How the tax system works Options

[pebkac]

But the beer represents access to government security in things like freedom of speech, which they have equal access to, so in that case, why should the more wealthy person pay more?

The beer doesn't represent something that is measurable, it represents the fact that everyone gets it.

Because they have more of an ability to pay than the poor person does.

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

[Dogmeat]

Because they have more of an ability to pay than the poor person does.

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

I see. So everyone who is "rich" is a trust-fund baby. They didn't have to work for this money, they were by and large just handed their fortunes, and never had to work for it at all, so the crack smoking meth addicted trailer park trash should have just as much say in US economic policy.

Sounds great if that weren't for the myth that rich folk were just handed their money.

[blaarg]

I see. So everyone who is "rich" is a trust-fund baby. They didn't have to work for this money, they were by and large just handed their fortunes, and never had to work for it at all

I didn't read anything in the previous post that would suggest what you are talking about. She made the statement that:

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

I don't see anything about trust-funds or silver spoon or anything that you are suggesting.

[Hartmann]

ok you and Impala have elucidated the "paying for services" part of it. got it.

You pose the question on why should the wealthy pay more...?
So what is the solution to this, I can think of two:
1) Everyone pays the lowest level so that everyone is on the same plane.
2) You keep the payment the same but limiting the services depending on what you can afford.

Are there any other alternatives?

I'm not sure. I just think it's slippery proposition to continually lower the "wealthy" bracket to get more money out of people. Eventually, $30k will be "wealthy" and the poor will be living in McMansions.

Because they have more of an ability to pay than the poor person does.

People with higher incomes have more disposable income than does a person who makes minimum wage.

So because they work harder or inherited money they should support the people who choose not to support themselves? That is just an issue for me.

I do not mind paying taxes on money I earned. I do mind being double taxed (owning a C Corp) and I do mind people getting free rides.

[impala454]

ok you and Impala have elucidated the "paying for services" part of it. got it.

You pose the question on why should the wealthy pay more...?
So what is the solution to this, I can think of two:
1) Everyone pays the lowest level so that everyone is on the same plane.
2) You keep the payment the same but limiting the services depending on what you can afford.

Are there any other alternatives?

They could adjust tax rates so that everyone paid the same %

[Oasis]

I get a migraine every time I read anything Melanie says about politics

[blaarg]

I'm not sure. I just think it's slippery proposition to continually lower the "wealthy" bracket to get more money out of people. Eventually, $30k will be "wealthy" and the poor will be living in McMansions.
So because they work harder or inherited money they should support the people who choose not to support themselves? That is just an issue for me.

I understand it is a tough issue.

I agree that I think lowering the wealthy bracket to get more money is a slippery proposition.
I would have to see the details of Obama's plan before I pass judgement. Something tells me it isn't as straightforward as "people who make 75K pay the same amount as the upper echelon of the tax bracket" I think that is the equivalent of political suicide.

[blaarg]

They could adjust tax rates so that everyone paid the same %

But the wealthy would still be paying more.

And you still run into the same problem of "In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?"

[Spectatrix]

But the wealthy would still be paying more.

And you still run into the same problem of "In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?"

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't mind paying the same % as everyone else, even though it means paying out more $ than average. It's just a bit obnoxious that the more my salary goes up, the more I'll be penalized percentage-wise.

[blaarg]

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't mind paying the same % as everyone else, even though it means paying out more $ than average. It's just a bit obnoxious that the more my salary goes up, the more I'll be penalized percentage-wise.

even as other people have pointed out you would be paying more for the same services? I mean isn't that OUTRAGEOUS!!!

[Spectatrix]

I'll be honest, I wouldn't entirely mind progressive taxes either if politicians would get their heads out of their asses and cut spending/produce a balanced budget. Though indirectly, I'm being paid by tax money, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Feb 22 2008, 03:27 PM

[blaarg]

I'll be honest, I wouldn't entirely mind progressive taxes either if politicians would get their heads out of their asses and cut spending/produce a balanced budget. Though indirectly, I'm being paid by tax money, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much.

What's ironic is that if the politicians did cut spending/produce a balanced budget, we would most likely start to get rid of progressive taxes!


<I hope I am using the word "ironic" correctly>

[Hartmann]

It is ironic actually. All they have to do is look at Texas to see how a balanced budget system works and how public projects still get done.

[Spectatrix]

Cut spending, cut taxes all around! Whether they remain progressive or go (mostly) flat, I care not. But cut the damn things!

My boyfriend and I were looking at a political questionnaire thing online a couple of weeks ago and one of the questions was about rolling back the Bush tax cuts. His response was basically "keep 'em, if only for incentive to politicians to actually cut back on spending."

[pebkac]

So because they work harder or inherited money they should support the people who choose not to support themselves? That is just an issue for me.

I do not mind paying taxes on money I earned. I do mind being double taxed (owning a C Corp) and I do mind people getting free rides.

Where do you get the idea that someone who is in a lower tax bracket doesn't support themselves and gets a free ride?