EPT
x% of total income is always going to be harder to bear for the guy that earns less.
So if the tax is a much bigger deal for one person than another that is not very fair right?.
Not that life is ever fair just saying,
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 39
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
x% of total income is always going to be harder to bear for the guy that earns less. So if the tax is a much bigger deal for one person than another that is not very fair right?. Not that life is ever fair just saying, | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Thats called Engels Law http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/resources/engel.html Since this is pretty well known, when the flat tax (by way of a flat sales tax and the abolishment of the income tax) was proposed in Congress, there were measures to ensure that the poor would not pay taxes on certain items such as food. That controls for Engels Law. But, if you put that aside, then arguing that it is harder for a person with half the income of another to pay half the taxes...just because....doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but really, you could have said regressive instead of linking the wiki. but i dont think you encounter that word too often! | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On October 25 2008 07:05 oneofthem wrote: it is fair because your wealth is not merely an independent product of your own ability. A measurement of one's ability determines his rightful claim to wealth? How do you feel about inheritance? Also, a discussion about justice is extremely off-topic when we discuss laws of fairness (unless you erroneously seek to correct injustices by increasing fairness). the rich especially is reliant on the consent of society to hold their property claims, so i do not see why they feel oppressed. Because the poor also rely on the rich. To conversely claim that poor people do not require the infrastructure afforded by the rich is insufficient unless you can describe a replacement for the existing wealth hierarchy and resulting distributions we enjoy in privatized economies. In other words, you got any better ideas?? =p | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 25 2008 06:44 Savio wrote: I think what you guys are really trying to explain is the economic principle that poor people spend a larger portion of their income on food and other such entities. Thats called Engels Law http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/resources/engel.html Since this is pretty well known, when the flat tax (by way of a flat sales tax and the abolishment of the income tax) was proposed in Congress, there were measures to ensure that the poor would not pay taxes on certain items such as food. That controls for Engels Law. But, if you put that aside, then arguing that it is harder for a person with half the income of another to pay half the taxes...just because....doesn't make any sense. The flat tax and the plan that you're referring to, the "fair tax", are two different things. And really... a 22% inclusive national sales tax? No thx. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Sucks a lot | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On October 25 2008 06:44 Savio wrote: But, if you put that aside, then arguing that it is harder for a person with half the income of another to pay half the taxes...just because....doesn't make any sense. By common sense, a person earning more money than another person will have a much "easier" time paying taxes because they are left with a lot more money, thus their standard of living is higher, thus they have an easier time in life monetarily. Is this what you are saying doesn't make sense? I'm not arguing whether it is "fair" or not to tax the wealthy more, but it is obviously easier for the wealthier to pay taxes even when they are taxed at a higher percentage rate. Getting breaks on sales tax for things like food does little to change the wealth discrepancy. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 08:54 Mindcrime wrote: The flat tax and the plan that you're referring to, the "fair tax", are two different things. And really... a 22% inclusive national sales tax? No thx. Actually if a sales tax is imposed on all items it is equivalent to an income tax. There may be some differences such as a sales tax encouraging more savings and investment and less consumption, but in economic models, an all-inclusive sales tax is equivalent to a flat income tax. | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
"Gain without merit" is pretty subjective. And like I said I wasn't initially arguing "fairness" as you can argue that from many sides, I was simply saying that the wealthy have an "easier" time paying taxes. I think most people agree with that or why do we already have different tax brackets in the US and why do people that make little income not even pay taxes? The idea of the wealthy bearing more of the tax burden is nothing new, though when you give large tax cuts to corporations it offsets that fact somewhat. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 09:00 D10 wrote: Lol here in Brazil theres no progressive income tax if you make over X amount of money you pay 46% of income like everybody else. Sucks a lot Wow, 46% is very high. Sorry bro. On a side note, can we all agree that the tax code is too complicated and too easy for rich people/corporations to maneuver out of? I'm all for lowering the tax burden on all people, even the rich corporations, but lets do it straightforward rather than with loopholes that require an army of lawyers. I support the idea of a flat tax, whether it be a sales tax or income tax. But there is no reason the tax code should take thousands of pages to spell out. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 09:07 boghat wrote: By common sense, a person earning more money than another person will have a much "easier" time paying taxes because they are left with a lot more money, thus their standard of living is higher, thus they have an easier time in life monetarily. Is this what you are saying doesn't make sense? I'm not arguing whether it is "fair" or not to tax the wealthy more, but it is obviously easier for the wealthier to pay taxes even when they are taxed at a higher percentage rate. Getting breaks on sales tax for things like food does little to change the wealth discrepancy. I understand what you are saying, but the rich will always be better off than the poor no matter wha the tax rates are. That is just life. And that is the way it should be. Trying to change that fact has ruined too many countries and led to world's worst atrocities and sad outcomes (think North Korea). | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On October 25 2008 09:43 boghat wrote: Do you dislike minimum wage laws too? Is it fair for the rich to get richer simply because they have the capital to invest in more money-making enterprises? There are two sides to this argument. Why shouldn't people accept taxes as a cost of living? If you want a functional government you must pay taxes. The alternative to this would be a socialist or communist-style government where the government owns large sectors of commerce, which unfortunately is what this trillion dollar bailout plan is doing with banks. Either way, governments need to make money like any other business. "Gain without merit" is pretty subjective. And like I said I wasn't initially arguing "fairness" as you can argue that from many sides, I was simply saying that the wealthy have an "easier" time paying taxes. I think most people agree with that or why do we already have different tax brackets in the US and why do people that make little income not even pay taxes? The idea of the wealthy bearing more of the tax burden is nothing new, though when you give large tax cuts to corporations it offsets that fact somewhat. Of course, discussing such abstracts like fairness and justice is not directly engaging. I was just perusing this thread and noticed that people were often confusing fairness and justice, and as much as we live abstracted from those ideas behind laws and tax brackets, it's important to keep your eye on the ideas we are implementing. An amount of injustice is tolerable in the name of fairness to fellow man, but let's call it what it is. Minimum wage is good/necessary to prevent the rich from feeding on the poor so viciuosly, as history tells us they often do. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 09:43 boghat wrote: Do you dislike minimum wage laws too? Is it fair for the rich to get richer simply because they have the capital to invest in more money-making enterprises? Minimum wage is double bladed sword that people need to understand when they use it. There is a universal tradeoff between unemployment and minimum wage. If you raise minimum wage, then the poor people who keep their jobs are better off, but inevitably many poor people will be fired, because the required wage is above the "market" or equilibrium wage. So if you raise minimum wage, you make many poor people WAY worse off and some poor people better off. If you don't raise it then you don't hurt anyone, but don't help anyone either. So you have to go into it with both eyes open. And yes, overall, I think that minimum wage is a bad idea. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 25 2008 09:39 Savio wrote: Actually if a sales tax is imposed on all items it is equivalent to an income tax. There may be some differences such as a sales tax encouraging more savings and investment and less consumption, but in economic models, an all-inclusive sales tax is equivalent to a flat income tax. Whose models show the two plans to be equivalent? And what does that have to do with the fact that the two terms are not interchangeable? And how do you circumvent double-taxing existing savings when you first switch to the fair tax? | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Minimum wage is good/necessary to prevent the rich from feeding on the poor so viciuosly, as history tells us they often do. I disagree. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 25 2008 01:07 DrainX wrote: Also animals living in small groups(like humans used to) can benefit from altruistic behavior when they are bound to meet the same individuals again and again. This can be shows with some simple game theory. Then it's not altruism. I think it probably exists, but I don't immediately dismiss the claim that subconsciously it doesn't. EDIT: To claim that it exists within animals is ridiculous. Altruistic acts may exist, but altruism is a state of mind and there is no way to understand their motivations. The question is: is it possible to be 100% selfless? This is totally irrelevant btw! | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 25 2008 03:29 Hawk wrote: http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html it was faked lolololol thats just fucking brutal | ||
| ||
