Posted by jastrial on 9/19/2010 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Or...a flat tax rate could be an idea favored by people that think that everyone should be treated equally by the law.  The taxes you pay provide the funding for the government services we all enjoy.  It's not like there are more post offices or roads available for the people who pay more in taxes. 

I realize that taxing people with higher incomes is very much in vogue right now and appeals to the populist instinct in people, but if you advocate that position you are essentially saying that simply by virtue of having a lot of income a rich person is obligated to pay for YOUR healthcare, YOUR roads, YOUR police, and everything else the government provides.  

While we might not like the fact that other people have a lot more money than us (because of intellect, or attitude, or talent, or just being lucky enough to be born rich) that jealosy is not sufficient to make a claim on someone else's property. 

Didn't take long for someone to come to the rescue of the poor, defenseless wealthy. 

As much everyone should be treated equally, it doesn't happen.  Go into any inner city and see if the tax dollars for government services are the same as in any rich suburb.  The lower and middle class foot the bill but get shafted when it comes to government services.  Less tax dollars from the rich, more services.

Jealousy is not a factor here, don't jump to conclusions.  Read some of the links at the top of this thread and see if your mind changes.

Posted by jastrial on 9/19/2010 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Plus, how much money could the government save if the IRS didn't have to administer a set of regulations that are larger than War and Peace?  A dramatically simplified tax code would pay immediate dividends that could be pushed back into other government programs. 

Here's a dramatically simplified tax code - toss out the tax code and it's myriad of loopholes and increase the percentage of taxes for anyone making over $1million a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png


This is a chart that shows spending by GDP, a more logical way of looking at spending, as opposed to comparing Belgium and Russia on the same scale.

Posted by jiml60 on 9/19/2010 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jastrial on 9/19/2010 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Or...a flat tax rate could be an idea favored by people that think that everyone should be treated equally by the law.  The taxes you pay provide the funding for the government services we all enjoy.  It's not like there are more post offices or roads available for the people who pay more in taxes. 

I realize that taxing people with higher incomes is very much in vogue right now and appeals to the populist instinct in people, but if you advocate that position you are essentially saying that simply by virtue of having a lot of income a rich person is obligated to pay for YOUR healthcare, YOUR roads, YOUR police, and everything else the government provides.  

While we might not like the fact that other people have a lot more money than us (because of intellect, or attitude, or talent, or just being lucky enough to be born rich) that jealosy is not sufficient to make a claim on someone else's property. 

Didn't take long for someone to come to the rescue of the poor, defenseless wealthy. 

As much everyone should be treated equally, it doesn't happen.  Go into any inner city and see if the tax dollars for government services are the same as in any rich suburb.  The lower and middle class foot the bill but get shafted when it comes to government services.  Less tax dollars from the rich, more services.

Jealousy is not a factor here, don't jump to conclusions.  Read some of the links at the top of this thread and see if your mind changes.

I'm not defending the wealthy, but I am willing to stand up and argue for what I think is fair.  I think it is fundamentally unfair to require anyone to pay more for the same services that everyone else recieves simply because they have more money. 

To your point about gov't service levels in the inner city, it certainly isn't pretty, but  I believe that far more of our money goes to support those areas than to the middle and upper class neighborhoods that you cite.  If you have some information that proves otherwise I'd be interested to see it. 

I also think it is disingenous when you say , "less tax dollars from the rich, more services."  While the brackets you complain about are clearly not where you think they should be, it is an objective truth that the rates do get higher as incomes rise...so the rich are already paying disproportionatly more than the general populace. 
As for jumping to conclusions, I don't believe that I did, and I did read several (although not all) of the links in your original post.  I saw some interesting data, but I wasn't persuaded that my fundamental opinion is wrong.  

I don't think that it is fair (or for that matter moral) to assert that you have a claim on someone else's property or services just because you want some of what they have.  That's why I think that a military draft is wrong (compulsory service) and it's why I think a tiered tax structure is inherently flawed.  It is my opinion that the government constitutes (among other things) a shared set of services provided to all citizens and funded by tax revenue.  From that perspective I don't think that I should be paying for anyone else's share of those services, and I sure don't think that anyone else should be paying for mine. 

So this seems to be where we essentially disagree.  I know that you disagree with how the system is currently set up, and I generally know what you'd like to see done, but I would like to know why you think this is the right thing to do. 

Finally, I do believe that jealousy (maybe not you specifically, but on a more general level) is at the root of this argument.  As you point out above the world is not equal, and people are not all treated the same way.  I accept that there are people who are FAR better and worse off than I am.  But I also believe that I have the opportunity, but not the right, to work to improve my standing through education, hard work, etc.  I accept that I will never acheive the heights that many other folks have regardless of how they got there but that doesn't mean I expect them to hand me anything. 

Jealosy is wanting what other people have.  Tiered taxes and the laws that enforce them simply put the veneer of government on top of the desire...but it doesn't make the desire right. 

Posted by jastrial on 9/19/2010 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Plus, how much money could the government save if the IRS didn't have to administer a set of regulations that are larger than War and Peace?  A dramatically simplified tax code would pay immediate dividends that could be pushed back into other government programs. 

They'd save slightly less money than would be saved with tort reform. Which is to say, a negligible amount relative to the deficit.

It's a good idea, but it should be way, way down the list of priorities.

The problems with a flat tax are that a) it hammers the poor a lot harder than it hammers the rich, since they pay a higher percentage of their income in basic living expenses, and b) it cripples government revenue, which is the real reason why people like Norquist love it. 

Posted by antonsirius on 9/19/2010 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jastrial on 9/19/2010 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Plus, how much money could the government save if the IRS didn't have to administer a set of regulations that are larger than War and Peace?  A dramatically simplified tax code would pay immediate dividends that could be pushed back into other government programs. 

They'd save slightly less money than would be saved with tort reform. Which is to say, a negligible amount relative to the deficit.

It's a good idea, but it should be way, way down the list of priorities.

1 Well a Billion here and a billion there and soon we could be talking about real money!

2 So if Tort reform would not do anything why not let the Pubs have it? Why do Dems fight tooth and nail against it? 

because it's morally and economically wrong. if someone harms me, they have to pay for the damage they do

Right on, cresty!

Posted by bagchucker on 9/23/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
because it's morally and economically wrong. if someone harms me, they have to pay for the damage they do

 

Tort reform would never reduce actual damages. Just crazy setlements for millions for punitive damages and crazy pain and suffering damages.

You will probably never sue anyone, but you pay for our current system every day!

(Taken from a Jiml60 post) As much everyone should be treated equally, it doesn't happen.  Go into any inner city and see if the tax dollars for government services are the same as in any rich suburb.  The lower and middle class foot the bill but get shafted when it comes to government services.  Less tax dollars from the rich, more services.

In reality it is the Suburbs that are getting shafted. We pay far more in taxes and get less return. Most state and federal dollars go to Cities.

It isnt anything we are not willing to do, but lets get this straight. It isnt the Suburbs fault that the inner city is in shambles!

Maybe your pollyannish reality.

It is true. Schools for example. Almost all of the money for Warren schools, my city, come from local funding. Detroit, the closest major city, gets a large percentage of its money from state and federal sources.