EPTA look at the 9-9-9 Tax Code - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 17 2011 00:33 Chargelot wrote: How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off. This doesn't make any sense. Euro countries have debts of their own. We don't have to pay back our debt any time soon and we definitely don't have to pay back 14 trillion before we can add new government services. | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
Ooh and one really needs a world wide tax on day trading so the gambling we see now by definition becomes a losing game. Every transaction made should have tax on it so the madness stops. One obviously needs a progressive tax system. But I think taxing income is old fashioned. One should really only tax consumption and pollution. We want people to get jobs and work and get income. We don't want to tax it more than we have to. I think the US should get rid of their whole current system and have a progressive income tax that is designed to get a certain result on closing the income gap. Then when they have taxed their way out of debt and we are a decade into the future we can see what the role is going to be for the income tax in a modern society. US needs to tax the rich, stop military spending and fix the health care system. This has been obvious long before the financial crisis. I don't understand why Americans are so confused about it. It seems that the moment you step into an area affected by American political discourse, up and down suddenly flip. Both the facts and the terminology. Obama's health care system had no public support exactly because he tried to work and compromise with the republicans. There has been public support for public and universal health care for 60 years straight. That's basically as long as they have been polling. Of course Obama never supported that. And what he did initially propose was watered down even more into what it is now. Of course it has no public support. Obama should have hammered down all these policies people voted him in office for. But no, he is a weak leader and a terrible president. Is he there for the people that voted him into office or is her there for the republican nutjobs who believe global warming isn't real? Fucking close guantanomo already Obama is Bush heavy. He is everything Bush is but worse. Bush tortured? Obama assassinates. Bush bails out a few corporations, Obama bails them all out massively. Bush starts a war with a pitiful country called Iraq? Obama continues all the existing wars and starts new ones, including one in a highly unstable nuclear power that is thus pushed to collapse. If you know what is good for you, impeach Obama. Otherwise next election you will have Bush heavy 2.0(Obama) and Obama heavy(some crazy republican like Cain). | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:27 BlackJack wrote: This doesn't make any sense. Euro countries have debts of their own. We don't have to pay back our debt any time soon and we definitely don't have to pay back 14 trillion before we can add new government services. I didn't say you did. I was saying if it wasn't for our 14T debt we could move into more of a euro-style economic system, which is clearly very efficient. But before we can dedicate ourselves to using a different economic system, and increasing taxes and spending by that much, we must first get this massive debt off our backs. In theory, yeah, we could totally do it. But most of the increased tax wouldn't be helping the taxpayers, it would be paying off the debt. Which is something the US must do as soon as we can. We can't have a debt equivalent to ~10-15% of the world's total economy on our backs. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: No, because you are still paying more and the rich still have more money than you, right? On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece. I'd like to head this argument off at the pass before someone brings it up. The argument being that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income to the government. So the person who earns 10 bucks, should pay 1 dollar to the government, just as the person who makes 100,000 dollars should pay 10,000 to the government. The problem with this argument is that it can violate the initial contract that was made by the haves and haves-nots when entering into society. So to explain this briefly is incredibly difficult, but I will attempt to do so. Basically, before governments came to be, people were in the state of nature, whereby we all the natural right to kill. So you could have a ton of neat stuff, but I could kill you at any time and take all your stuff. And of course someone could then kill me and take my stuff. So, essentially there was nothing stopping people from simply killing to get what they want, so property was not secure. The result of this was that people banded together and established rules to protect property. First and foremost was that you could not longer kill people to obtain possessions, that became illegal. This obviously benefits the haves far more than the have-nots, since you've taken away the natural ability of humans to kill and steal, and this provides protection to those who have stuff, and takes away the right of the have-nots to get stuff through violence. So now property is protected, and the haves become the rich. So we've created a system that gives something to haves, so in order for the have-nots (who are majority) to accept it, the haves need to give them a decent standard of living. If the rich don't provided enough to those below them to keep them satisfied, they revolt, overthrow the rich and take all their stuff. So it is in the best interest of the rich to pay more to protect the system that allows them to be rich. And they should pay more, since the system obviously benefits them far more than the poor or the middle class. In other words, the people that benefit most from the system should be the ones who support it the most. So to sum the argument up, the rich should pay more because they receive more from asset protection because have more assets to protect, while the poor and middle class receive less protection from the initial contract (that they would not kill and steal) because they have less assets to protect. Thus the rich should pay more taxes, because they benefit far more from the government system. This isn't just a logical argument, this is a fact that has been proven many time. When you shift the burden on supporting the system to poor and middle class, they will overthrow the government. Remember of the fate or many kings... The rich have it well in the US. They can afford to pay more taxes so the country doesn't collapse. Asking the poor and middle class to do so violates the initial contract, and could lead to a revolution, whether it be through elections (that skew taxes even more), or through violence. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece. The issue is, do we increase the taxes on every member of that 47%? Can the lower 15% even bear taxation without any form of government assistance and continue to live? The upper 25% of that 47% can surely pay a little more. But it's not as simple as breaking the country down into halves and saying "this half needs to pay more." That works for both the poor half, and the wealthy (wealthier) half. You can't look at the top 47% and say tax them more or tax them less. Nor can you do the same with the lower 47%. Perhaps looking at it in 10% slices would be more helpful. | ||
|
Phant
United States737 Posts
| ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:36 phant wrote: About 40% of my dad's income goes directly to taxes in the US (Federal+state) not including sales tax (over 9%). My sister's ioncome is taxed 30%, my cousin's is 30%. I'd really like to know how you are getting only 11%, that is amazing. I thought states set their own state taxes, you living in a state that has higher taxation wuold make sense? Nevada has 0, if I'm not mistaken. Wouldn't wanna end up in the socialist hellhole that is Sweden | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:31 Chargelot wrote: I didn't say you did. I was saying if it wasn't for our 14T debt we could move into more of a euro-style economic system, which is clearly very efficient. But before we can dedicate ourselves to using a different economic system, and increasing taxes and spending by that much, we must first get this massive debt off our backs. In theory, yeah, we could totally do it. But most of the increased tax wouldn't be helping the taxpayers, it would be paying off the debt. The massive debt we have to get off our backs isn't the 14T, it's the $1T a year budget deficit that we are adding to it. We don't have to get the $14T off our backs and if taxes were raised they wouldn't go towards paying off that debt. You're incorrectly assuming that politicians are responsible adults that care as much about repaying as our debt as they do by getting elected by handing out government services  | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
They are irrelevant to the 9-9-9 Plan, since it doesn't affect state or local taxes. | ||
|
hoganftw
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
Penecks
United States600 Posts
| ||
|
CatNzHat
United States1599 Posts
On October 17 2011 00:47 Plexa wrote: That's not my point. My point is that taxation is viewed fundamentally differently between EU/US so it's unfair to draw a comparison of taxes. A different view on something does not make it unfair to draw comparisons, as you yourself have just done, it is however unfair to draw comparisons that assume that taxes are viewed the same way. *This is all assuming that your data is valid, which I would have to disagree with. The role of government in a good portion of the EU is a much more involved role with social services such as healthcare, public transportation, etc... The proportion of the taxes that people pay in the EU that go back to the people through services like these is much, much higher than that of US citizens. Personally I view taxes for what they are, and so do people with brains anywhere around the world, you pay a portion of your income for the benefits the government provides, the people with higher income pay a higher percentage because they can afford to. | ||
|
busbarn
Sweden984 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:41 Penecks wrote: yesCan someone explain how the poor cope with the high taxation of European countries? Some of the EU posters mention like 19% VAT or something like that. Is it due to all the assistance the govt can then give those poorer citizens that balances it? ... | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:39 BlackJack wrote: The massive debt we have to get off our backs isn't the 14T, it's the $1T a year budget deficit that we are adding to it. We don't have to get the $14T off our backs and if taxes were raised they wouldn't go towards paying off that debt. You're incorrectly assuming that politicians are responsible adults that care as much about repaying as our debt as they do by getting elected by handing out government services Arguably, if we eliminated the 14T debt and taxed enough to take in 1T a year, everything would work fine. Lets ask our Euro brothers and sisters how that works for them, yeah? The good old christian republican ideal of "Jesus loves everyone so I don't have to" is silly. The democratic principle of "take care of me so I don't have to" is equally as silly. But there is a good middle ground. It just can't be accomplished in the current economic state. The solution to that state is not to kill the lower 10% of the population to save the upper 1% a very small portion of their money (not their lives). | ||
|
Sakenator
United States45 Posts
On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote: Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule? Because as a day trader you provide no utility to the economy...all you do is shuffle money back and forth. Because of that you should have to pay a percentage of your gains so that it can provide some utility. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: When 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income taxes, you absolutely need to increase taxes on the lower 50%. We simply can't have half of the nation making financial decisions they are exempt from. So long as each person receives one vote, we should all be partly accountable for the policies we democratically enact. Otherwise you have huge issues with moral hazard which will continue to send us in the direction of Greece. It would make no difference if the bottom 47% did pay federal income taxes. The additional tax burden on lower-class Americans would need to be made up for in government transfers in order to avoid all the economic and social problems that we try to avoid by giving them deductions in the first place. In other words, it works out the same fiscally whether you take a trillion dollars for the poor and give it right back in a different manner, or if you simply waive the taxes. The real difference is that you reduce their economic freedom and expand government, which I would have thought that you would oppose as a conservative. Unless, of course, you're also taking the conservative position that the poor are irresponsible with their money and therefore don't deserve the same economic freedoms that the wealthy do. The problems of moral hazard with regards to voting yourself lower taxes and more spending will always exist regardless of whether everyone pays taxes. That's a problem with democracy, not the tax system. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 17 2011 01:45 CatNzHat wrote: I don't disagree with what you said, but one of the reasons there are less social services provided by the govt. in the US is because of the lower tax rate.A different view on something does not make it unfair to draw comparisons, as you yourself have just done, it is however unfair to draw comparisons that assume that taxes are viewed the same way. *This is all assuming that your data is valid, which I would have to disagree with. The role of government in a good portion of the EU is a much more involved role with social services such as healthcare, public transportation, etc... The proportion of the taxes that people pay in the EU that go back to the people through services like these is much, much higher than that of US citizens. Personally I view taxes for what they are, and so do people with brains anywhere around the world, you pay a portion of your income for the benefits the government provides, the people with higher income pay a higher percentage because they can afford to. | ||
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
On October 17 2011 00:48 MLMNL wrote: 9% is a steal as far as I can see. In the Netherlands, taxes start at ~30% and goes up to ~50% depending on income. There are some ways to deduct from that (for example, mortgage payments can be subtracted from income) and additional charges (for medical care etc.). For modal incomes, that's at least about 3x more then 9%. We already have 9% taxes on essentials (food etc), everything else is 19%. There are additional charges to stuff as tobacco and petrol, which combine to more then 100% (example, US gas prices are about $3.25/gallon, which is ~$1/litre. Here, we pay E1.7 for a litre, which is $2.33 Notice that assuming no taxes on gas in the US, we pay about 133% ADDITIONAL taxes compared to the US). Clearly, this is again WAY more than 9%. Conclusion, this 9-9-9 thing seems like a steal to me Many people in the EU feel that the US citizens are sitting on a timebomb with the low taxes, high personal debts, low house prices and HUGE government debt (which US government increases again and again). Perhaps more taxes so government debt may be decreased is a good idea (or at least, reduced debt increment). Consider seeing more taxes as an investment in not having your country forfeit  Still, I'm considering getting work in the US after I finish my education, and I would greatly love to live in a country that's not about to implode on debt, so I wouldn't mind paying a lot higher taxes in the US if it'd help realize that, but I can see that people already living there don't like to see taxes increased. Even 20-20-20 would seem cheap for me as I come in form the EU See this is the thing you don't understand here in the US taxes don't stop with the federal government. Currently the Fed takes from 0% - 35% income taxes (depending on your tax bracket). Above and beyond they take 4.2% for social security and 2.9% for medicare, regardless of your tax status (note that earnings above ~$105k/yr they don't take out these taxes). Each state is different but for instance for my county in NY we have an 8% sales tax rate. Beyond that we have property taxes owed to the town, mine are split into school and town taxes. All told that's about 2% of the assessed value of my house, or about 6% of my yearly income. As if all that weren't enough there are also death taxes (estate), capital gains taxes (investments), ... ad naseum. I'm 27 and I pay: 25% + 4.2% + 2.9% + 6% + 4% (assume I pay sales tax on half my income) - some % in mortgage payments (I haven't filed taxes since I bought my home). = 42.1% of my annual salary. | ||
| ||
