Progressive Taxation is needed and "fair"

[Voodoo_Child906]

1) A minimum of earning is required to live and moving above the minimum permits increasing levels of discretionary income

2) As a society our culture is to share the burden of government costs as we can afford it

3) Those with more wealth have more to gain and protect

Yes we rely on the rich to take a larger burden because they are able to, they use more resources and we could not fund the government without them. As an analogy, last year I moved and my brothers and I did all the heavy lifting. Would it be right and fair for me to demand that my wife and daughter share equally in the heavy lifting and make them carry the washer and dryer? Any man would say no to that I believe.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I agree with Thomas Jefferson, and men like him. These men who aspired to and became leaders, at that time, were of much higher class than the entrenched money and elite political "classes" of today, in character, foresight, and simple decorum.

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

 

[ultramanhyata]

I agree with Thomas Jefferson, and men like him. These men who aspired to and became leaders, at that time, were of much higher class than the entrenched money and elite political "classes" of today, in character, foresight, and simple decorum.

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Who knew TJ was a Bernie Bro!

 

[machidafan99]

1) A minimum of earning is required to live and moving above the minimum permits increasing levels of discretionary income

2) As a society our culture is to share the burden of government costs as we can afford it

3) Those with more wealth have more to gain and protect

Yes we rely on the rich to take a larger burden because they are able to, they use more resources and we could not fund the government without them. As an analogy, last year I moved and my brothers and I did all the heavy lifting. Would it be right and fair for me to demand that my wife and daughter share equally in the heavy lifting and make them carry the washer and dryer? Any man would say no to that I believe.

Show us the tax brackets you have in mind.

 

[Witchhunt]

I agree with Thomas Jefferson, and men like him. These men who aspired to and became leaders, at that time, were of much higher class than the entrenched money and elite political "classes" of today, in character, foresight, and simple decorum.

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Only property owners were allowed to vote. So, yeah

 

[Gandhi]

It is a simple question of utility maximization. If all wealth were fixed, a $1 in the hands of a poor man produces multiple times more utility than $1 in a rich mans. However wealth is not fixed and making everything equal would dramatically decrease the amount of it. So there are trade offs. Then there is the whole notion of merit (keeping what you earn), which is valid but gets exaggerated to the point of abomination.

All to say, of course PT makes sense.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

just don't be surprised when the rich then hide money overseas, don't repatriate revenues back from MNCs, claim massive losses to get no tax liability afterwards, etc...

Its easy to say this when it's not happening to you

 

[ShinkanPo]

just don't be surprised when the rich then hide money overseas, don't repatriate revenues back from MNCs, claim massive losses to get no tax liability afterwards, etc...

Its easy to say this when it's not happening to you

And that is why some people advocate global communism.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Show us the tax brackets you have in mind.

Let's use the current brackets

 

[VivaRevolution]

just don't be surprised when the rich then hide money overseas, don't repatriate revenues back from MNCs, claim massive losses to get no tax liability afterwards, etc...

Its easy to say this when it's not happening to you

And if the rich didn't control our government, we could simply put them in jail for avoiding paying taxes.

The question is, what happens when people lose faith in the whole system, because the oligarchs control our government?

I don't know, but it appears we are about to find out.

 

[Jkillah]

1) A minimum of earning is required to live and moving above the minimum permits increasing levels of discretionary income

2) As a society our culture is to share the burden of government costs as we can afford it

3) Those with more wealth have more to gain and protect

Yes we rely on the rich to take a larger burden because they are able to, they use more resources and we could not fund the government without them. As an analogy, last year I moved and my brothers and I did all the heavy lifting. Would it be right and fair for me to demand that my wife and daughter share equally in the heavy lifting and make them carry the washer and dryer? Any man would say no to that I believe.

Progressive taxation isn't needed or fair. It would be much more fair to scale down government waste and have everyone pay a low flat tax.

1) Being on the receiving end of government redistribution of wealth isn't the same thing as earning money, and while a minimum amount of money is required to live, any able bodied person who works in this country will earn enough to live. They won't necessarily live well, but they won't starve.

2) You can share the burden of the cost of government without any sort of progressive taxation. With a flat tax, the wealthy will still be paying more since 10% of a million is more money than than 10% of thirty thousand.

3) I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with #3. Less wealthy people use up police resources more than the wealthy. With a flat tax, wealthy people would still be paying more taxes than less wealthy people.

 

[Rematch]

And that is why some people advocate global communism.

So that the political class may seize all the wealth.

 

[Scheme]

United States and most countries have a progressive tax system.

Also I don't think the rich use more government resources than others. They usually have private versions of the services that government provides.

 

[Lead]

I think 95%+ of the country agrees with a progressive tax system if you really explain it out and point out consequences of it compared to a flat tax.

 

[Gandhi]

just don't be surprised when the rich then hide money overseas, don't repatriate revenues back from MNCs, claim massive losses to get no tax liability afterwards, etc...

Its easy to say this when it's not happening to you

It's happening to me. I'm fine with it.

 

[HIMBOB]

The fairest tax system would be every man woman and child pays exactly the same dollar amount. (roughly$10,000pa each in America).

Surprising no one wants it.



Benefit of the country should be the predominant goal of tax structure. And that is progressive tax.

And if the rich didn't control our government, we could simply put them in jail for avoiding paying taxes.

The question is, what happens when people lose faith in the whole system, because the oligarchs control our government?

I don't know, but it appears we are about to find out.

They don't control the government. People are just easily swayed by advertising.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The fairest tax system would be every man woman and child pays exactly the same dollar amount. (roughly$10,000pa each in America).

Surprising no one wants it.



Benefit of the country should be the predominant goal of tax structure. And that is progressive tax.



They don't control the government. People are just easily swayed by advertising.

Sounds like a soft kind of control to me.

 

[Hard To Tell]

I think Bernie Sanders provides the best example of what socialists mean by "progressive" taxation. The rich pay over 50% because that's who it's supposed to target. But people earning just $18k a year still have to hand over 15% of their income to the government.. While Sanders himself, a millionaire making seven figures, pays just 13%.

 

[Madmick]

Moving that couch is purely your choice: a voluntary endeavor.

Tax scaling is effective, but not morally obligatory.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

And that is why some people advocate global communism.

Which is absurd

Every instance of historical communism has some form of the elite still controlling the system. Its never ran by the people or proletariat.

Only one of the reasons why it fails, and the countries always suck

European/nordic style social capitalism is the more feasible option, just A) who provides defense? and B) that was easier to transition to in post WWII ravaged Europe and people are used to the crazy high taxes and VAT for decades mow. Switching from say our system to that wouldnt hurt the rich as much bc they already theoretically pay those personal income rates and receive practically nothing in return. The middle class gets what, HC and maternity leave?, and pays at least double/triple the taxes..

Obviously those that dont earn keep benefit the most by far and its not close


That would face severe pushback