Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
I really don't have an answer to "Why is it fair that I pay higher taxes just because I make more money?" I get that it's not really fair.  But I think it's a necessity.  Does taxing everyone who lives here (everyone, finally) through the "fair tax," and getting rid of the tax loopholes make up for adjusting the tax burden % towards the lower and middle class? Maybe?

If your viewpoint is "Even if it's worse for the economy, I want to do what I believe is fair" then it's a fundamental difference we have when it comes to taxation.

Most wealthy people in my experience don't care that they have to pay more in taxes.... They care when people continually call them out for not paying their 'fair share'.... Especially when many of those same people are not paying any taxes at all.

I think if you want to live in this country you should pay taxes. Our debt problem is not a problem for the wealthy alone to solve which is how its portrayed now... The debt problem is an American problem and we ALL need to chip in to solve it. That means poor, rich, black, white, republican, democrat..... We should all have skin in the game, per se, so that we can hold yhe govt accountable. People actually care when its 'their' money being mispent and abused. If the govt is truly set on fixing its debt issues then realistically they should in fact raise taxes on everyone while reducing govt spending (fraud, redundancies, obsolete agencies, improved efficencies, etc).

I forgot to mention another positive for the fair tax.... Illegals now pay into the tax system when they buy goods. Another problem solved - and another 'fair' point for all ;)

I don't really think it would have an effect on the economy.   It might have an effect on govt spending.    However, I don't believe the govt is capable of spending what is collected via tax no matter the circumstances.   If we simply wanted to create more "revenue" by taxing more, which seems to be what you guys are leaning towards by taxing the rich, you obviously have to do it.    20kJoe can't afford any more unless he lives in a shack off the grid and grows/kills his own food.   But let's not say "It's fair to tax the rich more because they'll miss it less."   Because that's bullshit. 

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
I really don't have an answer to "Why is it fair that I pay higher taxes just because I make more money?" I get that it's not really fair.  But I think it's a necessity.  Does taxing everyone who lives here (everyone, finally) through the "fair tax," and getting rid of the tax loopholes make up for adjusting the tax burden % towards the lower and middle class? Maybe?

If your viewpoint is "Even if it's worse for the economy, I want to do what I believe is fair" then it's a fundamental difference we have when it comes to taxation.

Most wealthy people in my experience don't care that they have to pay more in taxes.... They care when people continually call them out for not paying their 'fair share'.... Especially when many of those same people are not paying any taxes at all.

I think if you want to live in this country you should pay taxes. Our debt problem is not a problem for the wealthy alone to solve which is how its portrayed now... The debt problem is an American problem and we ALL need to chip in to solve it. That means poor, rich, black, white, republican, democrat..... We should all have skin in the game, per se, so that we can hold yhe govt accountable. People actually care when its 'their' money being mispent and abused. If the govt is truly set on fixing its debt issues then realistically they should in fact raise taxes on everyone while reducing govt spending (fraud, redundancies, obsolete agencies, improved efficencies, etc).

I forgot to mention another positive for the fair tax.... Illegals now pay into the tax system when they buy goods. Another problem solved - and another 'fair' point for all ;)

Love that everyone who lives here would be forced to pay taxes.  I do like the general concept.

I am all for more efficient spending.  If it were possible to get an unbiased, independent group to dive into the books and get rid of the redundancies and inefficiencies, I have a feeling it would cut down on a ton of spending.  But I know that it's not that easy. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:10:00 AM (view original):
I don't really think it would have an effect on the economy.   It might have an effect on govt spending.    However, I don't believe the govt is capable of spending what is collected via tax no matter the circumstances.   If we simply wanted to create more "revenue" by taxing more, which seems to be what you guys are leaning towards by taxing the rich, you obviously have to do it.    20kJoe can't afford any more unless he lives in a shack off the grid and grows/kills his own food.   But let's not say "It's fair to tax the rich more because they'll miss it less."   Because that's bullshit. 

I never said I was for raising more revenue.  Ideally you cut overall costs and keep the overall revenue collected similar to what you have now.  

So you're just wanting to tax the rich more and the middle class less?  Because they'll miss it less?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:25:00 AM (view original):
So you're just wanting to tax the rich more and the middle class less?  Because they'll miss it less?

Yes. Exactly. The value of the first $50,000 you make is higher than the 5th, 6th, or 7th $50,000 you make.

If we're going to collect taxes, we should try to get it from people who will miss it the least.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:25:00 AM (view original):
So you're just wanting to tax the rich more and the middle class less?  Because they'll miss it less?

Essentially, yes.  If I make $50,000 and "rich guy" makes $500,000, and you tax us each 25%, I'll miss my 25% more than "rich guy" does.  It will affect the way I live my life more than the "rich guy."  If you tax me less, and "rich guy" more, I'll be able to do more with my income, I'll be able to spend more money, which helps the economy.  "Rich guy" is less likely to be as effected by his tax increase.  He'll still spend money similarly to the way he used to.  Also take into consideration that there are many MANY more of "me" than there are of "rich guy."

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:25:00 AM (view original):
So you're just wanting to tax the rich more and the middle class less?  Because they'll miss it less?

Yes. Exactly. The value of the first $50,000 you make is higher than the 5th, 6th, or 7th $50,000 you make.

If we're going to collect taxes, we should try to get it from people who will miss it the least.

Probably more efficiently said - quoting so you're forced to read.

Now again, if your response is "I don't care if that's true, that it helps the economy in that way, it's still ****** up that you're asking "rich guy" to give more money just because he'll miss it less" then we'll have a philosophical disagreement on that issue.

Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

But we aren't discussing a steak dinner. So that's irrelevant.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 8:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 10:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 6:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 6:38:00 PM (view original):
Then you haven't been paying attention.    Be brief.   If it takes that many words to get your point across, you likely have no point worth getting across.

I mean, really, if you can't take a position on subjects as simple as taxation, poverty, and the economy as a whole, and boil your entire argument down to the level of a couple lines and a bad analogy that proves nothing, your point is probably worthless.

That's funny, coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between a flat tax and a progressive tax, and a tax rate and an effective tax rate.,

What do you think of my tax plan? It's a progressive, two bracket system.

The first bracket is for income earned between $1 and $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 0%.

The second bracket is for income earned above $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 60%.

Do you think my system is fair?

There is no 0% tax rate in my plan.

Ok. My plan has a 0% tax rate for income earned under 75k. Is my plan fair?

Still waiting for a yes or no, tec.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

I think the difference is that the guy who doesn't want to spend $18 on dinner can buy something else for $5.

Americans deserve roads and bridges that are sufficient for driving on. They deserve a military that they know will protect them. They deserve a basic education for their children. So what's the best way to collect money for those things?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

But we aren't discussing a steak dinner. So that's irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Take sales tax.... How would you feel paying $10 in taxes for every $100 spent vs the guy in line behind you paying $5 in sales tax for the same item (or how about nothing, $0).. Simply because he makes less money than you? Now think about how much you spend in a month, year, etc. Think about that car you drove all the way to another city to save 1.5% on but now you cant save money on that car... But your neighbor can. Is that still 'FAIR'?

Studies show that 70% of people respond favorably to the question 'should the rich pay more in taxes?' While only 30% of people answered favorably to 'should YOU pay more in taxes?'. My take from this is it's very easy to say its sure when its not you paying..... But..... When it is you now things are very different.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

I think the difference is that the guy who doesn't want to spend $18 on dinner can buy something else for $5.

Americans deserve roads and bridges that are sufficient for driving on. They deserve a military that they know will protect them. They deserve a basic education for their children. So what's the best way to collect money for those things?

Too late. Your order is in. You have no $5 option.

Of course roads, bridges, military, education, etc, etc are necessary.   I'm sure you won't find a post where I said they weren't.    I'm just not sure why a guy making 400k needs to pay a higher percentage to build those bridges while the guy making 40k is given a pass.   Will there be a special lane for 400k guy or will they both cross the same bridge in the same manner?