Beer and Taxes

Bombadil · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 7:56 am

Peetem wrote:

And who cares how much billionaires pay in taxes? How does their tax burden, or lack thereof, impact me?

Well, it sort of does and doesn't. If revenues to the government are too low to cover expenditures, then the government starts looking for new ways to tax us. Often those are ways that are primarily paid by those with lower income. So, in a roundabout way, when they pay too little you pay more. Or so it seems to me at the time.

There are numerous ways we could change things to be better. Instead of eliminating capital gains tax as has been proposed by many, how about we start by eliminating capital gains tax on the first $100k of investment income and 20% thereafter?

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 11:17 am

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem wrote:

And who cares how much billionaires pay in taxes? How does their tax burden, or lack thereof, impact me?

Well, it sort of does and doesn't. If revenues to the government are too low to cover expenditures, then the government starts looking for new ways to tax us. Often those are ways that are primarily paid by those with lower income. So, in a roundabout way, when they pay too little you pay more. Or so it seems to me at the time.

There are numerous ways we could change things to be better. Instead of eliminating capital gains tax as has been proposed by many, how about we start by eliminating capital gains tax on the first $100k of investment income and 20% thereafter?

I fail to see how it impacts YOU if billionaires don't pay as much a percentage as you. The government needs revenue and gets 80% of it from the top 10% of the wage earners. That's a fact. So you want them to pay more? So, in essense, you think its unfair that they pay less as a percentage. Got it.

Life ain't fair.

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 11:19 am

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem wrote:

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

You never paid sales tax, social security taxes, medicare taxes, car registration, property taxes, ad nauseam that whole time? That is pretty atypical. And most of those are regressive, not progressive.

The average person making 20,000 or more pays 35-45% of his income in taxes when all is said and done. That you formed a freak exception is not challenge to that. Bombadil gave a link, which you did not address.

For goodness sake, Warren Buffet (if we are going to use anecdotes) paid less, as a percentage, in taxes than I did last year, and he has never produced squat. He is a financier and "investor"

In anycase, the OP and the sham of a journalistic source he linked should not do something so dishonest as ascribe this, whatever its value, to an actual economist who did not write it.

I was speaking about Fed income taxes only. I was wan't interested in his link, only the misreprentation of the "rich" vs. the poor.

And that is exactly the problem. Lots of people have problems understanding this concept. Its frequent portrayal by the right wing media exacerbates the problem. Let me try to help you understand.

Let's take a guy I know who makes ~$500k/yr. He's always complaining about how much he pays in taxes. Says he pays 40% in taxes(which I doubt). Then he'll ask me what my income tax bill is and bemoan how bad he's getting it and how everyone should pay their fair share and it's not right that he has to pay so much. Ok, so he pays 40% of his income in taxes, so do I. He denies that I pay as much as he does, proportional to our respective incomes.

Let's examine the tax loads. His first. He's married and gets the standard $12k deduction. On $488k he owes: ~$141k in income taxes. That's 28.9%. +1.45% for medicare=30.35% For SS let's just use the regular rate, it's probably going back soon anyway. 6.2% of $220k=13640 or 2.8% Total so far= 33.1%

Other taxes:
property/hoa- $3000
Gas tax- $1000
utility/phone/tv- $300
State fees-vehicle/hunting fishing license- $150
Sales tax(let's say they spend $50k on taxable purchases)-$4000
Embedded taxes(import tarriffs and corporate taxes and payroll and unemployment taxes) 25% of goods and services purchased- $12,500
Embedded taxes on mortgage principle and interest and insurance- $2500
Excise tax-$750
Those are all the ones I can think of right now, total $24200 or 5%

Total tax burden so far 38.1%

Let's say I make $50k and pay 6% in income taxes. 7.65% for SS/MC. total 13.65%
My sales tax will be less than theirs, we'll figure $20k in taxable purchases-$1600
Embedded taxes-$5000+$2500 on mortgage and insurance
I pay all the other taxes the same. Total $14300 or 28.6%

Total tax burden so far 42.25%

Whoa! Did I really just calculate that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes earning $50k/yr than my friend who earns $500k/yr? I think I did. So it isn't quite the case that income tax is the only tax that matters. All of these are real taxes that we really pay with real money, some are less direct than others. All of them are also optional, so the argument that one doesn't have to pay any particular tax is irrelevant. If you don't want to pay income tax, keep your income below a certain threshhold. If you don't want to pay property tax, then live with your parents, or in a mobile home on a small lot for a minimal bill. If you don't want to pay sales tax, make everything you need yourself. If you don't want to pay excise tax, make your own tobacco and alcohol. Et cetera.

Right wing media - What are you talking about?

Who cares if a billionaire pays less as a percentage? Their total $$'s will be 100x what you paid. Who cares about all the other taxes.

What I want to understand is why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair.

I have yet to have that question answered in a rational way.

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 11:22 am

Furthermore, what would constitute fair? Why not just have the government sieze everything they own?

Guess what, even if you did that (took every millionaire and billionaires net worth) it wouldn't make a dent in the debt. Not a pin-heads worth.

Castro did this BTW.

So did Lenin.

Chavez ain't too far behind.

Malleus Haereticorum · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 11:48 am

The fact that a lower pecentage of their income is such a great percentage of the revenue should itself be worrisome and points to historically great disparity.

Further, 40% of 50,000 is significant. It is the difference between living comfortably and barely scraping by for many.

40% of a million is the difference between living very well and living very well.

Justice demands that the burden of the public good be born in greater proportion by those who enjoy more wealth. We are not talking about making everyone equal in wealth. Rather, it is fairly obvious that what constitutes bein wealthy is having superfluous wealth, such that taking up some share for the public good does not constitute a burden, yet that same share, as a percentage, on those not wealthy is a burden and can diminish qualiity of life.

After all, all private property exists for the sake of the common good. It is in virtue of the common good that a right to private property exists. And that includes a greater duty, at times in charity, at times even in justice, to support the common good in proportion to one's ability.

Frankly 80% of a million is a less burdensome tax than 40% of 50,000 is we consider true human needs. Not that either is right, they generally wouldn't be

Bombadil · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 11:51 am

I'm not sure what topic you are talking about, Peetem.

Bombadil · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 11:58 am

Peetem wrote:

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem wrote:

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

You never paid sales tax, social security taxes, medicare taxes, car registration, property taxes, ad nauseam that whole time? That is pretty atypical. And most of those are regressive, not progressive.

The average person making 20,000 or more pays 35-45% of his income in taxes when all is said and done. That you formed a freak exception is not challenge to that. Bombadil gave a link, which you did not address.

For goodness sake, Warren Buffet (if we are going to use anecdotes) paid less, as a percentage, in taxes than I did last year, and he has never produced squat. He is a financier and "investor"

In anycase, the OP and the sham of a journalistic source he linked should not do something so dishonest as ascribe this, whatever its value, to an actual economist who did not write it.

I was speaking about Fed income taxes only. I was wan't interested in his link, only the misreprentation of the "rich" vs. the poor.

And that is exactly the problem. Lots of people have problems understanding this concept. Its frequent portrayal by the right wing media exacerbates the problem. Let me try to help you understand.

Let's take a guy I know who makes ~$500k/yr. He's always complaining about how much he pays in taxes. Says he pays 40% in taxes(which I doubt). Then he'll ask me what my income tax bill is and bemoan how bad he's getting it and how everyone should pay their fair share and it's not right that he has to pay so much. Ok, so he pays 40% of his income in taxes, so do I. He denies that I pay as much as he does, proportional to our respective incomes.

Let's examine the tax loads. His first. He's married and gets the standard $12k deduction. On $488k he owes: ~$141k in income taxes. That's 28.9%. +1.45% for medicare=30.35% For SS let's just use the regular rate, it's probably going back soon anyway. 6.2% of $220k=13640 or 2.8% Total so far= 33.1%

Other taxes:
property/hoa- $3000
Gas tax- $1000
utility/phone/tv- $300
State fees-vehicle/hunting fishing license- $150
Sales tax(let's say they spend $50k on taxable purchases)-$4000
Embedded taxes(import tarriffs and corporate taxes and payroll and unemployment taxes) 25% of goods and services purchased- $12,500
Embedded taxes on mortgage principle and interest and insurance- $2500
Excise tax-$750
Those are all the ones I can think of right now, total $24200 or 5%

Total tax burden so far 38.1%

Let's say I make $50k and pay 6% in income taxes. 7.65% for SS/MC. total 13.65%
My sales tax will be less than theirs, we'll figure $20k in taxable purchases-$1600
Embedded taxes-$5000+$2500 on mortgage and insurance
I pay all the other taxes the same. Total $14300 or 28.6%

Total tax burden so far 42.25%

Whoa! Did I really just calculate that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes earning $50k/yr than my friend who earns $500k/yr? I think I did. So it isn't quite the case that income tax is the only tax that matters. All of these are real taxes that we really pay with real money, some are less direct than others. All of them are also optional, so the argument that one doesn't have to pay any particular tax is irrelevant. If you don't want to pay income tax, keep your income below a certain threshhold. If you don't want to pay property tax, then live with your parents, or in a mobile home on a small lot for a minimal bill. If you don't want to pay sales tax, make everything you need yourself. If you don't want to pay excise tax, make your own tobacco and alcohol. Et cetera.

Right wing media - What are you talking about?

Who cares if a billionaire pays less as a percentage? Their total $$'s will be 100x what you paid. Who cares about all the other taxes.

What I want to understand is why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair.

I have yet to have that question answered in a rational way.

I'm not sure you asked your question in a rational way. When you say "$$'s" do you mean dollar amount or percentage rate.

It seemed to me like you are advocating a whole dollar tax, e.g., at current levels, every adult would have to write a check to the government for $25,000 every year instead of having all these taxes.

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 12:31 pm

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

The fact that a lower pecentage of their income is such a great percentage of the revenue should itself be worrisome and points to historically great disparity.

Further, 40% of 50,000 is significant. It is the difference between living comfortably and barely scraping by for many.

40% of a million is the difference between living very well and living very well.

Justice demands that the burden of the public good be born in greater proportion by those who enjoy more wealth. We are not talking about making everyone equal in wealth. Rather, it is fairly obvious that what constitutes bein wealthy is having superfluous wealth, such that taking up some share for the public good does not constitute a burden, yet that same share, as a percentage, on those not wealthy is a burden and can diminish qualiity of life.

After all, all private property exists for the sake of the common good. It is in virtue of the common good that a right to private property exists. And that includes a greater duty, at times in charity, at times even in justice, to support the common good in proportion to one's ability.

Frankly 80% of a million is a less burdensome tax than 40% of 50,000 is we consider true human needs. Not that either is right, they generally wouldn't be

OK - let's take this to a high level:

1) What constitutes "superfluous wealth"? $1MM, $10MM, $100MM in net worth?
2) Who determines #1?
3) What percentage taken from those earners who have superfluous wealth would constitue "fair" and ok for the "common good"?
4) What is to be done with the revenue from #3? Given away? Have the government collect it and re-distribute it?
5) What will the people who have superfluous wealth do with themselves and their property? Leave the country? Give it all away to their friends and family in smaller amounts so as to avoid the "superfluous wealth" tax? Purchase rare metals and cease to report the income?

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 12:33 pm

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem wrote:

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem wrote:

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

You never paid sales tax, social security taxes, medicare taxes, car registration, property taxes, ad nauseam that whole time? That is pretty atypical. And most of those are regressive, not progressive.

The average person making 20,000 or more pays 35-45% of his income in taxes when all is said and done. That you formed a freak exception is not challenge to that. Bombadil gave a link, which you did not address.

For goodness sake, Warren Buffet (if we are going to use anecdotes) paid less, as a percentage, in taxes than I did last year, and he has never produced squat. He is a financier and "investor"

In anycase, the OP and the sham of a journalistic source he linked should not do something so dishonest as ascribe this, whatever its value, to an actual economist who did not write it.

I was speaking about Fed income taxes only. I was wan't interested in his link, only the misreprentation of the "rich" vs. the poor.

And that is exactly the problem. Lots of people have problems understanding this concept. Its frequent portrayal by the right wing media exacerbates the problem. Let me try to help you understand.

Let's take a guy I know who makes ~$500k/yr. He's always complaining about how much he pays in taxes. Says he pays 40% in taxes(which I doubt). Then he'll ask me what my income tax bill is and bemoan how bad he's getting it and how everyone should pay their fair share and it's not right that he has to pay so much. Ok, so he pays 40% of his income in taxes, so do I. He denies that I pay as much as he does, proportional to our respective incomes.

Let's examine the tax loads. His first. He's married and gets the standard $12k deduction. On $488k he owes: ~$141k in income taxes. That's 28.9%. +1.45% for medicare=30.35% For SS let's just use the regular rate, it's probably going back soon anyway. 6.2% of $220k=13640 or 2.8% Total so far= 33.1%

Other taxes:
property/hoa- $3000
Gas tax- $1000
utility/phone/tv- $300
State fees-vehicle/hunting fishing license- $150
Sales tax(let's say they spend $50k on taxable purchases)-$4000
Embedded taxes(import tarriffs and corporate taxes and payroll and unemployment taxes) 25% of goods and services purchased- $12,500
Embedded taxes on mortgage principle and interest and insurance- $2500
Excise tax-$750
Those are all the ones I can think of right now, total $24200 or 5%

Total tax burden so far 38.1%

Let's say I make $50k and pay 6% in income taxes. 7.65% for SS/MC. total 13.65%
My sales tax will be less than theirs, we'll figure $20k in taxable purchases-$1600
Embedded taxes-$5000+$2500 on mortgage and insurance
I pay all the other taxes the same. Total $14300 or 28.6%

Total tax burden so far 42.25%

Whoa! Did I really just calculate that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes earning $50k/yr than my friend who earns $500k/yr? I think I did. So it isn't quite the case that income tax is the only tax that matters. All of these are real taxes that we really pay with real money, some are less direct than others. All of them are also optional, so the argument that one doesn't have to pay any particular tax is irrelevant. If you don't want to pay income tax, keep your income below a certain threshhold. If you don't want to pay property tax, then live with your parents, or in a mobile home on a small lot for a minimal bill. If you don't want to pay sales tax, make everything you need yourself. If you don't want to pay excise tax, make your own tobacco and alcohol. Et cetera.

Right wing media - What are you talking about?

Who cares if a billionaire pays less as a percentage? Their total $$'s will be 100x what you paid. Who cares about all the other taxes.

What I want to understand is why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair.

I have yet to have that question answered in a rational way.

I'm not sure you asked your question in a rational way. When you say "$$'s" do you mean dollar amount or percentage rate.

It seemed to me like you are advocating a whole dollar tax, e.g., at current levels, every adult would have to write a check to the government for $25,000 every year instead of having all these taxes.

Answer mine first and I'll asnwer yours.

We'll get to what I'm advocating later.

1HCaAC · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 1:44 pm

I think fair is that everyone would be subject to the same percentage rate. It is unfair to have those with more pay at a greater percentage rate.

Bombadil · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 1:45 pm

Peetem- See, I'm not sure you're listening. I was asking for clarification about what exactly your question is so that I could answer it and you said you would answer my question about your question after I have answered your question. That's pretty questionable.

I'll assume this is the question I should answer. "What I want to understand is: why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair?"

I am going to keep this simple. Taxes poor people at a higher rate of their income than rich people is just wrong, that's why.

Make your case as to why poor people should pay a higher tax rate than rich people.

Bombadil · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 1:46 pm

1HCaAC wrote:

I think fair is that everyone would be subject to the same percentage rate. It is unfair to have those with more pay at a greater percentage rate.

Including all taxes or just the federal income tax?

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 3:45 pm

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem- See, I'm not sure you're listening. I was asking for clarification about what exactly your question is so that I could answer it and you said you would answer my question about your question after I have answered your question. That's pretty questionable.

I'll assume this is the question I should answer. "What I want to understand is: why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair?"

I am going to keep this simple. Taxes poor people at a higher rate of their income than rich people is just wrong, that's why.

Make your case as to why poor people should pay a higher tax rate than rich people.

Gotcha.

I'm not making the case that poor people should pay a higher percentage, but I must admit that's a very clever way of asking a loaded question.

The tax code is as follows (in a "high level" way and only for the purposes of an example - these aren't the exact #'s):

Income Range Tax Rate
0-20,000 15%
20,001 - 50,000 25%
50,001 - 100,000 30%
100,001 - 130,000 35%
130,001 - infinity 37%

To me the rich are paying a larger percentage of the income (that is, ordinary wages).

Capital gains Tax Rate
Short Term 25%
Long Term 15%

Seems fair to me - everyone pays the same rate.

State Income Tax - Just like Federal
Seems to me the rich are paying a larger percentage of their income here (that is, ordinary wages) - just like Federal taes.
Fair here too.

Misc Taxes - everyone pays regardless of income.
Seems fair to me too.

What I believe you are trying to say is that the total tax burden (not just wages, but all taxes when one considers gas, food and etc) on the poor is unfairly higher as a percetage of their total income.

I don't disagee. My first question is - so what? You replied, in essence, "its just plain wrong and unfair" (see your response above).

So my second question is - Do you want to tax the rich to pay more just to make things fair?

If the answer to the second question is - "yes, to make it more fair".

My next question would be this - so you want to increase everyone's misery just so things are fair?

What say you?

Bombadil · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 5:00 pm

Peetem wrote:

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem- See, I'm not sure you're listening. I was asking for clarification about what exactly your question is so that I could answer it and you said you would answer my question about your question after I have answered your question. That's pretty questionable.

I'll assume this is the question I should answer. "What I want to understand is: why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair?"

I am going to keep this simple. Taxes poor people at a higher rate of their income than rich people is just wrong, that's why.

Make your case as to why poor people should pay a higher tax rate than rich people.

Gotcha.

I'm not making the case that poor people should pay a higher percentage, but I must admit that's a very clever way of asking a loaded question.

Thanks!

Quote:

The tax code is as follows (in a "high level" way and only for the purposes of an example - these aren't the exact #'s):

Income Range Tax Rate
0-20,000 15%
20,001 - 50,000 25%
50,001 - 100,000 30%
100,001 - 130,000 35%
130,001 - infinity 37%

To me the rich are paying a larger percentage of the income (that is, ordinary wages).

Your tax table is wrong.

Quote:

Capital gains Tax Rate
Short Term 25%
Long Term 15%

Seems fair to me - everyone pays the same rate.
[color=#BF00FF]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that short term capital gains are taxed at your highest marginal tax rate. So if your last dollar of income was in the 28% bracket then that's what you pay on short term capital gains.

Quote:

What I believe you are trying to say is that the total tax burden (not just wages, but all taxes when one considers gas, food and etc) on the poor is unfairly higher as a percetage of their total income.

I don't disagee. My first question is - so what? You replied, in essence, "its just plain wrong and unfair" (see your response above).

Well, what I am intending to mean I will clarify below with my next response.

Quote:

So my second question is - Do you want to tax the rich to pay more just to make things fair?

No. What I don't care for is if we have a state of taxation where currently the lower wage earners and higher wage earners pay the same percentage of their income in taxes overall and then someone wants to give tax cuts to the higher wage earners.

Quote:

If the answer to the second question is - "yes, to make it more fair".

My next question would be this - so you want to increase everyone's misery just so things are fair?

What say you?

I say all of this is not at all what I am meaning. Look, my point to make was very simple, low wage earners who are typically characterized as paying no taxes at all pay taxes as a proportion of their income very similar to, and in some cases above, that of higher wage earners, as my example demonstrated. You have decided to make this about other things. If you want to know what changes I would agree to in the federal income tax code as you seem so interested to know, I will tell you. If we have to keep the system and are to give a tax break of some kind I think it should go like this. Pardon me if I butcher the jargon.

1. Double the personal exemption. Married couples get 3 instead of 2 personal exemptions.
2. Double the standard deduction. Married couples get 3 instead of 2 standard deductions.
3. Also allow the doubled personal exemption to apply for the per child exemption, so that they will also count double.

Maybe not those exact numbers, but something along those lines. That is the same for everyone. Everyone will get equal tax reduction from that, fair is it not?

My threefold tax plan as I have laid it out before since you seem to have missed it, does not have an income tax. Import duties, sales tax, and fuel tax. That's it. I might entertain the notion of taxing rather large incomes, such as a 15% tax on incomes from capital gains that are greater than 25 times the median income.

Peetem · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 8:09 pm

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem wrote:

Bombadil wrote:

Peetem- See, I'm not sure you're listening. I was asking for clarification about what exactly your question is so that I could answer it and you said you would answer my question about your question after I have answered your question. That's pretty questionable.

I'll assume this is the question I should answer. "What I want to understand is: why should I pay more $$'s because people think its unfair?"

I am going to keep this simple. Taxes poor people at a higher rate of their income than rich people is just wrong, that's why.

Make your case as to why poor people should pay a higher tax rate than rich people.

Gotcha.

I'm not making the case that poor people should pay a higher percentage, but I must admit that's a very clever way of asking a loaded question.

Thanks! ::):

Quote:

The tax code is as follows (in a "high level" way and only for the purposes of an example - these aren't the exact #'s):

Income Range Tax Rate
0-20,000 15%
20,001 - 50,000 25%
50,001 - 100,000 30%
100,001 - 130,000 35%
130,001 - infinity 37%

To me the rich are paying a larger percentage of the income (that is, ordinary wages).

Your tax table is wrong.

Quote:

Capital gains Tax Rate
Short Term 25%
Long Term 15%

Seems fair to me - everyone pays the same rate.
[color=#BF00FF]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that short term capital gains are taxed at your highest marginal tax rate. So if your last dollar of income was in the 28% bracket then that's what you pay on short term capital gains.

Quote:

What I believe you are trying to say is that the total tax burden (not just wages, but all taxes when one considers gas, food and etc) on the poor is unfairly higher as a percetage of their total income.

I don't disagee. My first question is - so what? You replied, in essence, "its just plain wrong and unfair" (see your response above).

Well, what I am intending to mean I will clarify below with my next response.

Quote:

So my second question is - Do you want to tax the rich to pay more just to make things fair?

No. What I don't care for is if we have a state of taxation where currently the lower wage earners and higher wage earners pay the same percentage of their income in taxes overall and then someone wants to give tax cuts to the higher wage earners.

Quote:

If the answer to the second question is - "yes, to make it more fair".

My next question would be this - so you want to increase everyone's misery just so things are fair?

What say you?

I say all of this is not at all what I am meaning. Look, my point to make was very simple, low wage earners who are typically characterized as paying no taxes at all pay taxes as a proportion of their income very similar to, and in some cases above, that of higher wage earners, as my example demonstrated. You have decided to make this about other things. If you want to know what changes I would agree to in the federal income tax code as you seem so interested to know, I will tell you. If we have to keep the system and are to give a tax break of some kind I think it should go like this. Pardon me if I butcher the jargon.

1. Double the personal exemption. Married couples get 3 instead of 2 personal exemptions.
2. Double the standard deduction. Married couples get 3 instead of 2 standard deductions.
3. Also allow the doubled personal exemption to apply for the per child exemption, so that they will also count double.

Maybe not those exact numbers, but something along those lines. That is the same for everyone. Everyone will get equal tax reduction from that, fair is it not?

My threefold tax plan as I have laid it out before since you seem to have missed it, does not have an income tax. Import duties, sales tax, and fuel tax. That's it. I might entertain the notion of taxing rather large incomes, such as a 15% tax on incomes from capital gains that are greater than 25 times the median income.

Got it - thanks for the clarification....

However, I did state that my tax table was just for illustration and the #'s weren't correct.

Will · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 11:03 am

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

Justice demands that the burden of the public good be born in greater proportion by those who enjoy more wealth.

Justice demands what??? Where did you come up with that?

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

We are not talking about making everyone equal in wealth.

Well that is good.

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

Rather, it is fairly obvious that what constitutes being wealthy is having superfluous wealth,

Oblivious to who?

Oh, Can I be on that government panel who decides who is wealthy and who isn't?
Being wealthy is having good health and not having to worry about where your next meal is coming from.
Oh wait, being wealthy is having more than one car.
Oh wait being wealthy is having more than $25K in savings and having a TV and computer and a house bigger than 2500 sq ft. ......

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

such that taking up some share for the public good does not constitute a burden, yet that same share, as a percentage, on those not wealthy is a burden and can diminish quality of life.

Once again what??

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

After all, all private property exists for the sake of the common good.

This statement was the clincher. If it exists for the common good it's not private it's public.

Definition of Private - 1a: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class <a private park>
b: belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest <a private house>
c (1) : restricted to the individual or arising independently of others <private opinion>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private

Private property exists for the good of the individual not the public. If you don't respect private property you don't respect the person or his self determination or his free will.

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

It is in virtue of the common good that a right to private property exists.

No it is not. Again, where do you get that?

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

And that includes a greater duty, at times in charity, at times even in justice, to support the common good in proportion to one's ability.

Justice - Definition of JUSTICE
1a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private

I only have a duty to be a good steward of what I have, not to force by law telling others what to do with what they have.

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

Frankly 80% of a million is a less burdensome tax than 40% of 50,000 is we consider true human needs. Not that either is right, they generally wouldn't be

What?

Again, I don't care if that million is sitting in a safe doing nothing or if that million is enabling x number of people to make a living, or if it's being invested. It's not mine.
So it may mean nothing to whomever owns it or it may mean the difference between staying in business or hiring an extra worker or it may mean a nice vacation for someone. You don't know and I don't know.

So in terms of justice, if we must have income tax at all (which we don't at the federal level) then a straight percentage (no ups downs or extras) from zero income to infinity is the best.
I believe this since most people want to provide for themselves and it will not discourage or burden achievement.

1HCaAC · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 12:07 pm

Malleus Haereticorum wrote:

Justice demands that the burden of the public good be born in greater proportion by those who enjoy more wealth.

The same income tax rate for all would serve justice in that those making more would, in relation to the government's income, pay a greater proportion. With a 10% rate for all, the individual making $30,000 would pay $3,000 while the individual making $5,000,000 would pay $500,000. That is not only just, it is fair.

Beer and Taxes

Who is online