What is your opinion of Obama's Millionaire's Tax/Buffett Rule ? [Archive]

RichardAWilson

15th October 2011, 18:35

The 5% income tax surcharge will return the upper marginal rate to where it averaged during the Clinton Administration. (Nothing more and nothing less. In 1985, during the Reagan Administration and the Piss Down Economy, the maximum rate hoovered around 50%.)

The Democrats are offering nothing more than a watered down mediocre compromise that does nothing for the millions of Americans that don't have a job and are working long hours for a pittance. Meanwhile, the White House signs three new free trade deals with Panama, the Koreans and Colombia (a nation that leads the world in murdering labor union organizers).

Furthermore, since the Democratic "Surcharge" wouldn't touch capital income (I.e. Gains and Dividends), it wouldn't affect Warren Buffet and other billionaires in high-finance. In truth, upper middle class households and small time business owning millionaires will be taxed under the plan. The Wall St. Mega Fortunes (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Walton Family and the Koch Brothers) will be unaffected.

Drosophila

15th October 2011, 19:13

It won't pass and people will suffer. It will be the fault of our political system.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 19:29

Because a 0% tax rate on the first 20.000 is way more fair.

Why? They don't use public services? Your system would encourage everyone to earn 19,999.- ;)

As the essentials of life (rent food water gas electricity insurance fuel) are essentially the same for everyone but the poor man pays a much higher % of his income for those essentials.
While a rich guy would be left with a whole lot more money to spare because if he makes 3x the amount of money as the poor guy that does not automatically make it so that he eats 3x the food (and everything else)

But if he's paying a 10% tax he'll still be effectively paying x3 more than someone with a third of his salary.

The more income you have the larger the amount of money that can be taxed.

Which is completely unfair, doesn't work and encourages tax evasion.

RichardAWilson

15th October 2011, 19:36

Your system would encourage everyone to earn 19,999.

Have you ever heard of Marginal Rates?

Which is completely unfair, doesn't work and encourages tax evasion.

It's unfair that someone can make billions in a hedge fund (parasites) while millions can't find a job.

Tax evasion can be prevented. (Auditing and closing tax loopholes)

RedZezz

15th October 2011, 19:42

It is a campaign ploy by Obama to bring some of the disillusioned liberals back into the fold. In order to pass, it must first go through a committee to balance the budget that Obama set up earlier. It is composed of Republicans and Democrats who have already vowed not to raise any sort of taxation on the wealthy, so the "buffet rule" is pretty much dead on arrival.

Obama should know this, so it leads me to believe this is no more than him participating the 2012 elections.

ComradeMan

15th October 2011, 19:48

Have you ever heard of Marginal Rates?

Yes, the point was hypothetical- you know plenty of people earn far more than is declared? Or stay under a certain bracket and so on...

It's unfair that someone can make billions in a hedge fund (parasites) while millions can't find a job.

Fundamentally it isn't, not in capitalism. Is it unfair that a football star earns millions and a nurse doesn't it? We can go on all day about what's fair and unfair.

My solution is a fair tax. Everyone pays the same- no controversy, and no accusations from either side.

Tax evasion can be prevented. (Auditing and closing tax loopholes)

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

RichardAWilson

16th October 2011, 02:56

es, the point was hypothetical- you know plenty of people earn far more than is declared? Or stay under a certain bracket and so on...

If the super-rich are reporting less income than it earned, they're committing tax fraud and should be investigated and prosecuted. We have auditors for performing investigations and we could hire more accounting professionals as auditors if and where it's needed.

These high-worth individuals would still game the system even under a Flat-Tax. Do you think a Flat-Tax in and of itself will make them tell the truth on income that's "earned?" We'll need more auditors under either scenario.

My solution is a fair tax. Everyone pays the same- no controversy, and no accusations from either side.

Your solution means even higher taxes for the working poor and middle classes. Since the rich receive more from the system than the working middle class, the rich should be expected to contribute more to the system that lavishes them and rescues them from their own mistakes.

I hate parasitism (which goes for those committing welfare fraud). With that said, more federal dollars are squandered on corporate fraud than welfare fraud. (I.e. the Department of Defense, Imperialism, Agribusiness Subsidies, Energy Subsidies, Contracts Awarded to Favored Companies and Lobbyists, the Medical Industrial Complex, Wall Street, Airline and Automaker Bailouts and Subsidies).

The price tag of saving capitalism from itself has always been higher than the price tag of throwing crumbs to the downtrodden. Why shouldn't those that benefit the most from the system be expected to contribute more?

Revolution starts with U

16th October 2011, 03:57

Considering that you laugh outrageously at the idea of stopping tax evasion, Comrademan... Im surprised you support a flat tax when the wealthier you are the more you can use your resources to evade taxes.

Curious.

A small progressive tax not only IS a flat tax in its effect. But the wealthy use public services far more than the general populace. If you are driving to work, you are driving their for your boss to make money. If you are a store doing inventory, that truck was driving the owner's goods back and forth across the country.

The idea that everyone should pay in is absurd. These people cannot pay their bills as is, and you want them to pay more?

Forgive me if I don't feel bad for someone making 50million dollars instead of 90million :rolleyes:

ComradeMan

16th October 2011, 09:00

Considering that you laugh outrageously at the idea of stopping tax evasion, Comrademan... Im surprised you support a flat tax when the wealthier you are the more you can use your resources to evade taxes.

But there would be less of an incentive if the taxes were equal, like the law, for everyone.

A small progressive tax not only IS a flat tax in its effect. But the wealthy use public services far more than the general populace.

I'm not sure about that- it depends on your country I suppose and the US would be a bad one to cite. But in many European countries the wealthy pobably use far less state/public schools, public transports, public healthcare, have never claimed any kind of welfare and so on.

The idea that everyone should pay in is absurd. These people cannot pay their bills as is, and you want them to pay more?

The idea that every member of society should contribute to society is not absurd- "from each according to his/her means"- it's pretty damn socialist. And if you are talking about a percentage then it's proportional to earnings anyway. If a guy earns $1000 he pays $100 if he earns $1,000,000 he pays $100,000. I don't see what the problem is.

Forgive me if I don't feel bad for someone making 50million dollars instead of 90million :rolleyes:

It's not about feeling bad for people or this mentality of "punishing" someone who is rich per se.

Robert

16th October 2011, 15:45

But there would be less of an incentive if the taxes were equal, like the law, for everyone. Maybe you mean less of an opportunity. The "incentive" is always the same. Keep more of your earnings for yourself.

I am against a flat tax for this reason: having made money both by busting my knuckles in freezing weather and also by investing, I know that the first is hard, and the second is ... less hard.:cool:

The other thing is that if you are smart and work hard, stay single and mobile (think about North Dakota if you are), you can and will accumulate capital. After that, the capital takes on a life of its own and makes you mo' money without your having to bust your knuckles at all. That income should be taxed at least as highly as income on knuckle-busting work.

Revolution starts with U

16th October 2011, 16:16

But there would be less of an incentive if the taxes were equal, like the law, for everyone.

I just disagree. They do not want to pay any taxes at all, and are powerful and self-righteous, and will try to act upon it (unlike working class people who don't want to pay, but fear the system). Prepare to see a drastic increase in wealthy people hiding all of their income.

I'm not sure about that- it depends on your country I suppose and the US would be a bad one to cite. But in many European countries the wealthy pobably use far less state/public schools, public transports, public healthcare, have never claimed any kind of welfare and so on.

No individual lower or middle class... argh I hate using liberal terminology :lol:... no individual working class member uses a quarter of the state services of any given capitalist. The working class does not have goods being shipped back and forth for them (other than to buy), they do not have people going back and forth to work for them. They do not benefit from subsidies and defense contracts. They do not use the services of NATO imperialism to secure strategic resources.
Sure the working class as a whole may use more state services through welfare and education. That is debatable and I would like to see some trustworthy statistics on that. But as individuals not a single one of them uses a significant fraction of state services as any given invidual capitalist.

The idea that every member of society should contribute to society is not absurd- "from each according to his/her means"- it's pretty damn socialist. And if you are talking about a percentage then it's proportional to earnings anyway. If a guy earns $1000 he pays $100 if he earns $1,000,000 he pays $100,000. I don't see what the problem is.

In a socialist economy we can talk. In a have's v have-nots society, some people simply cannot afford to live as it is, and you join with the right reactionary tools in calling for them to have even less money?

I'll tell you, and your right wing compatriots, this; you give me a democratic workplace acoss the whole economy, and I will give you no involuntary taxes, period.
I do not, and never will support the involuntary taxation system. But as long as capitalists involuntarily tax the productivity of labor, I will support the people taking some of that back, even if it is the state that has to do it.

It's not about feeling bad for people or this mentality of "punishing" someone who is rich per se.

A flat 10% has vastly different impacts on the people involved. If you're making $100/week, you really cannot afford to lose $10. If you make $100k, if you cannot afford to lose %10k... cry me a river.

"It is not unexpected that the wealthy should pay more in taxes than the poor, and something more on top of that." ~Adam Smith, the original free market economist :cool:

RichardAWilson

16th October 2011, 16:42

I agree. $10 means much more to an individual earning $100 than $100,000 means to an individual making $1 million.

In the first case, it could mean the difference between hunger and putting food on the table.

In the second, it wouldn't even make the difference between a Jaguar and a Mercedes.

ComradeMan

16th October 2011, 16:49

I just disagree. They do not want to pay any taxes at all, and are powerful and self-righteous, and will try to act upon it (unlike working class people who don't want to pay, but fear the system). Prepare to see a drastic increase in wealthy people hiding all of their income.

You can't generalise like that. Tax evaders come from all levels of society, even the guy on the market who doesn't declare small amounts, it's still evasion.

No individual lower or middle class... argh I hate using liberal terminology :lol:... no individual working class member uses a quarter of the state services of any given capitalist. The working class does not have goods being shipped back and forth for them (other than to buy), they do not have people going back and forth to work for them. They do not benefit from subsidies and defense contracts. They do not use the services of NATO imperialism to secure strategic resources.

Sweeping generalisations here. Yeah all wealthier people have everything imported... come off it. Government subsidies are usually for the lower-income brackets, albeit they are being cut drastically.

Sure the working class as a whole may use more state services through welfare and education. That is debatable and I would like to see some trustworthy statistics on that. But as individuals not a single one of them uses a significant fraction of state services as any given invidual capitalist.

Except you haven't got any accurate information or stats to back up any of your assertions.

In a socialist economy we can talk.

But I thought that's what we were supposed to be working towards?

In a have's v have-nots society, some people simply cannot afford to live as it is, and you join with the right reactionary tools in calling for them to have even less money?

Society is not a haves versus have-nots dichotomy to start with, it's not black and white, rich people on one side and poor people on the other, there's a scale. According to the stats approx. 15% of the USA are below the poverty line.

This is not about joining in with rightwing reactionaries either... it's about building a fair system that does not punish the poor nor does it punish the rich- it shouldn't be about punishing anyone. Each person should contribute according to their means, that varies but they should contribute all the same.

I'll tell you, and your right wing compatriots, this; you give me a democratic workplace acoss the whole economy, and I will give you no involuntary taxes, period.

Oh please, cut the rhetoric. It's well-known that if one thing seems to unite Americans is that they never want to pay taxes. :laugh:

A flat 10% has vastly different impacts on the people involved. If you're making $100/week, you really cannot afford to lose $10. If you make $100k, if you cannot afford to lose %10k... cry me a river.

$10 is really going to make a difference? Please.... cry me a river.

"It is not unexpected that the wealthy should pay more in taxes than the poor, and something more on top of that." ~Adam Smith, the original free market economist :cool:

OMG- RSWU is using an appeal to authority.

"Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania), which levies a flat tax rate of 24% (previously 27%) on its citizens, has experienced amongst the fastest growth in Europe. Advocates of the flat tax speak of this country's declining unemployment and rising standard of living. They also state that tax revenues have increased following the adoption of the flat tax, due to a subsequent decline in tax evasion and the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) effect. Others point out, however, that Lithuanian unemployment is falling at least partly as a result of mass emigration to Western Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe). The argument is that Lithuania's comparatively very low wages, on which a non-progressive flat tax is levied, combined with the possibility now to work legally in Western Europe since accession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union) to the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union), is forcing people to leave the country en masse. The Ministry of Labour estimated in 2004 that as many as 360,000 workers might have left the country by the end of that year, a prediction that is now thought to have been broadly accurate. The impact is already evident: in September 2004, the Lithuanian Trucking Association reported a shortage of 3,000-4,000 truck drivers. Large retail stores have also reported some difficulty in filling positions.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#cite_note-24) However, the emigration trend has recently stopped[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] as enormous real wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage) gains in Lithuania (presumably due to the shortage of workers) have caused a return of many migrants from Western Europe. In addition to that, it is clear that countries not levying a flat tax such as Poland also temporarily faced large waves of emigration after EU membership in 2004"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Eastern_Europe

You decide.

It's interesting how most former communist/Soviet states have flat tax rates and now many countries are considering it.

Revolution starts with U

16th October 2011, 17:51

You can't generalise like that. Tax evaders come from all levels of society, even the guy on the market who doesn't declare small amounts, it's still evasion.

Actually you must not be reading what I wrote, and that's okay, that is the most common form of debate in our society.
But if you had read what I wrote you would have seen was that my positoin was that everybody tries to cheat on their taxes; non-wealthy people just tend to not have the same resources, and a much larger fear of the system, to be successful at it.

Sweeping generalisations here. Yeah all wealthier people have everything imported... come off it. Government subsidies are usually for the lower-income brackets, albeit they are being cut drastically.

Again, I suspect you are not reading what I am posting at all. I fail to see what this has, in any way, to do with my point.

Except you haven't got any accurate information or stats to back up any of your assertions.

You deny that when you drive to work, you do so on behalf of your boss?
You deny that all of those trucks driving back and forth across the interstate are doing so for the benefit of capitalists?
You deny that imperialist efforts are generally done on behalf of the economy, owned and operated by the capitalists?

Again, whether or not the working class as a whole gets more in state monies, no individual working classman recieves a significant fraction of that of any given individual capitalist. If they did, would you not then HAVE to call it a socialist state, as it would be working on behalf of their interests?

But I thought that's what we were supposed to be working towards?

Ya, and?

Society is not a haves versus have-nots dichotomy to start with, it's not black and white, rich people on one side and poor people on the other, there's a scale. According to the stats approx. 15% of the USA are below the poverty line.

Trololol, you know what I meant. If you notice I was talking about democratic workplaces, which does not inherently mean equal incomes, and as such my post had really nothing to do with "have things vs have no-things." It had to do with the "have power vs have servitude."
I actually have no idea why you would think I would take a liberal/income based approach to class...? Have you ever gotten that vibe from any of my previous posts?

This is not about joining in with rightwing reactionaries either... it's about building a fair system that does not punish the poor nor does it punish the rich- it shouldn't be about punishing anyone. Each person should contribute according to their means, that varies but they should contribute all the same.

Other than the fact that a tax is a punishment (semantically at least) to begin with...
How is a progressive tax punishing the rich? They will still be quite rich. Is the salary cap a punishment on the Yankees? Other than this season, they seem to be doing quite fine with it.
Your calling the progressive tax a "punishment on the rich" and you are going to talk to me in a few sentences about rhetoric? That's rich.

Oh please, cut the rhetoric. It's well-known that if one thing seems to unite Americans is that they never want to pay taxes. :laugh:

That was kind-of my point... :sneaky:

$10 is really going to make a difference? Please.... cry me a river.

I remember as a kid wondering why my parents did not eat dinner with me and my brother every once in a while. You know what I later learned? They couldn't have afforded it. They had to go without food every once in a while so that me and my brother could eat healthy.

Seriously, you don't think $10 makes a huge difference to someone on minimum wage? Have you never heard of people having to not pay bills so they can buy groceries?
How could you think vague appeals to arbitrary concepts such as "fairness" are more important than the real working class struggles of real working class people?

OMG- RSWU is using an appeal to authority.

Everybody is prone to fallacy at sometime. I am glad to see people recognize how little I attempt to engage in it.
Either way, you can call it an appeal and I will not run from that, but I was just throwing it out there to show how easily understandable this concept of progressive taxation should be.
I apologize for any percieved fallacy, yet I don't think that quote takes away from the larger point of my post.

You decide.

That is interesting data. Tho I don't think the conclusion taken from it was as strong as you are trying to suggest. And also, how does it explain the rapid growth America experienced under a strong progressive tax?
It seems the conclusion from that is that tax evasion is a big problem, not necessarily and that the flat tax is a possible solution, rather than the only one.

It's interesting how most former communist/Soviet states have flat tax rates and now many countries are considering it.
Ya, and many former Soviet states used wage labor... what's your point?

Lucretia

16th October 2011, 17:52

The fact is that it is a campaign gimmick, and was only proposed because everybody knew it wasn't going to pass.

RGacky3

16th October 2011, 20:20

Are you sure he isn't working three times as hard? Longer hours? Are his skills in greater demand? Has he been working longer at the job than the guy earning $20k?
Is he more capable, energetic, and productive? Does he have more responsibility?

My view is that everyone who enjoys any benefits of government should pay in something to the treasury, maybe as little as 2%, or even 1% if that's too onerous.

THese are all arugments that are based on morals, and not sound economics, if we debate morality it ends up just devolving, economic debate should be based on economics first.

Bud Struggle

16th October 2011, 21:17

THese are all arugments that are based on morals, and not sound economics, if we debate morality it ends up just devolving, economic debate should be based on economics first.

Economics is a subjective as morality. Chemistry, Physics are hard science. Economics, philosophy are your guess is as good as mine.

Judicator

17th October 2011, 03:41

tradeunionsupporter

17th October 2011, 03:58

Even if Taxes are raised on the Rich the Rich are still going to be Rich therefor many of the Rich don't care if their Taxes are raised Democrats don't support a Classless Society and Equality just because the United States of America has a Progressive Income Tax does not mean there is Equality even if there were no Tax Loopholes or Wealth/Money in Swiss Banks and Tax Shelters the Rich would still be Rich one reason is that the Tax Rates can be and are Marginal and in Capitalist Society there are still Rich People even with Progressive Taxes just because Democrats don't support as much Income Inequality as the Republicans do doesn't mean the Democrats support Income Equality. I view the Democrats as just as much a Political Party of Capitalism Lobbyists the Rich as the Republicans are. When Bill Clinton was President there were still Millionaires and Billionaires it did not matter that we had Progressive Tax Rates of 39.6% in the 1990's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rate

tradeunionsupporter

17th October 2011, 04:10

Would anyone agree with me ?

tradeunionsupporter

17th October 2011, 04:13

Is the Freedom Socialist Party like the Democratic and Republican Parties?

No. The Democrats and Republicans both uphold capitalism and imperialism, and are unalterably opposed to socialist revolution. We are exactly the opposite.

Would it be better to support a Democratic or Green Party candidate who is coming close to socialist ideals, than to place our money on a losing horse and never infiltrate the system?

A Democratic candidate "who comes close to socialist ideals" is a contradiction in terms. Democrats who promise to implement a socialist platform invariably sell out on their campaign promises, as they maneuver and wheel-and-deal in compromises to stay in office.
The party is a treacherous swamp. When Democrats campaign, they are friends of the working class; once in power, they abide by the "political realities" of a system run by Wall Street and giant multinational corporations. The Green Party does likewise. There is little difference between the two parties, so little, in fact, that Green Party candidates who win elections are indistinguishable from Democrats and often join the Democratic Party.
The great American socialist, Eugene V. Debs, said, "It's a whole lot better to vote for what you want and not get it than it is to vote for what you don't want and get it."
The FSP campaigns in order to teach and to proclaim principles, so there is no question of "losing horses." What's the point of supporting a "winner" who doesn't need us and opposes us? We gain nothing and lose our lobbying power that comes from our independence. And we constantly do "infiltrate the system" but never as capitalist party representatives.

Does FSP hold to atheism as part of its doctrine?

Yes. We believe that the concept of God and the heavenly after-world are put forth as a substitute for a decent life in this world. Organized religion is a pacifier, a hoax, and a defender of the status quo and the bourgeoisie. At the same time, we uphold the right of anyone to believe and worship as they choose. Religion is a private affair which we expect to vanish as humanity increasingly controls its own destiny. In the meantime, we oppose the ill-gotten wealth, tax cuts, privilege, reaction and political influence of the institutionalized church.

http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/291

ComradeMan

17th October 2011, 09:03

Actually you must not be reading what I wrote, and that's okay, that is the most common form of debate in our society.But if you had read what I wrote you would have seen was that my positoin was that everybody tries to cheat on their taxes; non-wealthy people just tend to not have the same resources, and a much larger fear of the system, to be successful at it.

Perhaps it wasn't clear...

The Greek problem for example, was exacerbated by practically no one declaring anything- in Greece it seems nearly everything was done by cash- smaller amounts. Larger amounts are actually more difficult to conceal so I am not sure if your conclusion is accurate.

You deny that when you drive to work, you do so on behalf of your boss?

I drive to work for my benefit too....

You deny that all of those trucks driving back and forth across the interstate are doing so for the benefit of capitalists?

Everyone is a capitalist in a capitalist system unless they are self-sufficient and living in the wilderness.

You deny that imperialist efforts are generally done on behalf of the economy, owned and operated by the capitalists?

In any social-system, capitalist, communist, corporatist and so on efforts are done on behalf of the economy.

Again, whether or not the working class as a whole gets more in state monies, no individual working classman recieves a significant fraction of that of any given individual capitalist. If they did, would you not then HAVE to call it a socialist state, as it would be working on behalf of their interests?

It's a vicious circle- but the idea is to break the circle.

Trololol, you know what I meant. If you notice I was talking about democratic workplaces, which does not inherently mean equal incomes, and as such my post had really nothing to do with "have things vs have no-things." It had to do with the "have power vs have servitude."

Why is that trolling? If you want to boil economic policies down to silly simplistic slogans that's up to you- reality is more intricate.

Other than the fact that a tax is a punishment (semantically at least) to begin with...

Semantics.... people in society should all contribute to society... or else go and live in the mountains...

How is a progressive tax punishing the rich? They will still be quite rich. Is the salary cap a punishment on the Yankees? Other than this season, they seem to be doing quite fine with it. Your calling the progressive tax a "punishment on the rich" and you are going to talk to me in a few sentences about rhetoric? That's rich.

In Italy if you earn €75,001- you pay 43% income tax, the lowest rate, for up to €15,000, is 23%- that's over twice the lowest rate in the USA. I believe the highest rate in the USA is approx 35%. Now, I'm sorry but €75,001 a year is a nice salary but it doesn't exactly make you rich either.

You are also assuming that all this tax money that goes to government as is is used for the benefit of society... :rolleyes:

Anyway, my flat tax of 10% is actually the basic lowest rate in the US anyway and wouldn't punish those in the lowest income bracket who pay tax. In Italian terms it would be welcomed by the lowest income bracket.

I've already provided you with a model of one country that seemed to have economic growth and success with a flat tax rate of 15%, namely Lithuania.

RGacky3

17th October 2011, 09:04

Economics is a subjective as morality. Chemistry, Physics are hard science. Economics, philosophy are your guess is as good as mine.

No its not, a lot of it can be mathematically calculated.

For example the Basic Marxist/Keynsian analysis of if productivity goes up, and labor costs go down, it makes demand go down, which again forces labor costs to go down more. Thats a measurable fact.

Economics is measurable, you can easily see the logical connectoins between economic actions and their effects and you can measure them empirically.

Why should it be the fault of the rich that the government can't provide basic services for people with $3.5 trillion? If the government wasted the first $3 trillion, what makes us think they're going to spend the next $100 billion wisely?

It would also require getting rid of citizens united, which is just as important and raising revenue. We have to also be able to keep them accountable democratically.

Revolution starts with U

17th October 2011, 19:48

Perhaps it wasn't clear...

The Greek problem for example, was exacerbated by practically no one declaring anything- in Greece it seems nearly everything was done by cash- smaller amounts. Larger amounts are actually more difficult to conceal so I am not sure if your conclusion is accurate.

Ya, they are more difficult, so they hire good accountants :lol:
That was my point the whole time. Everybody does, and always will, try to cheat on their taxes.

I drive to work for my benefit too....

And who is gaining the vast majority of economic benefit from this deal?

Everyone is a capitalist in a capitalist system unless they are self-sufficient and living in the wilderness.

... why do you act like you don't know what I mean when you do?

In any social-system, capitalist, communist, corporatist and so on efforts are done on behalf of the economy.

Corporatism is capitalism.

These last 2 questions you refused to answer. You merely dodged them. Why is that?

It's a vicious circle- but the idea is to break the circle.

Still dodging the question.

Why is that trolling? If you want to boil economic policies down to silly simplistic slogans that's up to you- reality is more intricate.

What else should I consider it when you routinely mischaracterize me and dodge my questions?
Do you not think most of the problems in the world (the economy at least) is a battle between those who have exercisable power, and those that want it?
In such a society it is invariable that some people will simply get by through scraping together whatever they can. They already cannot afford their standard of living and you want them to pay more? What, are they supposed to take out loans to pay their taxes?
This all smells of capitalistic fuedalism.

Semantics.... people in society should all contribute to society... or else go and live in the mountains...

They do contribute to society by creating all the goods and services that make it go. They are already taxed enough by their boss. He can take some of that stolen money, and build some roads, eh?

In Italy if you earn €75,001- you pay 43% income tax, the lowest rate, for up to €15,000, is 23%- that's over twice the lowest rate in the USA. I believe the highest rate in the USA is approx 35%. Now, I'm sorry but €75,001 a year is a nice salary but it doesn't exactly make you rich either.

That is a different argument tho. I am with you that the tax system/s are messed up. But I can see no way to define a flat tax as anything but a regressive tax, based on impact.
Personally I would probably (in a market economy) cut taxes completely for anybody making >100k (adjusted for inflation). From there I would start at 10% and move up to 90% if need be.

You are also assuming that all this tax money that goes to government as is is used for the benefit of society... :rolleyes:

I am making no such assumption. I am talking purely of progressive taxing vs flat taxing. Flat taxing sounds all nice and fair. Its not. And you should know by the people that want it the most that it is not (forgive my poisoning the well fallacy. But seriously, do you think Forbes has the best interests of the working class at heart?).

Anyway, my flat tax of 10% is actually the basic lowest rate in the US anyway and wouldn't punish those in the lowest income bracket who pay tax. In Italian terms it would be welcomed by the lowest income bracket.

I've already provided you with a model of one country that seemed to have economic growth and success with a flat tax rate of 15%, namely Lithuania.

Flat taxation may have some economic benefits. So does capitalism. The point is?

Revolution starts with U

17th October 2011, 19:57

Why should it be the fault of the rich that the government can't provide basic services for people with $3.5 trillion? If the government wasted the first $3 trillion, what makes us think they're going to spend the next $100 billion wisely?

Well.. you know... seing as how most of the executive branch is former Goldman Sachs (and other such companies) employees, and that most lobbyists for private companies are former government employees...
WHy shouldn't the rich be at fault for the failures of the economy?

ComradeMan

17th October 2011, 21:37

...

You keep dodging my question though.

Why/How is it fair that an honest person has to may more tax because they earn more money? Especially since this is not a model that is by any means universal, doesn't seem to work that well and is being criticised?

Imagine this hypothetical situation:

Mr A- earns €30,000 a year and pays say 15%- he lives next door to
Mr B- who earns €50,000 a year but pays 25%. Both Mr A and Mr B live in the same area, their kids go to the same school and they have the same doctor and so on. Neither Mr A nor Mr B are what you would describe as rich. Now Mr A might argue that he works longer hours but Mr B might argue that he had to study longer for his qualification. Mr A on the other hand might say that his job is more dangerous than Mr B's whereas Mr B might argue he has more responsibility and risk and so on... You can't settle it.

If everyone pays the same there is no problem.

I've shown you an example of a flat tax model that did appear to have economic success seeing as we are not talking about anarcho/communist systems and you just dismiss it?

Corporatism is not de facto capitalism either.

As for the argument about trucks and so on... it's silly. Within the capitalist mode of production everyone benefits to a greater or lesser extent from that production- including the workers who work. I am not arguing for capitalism here, but you can't separate the worker from his or her role within that given mode of production.

RichardAWilson

17th October 2011, 22:02

Why aren't you accounting for Marginal Rates?

Person A ($30,000): 15% Income Tax Rate = $4,500
Person B ($30,000): 15% Income Tax Rate = $4,500

Person A: No Income Over Limitation
Person B ($20,000): 25% Income Tax Rate = $5,000

Effective Tax Rate

Person A: 15%
Person B: 19%

RGacky3

17th October 2011, 22:03

Are you still a socialist comrademan?

Why/How is it fair that an honest person has to may more tax because they earn more money? Especially since this is not a model that is by any means universal, doesn't seem to work that well and is being criticised?

How about just raise the capital gains tax to the income tax, having the capital gains tax much lower is doing exactly what you are saying.

WHere is'nt it working? where has taxing the rich higher lead to a disaster? I can show you where NOT taxing them lead to disasters.

Mr A- earns €30,000 a year and pays say 15%- he lives next door to
Mr B- who earns €50,000 a year but pays 25%. Both Mr A and Mr B live in the same area, their kids go to the same school and they have the same doctor and so on. Neither Mr A nor Mr B are what you would describe as rich. Now Mr A might argue that he works longer hours but Mr B might argue that he had to study longer for his qualification. Mr A on the other hand might say that his job is more dangerous than Mr B's whereas Mr B might argue he has more responsibility and risk and so on... You can't settle it.

Taxation is mainly an economics question, but the moral argument is simple Mr B (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSflRlHPay4) can afford to pay more, and he has obviously benefited more from the system, so he should pay more.

If everyone pays the same there is no problem.

Yes there absoutely is, the poor end up paying more due to consumption taxes and a lack of ability to put money overseas and the fact that most of their money comes from income not from capital gains or dividends (which are taxed at a much lower rate).

Also economically its rediculous, the tax system should be in favor of consuption, i.e. poorer people having disposabile income so that demand increases and a the economy flourishes.

Also a progressive tax actually means that a company compensating workers more means less money going to tax, whereas compensating executives more means more money going to tax, a flat tax incentiveses executives to take more money for themselves, exhasberating the problem.

Plus you also have the fact that it leaves those in poverty in a much harder situation to get out of poverty because they have less disposable income.

And there are a myrriad more problems.

Corporatism is not de facto capitalism either.

It kind of is, in the sense that its the natural outcome of Capitalism.

"Lithuania (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania), which levies a flat tax rate of 24% (previously 27%) on its citizens, has experienced amongst the fastest growth in Europe. Advocates of the flat tax speak of this country's declining unemployment and rising standard of living. They also state that tax revenues have increased following the adoption of the flat tax, due to a subsequent decline in tax evasion and the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) effect. Others point out, however, that Lithuanian unemployment is falling at least partly as a result of mass emigration to Western Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe). The argument is that Lithuania's comparatively very low wages, on which a non-progressive flat tax is levied, combined with the possibility now to work legally in Western Europe since accession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union) to the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union), is forcing people to leave the country en masse. The Ministry of Labour estimated in 2004 that as many as 360,000 workers might have left the country by the end of that year, a prediction that is now thought to have been broadly accurate. The impact is already evident: in September 2004, the Lithuanian Trucking Association reported a shortage of 3,000-4,000 truck drivers. Large retail stores have also reported some difficulty in filling positions.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#cite_note-24) However, the emigration trend has recently stopped[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] as enormous real wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage) gains in Lithuania (presumably due to the shortage of workers) have caused a return of many migrants from Western Europe. In addition to that, it is clear that countries not levying a flat tax such as Poland also temporarily faced large waves of emigration after EU membership in 2004"

Lithuania was EXTREMELY hard hit by the economic crisis, its unemployment is now at around 15-17%, thats official unemployment, meaning that the real is probably closer to 30%, Lithuania is in a mess.

BTW, countries new to Capitalism, i.e. new markets, are always going to see huge growth early on, and neo-liberal policies will always work early on, due to the fact that there is so much room to grow and capital will fly in.

ComradeMan

17th October 2011, 22:19

Lithuania was EXTREMELY hard hit by the economic crisis, its unemployment is now at around 15-17%, thats official unemployment, meaning that the real is probably closer to 30%, Lithuania is in a mess.

The worldwide economic crisis is hardly the fault of the Lithuanian's choice of taxation system, the countries that are doing worst in Europe don't have flat taxes, they have had very high taxes traditionally- whether anyone paid is another matter. :lol:

Taxation is mainly an economics question, but the moral argument is simple Mr B (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSflRlHPay4) can afford to pay more, and he has obviously benefited more from the system, so he should pay more.
.

Tell Mr B it's a moral argument? I didn't think that we were dealing in unmaterialistic, unscientific "moral" arguments. What about if you went to buy a hamburger and they charged you more because you earnt more than the next guy? Would you say that was fair?

Taxation should not exist to punish the creation of wealth- which is fundamentally economic well-being which is in turn the key to economic growth and societal improvement, something Marx would have approved of.

A flat tax would still be a tax and would still go to the government in order for it to be redistributed fairly. The implementation of a flat tax also stops politicians from manipulating the electorate with tax code politics bullshit- which usually works to the advantage of the rich and not the poor anyway. Flat taxes would also increase saving, something people are complaining about not being able to do under the current system.

A flat tax system does not exclude tax breaks for people who really need it, large families, or people with serious economic problems either.

There is no reason to say that progressive taxation systems are de facto socialist, Adam Smith? Or that flat taxes are de facto conservative. Nor is "correctionism" de facto socialism.

tradeunionsupporter

18th October 2011, 01:59

Democrats do raise tax rates on the Rich but think about all the Lobbyists who Lobby the Democrats in power Democrats may be a little better than Republicans but Democrats still support Capitalism. Democrats don't support a Classless Society. The Rich are still going to be super Rich even if you raise their taxes under Capitalism when Bill Clinton was President America's tax rates were 39.6% and when Jimmy Carter was President the tax rates were 74% when under Eisenhower the tax rates were 91% with the Tax Loopholes I don't think the Rich really paid these tax rates but even if they did they were still Rich.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Klaatu

18th October 2011, 02:06

Why can't everyone just pay the same set amount of tax as a percentage and be done with it? Taxing the rich more and the poor less falls apart if everyone paid, say (random figure) 10%. That way it's fair and you stop a lot of nonsense.

Because a so-called flat income tax would mean that the rich would pay much less while the working class would pay a lot more in taxes

Taxation should not exist to punish the creation of wealth

So then why are you in favor of taxing the working class more (the true creators of the wealth)

Judicator

18th October 2011, 02:31

Well.. you know... seing as how most of the executive branch is former Goldman Sachs (and other such companies) employees, and that most lobbyists for private companies are former government employees...
WHy shouldn't the rich be at fault for the failures of the economy?

I didn't ask about the failure of the economy, I asked what happened to the first $3 trillion that we have spent year after year after year. If we wasted it because Goldman controls the government, then Goldman will control the next $100 billion so there's no point in raising taxes. If they wasted it because of incompetence, then again they will continue to be incompetent so the next $100 billion will be wasted as well. The government isn't very prudent when it comes to spending money, why would we believe by raising taxes it will become prudent?

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 02:35

Why/How is it fair that an honest person has to may more tax because they earn more money? Especially since this is not a model that is by any means universal, doesn't seem to work that well and is being criticised?

Imagine this hypothetical situation:

Mr A- earns €30,000 a year and pays say 15%- he lives next door to
Mr B- who earns €50,000 a year but pays 25%. Both Mr A and Mr B live in the same area, their kids go to the same school and they have the same doctor and so on. Neither Mr A nor Mr B are what you would describe as rich. Now Mr A might argue that he works longer hours but Mr B might argue that he had to study longer for his qualification. Mr A on the other hand might say that his job is more dangerous than Mr B's whereas Mr B might argue he has more responsibility and risk and so on... You can't settle it.

Because he can afford to, and is benefitting more from the system. This whole idea of a progressive tax being unfair is just another case of wealth pushing their externalities off on the general populace. YOU make all the money, so YOU pay for all the goodies... get it?
And in almost any progressive tax system, those 2 incomes would be in the same bracket, or the one after each other; meaning their would not be a 15% difference between their tax rates. Your analogy is absurd.

If everyone pays the same there is no problem.

Except for, you know, wealth will see a dramatic decrease in taxes while most people's will go up (especially with the policy of "everyone should pay something" for which you also advocate, and which basically goes with any flat tax model). There's also the problem that everyone will still be trying to cheat on their taxes, and wealth will invariably have a better oppurtunity to do so.

I've shown you an example of a flat tax model that did appear to have economic success seeing as we are not talking about anarcho/communist systems and you just dismiss it?

I didn't dismiss it. I said "capitalism has had economic success too... what's the point?"

Corporatism is not de facto capitalism either.

How is it not? How would you have corporatism within any other system than capitalism?

As for the argument about trucks and so on... it's silly. Within the capitalist mode of production everyone benefits to a greater or lesser extent from that production- including the workers who work. I am not arguing forcapitalism here, but you can't separate the worker from his or her role within that given mode of production. (emphasis mine)
Yes, to a greater or lesser extent. Why should the lesser extents pay as much as the greater extents?

Tell Mr B it's a moral argument? I didn't think that we were dealing in unmaterialistic, unscientific "moral" arguments. What about if you went to buy a hamburger and they charged you more because you earnt more than the next guy? Would you say that was fair?

Yes. Im not a huge douchebag. I can afford it, and would be perfectly willing to do so.

Taxation should not exist to punish the creation of wealth- which is fundamentally economic well-being which is in turn the key to economic growth and societal improvement, something Marx would have approved of.
So now you are saying that ownership is the "creators of wealth?"
As was asked by someone else.. are you still even a socialist?
Progressive taxation exists to offset the pilfering of wealth by the ruling class. Its not punishing anyone for anything.

A flat tax would still be a tax and would still go to the government in order for it to be redistributed fairly. The implementation of a flat tax also stops politicians from manipulating the electorate with tax code politics bullshit- which usually works to the advantage of the rich and not the poor anyway. Flat taxes would also increase saving, something people are complaining about not being able to do under the current system.

How is it going to increase savings for people who can't afford to live as it is? Its going to increase the ability of wealth to save. I dont see how it will help workers, especially with the policy of "everyone should pay, even if its a dollar."

A flat tax system does not exclude tax breaks for people who really need it, large families, or people with serious economic problems either.

So a flat tax could still be a progressive tax? Than why have a flat tax?

There is no reason to say that progressive taxation systems are de facto socialist, Adam Smith? Or that flat taxes are de facto conservative. Nor is "correctionism" de facto socialism.
Who said they were? It is my opinion that involuntary taxation, in general, cannot be socialist; it implies a state.

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 02:40

I didn't ask about the failure of the economy, I asked what happened to the first $3 trillion that we have spent year after year after year. If we wasted it because Goldman controls the government, then Goldman will control the next $100 billion so there's no point in raising taxes. If they wasted it because of incompetence, then again they will continue to be incompetent so the next $100 billion will be wasted as well. The government isn't very prudent when it comes to spending money, why would we believe by raising taxes it will become prudent?

Well, they won't. You have no argument from me there. You said "why should it be the fault of the rich that the government can't control the money (paraphrasing)." I answered "because they basically are the government."

Judicator

18th October 2011, 03:11

Well, they won't. You have no argument from me there. You said "why should it be the fault of the rich that the government can't control the money (paraphrasing)." I answered "because they basically are the government."

Okay, so at least we agree, regardless of other arguments, there's little sense in raising taxes on anyone to try to squeeze out another $100 billion, since it will be wasted anyway.

Many rich people are in government, this does not mean the rich (as a class) control government. Government is a quagmire of competing interests, some of which are corporations, but many are regular voters who just want as many government benefits as possible flowing their way.

Why on earth would big business in general support universal healthcare, which evidently passed despite the claim that the rich control government?

RichardAWilson

18th October 2011, 03:16

Why on earth would big business in general support universal healthcare

The White House's Program isn't even close to Universal Health Care. Why did it pass? It benefits pharmaceutical drug companies and a handful of connected insurers. You should research this issue yourself if you think it's a plan for benefiting working class Americans. Hell, this "universal plan" even taxes middle class insurance benefits (I.e. "Cadillac Plans").

Why would we believe by raising taxes it will be more efficient?

You're asking the wrong question. The culture of borrow and spend (even for corporate welfare) has died.

- It would take another financial crisis for corporate welfare to grow in the short to medium term.

Washington is now being held accountable by foreigners (I.e. the Chinese, Central Banks, Foreign Bond Holders and Foreign Institutions).

Most of each additional dollar raised from a millionaire tax increase would be dedicated toward long-term deficit-reduction.

So your question should be reworded as follows:

Should we continue borrowing to finance low tax rates for the super-rich?

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 03:20

Judicator

18th October 2011, 03:26

The White House's Program isn't even close to Universal Health Care. Why did it pass? It benefits pharmaceutical drug companies and a handful of connected insurers. You should research this issue yourself if you think it's a plan for benefiting working class Americans. Hell, this "universal plan" even taxes middle class insurance benefits (I.e. "Cadillac Plans").

It expands the group of people who are covered, so it's that much closer to UHC.

For every pharma company it helps, there are 20 corporations it hurts. Ignoring that, why wouldn't Republicans, who are presumably the party of big business, oppose it so much? Why would states where republicans receive large donations from pharma companies oppose it?

So your question should be reworded as follows:

Should we continue borrowing to finance low tax rates for the super-rich?

No, I would say:

Should we continue spending to fund worthless government programs?

Judicator

18th October 2011, 03:32

Ownership (and by extension wealth) as a class DOES control the government. This is why our "universal healthcare" is not socialized medicine, but universal insurance. Class struggle was going to get healthcare in this country, and ownership knew that. So they implemented a plan to their interests.

Let's clarify what you mean by "control." Do you mean "exerts strong influence over" or "has complete executive power over?"

If positions of power are mostly occupied by the rich, is this enough to say that the rich control the government?

RichardAWilson

18th October 2011, 03:34

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=985

The pharmaceutical and biotech sectors often contribute more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

You're suffering from obvious misinformation.

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/Obamacare-Winners-Drug-Cos-Hospitals-MDs-Insurance-Cos-The-People-Who-Knows-23-03.html

Big Pharma the Winner of Obama Care.

RichardAWilson

18th October 2011, 03:35

Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said last week that consumers would suffer if Congress allowed such deals to continue.

“The big winners are some of the branded pharmaceutical companies who have engaged in these deals and some of the generics who have done the same,” he said.

“The big loser is the American consumer, who is going to have to pay an extra $3.5 billion a year in much-needed drugs.”

RichardAWilson

18th October 2011, 03:37

I love Republicans and Libertarians with their uninformed assumptions and unsubstantiated claims.

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 04:00

Let's clarify what you mean by "control." Do you mean "exerts strong influence over" or "has complete executive power over?"

If positions of power are mostly occupied by the rich, is this enough to say that the rich control the government?

Individual capitalists (or individualised groups of capitalists) exert strong influence over the government. Ownership/wealth as a class exerts complete executive power over it.
Sure, sometimes pro-labor legislation passes; only that which cannot be stopped as it maintains near universal support amongst the populace. And these supposed pro-labor actions of the state invariably work in the favor of ownership/wealth, as a class.

Geiseric

18th October 2011, 04:25

The capitalists make all their money off stealing from the workers, better well pay more taxes... It's not like they're really even needed.

ComradeMan

18th October 2011, 07:33

Because a so-called flat income tax would mean that the rich would pay much less while the working class would pay a lot more in taxes

No it wouldn't, if you use the 10% figure to work from it would mean that the lowest tax bracket in the US wouldn't pay more at all, in Italy and a lot of European countries they would actually pay less.

So then why are you in favor of taxing the working class more (the true creators of the wealth)

I'm not.

Because he can afford to, and is benefitting more from the system.

Okay... so if you go to buy a hamburger and the guy charges you $2 more than the guy before you and you ask why, are you going to accept "Because you can afford to?"

This whole idea of a progressive tax being unfair is just another case of wealth pushing their externalities off on the general populace. YOU make all the money, so YOU pay for all the goodies... get it?

Except the real economic society isn't made up of that. All the money and one side and none of the money on the other.

And in almost any progressive tax system, those 2 incomes would be in the same bracket, or the one after each other; meaning their would not be a 15% difference between their tax rates. Your analogy is absurd.

Well let's take the current Italian example. Basically looking at the first three brackets, on taxable income up to €15,000 the rate is 23%, this rises to 27% up to €28,000 and jumps to 38% in the next bracket up to €55,000. So there is an 11% jump between the 2nd and 3rd brackets. Now, are you going to tell me that someone who is on between €28,001 and €55,000 belongs to the category of "rich" to start with?

Except for, you know, wealth will see a dramatic decrease in taxes while most people's will go up (especially with the policy of "everyone should pay something" for
which you also advocate, and which basically goes with any flat tax model).

Disagree.

There's also the problem that everyone will still be trying to cheat on their taxes, and wealth will invariably have a better oppurtunity to do so.

You tax income at the source. The current progressive taxation models are so complex and full of loopholes that with the right accountant and lawyers it's easier to find a way through the net.

When Russia introduced flat taxation, real government revenues from taxation increased. Now, combined with good government that means the state would actually have more revenue to invest in state spending and because politicians could no longer rely on tax-code politics they would have to be far more prudent with their government spending- which might lead to better government.

How is it not? How would you have corporatism within any other system than capitalism?

Yes, to a greater or lesser extent. Why should the lesser extents pay as much as the greater extents?

But they aren't paying "as much" they are paying the same proportionately- it's a percentage.

So now you are saying that ownership is the "creators of wealth?" As was asked by someone else.. are you still even a socialist?

Err... where did I say that "ownership" ? Do you think Marx envisaged a society in which everyone was poor but equal? That isn't socialism. I might ask you guys, are you socialists or do you just have some weird idea about post-revolutionary workers' dystopias? The workers owning and controlling the means of production means they reap the rewards of their work fairly but that still means that what they produce is going to be on a "market" of sorts. People will still want to save money and there will still be a need for a form of taxation. The generation of wealth for the benefit of society is not an issue, it's an issue when it's the generation of wealth for capital and not for the benefit of society as a whole.

Progressive taxation exists to offset the pilfering of wealth by the ruling class...

...and it doesn't work.

How is it going to increase savings for people who can't afford to live as it is? Its going to increase the ability of wealth to save. I dont see how it will help workers, especially with the policy of "everyone should pay, even if its a dollar."

Apart from the fact that government tax revenues actually increase and that allows good government to invest more in helping those who need it the most.

Judicator

18th October 2011, 08:11

The pharmaceutical and biotech sectors often contribute more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

You're suffering from obvious misinformation.

What point, specifically, are you referring to? Did I say Democrats get smaller donations than Republicans?

Big Pharma the Winner of Obama Care.

Agribusiness the Winner of food stamps!

Individual capitalists (or individualised groups of capitalists) exert strong influence over the government. Ownership/wealth as a class exerts complete executive power over it.
Sure, sometimes pro-labor legislation passes; only that which cannot be stopped as it maintains near universal support amongst the populace. And these supposed pro-labor actions of the state invariably work in the favor of ownership/wealth, as a class.

So, under your hypothesis, there should be no examples of pro-labor legislation, or anti-corporate legislation in general, that passes by low margins, say 55-45?

Despite the best efforts of the rich, we have an extremely high effective corporate tax rate, a progressive personal income tax system, and only give ~$100 billion in direct handouts (subsidies) to corporations.

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 08:44

No it wouldn't, if you use the 10% figure to work from it would mean that the lowest tax bracket in the US wouldn't pay more at all, in Italy and a lot of European countries they would actually pay less.

My question is, what about that large chunk of the populace that pays no tax at all?

Okay... so if you go to buy a hamburger and the guy charges you $2 more than the guy before you and you ask why, are you going to accept "Because you can afford to?"

I actually probably would... and Im not just being intellectually masturbatory here. I have this whole philosophy of "if you cannot live up to your principles, you should not even have them." So I do all kinds of weird stuff like let the clerk keep the change, freely (within reason) give access to my stuff, and stuff like that. When I was delivering pizza, I didn't even hide my tips.
Idk.. maybe I wouldn't. But I would expect myself too. And I would be disappointed if I did not.

Except the real economic society isn't made up of that. All the money and one side and none of the money on the other.

Who said it was?

Well let's take the current Italian example. Basically looking at the first three brackets, on taxable income up to €15,000 the rate is 23%, this rises to 27% up to €28,000 and jumps to 38% in the next bracket up to €55,000. So there is an 11% jump between the 2nd and 3rd brackets. Now, are you going to tell me that someone who is on between €28,001 and €55,000 belongs to the category of "rich" to start with?

Well, as I said, i have obvious disagreements with the current status of taxation in general. I really wouldn't want to see any of these people taxed, as they probably have trouble with income/expense ratios as it is.

Disagree.

How will millions of people not currently paying tax at all suddenly having to pay a 10% tax NOT an increase in taxes?

You tax income at the source. The current progressive taxation models are so complex and full of loopholes that with the right accountant and lawyers it's easier to find a way through the net.

Why could that not be done with a progressive tax?

When Russia introduced flat taxation, real government revenues from taxation increased.
What is the difference between real revenues and "fake" (?) revenues?

Now, combined with good government that means the state would actually have more revenue to invest in state spending and because politicians could no longer rely on tax-code politics they would have to be far more prudent with their government spending- which might lead to better government.

... have you not learned in all your years what "more prudent" means within capitalism? Has it not always meant "piss off workers. You will get nothing, and we will continue to go to war and expand the police state."
Idk, first I have to know what you mean by "real revenues."

But they aren't paying "as much" they are paying the same proportionately- it's a percentage.

Why should the lesser extents pay the same proportion as the greater extents?

Err... where did I say that "ownership" ?
"Taxation does not exist to punish the creation of wealth." What could that possibly mean other than; the more money you make, the more wealth you create for society?
As socialists, are we not united in the belief that "the more money you make, the more likely it is you pilfer the wealth created by the people under you?"
I did not mean to insinuate... that just seemed like an out-of-place statement.

Do you think Marx envisaged a society in which everyone was poor but equal? That isn't socialism. I might ask you guys, are you socialists or do you just have some weird idea about post-revolutionary workers' dystopias? The workers owning and controlling the means of production means they reap the rewards of their work fairly but that still means that what they produce is going to be on a "market" of sorts. People will still want to save money and there will still be a need for a form of taxation. The generation of wealth for the benefit of society is not an issue, it's an issue when it's the generation of wealth for capital and not for the benefit of society as a whole.

As I said before. When we get to a socialist economy, we can talk about a flat tax... or the need for involuntary taxes in general.

...and it doesn't work.

It worked great before it was sabatoged and partially dismantled.

Apart from the fact that government tax revenues actually increase and that allows good government to invest more in helping those who need it the most.
1)Do they always increase? Or did it just happen that one time, and you assume it will happen always?
2)How often has government really given a crap about "those that need it most" other than for political posturing?
3)How are people who previously had no tax at all, and are now paying a 10% tax, going to be able to save more?

ComradeMan

18th October 2011, 13:07

My question is, what about that large chunk of the populace that pays no tax at all?

You know my position, everyone should contribute. Okay I have ideas that aren't popular like all residents, especially tax-payers should have the same rights regardless of whether they are citizens or not- no taxation without representation etc. I also think a lot of tax free stuff and offshores and fiscal paradises etc should also be abolished- at the same time I advocate that I also advocate flat tax.

I actually probably would... and

:cool:.... cool sto.. * cough. I wonder how many other people share your noble sentiments.

How will millions of people not currently paying tax at all suddenly having to pay a 10% tax NOT an increase in taxes?

Well, we're talking about income tax to start with, so obviously that excludes those who do not have an income. Sure, I'm fine with exemptions for certain categories such as students and limited work etc.

But we keep focusing on the extremes- the hyper-poor or the hyper-rich, the fact is that there is a huge, huge middle band here too that's being completely ignored.

Why could that not be done with a progressive tax?

:confused:.... it is, and it's a big problem. According to this paper http://www-3.unipv.it/websiep/wp/337.pdf between 27% -48% of Italian GDP is actually "hidden"- because of tax evasion. Another article discusses the wider problem here http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Business/Italy-Tax-revenues-rise-03-percent-to-%E2%82%AC4033-bn-in-2010_311787279568.html

What is the difference between real revenues and "fake" (?) revenues?

As I understand it is in contrast to nominal- i.e. not offset by price-level changes, but I could be wrong on this one. I don't think it's in opposition to "fake" somehow. :lol:

... have you not learned in all your years what "more prudent" means within capitalism? Has it not always meant "piss off workers. You will get nothing, and we will continue to go to war and expand the police state."

Have you not learnt in all your years that bad government is bad government and the progressive taxation system with incredibly high taxes have not seen the total redistribution of wealth to the population at all? :unsure:

Why should the lesser extents pay the same proportion as the greater extents?

As socialists, are we not united in the belief that "the more money you make, the more likely it is you pilfer the wealth created by the people under you?"

Again, you are talking about extremes and not focusing on the big middle area.

It worked great before it was sabatoged and partially dismantled.

Explain....?

3)How are people who previously had no tax at all, and are now paying a 10% tax, going to be able to save more?

Again, focusing on extremes.

Could you explain who the people who pay no income tax on their income are? What are the brackets involved?

Per Levy

18th October 2011, 13:19

Could you explain who the people who pay no income tax on their income are?

ha i dont pay income tax because i earn to less, but then again i live in germany and not the usa.

RGacky3

18th October 2011, 13:35

The worldwide economic crisis is hardly the fault of the Lithuanian's choice of taxation system, the countries that are doing worst in Europe don't have flat taxes, they have had very high taxes traditionally- whether anyone paid is another matter. http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-opinion-obamas-t162760/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

But the fact that they got hit relatively harder than other countries IS.

Really? So Sweeden and Denmark were the hardest hit? Germany? Finland? Canada? The netherlands?

The reason it was'nt countries with flat taxes is because the only countries with flat taxes are mainly former USSR countries, who have just 20 years of being in Capitalism, and thus have major room for growth, but as your seeing now, the realities of Capitalism are catching up to those countries.

Italy is high tax rates, but its also pretty regressive compared to other european countries, its got a pretty high rate for poor people.

Tell Mr B it's a moral argument? I didn't think that we were dealing in unmaterialistic, unscientific "moral" arguments. What about if you went to buy a hamburger and they charged you more because you earnt more than the next guy? Would you say that was fair?

Except that happens all the time, and its usually regressive, its called credit and interest. But we are talking about the effect of the economy.

Taxation should not exist to punish the creation of wealth- which is fundamentally economic well-being which is in turn the key to economic growth and societal improvement, something Marx would have approved of.

Are you out of your mind? Are the Capitalists "creating wealth?" are bankers "creating wealth?" Are Executives and dividend check depositors "creating wealth?"

You are spitting out the same supply side trickle down nonsense that economists laugh at now.

People are not going to stop investing because you tax them, they arn't gonna juts not make any money if they have to make 9 billion rather than 10 billion.

Wealth is created by the workers, and economic well being is made by consumption and production, not by wealthy people getting more money.

You obviously don't know ANYthing about marx, Marx proposed progressive income taxes.

A flat tax would still be a tax and would still go to the government in order for it to be redistributed fairly. The implementation of a flat tax also stops politicians from manipulating the electorate with tax code politics bullshit- which usually works to the advantage of the rich and not the poor anyway. Flat taxes would also increase saving, something people are complaining about not being able to do under the current system.

Really? Then why is it only multi billionaire capitalists who are in favor of flat taxes? Do you really think that the rich are getting out of the progressive tax system because its "too complicated?"

As for increased savings? How would it incentivise savings? its an income tax, meaning its taxed before they get the money, meaning the poor would have less to save, actually your right, it would incentivise the RICH to save, because they don't want to use it to hire workers because it would cost more due to their income taxes being higher.

Your essencially raising labor costs while lowering disposable income for the working class.

A flat tax system does not exclude tax breaks for people who really need it, large families, or people with serious economic problems either.

There is no reason to say that progressive taxation systems are de facto socialist, Adam Smith? Or that flat taxes are de facto conservative. Nor is "correctionism" de facto socialism.

I'm asking you are you a socialist?

And yes, a tax system where the rich pay more and the poor pay less is something a normal socialist would be in favor of.

Someone who says that they should pay the same becuase its unfair to rich people, and buys into supply side austrian nonsense, probably is'nt a socialist, thats why I asked you.

As for excluding ... NIETHER DOES A PROGRESSIVE TAX, the only difference is the poor pay more and the rich pay less.

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 18:34

You know my position, everyone should contribute. Okay I have ideas that aren't popular like all residents, especially tax-payers should have the same rights regardless of whether they are citizens or not- no taxation without representation etc. I also think a lot of tax free stuff and offshores and fiscal paradises etc should also be abolished- at the same time I advocate that I also advocate flat tax.

So, as I said; you advocate rasing taxes on the poor and lowering them drastically for the wealthy.

Well, we're talking about income tax to start with, so obviously that excludes those who do not have an income. Sure, I'm fine with exemptions for certain categories such as students and limited work etc.

What about the working poor who do not make enough to be taxed under current tax codes? Under your system they will now pay 10%... do you really think they can afford that?

But we keep focusing on the extremes- the hyper-poor or the hyper-rich, the fact is that there is a huge, huge middle band here too that's being completely ignored.

Im not ignoring them. Are you?

:confused:.... it is, and it's a big problem. According to this paper http://www-3.unipv.it/websiep/wp/337.pdf between 27% -48% of Italian GDP is actually "hidden"- because of tax evasion. Another article discusses the wider problem here http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Business/Italy-Tax-revenues-rise-03-percent-to-%E2%82%AC4033-bn-in-2010_311787279568.html

Why could you not get rid of the loopholes and keep the progressive tax?
How is the flat tax the only solution to tax dodging?

Explain....?

The era of the progressive tax, in its heyday, seen the largest growths for the working class. The PT was not, by far, the only reason for this. But it was one.

Could you explain who the people who pay no income tax on their income are? What are the brackets involved?

The woking poor... all those people the american Republicans are crying about "not contributing at all"... you know, the whole reason the idea of "everyone should pay" even comes up...

ComradeMan

18th October 2011, 22:21

So, as I said; you advocate rasing taxes on the poor and lowering them drastically for the wealthy.
And I have already shown you how a) in the US it would not raise tax on the poor and b) in Italy it would lower tax on the poor.

Can you define wealthy?

What about the working poor who do not make enough to be taxed under current tax codes? Under your system they will now pay 10%... do you really think they can afford that?

Err... income tax is on taxable income, whether it's flat taxation or progressive taxation if you do not have a taxable income that isn't going to change, it it?

Why could you not get rid of the loopholes and keep the progressive tax?

The flat tax is a far simpler system, the more intricate the rules, the more the ways round them.

The era of the progressive tax, in its heyday, seen the largest growths for the working class. The PT was not, by far, the only reason for this. But it was one.

Yeah, it remains to be seen even if it was a reason seeing as we are talking about the boom in capitalism and capitalist systems. Oh wait, but the working class can't benefit in capitalism, can they?

The woking poor... all those people the american Republicans are crying about "not contributing at all"... you know, the whole reason the idea of "everyone should pay" even comes up...

I'm not talking about what the Republicans are bleeting about and I am not using the US as the only example.

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 22:35

And I have already shown you how a) in the US it would not raise tax on the poor and b) in Italy it would lower tax on the poor.

In the US the working poor currently pay no tax at all.. and in fact get paid on tax day (as do most americans under 70k). How is levying a 10% tax upon them not raising taxes on them?

Can you define wealthy?

Richer than the proverbial me :lol:
No, but in all seriousness, I would say somewhere around 250-300k and up.

Err... income tax is on taxable income, whether it's flat taxation or progressive taxation if you do not have a taxable income that isn't going to change, it it?

I thought you advocated "everybody needs to pay."
Or are you backing off that stance now? If you are, I really will have not that big of a problem with the flat tax stance. But if you are not advocating "everybody pitch in" than you are advocating a vastly different flat tax than most/all else are...

The flat tax is a far simpler system, the more intricate the rules, the more the ways round them.

Clearly defined rules with no credits and loopholes is clearly defined rules with no credits and loopholes, regardless of flat or progressive taxation. People are still going to cheat on their taxes.
Why could you not just have a progressive tax with clearly defined rules and no credits and loopholes?

Yeah, it remains to be seen even if it was a reason seeing as we are talking about the boom in capitalism and capitalist systems. Oh wait, but the working class can't benefit in capitalism, can they?

Who has ever said that?

I'm not talking about what the Republicans are bleeting about and I am not using the US as the only example.
You (maybe) advocate "everyone should chip in" which is exactly what US Republicans are advocating, as well as a flat tax.

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 09:26

In the US the working poor currently pay no tax at all.. and in fact get paid on tax day (as do most americans under 70k). How is levying a 10% tax upon them not raising taxes on them?

Why would the tax be levied on them? See below-

Richer than the proverbial me :lol:No, but in all seriousness, I would say somewhere around 250-300k and up.

You might be joking... but in that joke you've said a lot.

I thought you advocated "everybody needs to pay."

That's not quite what I was saying. I thought it would be obvious that when we are speaking about income tax we are speaking about taxable income- i.e. those who pay income tax now and how they would pay in a possible future. The principle of everyone should pay and coincides with the idea of "from each accordingly".

You (maybe) advocate "everyone should chip in" which is exactly what US Republicans are advocating, as well as a flat tax.

Well we have a couple of issues here. Firstly just because the Republicans advocate something, which is by no means a US Republican idea alone, does not mean it is de facto "Republican" or de facto wrong. Roosevelt (Snr) was a conservationist and a republican who created natural reserves- does that make them wrong because it was a republican?

Secondly, leading on from the point that this is not solely a US Republican issue, I think you've pounced on the idea like an angry jaguar because you perceive it to be intrinsically Republican when it is not necessarily so.

RGacky3

19th October 2011, 09:46

Err... income tax is on taxable income, whether it's flat taxation or progressive taxation if you do not have a taxable income that isn't going to change, it it?

wait a minute, if you make less than a certain amount now you don't pay ant money on that income, if you earn more you pay on ALL of it, but in a progressive manner. i.e. if you make less than $10,000 a year you pay nothing, if you make $50,000, yoy might pay a certain amount, but you pay on the whole $50,000.

a Flat tax means both of them pay the same rate on ALL of their money.

The flat tax is a far simpler system, the more intricate the rules, the more the ways round them.

Thats rediculous, loopholes are putinto the tax code on purpose, and the ways around the tax code now have nothing to do with it being progressive at all.

Yeah, it remains to be seen even if it was a reason seeing as we are talking about the boom in capitalism and capitalist systems. Oh wait, but the working class can't benefit in capitalism, can they?

... ??? Let me ask you again ... Are you a socialist?

And I have already shown you how a) in the US it would not raise tax on the poor and b) in Italy it would lower tax on the poor.

Its a FLAT TAX, meaning everyone pays the same amount.

That's not quite what I was saying. I thought it would be obvious that when we are speaking about income tax we are speaking about taxable income- i.e. those who pay income tax now and how they would pay in a possible future. The principle of everyone should pay and coincides with the idea of "from each accordingly".

That last sentance is the most pathetic piece of semantic sophistry I have ever seen, you belong on fox news.

ALL INCOME is taxable income under a flat tax, thats the point, in a progressive tax system, all income is taxible as well, but due to the progressive nature of it, some in the lower brackets end up paying nothing.

Well we have a couple of issues here. Firstly just because the Republicans advocate something, which is by no means a US Republican idea alone, does not mean it is de facto "Republican" or de facto wrong. Roosevelt (Snr) was a conservationist and a republican who created natural reserves- does that make them wrong because it was a republican?

Secondly, leading on from the point that this is not solely a US Republican issue, I think you've pounced on the idea like an angry jaguar because you perceive it to be intrinsically Republican when it is not necessarily so.

Roosevelt was also a member of the progressive party, and back then the republicans were not the republicans of today.

Either way, your flat tax is the wet dream of the wealthy and the right wing, and is only advocated by them ... And aparently you, but seeing your posts lately, it seams you've basically become right wing.

Revolution starts with U

19th October 2011, 17:49

Why would the tax be levied on them? See below-

Idk, because conservatives hate poor people? :rolleyes:

You might be joking... but in that joke you've said a lot.

It does say a lot because I see "wealthy" as a relative position. If we all live in abject poverty, but you own a little garden, you're wealthy... at least to the people around you. When I was growing up, before I knew the wider world, I thought these people down the road who lived in a doublewide and owned a dalmation and 2 nice cars were rich as hell.
... I later came to find out they live on a combined total $70k/yr.

If you aggregate these relative positions of "poor" and "wealthy" you find that the poor and the rich seperate somewhere around 250k.

That's not quite what I was saying. I thought it would be obvious that when we are speaking about income tax we are speaking about taxable income- i.e. those who pay income tax now and how they would pay in a possible future. The principle of everyone should pay and coincides with the idea of "from each accordingly".

From each according to her ability. People making >50k/yr (families) have no such ability. They already must live in debt w credit cards and cash advances to feed themselves and live comfortably as it is.

My plan is to abolish all taxes for (combined) incomes below $250k, and institute strong progressive taxes w no loopholes from there (credits will stay).

Well we have a couple of issues here. Firstly just because the Republicans advocate something, which is by no means a US Republican idea alone, does not mean it is de facto "Republican" or de facto wrong. Roosevelt (Snr) was a conservationist and a republican who created natural reserves- does that make them wrong because it was a republican?

No. Never said it was. I support the 2nd ammendment.
But also, back in those days, the Republicans were by and large cooler than the democrats.

Secondly, leading on from the point that this is not solely a US Republican issue, I think you've pounced on the idea like an angry jaguar because you perceive it to be intrinsically Republican when it is not necessarily so.
No I percieve it to be intrinsically anti-worker, and that is why the US Republicans support it so strongly.

Maslo

19th October 2011, 19:55

I support flat tax coupled with negative income tax welfare system. Its effect is the same as progressive taxation, but its simpler, more fraud-proof and allows you to combine the positive effects of progressive and flat system without their shortcomings. :thumbup1:

JFB.anon

19th October 2011, 22:25

It's bullshit on horseshit with some pigeonshit on the side.

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 09:05

My plan is to abolish all taxes for (combined) incomes below $250k, and institute strong progressive taxes w no loopholes from there (credits will stay)..

Okay so the major tax paying groups no longer pay tax and the ones who have the possibility of perhaps creative accountants and offshores flee with their money. It's cynical I know... but I think your plan would be a disaster.

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 10:13

Okay so the major tax paying groups no longer pay tax and the ones who have the possibility of perhaps creative accountants and offshores flee with their money. It's cynical I know... but I think your plan would be a disaster.

Its strange you skipped everything else but..

Why can they not do that under the flat tax? Mine has no loopholes, just as the flat tax.

The majority of taxes are paid by the top 10%, so your first sentence is just wrong.

Cut taxes on working people = disaster. Raise taxes on working people = awesome...

What? :confused:

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 11:19

Why can they not do that under the flat tax? Mine has no loopholes, just as the flat tax.

Well your plan is a blank page for the most part so it's hard to find loopholes.

The majority of taxes are paid by the top 10%, so your first sentence is just wrong.

Perhaps it varies from country to country.
But anyway...

...if the majority of taxes are actually paid by the 10% and those taxes go on government spending then where's the argument coming from that all these evil rich people are pilfering etc? The top 1% earn 19% of national income and pay approximately 37% of the taxes and the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes according to some figures I found.

Cut taxes on working people = disaster. Raise taxes on working people = awesome...

Except it would not "raise" taxes at all for the lowest income groups.... :rolleyes:

Your idea just wouldn't happen- I can't see any government abolishing taxes under the 250k bracket you propose.

Those who pay 10% now, to use the US example, would still pay 10% under my scheme. Plus you would free up a lot of cash taken in taxes that could be used to invest in businesses and employment- i.e. in a capitalist mode of production the more money in the market in terms of buying and selling means a healthier market and this would in turn lead to revenues from capital gains taxes- that would in turn help government spending projects.

You are also forgetting that progresive tax means that you don't pay 35% on all of your income anyway if you earn $379,150- you pay the bracket rate on the earnings according to a graded system, i.e. 10% on the first $17,000, 15% on the next amount up to $69,000 and so on. It is true that the upper income brackets would be paying less with a 10% flat tax rate on income tax under my scheme however I did some crude calculations on the lower income brackets.
(All figures rounded to whole numbers- approximate and based on stats I found here
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/)

Hypothetical situation:
Under my 10% flat tax idea, Mr A earning $17,000 would have no change, he'd still be paying 10% on that income. Mr B who earns $50,000 pays currently pays a progressive tax of $6,650 on all of his income so that's actually 13% as opposed to my 10% and Mr C who earns $90,000 a year would pay $11,900, i.e. 13%, as opposed to my 10%.

Now let's think of the tax brackets- we basically have the following brackets a 10%; b 15 %; c 25 %; d 28 %; e 33 %; f 35 %. The difference between a and b is 5%, the difference between b and c is 10% the difference between c and d is 3%, e and d = 5%, e and f = 2%. So the biggest difference is actually between b and c. However once you go beyond the last bracket it remains 35%, as far as I understand it, regardlessly- now I may be wrong, but that means someone who earns $100,000 over the $379,150 threshold, or $1,000,000 pays 35% on that income above- so you could argue that this is "flat" on the "rich" bracket and only progressive on the lower brackets anyway. Like you said yourself, the lower the income the more that percentage is felt.

Now I presume the majority of the people fall into the first three brackets, not the other ones, so it would mean the majority of the people would be paying less income tax.

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 11:41

Well your plan is a blank page for the most part so it's hard to find loopholes.

A page stating no loopholes is not blank. But nice attempt at a dodge.

How could they not do the same thing under a flat tax? How? If they can hide money under a no loopholes PT, why could they not hide money under a no loopholes FT?
You cannot answer that because the answer is, they can, and will.

...if the majority of taxes are actually paid by the 10% and those taxes go on government spending then where's the argument coming from that all these evil rich people are pilfering etc?
Its called the extraction of surplus value, the very foundation of socialist ideology. Its not as if the working class doesn't pay taxes. It's that the working class is so broke the tax contribution of the wealthy dwarfs theirs in comparison.
The capitalist extracts the surplus value of your labor, and hires the state to protect its privelaged position. The very essence of bourgie democracy is that they get to maintain a supposedly hands-off position on the government.

Except it would not "raise" taxes at all for the lowest income groups.... :rolleyes:

Your plan... maybe. I remain sceptical. All the other FT plans... absolutely do.

Your idea just wouldn't happen- I can't see any government abolishing taxes under the 250k bracket you propose.

is that your only criticism?

RGacky3

20th October 2011, 11:50

Well your plan is a blank page for the most part so it's hard to find loopholes.

loopholes are put in purposly, there is nothing inherent about progressive taxes that makes it more succeptable to loopholes.

...if the majority of taxes are actually paid by the 10% and those taxes go on government spending then where's the argument coming from that all these evil rich people are pilfering etc? The top 1% earn 19% of national income and pay approximately 37% of the taxes and the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes according to some figures I found.

Show me the figures because those are wrong, the top 1% get more income, and if you include capital gains and dividends its much more.

Except it would not "raise" taxes at all for the lowest income groups.... :rolleyes:

the definition of flat tax means everyone pays the same rate on all income, so are just having 2 groups? incomes that don't pay taxes and income that pays taxes?

Was'nt the whole justification of a flat tax that its not fair that richer people have to pay more???

Those who pay 10% now, to use the US example, would still pay 10% under my scheme. Plus you would free up a lot of cash taken in taxes that could be used to invest in businesses and employment- i.e. in a capitalist mode of production the more money in the market in terms of buying and selling means a healthier market and this would in turn lead to revenues from capital gains taxes- that would in turn help government spending projects.

Your still buying into the supply side nonsense, money in the wealthies hand is'nt not the same as money in poor people's hand.

Hypothetical situation:
Under my 10% flat tax idea, Mr A earning $17,000 would have no change, he'd still be paying 10% on that income. Mr B who earns $50,000 pays currently pays a progressive tax of $6,650 on all of his income so that's actually 13% as opposed to my 10% and Mr C who earns $90,000 a year would pay $11,900, i.e. 13%, as opposed to my 10%.

So its essencailly just tax cuts for the rich :), and the richer you are, the bigger your tax cut. It worked so well for Bush did'nt it.

This is a disasterous idea, your juts cutting taxes for the rich, its not stimulative, and your lowering revenue.

There is a reason this is the plan of the right wing buisiness class.

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 11:59

I happened to watch Oreilly this morning. He is of the position that Cain's 9% FT alone (not including the rest of his plan) is a slight tax increase (1.2%) for most americans.

I think hardline marxists are off base calling free speech support "principles over people." (Free speech does sometime impede class destruction. But it often protects against class domination as well.) But I think the idea of a flat tax literally is principles over people, fairness over functionality.

RGacky3

20th October 2011, 12:07

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 12:15

Principles imo are the basis for everything, but considering a flat tax being "fair" is accepting that capitalism distributes wealth correctly and fairly and in a way that is healthy for the economy.

Firstly "principles" are not scientifc facts, secondly- we are talking about one aspect of a far bigger picture, i.e. income tax, which is not the sum total of capitalism.

The first part makes no sense if your a socialist, and the second part makes no sense if you know anything about economics.

Do the maths and look at the evidence from countries that have adopted flat taxation systems.... I thought we were all about being empirical, objective and scientific?

A page stating no loopholes is not blank. But nice attempt at a dodge. How could they not do the same thing under a flat tax? How? If they can hide money under a no loopholes PT, why could they not hide money under a no loopholes FT? You cannot answer that because the answer is, they can, and will.

Because a flat tax system would streamline and simplify the whole process of taxation. In the example of Lithuania where a flat tax was adopted, tax revenue increased and tax evasion appeared to decrease. In Russia too the deadweight loss from evasion was reduced- although there doesn't seem to be consensus on the figures- they do seem to agree that tax evasion was reduced. That's empirical evidence.... ;)

The current taxation systems allow "capitalists" i.e. businesses to deduct labour costs from their expenses too. The whole issue of deductions is a moot point and needs to be dealt with in depth.

Its called the extraction of surplus value, the very foundation of socialist ideology.

Does that still hold true in a modern post-industrial finance economy? In this case what labour do you define as surplus and what as necessary? Marx' theory is not without its critics either- it wasn't even his theory, he refined the theory of Johann Rodbertus.

Your plan... maybe. I remain sceptical. All the other FT plans... absolutely do.

Well the numbers don't lie in themselves.

...is that your only criticism?

Well you have to suggest things that are workable.

Out of interest, what do you think of the FairTax alternative then?

RGacky3

20th October 2011, 12:31

the example of Lithuania where a flat tax was adopted, tax revenue increased and tax evasion appeared to decrease.

No shit they increased because the economy increased, EVERY post-soviet state had a huge increase in economic growth, because thats what happens when you introduce capitalism to a closed economy, it blows up.

In Russia too the deadweight loss from evasion was reduced- although there doesn't seem to be consensus on the figures- they do seem to agree that tax evasion was reduced. That's empirical evidence.... ;)

I'd like to see some numbers on that, like when the evasion was reduced, how they know it was reduced (how do you know how much was evaded), and so on.

The current taxation systems allow "capitalists" i.e. businesses to deduct labour costs from their expenses too. The whole issue of deductions is a moot point and needs to be dealt with in depth.

Flat taxes would have deductions too ... Its just they would'nt matter as much. Either way, there are ways to take out loopholes WHICH ARE PUT IN ON PURPOSE, without getting rid of an effective progressive tax and putting in a flat tax that would wreck th economy.

Does that still hold true in a modern post-industrial finance economy? In this case what labour do you define as surplus and what as necessary? Marx' theory is not without its critics either- it wasn't even his theory, he refined the theory of Johann Rodbertus.

its not a post-industrial finance economy, all of hte financial industry is ultimately based on commodity (in the marxist sense) production, i.e. goods and services, the financial industry is a HUGE superstructure of the real economy, so yes, when it comes to the bones of the economy, Marx was stil right, and so was Marx right on finance Capital, he wrote a whole book about it.

Marx theory has critics, and who cares, if you have a critique make it.

As for as Johann Rodbertus, no he did'nt, Johann was just another socialist economist, the LTOV is'nt the invention of Marx nor was it the main thrust of marxian economics, the LTOV was accepted as the basic theory of value by most economists of the time, and still is, other than by those who deny it for ideological reasons.

Well the numbers don't lie in themselves.

And your numbers showed, its just a tax cut for the rich, your whole theory about this is based on supply side nonsense ... Thats why I ask if your a socialist, becuase your obviously buying into supply side economics.

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 12:53

No shit they increased because the economy increased, EVERY post-soviet state had a huge increase in economic growth, because thats what happens when you introduce capitalism to a closed economy, it blows up.

Lithuania introduced the flat tax rate in 1996, 5 years after "independence" from the Soviet Union.

"The economy of Lithuania was one of the fastest growing in the world last decade (1998–2008) as GDP growth rate was positive 9 years in a row. Since the year 2000 GDP has almost doubled with a growth rate of 77%.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lithuania#cite_note-32)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lithuania

People didn't speak of the "Baltic Tiger" for nothing, furthemore in the 2000s they lowered the flat tax rates and this reduced tax burden led to beneficial foreign investment.

I'm not saying Lithuania is the solution to all the world's problems economically speaking, but the facts speak for themselves.

I'd like to see some numbers on that, like when the evasion was reduced, how they know it was reduced (how do you know how much was evaded), and so on.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/18/russias-flat-tax/

Flat taxes would have deductions too ... Its just they would'nt matter as much. Either way, there are ways to take out loopholes WHICH ARE PUT IN ON PURPOSE, without getting rid of an effective progressive tax and putting in a flat tax that would wreck th economy.

Like I said, the issue of deductions is another subject in itself.

its not a post-industrial finance economy, all of hte financial industry is ultimately based on commodity (in the marxist sense) production, i.e. goods and services, the financial industry is a HUGE superstructure of the real economy, so yes, when it comes to the bones of the economy, Marx was stil right, and so was Marx right on finance Capital, he wrote a whole book about it.

Okay a service economy then with approximately more the 50% of the workforce employed in the service sector. I wasn't talking about the financial sector.

Is that why economies that tried to apply Marxist economic strategies failed miserably in economic terms or drifted towards capitalism?

As for as Johann Rodbertus, no he did'nt, Johann was just another socialist economist, the LTOV is'nt the invention of Marx nor was it the main thrust of marxian economics, the LTOV was accepted as the basic theory of value by most economists of the time, and still is, other than by those who deny it for ideological reasons.

Whatever.... :rolleyes:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/rodbertus/index.htm

And your numbers showed, its just a tax cut for the rich, your whole theory about this is based on supply side nonsense ... Thats why I ask if your a socialist, becuase your obviously buying into supply side economics.

And my "numbers" showed that the lower brackets would also benefit by around a 3% tax break, plus the fact that you have to weigh up other benefits too, like the empirical evidence of countries that have introduced the system, enjoyed growth, reduced tax evasion and increased government tax revenue- which fundamentally helps the lower income brackets.

----

Seriously, you guys' analyses are stuck in the 70s. It's 2011.... try reading Goran Therborn or Zygmunt Bauman or something....

RGacky3

20th October 2011, 13:29

Firstly "principles" are not scientifc facts, secondly- we are talking about one aspect of a far bigger picture, i.e. income tax, which is not the sum total of capitalism.

Yeah, but how you apply scientific facts is based on principles.

I know we are juts talking about income tax, but your arguments have all been from a pro-capitalist supply side standpoint.

Do the maths and look at the evidence from countries that have adopted flat taxation systems.... I thought we were all about being empirical, objective and scientific?

The examples you gave are all eastern european countries, who A: just came into capitalism 20 years ago, meaning they'll grow no matter what and B: Have suffered really really a lot from the economic crisis, and by no means have a well off working class.

"The economy of Lithuania was one of the fastest growing in the world last decade (1998–2008) as GDP growth rate was positive 9 years in a row. Since the year 2000 GDP has almost doubled with a growth rate of 77%.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lithuania#cite_note-32)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lithuania)

People didn't speak of the "Baltic Tiger" for nothing, furthemore in the 2000s they lowered the flat tax rates and this reduced tax burden led to beneficial foreign investment.

I'm not saying Lithuania is the solution to all the world's problems economically speaking, but the facts speak for themselves.

Yes, but look at Lithuania now, its like your using the giant growth of iceland pre crash as an example.

Also as I said, comming fresh into capitalism will make any economy boom.

Okay a service economy then with approximately more the 50% of the workforce employed in the service sector. I wasn't talking about the financial sector.

Is that why economies that tried to apply Marxist economic strategies failed miserably in economic terms or drifted towards capitalism?

A, Marxist economics has'nt been applied in those countries, and you know that. B, Marxism is almost all an analysis of Capitalism.

A service sector still works along the same Marxian lines as production of goods, its just production of services.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...sias-flat-tax/ (http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/18/russias-flat-tax/)

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/05/russia_flat_tax.html

A lot of the boost in the economy did'nt come from a flat tax but from the lessening of corruption, they changed the enforcement and shut down loopholes as well, and the GDP growth was double before the flat tax than it was after, the GDP growth was gonna happen anyway.

Whatever.... :rolleyes:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...rtus/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/rodbertus/index.htm)

Enough of the snarky shit, grow up.

Where did I say anything untrue in what you quoted?

And my "numbers" showed that the lower brackets would also benefit by around a 3% tax break, plus the fact that you have to weigh up other benefits too, like the empirical evidence of countries that have introduced the system, enjoyed growth, reduced tax evasion and increased government tax revenue- which fundamentally helps the lower income brackets.

Yes, because your just lowering taxes ....

You have to also take the empirical evidence that any industrialized country that comes out of a closed system and opens markets is going to explode economically, which is a much better explination.

Also when you have new economies, supply side economics WILL boost the economy and cause massiave fast growth, but in the end it collapses, and for countries already developed in capitalism it will just ruin it.

BTW, why don't you answer the question, are you a Socialist? If so How?

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 18:01

Firstly "principles" are not scientifc facts, secondly- we are talking about one aspect of a far bigger picture, i.e. income tax, which is not the sum total of capitalism.

Yes. Fairness is not a scientific fact. It is fair, at least imo, for citizens to pay into a progressive tax.

Because a flat tax system would streamline and simplify the whole process of taxation. In the example of Lithuania where a flat tax was adopted, tax revenue increased and tax evasion appeared to decrease. In Russia too the deadweight loss from evasion was reduced- although there doesn't seem to be consensus on the figures- they do seem to agree that tax evasion was reduced. That's empirical evidence.... ;)

But is that a product of the flat tax, or the closing of loopholes?

Does that still hold true in a modern post-industrial finance economy? In this case what labour do you define as surplus and what as necessary? Marx' theory is not without its critics either- it wasn't even his theory, he refined the theory of Johann Rodbertus.

People go to work for someone else and produce x amount of value, and are compensated at >x, and while some of that money taken may be for administrative costs and reinvestment, the largest chunk of it goes to the boss. It is undeniable. You don't even need the bourg and the proles, necessarily.

Out of interest, what do you think of the FairTax alternative then?

http://fairtaxfraud.com/alternatives.asp doesn't look good. Particularly "the working poor are in effect in the 100% tax bracket, while the superwealthy are effectively in the 5% bracket."

There are problems with progressive taxes (all taxes are a problem, really). Progressive taxation is not a problem.

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 20:53

Yes. Fairness is not a scientific fact. It is fair, at least imo, for citizens to pay into a progressive tax. .

Look, I would not advocate something I did not think could lead to equality and an egalitarian society- like I said before I am not supporting any particular current political movement that advocates flat taxes- just exploring the idea.

But is that a product of the flat tax, or the closing of loopholes?

Well, it would require an expert on taxation and tax history to answer that. Things don't exist in a vacuum so I wouldn't be hasty to jump to too many conclusions but what I have read has pointed to tangible results- so I am basing this on "empirical" data in good faith.

People go to work for someone else and produce x amount of value, and are compensated at >x, and while some of that money taken may be for administrative costs and reinvestment, the largest chunk of it goes to the boss. It is undeniable. You don't even need the bourg and the proles, necessarily.

Sure, but that's a structural issue of the capitalist mode of production. I personally don't think we can define things so clearly these days, but anyway, we were talking about a tax overhaul within this mode of production and not some mass overhaul of society at large!

http://fairtaxfraud.com/alternatives.asp doesn't look good. Particularly "the working poor are in effect in the 100% tax bracket, while the superwealthy are effectively in the 5% bracket."

You know what? I agree. I thought it was just too good to be true and someone IRL accused me of being this-that-and-the-other (:lol:) for saying so.

There are problems with progressive taxes (all taxes are a problem, really). Progressive taxation is not a problem.

Death and taxes as they say. But we have to look at the economic success of some countries that have applied flat taxation (and have healthcare and social welfare etc etc too).

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 21:29

Look, I would not advocate something I did not think could lead to equality and an egalitarian society- like I said before I am not supporting any particular current political movement that advocates flat taxes- just exploring the idea.

:thumbup1:

Well, it would require an expert on taxation and tax history to answer that. Things don't exist in a vacuum so I wouldn't be hasty to jump to too many conclusions but what I have read has pointed to tangible results- so I am basing this on "empirical" data in good faith.

Ya, Im not intrinsically opposed to a flat tax. It just seems like lowering taxes on the rich to shift the burden onto workers.

Sure, but that's a structural issue of the capitalist mode of production. I personally don't think we can define things so clearly these days, but anyway, we were talking about a tax overhaul within this mode of production and not some mass overhaul of society at large!

Whats not so clear about people not getting paid the full value they produce with their labor so that it can be expropriated by the boss and investors?

You know what? I agree. I thought it was just too good to be true and someone IRL accused me of being this-that-and-the-other (:lol:) for saying so.

I dont support sales tax, at all, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination. :cool:

Death and taxes as they say. But we have to look at the economic success of some countries that have applied flat taxation (and have healthcare and social welfare etc etc too).
Perhaps it could work... in some more social liberal societies, as in europe.. perhaps. I have my doubts.
Implemented here in the states? It will be a massive shifting of the tax burden onto the working class.

Klaatu

22nd October 2011, 00:32

Klaatu

22nd October 2011, 00:44

It will be a massive shifting of the tax burden onto the working class.

TRUE, and why should the working class pay for the rich man's wars? Especially since (A) we don't support war anyway and
(B) the rich kids are never sent to fight these wars:

bcpXpQx9aLM

Judicator

22nd October 2011, 06:05

The REASON we have progressive income tax is because the wealthy OWE MUCH MORE because they are ENABLED by society
The wealthy SHOULD be paying AT LEAST 50%, and more like 75%
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

Think, man!

The private costs of roads, infrastructure, and police protection HARDLY amount to 50% of GDP. So why should the rich pay for what they "owe" and then some?

These are the things that enable the wealthy...and even if you're really aggressive about it they get up to MAYBE 25% of GDP, probably more like 10% if you consider the fact that much police enforcement is wasted on wars on drugs (which certainly don't help investment bankers make any more money) and foreign adventures (ditto).

Revolution starts with U

22nd October 2011, 07:18

You think poor people control the drug trade? You don't think the establishment cooperates with the illicit drug trade?

RGacky3

22nd October 2011, 07:34

Klaatu

24th October 2011, 03:01

The private costs of roads, infrastructure, and police protection HARDLY amount to 50% of GDP. So why should the rich pay for what they "owe" and then some?

These are the things that enable the wealthy...and even if you're really aggressive about it they get up to MAYBE 25% of GDP, probably more like 10% if you consider the fact that much police enforcement is wasted on wars on drugs (which certainly don't help investment bankers make any more money) and foreign adventures (ditto).

It is not possible to put an exact proportion on the extent of enablement of private enterprises by public taxpayers.
We have the post office, the roads, the public schools, the public electric and gas suppliers, the hospitals, the libraries,
public radio/television, the space program, the courts, the governments, the national defense, (military, coast guard, etc)
the national health care (not in USA) the police (city, state, federal) the firemen, the inspectors, the scientists, and so on...

The point is that everyone benefits form public services, ESPECIALLY the wealthy capitalist. And everyone must pay into
this system, ESPECIALLY capitalists, because they benefit the most. For example, in the 19th century, the US railroad industry
might not have survived if the government had not provided them with free land, and a lot of it. If they had to pay for the
required land themselves, the progress would have been set back decades, and have been much more expensive. Even in the
19th century, Laissez-Faire was a myth.

Why should the public pay the capitalist's bills? Thing is that WE HAVE. And now the wealthy, whiny capitalist (who can easily
afford to) does not want to pay back society what he OWES society... he does not want to pay his fair share (which is at least
half of his take) In fact some capitalists think they owe no tax back at all to their original public providers and enablers (under
the guise of their "liberty")

This is all based on a simple premise: that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be rich, without a society (A) to enable you and (B) to buy
your products. For example, if you are shipwrecked on a deserted island, never to be rescued, you will have to spend your
entire day, every day, just making the effort to survive. (watch some of the reality shows such "Man vs Wild" to see how much
effort is required just to survive in the wilderness) So HOW are you going to be RICH, living alone? Even if you found a vein
of pure gold on your island, worth billions, this would be absolutely worthless to you - food and fresh water are far more
precious to you than gold. "Rich" is now defined as "mere survival" and "good health and safety" (from wild animal attacks,
large and small...microbes) Rich now equals daily triumph over sickness and death, nothing more. You can't eat gold.

The short answer is that you need OTHER PEOPLE in order (for you to exploit) to become wealthy. And since this is so, you owe
the rest of us BIG MONEY in return. Those who don't pay up should just be banished to a deserted island forever. That's only fair.

RichardAWilson

24th October 2011, 04:56

The private costs of roads, infrastructure, and police protection HARDLY amount to 50% of GDP. So why should the rich pay for what they "owe" and then some?

When Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics need more cash, we go to war (Pentagon Spending).

When Halliburton needs more money, we give them a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq.

When oil companies need to save money, the Pentagon sends warships around the world to protect oil transporting vessels.

When oil companies want to make an extra dollar, they sell to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

When big agribusinesses (like Tyson and Daniels-Midland) need more cash, Uncle Sam writes them a check (Farming Subsidies).

When the Savings and Loans failed, Uncle Sam wrote them a check for a quarter of a trillion.

When the banks failed, Uncle Sam wrote them a check worth almost a trillion dollars.

When Ford, General Motors and Chrysler came close to failing, Uncle Sam wrote them a check.

When the airlines came close to failing, Uncle Sam wrote them a check.

When Caterpillar needs more cash and financing, Uncle Sam writes them a check (Export-Import Bank).