-16-2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Gonzalo]

The Federal Government in 1803 was spending like wildfire. They'd bought 6 new frigates to the tune of about $350,000 each, and then they sent them over to Tripoli to fight an undeclared war with the heathen. And don't forget they bought a whale of a lot of useless land west of the Mississippi with the taxpayers hard-earned dollars.

See what you get for electing Democratic-Republicans like that tax-and-spend liberal Thomas Jefferson!

We should excise every line item from the budget that wasn't in the 1789 budget, since that is what the founding fathers clearly intended.

[Keith Wilson]

:D :D :D

Vote Whig!

[ 11-16-2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Some time back, i came up with an idea for a tax plan which would appeal to both conservatives and liberals alike, with features that each group would approve of... it is progressive, encourages investment and savings, and is eminently fair. I call it the 'triple ramp' system.

Advantages:

1) Continuously and linearly progresive, starting at zero tax for people below a defined poverty line, and ramping up to a fair and reasonable maximum

2) No deductions, exclusions, exepmtions, credits of any kind.... only an 'exception' for income spent on registered charities and medical care.

3) The whole thing can be filled out on a single page.

4) (this one is for investors:) No concept of long or short term capital gains, no basis prices to track, and best of all, no tax on invested earnings... as long as they're invested!

Of course, nobody is going to care about a tax plan dreamed up by some middle-aged engineer living in Massachusetts....

...but, then again, nobody is paying any serious attention to the various tax schemes that have got 'celebrity endorsement' and lots of exposure either... which makes MY tax plan just as good!

:D

Details to follow.

[Jagermeister]

Among the justifications for taxation are:

- paying for services rendered to the user (roads, sewers, national defense)

- paying for social services (mandatory charity)

Is redistribution of wealth a legitimate goal for tax policy?

Redistribution is presumably transfer from those who have to those who have not, although the opposite is certainly feasible as well. Once you set the precedent, the direction is mutable.

[Norman Bernstein]

Is redistribution of wealth a legitimate goal for tax policy?
This is a very common Republican talking point.

Taxes go into the Treasury, they don't go from the rich man's pocket to the poor man's pocket, or vice versa. There's no redistribution going on, per se.... it's a psychological ploy to make taxation on any basis but a 'flat tax' seem somehow like theft.

We COULD, for example, set up policies that indeed to have the same net effect as if we were going to redistribute wealth. One such policy: dramatically reducing the capital gains tax rate. Since capital gains are, by definition, something that the wealthier segemnt of our society experience, and the poorer segments of our society don't, we can create a net effect of penalizing the poor for the benefit of the rich... presuming that net tax receipts stay the same, that is.

The same phenomenon could work in reverse... although it virtually NEVER does, with the possible exception of programs design to help the exceptionally poor.

Should tax policy attempt to balance the competing needs of segments of our society, in order to make it a more equitable society? Depends on your point of view. If we DON'T create tax policy to do that, then, as was so elegantly stated by LeeG, income inequity rises because of natural economic forces; middle class people can't save and invest at nearly the same rate that wealthy people do, and wealthy people don't consume the same percentage of income that poor people do... it's inevitable, without doing ANY social engineering at all.

Left alone, we tread down the inevitable road to plutocracy.

Is that the kind of America you want your kids and grandchildren to grow up in?

sure... if you're already wealthy.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
I know, conservatives will get apoplectic at the notion, *boggle* Cite? Show me that conservatives *ever* loved this invention of the Roosevelt administration. Time to share your sources, Norman.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that you would call me a conservative, and I've always thought the SS tax was a regressive boondoggle -- a way to disguise an old-age and disability protection plan as some kind of "savings program." The way to come to terms with the aging of America is to eliminate the SS tax, get rid of the idea that all Americans are entitled to a retirement check, and start means-testing it. While I'm at it, why do the upper-middle class and the rich -- those who need it the least -- get the biggest Social Security benefits checks? It's just stupid. Just means-testing benefits might go a long way towards balancing the budget.

Thanks for listening. I feel better now.

Note: Don't misunderstand me. Our society has a moral obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves: the young, the old, the disabled, and the mentally incapable. In fact, the current treatment of the mentally ill is criminal, and we, as a society, should be ashamed of ourselves. The means for achieving these goals are a good topic of discussion, but I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't take care of its most-vulnerable members. I don't think socially-responsible capitalism is an oxymoron.

[ 11-16-2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

[George Roberts]

Norman Bernstein ---

It appears you want an income tax.

Why would you want to tax income? Why not assets?

Why would you not tax reinvested capital gains but tax a simlar investments of wage income?

All tax plans are unfair.

[Keith Wilson]

All tax plans are unfair. All governments are corrupt. However, some are much more unfair than others, some are much more corrupt than others. Nothing made by human beings is perfect, but some things are much better than others. We have to make what we build, whether boats or governments, as good as we can, and they may then just be good enough.

[George Roberts]

Keith Wilson ---

My comment of unfairness was to allow Norman Bernstein to respond to my questions. I certainly don't expect a fair tax system.

If I were to look for a "fair" system ---

I would first look for assets that could be taxed. I would find income, real property, intangible property, and others.

I would determine (fat chance) the value of those assets with and without a government.

A simple flat tax would be

your tax = (cost of government)(difference in value of your assets)/(difference in value of all assets)

We each pay according to our benefits.

[Keith Wilson]

Actually that's not too bad a system, but the forms to fill out might be a bit complicated. ;)

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman Bernstein ---

It appears you want an income tax.

Like most people, i'd rather not pay any taxes at ALL... but I do recognize that taxes are indeed a necessity. Of all the various proposals, taxing income strikes me as the fairest and least complex to administer.


Why would you want to tax income? Why not assets?
Taxing assets is at first, a seductive idea, but wildly impractical. Some assets don't produce an income stream.. so you'd end up taxing people by forcing them to pay money they don't have. My home, for example, is my single biggest asset... yet it doesn't produce an income stream, and i can't sell off small pieces of it to pay a tax on it.


Why would you not tax reinvested capital gains but tax a simlar investments of wage income?
My own tax plan doesn't tax invesments AT ALL. It taxes, instead, the net inflow/outflow associated with investment accounts.

As I've said before, the only two worthwhile 'social policies' that can be justified via tax policy is tax progressively, and to encourage savings and investment. My own plan wouldn't tax investments at all... while they really ARE investments. It would only tax money withdrawn from investments and spent.


All tax plans are unfair. I don't quite agree. All tax plans may have elements of unfairness to them... but some are fairer than others, and some can be very fair.

[ 11-17-2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]