What level of taxation is too high?

[kpt018]

You made one of the dumbest threads in a while asking what people would like the government to take out of their check for some absurd "jobs for all" shit. Not my fault you smoked weed and started fantasizing about some utopia where everyone depends on the government for everything. Answer your own retarded question, cause all the left wing answers here are what they'd like other people taxed at.

See, just more proof that I was right. You didn't even read the fucking OP, did you?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

There should be no income tax for wage earners. There was never supposed to be.

True. There was no income tax in America before 1913.

But my question is: why would there be *any* tax, at all?

Taxes are a violation of people's fundamental right of self ownership. Taxes are forcibly coerced. Taxes are theft.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

No we don't.

The top 25% could cover the 3% lost revenue incredibly easy if they paid 50-60% in taxes instead of less than 40%.

The bottom 50% would then have 50K/yr instead of 33K/yr and it would be great for the economy.

How can a tax or regulation, of any kind, be "good" for an economy?

 

[JadeOwl]

People making more than 250K in personal income should be taxed between 50-60% on any income above 250K.

Between 0-250K taxes shouldn't be higher than 25%.

0-50K should pay no taxes and we can stop wasting time and money on refunds.

400K for joint filling.

Lol da fuq?

I think he only means federal income tax.

They would still pay state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

 

[nostradumbass]

See, just more proof that I was right. You didn't even read the fucking OP, did you?

I did see your vox link and the fact you're asking a question that you didn't answer for yourself.

 

[kpt018]

I did see your vox link and the fact you're asking a question that you didn't answer for yourself.

So you didn't read it. Thanks for participating.

 

[Rational Poster]

How can a tax or regulation, of any kind, be "good" for an economy?

I said ELIMINATE ALL INCOME TAX on the bottom 50% of earners and make up the 3% revenue they pay by increasing taxes on the top20%.

If 50% of Americans had 33% more money the economy would be doing better because more people would have more money instead of just 1% of people.

It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I said ELIMINATE ALL INCOME TAX on the bottom 50% of earners and make up the 3% revenue they pay by increasing taxes on the top20%.

If 50% of Americans had 33% more money the economy would be doing better because more people would have more money instead of just 1% of people.

It's not that hard to understand.

The idea is not terrible, but I think your numbers are way the heck off. The bottom 50% of American earners don't pay 33% of their incomes in taxes.

 

[Rational Poster]

The idea is not terrible, but I think your numbers are way the heck off. The bottom 50% of American earners don't pay 33% of their incomes in taxes.

Whatever it is, it's a pointless amount of money to take from half our population that already make dick.

The revenue figure is correct, the bottom 50% pay about 3-4% of the annual revenue. That's what matters.

Their effective or actual income tax rate is irrelevant.

 

[GetTheseHands]

There is nothing like stealing someone's hard earned money via gunpoint.

 

[panamaican]

The thing I am hoping to get out of people, particularly lefties that want these programs, is how much of a tax increase are they willing to tolerate? I know you're on the right and probably disagree with these programs, unless I'm wrong there, but this is a question that a moderate or a right winger would pose to lefties pushing for huge government programs.

I don't disagree with the college program. I think college has reached the same stage where high school was 50 years ago in terms of importance and so the government should be stepping in akin to public secondary schools. I'm on the fence re: the healthcare thing. Our current system is already heavily influenced by the government and it's not very efficient. UHC might be a more efficient way to do what we're already doing. Jobs for all is a pipe dream but it's in the same vein as the others so I'm okay commenting on the tax part of the conversation.

Not to derail, moderates and right wingers that pose these questions to lefties aren't thinking through the question, they're just throwing out talking points and they're why these things don't get solved.

In so many of these areas, the government is already paying a huge amount of money for these services. Lefties are wrong because they're asking for more money without understanding what they'd use it for. But empty talking point moderates and right wingers are wrong because they're ignorant about what they're already doing. Both groups should be focused on spending the current money for better results.

 

[nostradumbass]

So you didn't read it. Thanks for participating.

The only person who did answer for himself was jvs saying he'd pay $600/month, which wouldn't cover it anyway. All of the rest of the replies are what other people should pay. Is that what you were hoping for with this? If this was supposed to be thread #1,000,000 on divying up rich people's money, just make that the OP.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is nothing like stealing someone's hard earned money via gunpoint.

LOL! Thread's about taxes, buddy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only person who did answer for himself was jvs saying he'd pay $600/month, which wouldn't cover it anyway.

$600 + current insurance payments (including employer portion) for single payer.

It's a good thread, and one sign of that is the way trolls are deliberately trying to derail it.

 

[tinker_190]

0% come at me

 

[kpt018]

The only person who did answer for himself was jvs saying he'd pay $600/month, which wouldn't cover it anyway. All of the rest of the replies are what other people should pay. Is that what you were hoping for with this? If this was supposed to be thread #1,000,000 on divying up rich people's money, just make that the OP.

Yes, that is exactly what I hoping for. I think it's important for people who support these programs to think through how far they're willing to go and how far they think society should go towards supporting these programs. Obviously @Jack V Savage has thought through this stuff (and continues to think through it) and gave a good answer. Hopefully later on we can say the same about you, but I'm not holding my breath.

Also, I am being honest about my struggle to answer the question.

 

[Quequeg]

Thanks a bunch, deplorables!

 

[GetTheseHands]

If you believe the government needs to run every major aspect of your life (healthcare, college, universal income, public sector jobs, Wages, federal aid, etc) and expect the rich in society to foot the bill, then yes you will want to take as much money from people as possible without provoking a revolt in order to reach a European socialist dream.

Until people learn what the amendment process is, 15% flat.

LOL! Thread's about taxes, buddy.

Yeah, money that people have already earned, by the gun of government

 

[HunterSdVa29]

anything over what i'm currently paying is clearly too high. Estate tax is patently absurd, the money was already taxed that needs to go immediately

have yall seen the roads in Cali? where are my state taxes even going?

 

[kpt018]

I think other revenue sources should be a sovereign wealth fund, a national land-value tax (which, IMO, should carry as much of the load as possible), and taxes on things like carbon emissions, gas, and various socially undesirable activities. And we should greatly raise estate taxes, and cut income taxes from the bottom.

I don't know if you would include sin taxes in here, but that is one I struggle with. Historically I've been pretty libertarian on those and worry about a slippery slope but have recently been coming around to accepting them as a net positive. The part I am getting hung up on is that they disproportionately (by a large margin in many cases) negatively impact the poor. It raises revenue, fine, but I think the net benefit is that folks are living healthier lives (and all the positives that come along with that). I'm curious what your take is there.

The specific sin taxes I had in mind are sugar, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.. For me taxes on carbon and gas are no brainers.