Suppose democrats get their tax...

[jhakken]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. democrats keep linking that tax cut to raising taxes on others. Separate the two and see if Republicans support it. Want to bet?

Happy to bet because I've heard Republicans objecting to the payroll tax cut as non-stimulative. They argue, like you, that the lack of a full-blown economic turn-around is proof that payroll tax cuts don't stimulate growth.

Now, you didn't actually answer the question. Suppose your wildest dreams are realized and taxes are increased on those filthy rich people. What do you think the effect will be?

Increased revenues, a share of the burden of hard decisions being made as a result of sputtering job market and, more importantly, justice. While everyone else has the eventuality of paying a higher tax rate on their next dollar of income, the "filthy rich," as you like to call them, do not.

[viva la]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...SM9N_blog.html

The surtax would impact around 345,000 taxpayers, roughly 0.2 percent of taxpayers, or one in 500 of them. Those people would pay on average an additional 2.1 percent of their overall income, or just over 1/50th of that overall income, in taxes.

In a majority of states, only one-tenth of one percent, or one in 1,000 taxpayers, would pay this surtax.

And how many people would benefit from the payroll tax cut? According to the group, around 113 million tax filing units — either single workers or families that include more than one worker — would see their payroll tax cut extended. That’s a lot of people — well over 113 million workers, in fact.

[quietmike]

how are you punishing a wealthy person by making them pay the same percentage of their income as a person who makes less? Or a corporation paying their fair share for that matter?

$ wise they may pay more, but % wise they most def do not.

A progressive tax means the more you make the higher percentage you will pay.

Arguing that some pay less because of capital gains is a non starter, those capital gains rates are available to everyone.

[quietmike]

Provided you excluded certain items that disproportionately affect the poor and lower middle class (like food and energy), I would seriously consider one.

Why should anything be excluded? Equality means everyone pays the same percentage on everything. Building in exemptions and deductions would just lead us back to the current monstrosity we have.

[jhakken]

Why should anything be excluded? Equality means everyone pays the same percentage on everything. Building in exemptions and deductions would just lead us back to the current monstrosity we have.

What you propose would mean that we could only tax a percentage that the poorest American could afford--zero. It would end America we have known it. It would cause rioting and looting in the streets.It would gut our military. It would destabilize the world. Perhaps you can support that, but I certainly can't.

[quietmike]

What you propose would mean that we could only tax a percentage that the poorest American could afford--zero. It would end America we have known it. It would cause rioting and looting in the streets.It would gut our military. It would destabilize the world. Perhaps you can support that, but I certainly can't.

With due respect, I see this as treating the symptom instead of the disease. Why are they poor and what do they need to do to change that is the first question to ask.

Milk, bread and gasoline are not priced differently according to people's income. Taxes are payment for government services, why should they be priced differently than any other service?

[dectia]

What you propose would mean that we could only tax a percentage that the poorest American could afford--zero. It would end America we have known it. It would cause rioting and looting in the streets.It would gut our military. It would destabilize the world. Perhaps you can support that, but I certainly can't.

More and more I am coming to the belief that for many conservatives such a scenario would be a feature, not a bug. After all, what's the use in stockpiling goods for SHTF/TEOTWAWKI/OMGWTFBBQ if you can't use them?

[jhakken]

I can't argue that there is a fair amount of symptom treating to the social welfare system. There are many reforms that can help to address the cause of the disease though--a first rate public education is a big one. Progressive benefits instead of a threshold for benefits would minimize disincentives to self-sufficiency. Waste and abuse occur whether the government runs the program or a charity does. If left solely to charity, many of us who are willing to shoulder some of the burden of helping our fellow man would be forced to make up the deficit from those who refuse. I just can't help but look at the consequences of what you propose. The draconian cuts would throw our economy into depression. Would this not create an apocalypse?

[jhakken]

More and more I am coming to the belief that for many conservatives such a scenario would be a feature, not a bug.

If by a feature and not a bug, you mean that they are willing to live with this scenario for the sake of "fairness" you may be right. Man creates a government to help maintain order in a society. We constrain ourselves so that others will be constrained. I don't need a law against murder to keep me from killing someone, but there are those that need it. I don't need taxes to contribute to the well-being of my fellow man, but there are those that will. Is it fair that they should benefit from a functioning society because of my sacrifice alone? Isn't this the compact that all of us make in a society?

[quietmike]

I can't argue that there is a fair amount of symptom treating to the social welfare system. There are many reforms that can help to address the cause of the disease though--a first rate public education is a big one. Progressive benefits instead of a threshold for benefits would minimize disincentives to self-sufficiency. Waste and abuse occur whether the government runs the program or a charity does. If left solely to charity, many of us who are willing to shoulder some of the burden of helping our fellow man would be forced to make up the deficit from those who refuse. I just can't help but look at the consequences of what you propose. The draconian cuts would throw our economy into depression. Would this not create an apocalypse?

A public education is already available to all. It isn't first rate because the government runs it.

There was no apocalypse during our first 150 years when charity was private, there is no reason to believe there would be one today.

[Preacher Man]

With due respect, I see this as treating the symptom instead of the disease. Why are they poor and what do they need to do to change that is the first question to ask.

Milk, bread and gasoline are not priced differently according to people's income. Taxes are payment for government services, why should they be priced differently than any other service?

Not to be contrarian, but gasoline is priced based on the median income according to zip code. That is why gas stations withing the same national chain will have different prices in different cities, and sometimes, within the same city.

[jhakken]

A public education is already available to all. It isn't first rate because the government runs it.

What excuse do the second-rate private schools have? What excuse do the second-rate charter schools have? If the problem were only government, none of these other schools would be second-rate. Private schools don't even have to deal with the troubled masses.

There was no apocalypse during our first 150 years when charity was private, there is no reason to believe there would be one today.

Just because it was sufferable in those times doesn't mean it would be sufferable today. Cities like New York were hell holes. Can you imagine that magnified by the urban landscape of today?

[quietmike]

What excuse do the second-rate private schools have? What excuse do the second-rate charter schools have? If the problem were only government, none of these other schools would be second-rate. Private schools don't even have to deal with the troubled masses.

Obviously they are good enough if they are still in business.

Just because it was sufferable in those times doesn't mean it would be sufferable today. Cities like New York were hell holes. Can you imagine that magnified by the urban landscape of today?

I can imagine lots of things, but that doesn't mean they will happen.

[Preacher Man]

A public education is already available to all. It isn't first rate because the government runs it.

There was no apocalypse during our first 150 years when charity was private, there is no reason to believe there would be one today.

To be fair, the ratio of citizens in need vs available private funds in charities is very different today from what is was at the beginning our our nation. Most of those private funds came from churches. The percentage of church going Christians (and therefore tithers) was large in the first centuries of our history. As this numbers diminished, so did available private charitable funds. This paired with an increase in population and an industrial and service economy that can more easily result in unemployment changed the welfare landscape.

[Noctis3880]

I am all for a flat tax rate, preferably one based on consumption. Will you join me in supporting one?

I would if it were possible. Sadly, I don't think we can tax people who are using taxpayer dollars for their food and housing, it would just be backwards. Though I suppose it would simplify matters if there was only a national sales tax to which no attempts at finding tax loopholes with an army of lawyers would ever penetrate it. You would need to effectively remove all tax credits, exemptions, and incentives however.

[Codger_64]

No exemptions to a National sales tax? I can see problems with that. Manufacturers use raw materials and buy components. They sell to distributors. The distrubutors sell to jobbers and retailers. The retailers sell to the public and the jobbers sell to other businesses. Add a national sales tax at every level on top of the retail sales tax? We already pay 9.5% sales tax here, even on ten-twenty-thirty year old used cars and trucks as well as on groceries and medicine.

[Noctis3880]

No exemptions to a National sales tax? I can see problems with that. Manufacturers use raw materials and buy components. They sell to distributors. The distrubutors sell to jobbers and retailesr. The retailers sell to the public and the jobbers sell to other businesses. Add a national sales tax at every level on top of the retail sales tax? We already pay 9.5% sales tax here, even on ten-twenty-thirty year old used cars and trucks as well as on groceries and medicine.

You don't think dropping income and corporate tax balances that out? It just seems to me that it would be more of the same without as much vulnerability to the legal loopholes you so despise.

[Codger_64]

My medicine cost over $300 a month, so I don't buy it. Add another percentage (15%?) to the 10% on top of that, and a total 25% sales tax on my groceries (after every level of purchase above me has paid sales tax on the same groceries and medicines), that makes things better how? People who spend 90% of their earnings every month just to stay fed and sheltered would obviously pay a much higher percentage of their earnings in the new tax scheme than people who spend 10% of their monthly earnings for the same products and services.

[quietmike]

Not to be contrarian, but gasoline is priced based on the median income according to zip code. That is why gas stations withing the same national chain will have different prices in different cities, and sometimes, within the same city.

The town I live in has a median family income of $27,593. The next town over has a median family income of $39,705, yet gas in my town is consistently 10-15 cents more per gallon. So, the pricing scheme you described is not applicable here.

[quietmike]

People who spend 90% of their earnings every month just to stay fed and sheltered would obviously pay a much higher percentage of their earnings in the new tax scheme than people who spend 10% of their monthly earnings for the same products and services.

Why should government services be priced differently based on income when no other good or service is?