jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (54 posts)

A "Fair Tax' System vs. Our, (U.S.), Progressive Income Tax Structure

  1. GA Anderson profile image82
    GA Andersonposted 9 months ago

    First, a little housekeeping;
    Recent comments by Wilderness and Live to Learn prompted me to refer to an old thread by My Esoteric.

    The motivating comments related to what a "Fair" taxation structure should be.

    I now believe that out current 'progressive' income tax structure is one that at least one of our Constitution writers would approve of.



    Important note: At the time of Hamilton's writing, tributary did not mean an off-shoot of a body of water, it meant an offering of value. (I initially tripped over this change in meaning and sounded dumb in my reply)

    I also now believe that in dealing with the realities of national life, a nation's needs, and not the unrealistic rigidness of some principled convictions; a progressive taxing structure is a "fair" structure. Citing the analogy of one person paying more than another for a loaf of bread is an unrealistic perspective - as I see it.

    So, here is the thread that changed my mind:
    Do You Agree With Alexander Hamilton's Position on Taxing the Rich?

    For explanation, I refer to a couple of the posts in the thread.

    The OP that set the stage;
    http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1363 … ost2813658

    The perspective that I then held is illustrated by this post response;
    http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1363 … ost2813922

    ... and here is where my perspective changed;
    http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1363 … ost2814121

    So, with all that set-up, and considering that I think there is validity in the thought that our Constitution writers, (aka our Founding Fathers), did understand the plight of the poor and the need for the rich to 'step-up' and be the primary support for our nation - do the Conservative's principles of 'fairness' allow for the thought that a "progressive" taxing structure is the fairest way to finance our nation?

    GA

    1. dianetrotter profile image69
      dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      1.  You can't pay if you don't have money.
      2.  Taxes are paid for things everyone can benefit from (unless you want to include "entitlements.")
      3.  If taxes are not paid on a progressive schedule, how would we pay for education, infrastructure, salaries for gov't employees (maybe there are too many) and other things paid for by taxes.

      If is a fair system; however, there are too many loopholes for those who can afford highly paid tax attorneys.

      1. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Diane,

        I do agree about the "loopholes" in general - they usually amount to the government's attempts at social-engineering, or purchased privileges. Which I also see as generally failed efforts, but I can see instances where they are desirable in a society grown as large and complex as ours.

        We might not be able to make the camel drink, but sometimes moral imperatives insist that we must at least make the try. Civil Rights legislation comes to mind as a good example. So does business tax incentives for innovation or global competitiveness. At least in my perspective.

        GA

        1. dianetrotter profile image69
          dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          True!  There are some deductions that are beneficial to the community @ large.  A well prepared return, though fraudulent, can facilitate unworthy actors getting fake deductions.

          If you use TurboTax you are are less likely to be audited that if you have Joe Doaks do your return.

  2. wilderness profile image99
    wildernessposted 9 months ago

    Assuming you're discussing the federal income tax I think a graduated, progressive tax schedule is necessary (surprise!).  It's obviously not "fair", but that's only a quibble, and one that doesn't matter a lot when the existence of the country is at stake.

    But that doesn't mean that half the nation pays nothing while others pay as much as 90% of their income.  Any time we decide it is "necessary" to hit someone that hard it becomes obvious it is not for the needs of the country, for no country must demand that kind of percentage of the wealth of the nation just to survive.

    Personally, I think that something in the range of 35% maximum is more than enough as long as we aren't on a total war footing such as was done in WWII.  Any more than that just isn't necessary.  And of course another 15% or so in FICA, state income and sales taxes brings the total well over 50%.  Indeed, when all the fees, licenses, specialty taxes like that on gasoline etc. are added in some of our citizens are already giving as much as 75% of their income to the country, and that's more than should be required of anyone regardless of personal wealth.

    1. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Well, damn wilderness, and here I thought this might be a subject we could argue about. So yes, I am slightly surprised.

      Even worse, I agree, almost point-by-point, with your response. My original post was directed specifically at income taxes. As you indicate in your comment; all these other item-specific taxes are a different matter. I could really make a meal out of a discussion about this new wave of "soda" taxes.

      GA

      1. dianetrotter profile image69
        dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        tobacco tax could fund the medical treatment smokers will obviouosly need.

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Instead the tobacco tax paid for a multi-million dollar restoration of the Idaho Statehouse.  A small, politically powerless group of people was taxed to pay for something the state wanted but couldn't pay for.  And it was advertised as a great thing!

          1. dianetrotter profile image69
            dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Hmmmm!  Gotta check that out.

            The lottery was allowed in California to provide money for education.  Guess what?  We STILL need money for education.

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "The 2005 Legislature revived hope for the interior restoration by extending the cigarette tax so that a portion of the revenue collected, beginning in FY07, is deposited into the Permanent Building Fund. The annual amount, estimated at $20 million, is earmarked for the repair, remodel, and restoration of the Capitol and state facilities pertaining to the Capitol restoration."
              https://capitolcommission.idaho.gov/restoration/

        2. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Obviously? About 10 % of smokers develop lung cancer. About 25% of all people in the United States will develop some type of cancer. According to statistics from the American Cancer society it appears that about 18% of people worldwide develop cancer.

          Maybe cigarettes are no more dangerous than just living. is.

          1. dianetrotter profile image69
            dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            A % is attributed to 2nd hand smoke.  I hate to see moms blowing smoke around their babies.  It's ratched!

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, well sitting in judgement of others behavior is always fun.

              1. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Tsk. Tsk. Live to Learn. While I do agree with your negative opinion of judging others, you just did it yourself.

                Diane's point was sincere and valid. I can't imagine anyone but a Neanderthal that would consider blowing smoke in a baby's face to be OK. Even if I don't agree with her continued effort to defend a previous position.

                So lighten-up and say you're sorry.

                GA

                1. dianetrotter profile image69
                  dianetrotterposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I tried to remember why I reeally like you.  Now I know!  Thanks GA!

                  Hey Live.....I'm waiting!!!!

                  1. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Ha! Hold on to that thought. I'm sure we will have future exchanges that will prompt you to have other thoughts of my perspectives. ;-)

                    GA

                2. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Well, let's think about the statement. I've always been negative when I hear people exaggerate in order to attempt to gain consensus. 'Blowing smoke in a baby's face'? Really? What that boils down to is seeing a woman smoking within eyesight of her child. Not the same. I doubt anyone has seen a woman leaning over a baby and blowing smoke in its face. Although, those who acquiesce to demands by kids for a Happy Meal every day are probably in far more danger of doing permanent damage to their children's health. We don't demonize them. We kind of feel sorry for them. I wonder why?

                  1. dianetrotter profile image69
                    dianetrotterposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    I have a 32-year old niece who was disabled because my sister smoked while she was pregnant.  I have definitely seen mothers smoking while they held newborn babies.  When they smoke while playing with their babies, what do you think happens.

                    You must remember, there are people who are offended when asked to put out a cigarette on an airplane, in a restaurant or a grocery store line.

                    Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't true.  I wish it weren't.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Hi Live to Learn,

                    Ok, you got me. I did succumb to the current trend of hyperbole. Sorry. I will dust myself off, and try to maintain my balance in the future.

                    But... I don't think Diane's statement referencing second-hand smoke was intended to be at the other end of my hyperbole either - as in including smoking in the basement when the kid is on the third floor. I like your description of "within eyesight." That is the perception I got from her statement.

                    See, that cost me nothing, and I feel much better. Your turn.

                    GA

                    [EDIT ADDED]
                    Oops! I can see from your subsequent replies to Diane that this "smoking" issue is one, on which you have serious and firm positions. Don't mind me. I will just slip off to the side. Just pretend you didn't even see me.

              2. dianetrotter profile image69
                dianetrotterposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Not all the time BUT, definitely, some times!  smile

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Yeh. The momentary joy achieved is always tempting and very often we all scratch that itch
                  . smile

        3. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Smokers pay a lot in taxes. If they smoke a lot all their life they die early and quickly. Healthy people that dont smoke and live to 102 use benefits for years. Some state or gov worker could work from 45 to 62-65 ie 20 years and then get benefits for 40 years. Meanwhile private sector gotta pay them for life.

          No such thing as a fair or good tax. Giving money to the gov is like giving heroin to a junkie and saying save it for later or put it to good use, as well as contributing to inflation.

          Everything should be privatized. There should be no taxes on food or real estate.  We dont own a house despite paying 200k for a 75k house, we just rent it from the government property tax monster junkie.

          For funding an ultra lean gov, have a sales tax on luxury items. If you wanna 125 million dollar yacht pay 25 million in taxes.

          1. wilderness profile image99
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Everything should be privatized."

            No thank you.  I do NOT want a private military.  Or police.  Or park rangers.  Or anyone else authorized to use force.

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I was speaking in general, but you know that. You didnt miss this part:  " to fund an ultra lean. Gov..
              "

              Nevertheless the private sector could probably do just as good a job at bombing villagers and shooting fleeing misdemeanors as the gov.

      2. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, the small, specific taxes are becoming the wave of the future - a method to pay for politicians projects without "raising taxes", much like the airlines have done with their own little add-on fees over the years.

        Haven't got the bill yet, but apparently the license "tax" on my plug in hybrid car will go up nearly $200 this year.  $70 along with everyone else's and an additional $100 because I don't use much gas in an effort to promote clean air.  These little "additions" just keep coming - the political appetite for more money is insatiable.

  3. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 9 months ago

    The freemasons and ptb are probably pleased that they no longer have to think of ways to enact taxes when the populace will think of ways to tax themselves. The same as wages, if you are not thinking of ways to reduce, keep low or end taxes, you are playing their game. By they I mean the people that print it, governments, elite, monarchs , presidents etc.

    1. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      sshhh... you don't want to draw the attention of 'The Dark Hand'.

      GA

  4. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 8 months ago

    " the evil rich dont pay enough taxes or get away with not paying any"

    The evil rich invented taxes. Figure it out.

 
working