I believe that because the wealthy have more disposable income, they should be taxed for a larger proportion of their earnings. What's wrong with that?

They should be taxed an equalt portion of their disposable income. If it's 30%, let it be 30% for all disposable income. Not 0% for the poor to 60% for the uber rich and 35% for myself.

My proposal:

Each household gets a $5000 per year deduction (for housing expenses and utilites)
Each person 16 or older in said household gets $1500 (for clothes and food)
Each person under 16 gets $750.

Everything else is disposable income taxed at whatever rate works best for the budget (25-45% I'd guess, but I'm no expert). *But* we would do away with sales tax as that is a double taxation. The state and county and city already get a percentage of the income now, why should they get another percentage in sales tax?

Because the assumption of a flat tax is that people who are super rich are super rich because they work harder or are inherently smarter or better in some way. But that misses the point. The entire idea behind a flat tax is to redress the deeply ingrained structural inequalities that consistently cause some people to be advantaged and wealthy vis a vis others.

Gah, there's a mistake in that post. Ignore it and I'll copy an amended one below.

"Because the assumption of a FLAT tax is that people who are super rich are super rich because they work harder or are inherently smarter or better in some way. But that misses the point. The entire idea behind a PROGRESSIVE tax is to redress the deeply ingrained structural inequalities that consistently cause some people to be advantaged and wealthy vis a vis others."

So because I have worked hard the last 30 years and worked my way to the top of my profession, I should pay more as a percentage than the guy who dropped out of high school and went to work at the local factory and never tried to move up the ladder.

"Because the assumption of a flat tax is that people who are super rich are super rich because they work harder or are inherently smarter or better in some way/" BINGO!!! Mafiaaligator reveals the TRUTH behind liberal tax policy: Let's get EVEN with those wealthy bastard! Those rotten son-of-a-bitches that did NOTING to earn their wealth! Fuck them, those god-damned rich bastards! Why should *I* have some of their wealth! fucking rich assholes! FUCK THE RICH! FUCK THE RICH!.......Did I sum up your jealousy argument accurately, Mafia? Please don't reply. Please don't deny. You have confessed your jealously and we are all sickened by it.

I appreciate conservatives that at least acknowledge the need for deductions at some basic level for survival...

Why is it assumed by conservatives that a flat tax is fair? There are many things in nature that are not a straight line relationship (probably most things). Psychological studies have shown that the relationship, for example, between increasing ones' wealth and one's resulting happiness with their wealth is not a straight line relationship. There is diminishing return. Why not apply some of that excess (under-appreciated) money where it can do the most good?

Some strong men can lift twice their weight... should everyone be expected to lift twice their weight?

"Some strong men can lift twice their weight... should everyone be expected to lift twice their weight? "

That's a false analogy. Just because the strongman can lift twice his weight doesn't mean he should be obligated *too* lift twice his weight every time he lifts something.

"How can one justify governments taking quadruple the money on those who earn twice as much as the middle class? How is it fair?"
Easy, the majority of people are not rich, by taxing the rich more instead of having a slightly higher flat tax the government makes more people happy. When your in office fair takes a back seat to getting the votes to stay in office.

I always thought of taxes as a social contract. If having a stable, healthy society enabled you to do well (no one entirely lifts themselves by their own bootstraps) then why not pay more into society? What's that old saw, "much is expected from whom much has been given" ?

I guess the other way to look at things is to use gov't to help reduce wealth inequality. The CIA measures wealth inequality as one of the predictors of a stable society.

Wait I forgot we're talking politics. Ahem. FUCK FASCISTS SOCIALISTS YOU HATE AMERICA

"So because I have worked hard the last 30 years and worked my way to the top of my profession, I should pay more as a percentage than the guy who dropped out of high school and went to work at the local factory and never tried to move up the ladder." - Who are you to presume you know how other people's lives have gone? Do you know that this life pattern is the case for a majority, or even a significant number of people poorer than you? Do you presume to know that you deserve your success more than every other person less successful than you? Do you really know that you're smarter than all of them them, that you've worked harder than all of them? Even in the case of this one hypothetical guy, do you really know why he dropped out? Do you know the circumstances of his life that led him to that decision? Why is it so god damn difficult for people to accept that differences in socioeconomic status are primarily determined by deeply ingrained structural and societal factors, rather than just "some people work hard, others are lazy"?

Men tend to earn more than women - in the U.S., about 30% more for equivalent jobs. Maybe husbands should be able to use their excess 30% that they earn above what their wife earns as his personal play account... mine, mine, mine. They obviously earned it. /sarcasm.

Why should a city dweller pay for your highway system and rail lines that allows you to live in the Suburbs, spew toxins into the air, and rob the city of economic opportunity? Is that fair?

I don't presume to know anything of the sort. I do presume to know that there are people out there who abuse the welfare system and who have no motivation to get ahead, prefering to maintain the status quo. If they make a fair minimum wage (that's another issue that we won't cover here) then they'll owe nothing with the up front deductions. And considering I grew up in a farming community where many from my class dropped out to go smoke pot and drink beer while living off mom and dad, yeah, I do presume to know their situation. I was raised by a father who came form the poor side of the tracks. My bass trombone that I played in high school was bought with money *I* earned working during the summer and saving my money. I didn't come from money and I made it out because I worked my way out. They became pot heads and alcoholics and I didn't. So yeah, I can presume when it comes to certain of my classmates whom I know have become a burden on society.

That's anecdotal evidence. I'm sorry, but a handful of exceptions to the general rule doesn't disprove the general rule. When you're dealing with the social sciences there will always be anomalies. But on the whole, economic mobility is simply too low to account for poverty.

Personally I don't see how anyone can defend the income tax, period. It brings in about $1 trillion annually - a cost comparable to that of the war in Iraq.

I wonder if a majority of the population would *ever* have picked paying the income tax to go to war in Iraq.

The wealthiest should pay the most because they benefit the most from taxes. Tax revenue is used to fund various programs that promote societal stability. Who benefits from maintaining the status quo? The rich guy at the top.

If we did not have libraries, public parks, decent public schools, jails, police, fire departments, senior programs, medicare, etc., things would go to hell. The base of the pyramid would be starving, ill, uneducated, criminal and vulnerable to crime. Push the people too far, and they are ready to revolt. Bastille Day is not a good situation for the rich guy.

There is only so much a rich guy can do to insulate himself from the ravening hordes. He can build gated communities with private security, send his kids to private schools, vacation in exclusive places the riffraff can't afford. He can favor overcrowded jails and the death penalty because they are more cost-effective than solving the problem at the root. He can herd poor people into limited areas, out of sight of the desirable neighborhoods. Drugs and violence are fine, as long as they stay in the projects.

At some point, that all gets pretty expensive. So there's a complicated balancing act of paying out just enough money in taxes to maintain the bare minimum of societal stability. The rich guy grudgingly coughs up as little as he can. People can complain that it's not enough, but the trick is to keep the level of discontent below the level where there is really a concern of revolution or anarchy.

The rich guy should not look at taxes as a punishment for having succeeded, or as a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. It's a protection fee to appease the masses and keep them from getting too desperate to upset the apple cart. Or like an insurance premium which increases in cost the more there is to cover.

I think there is a problem with income inequality. The tax structure can be used to address that.

Politicians buy votes with tax policy.
There are many more people in the lower three quintiles than in the top two quintiles.
Politicians buy the votes of the bottom two quintiles through income redistribution and try to create an economy that makes it hopeless for the middle quintile to climb to an upper quintile in order to capture the final votes needed for a majority.

Right now just under 50% of Americans pay no income tax, but a sizeable percentage of the middle quintile still believe that they can reach an upper quintile through their own efforts and aren't willing to settle for the crumbs from the politicians as a substitute for the rewards of their own efforts.

The current polling numbers to give hope that personal ambition is only dead in about 20-25% of the American population.

It's simple--ya gotta tax the ones that gots the money.

Wait, you libertarians can support sales (and other regressive) taxes but not a progressive (or any at all) income tax? Someone, please explain that.

Do you want a vibrant economy? Do you want people to create companies that are so profitable that they create enough profit to hire workers?
Then why do you want to penalize the success of certain individuals with ideas and ambition that create the wealth that creates jobs?
It's obviously because so many people are ignorant of basic economics and business.
Then again that's why there are so few people who have the ideas to make the money that creates jobs.
Hey, if people what to drive money into tax shelters, and there is always a way to avoid taxes, instead of seeing money create jobs they get what they ask for.

Cheers.

I feel like taking Tettleton off mute was a bad life choice.

@TC: I'd like companies that create well-paying jobs with good benefits. I don't think that someone with a "lower corporate taxes and income taxes for the rich" mindset is likely to do that.

In any case, there is no link of causation between high personal wealth and high corporate wealth. Indeed, it's much the other way around. Rich people get rich from the companies they own. What's the problem with taxing them when it's the company that's causing their wealth, not vice versa?

"I believe that because the wealthy have more disposable income, they should be taxed for a larger proportion of their earnings. What's wrong with that?"
However if it is more disposable they end up paying it through spending on valueble goods. and also your missing the facts. They have disposable income simply because they earned it. Why take away something they earned?

"My proposal:

Each household gets a $5000 per year deduction (for housing expenses and utilites)
Each person 16 or older in said household gets $1500 (for clothes and food)
Each person under 16 gets $750."
Why have deductions at all? Why not have 10% (ideally in a perfect world where government actually cracks down on waste and becomes fiscally conservative. however probably closer to 25-30% in the real world) on all incomes regardless of who what and where.
That way there is no need for tax returns. I spent 15 hours with my mum to help file her taxes 4 months ago. With a fixed non-deductible I would have spent 0. If we make it like sales tax, where the corporations, not the people, have to claim it.

Its simple, efficient and fair. I can think of no problems with it.

"Everything else is disposable income taxed at whatever rate works best for the budget (25-45% I'd guess, but I'm no expert). *But* we would do away with sales tax as that is a double taxation. The state and county and city already get a percentage of the income now, why should they get another percentage in sales tax?"
Sales tax is good and necessary, its a way of controlling inflation and I see no problems with a double tax when the state needs the money.

"Because the assumption of a flat tax is that people who are super rich are super rich because they work harder or are inherently smarter or better in some way. But that misses the point. The entire idea behind a flat tax is to redress the deeply ingrained structural inequalities that consistently cause some people to be advantaged and wealthy vis a vis others."
So your saying is bad to be rich...
People who have money is generally because the earned it. The issue with the current system is conglomerates, collusion and monopolies (and even oligopolies). Capitalism only works if it is competitive.

"I appreciate conservatives that at least acknowledge the need for deductions at some basic level for survival... "
If you don't have enough money to survive then why should you? As long as their are minimum wage laws there i no need for deductions.

"Why is it assumed by conservatives that a flat tax is fair?"
Because it means everyone is taxed evenly, not some more then others simply cause they earned more money.

"Psychological studies have shown that the relationship, for example, between increasing ones' wealth and one's resulting happiness with their wealth is not a straight line relationship. There is diminishing return."
So to enjoy your money the rich should be taxed less, that is what would balance a diminishing return, not make it twice as miserable to be rich...

"Easy, the majority of people are not rich, by taxing the rich more instead of having a slightly higher flat tax the government makes more people happy. When your in office fair takes a back seat to getting the votes to stay in office."
So your admitting its just for popularity. It has no merit beyond that. At least some liberals no the word greed.

"I always thought of taxes as a social contract. If having a stable, healthy society enabled you to do well (no one entirely lifts themselves by their own bootstraps) then why not pay more into society?"
Well charity is for that. They shouldn't be forced to do so. The fact is they have money because they earn it. So having them penalized for being better then others isn't really fair...

"Men tend to earn more than women - in the U.S., about 30% more for equivalent jobs. Maybe husbands should be able to use their excess 30% that they earn above what their wife earns as his personal play account... mine, mine, mine. They obviously earned it. /sarcasm."
If you remove the sarcasm you couldn't be closer to the truth. In fact I am going to start an affirmative action debate :)
"Why should a city dweller pay for your highway system and rail lines that allows you to live in the Suburbs, spew toxins into the air, and rob the city of economic opportunity? Is that fair?"
I can guarantee most of the social programs go to those in lower income tax brackets. So is it really fair to expect someone who is employed to pay for someones employment insurance? Your argument actually supports our way of thinking, that's how fail you are.

"That's anecdotal evidence. I'm sorry, but a handful of exceptions to the general rule doesn't disprove the general rule. When you're dealing with the social sciences there will always be anomalies. But on the whole, economic mobility is simply too low to account for poverty."
For all you socialists. based on the GDP per capita of the world is $8,000. 40 hours a week at a min wage job in Canada is $21,000 (I used Canada since its the only country I know the min wage laws of). In other words the poorest Canadian is richer then the average person in the world. Poverty is here because we have 7 billion people and only have enough resources to make 3 billion comfortable. Its why economics exists to decide who gets our vastly diminishing resources.

"The wealthiest should pay the most because they benefit the most from taxes. Tax revenue is used to fund various programs that promote societal stability. Who benefits from maintaining the status quo? The rich guy at the top.

If we did not have libraries, public parks, decent public schools, jails, police, fire departments, senior programs, medicare, etc., things would go to hell. The base of the pyramid would be starving, ill, uneducated, criminal and vulnerable to crime. Push the people too far, and they are ready to revolt. Bastille Day is not a good situation for the rich guy.

There is only so much a rich guy can do to insulate himself from the ravening hordes. He can build gated communities with private security, send his kids to private schools, vacation in exclusive places the riffraff can't afford. He can favor overcrowded jails and the death penalty because they are more cost-effective than solving the problem at the root. He can herd poor people into limited areas, out of sight of the desirable neighborhoods. Drugs and violence are fine, as long as they stay in the projects.

At some point, that all gets pretty expensive. So there's a complicated balancing act of paying out just enough money in taxes to maintain the bare minimum of societal stability. The rich guy grudgingly coughs up as little as he can. People can complain that it's not enough, but the trick is to keep the level of discontent below the level where there is really a concern of revolution or anarchy.

The rich guy should not look at taxes as a punishment for having succeeded, or as a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. It's a protection fee to appease the masses and keep them from getting too desperate to upset the apple cart. Or like an insurance premium which increases in cost the more there is to cover."
2 problems with this:
1) Your placing personal comfort infront of the right to live on priorities. You have them seriously fucked up my friend.
2) Living conditions in the upper class haven't changed (relatively speaking besides new toys to play with) in the last 100 years, while they have substantially improved in the middle and lower classes. These taxes have hurt the upper class and helped the lower and middle. And taking away something someone earned simply because he has it is wrong.

"I think there is a problem with income inequality. The tax structure can be used to address that."
So you think a man with an IQ of 130, is 6'6 plays sports etc etc should be considered an equal to someone with an IQ of 70 is 5'6 and in a wheel chair. That is equal not fair. There is a huge difference and that is something the left just doesn't understand.
"Politicians buy votes with tax policy."
Hence why I support fascism, not voting no vote buying.

"Right now just under 50% of Americans pay no income tax."
Seriously? half you country doesn't pay taxes?

"but a sizeable percentage of the middle quintile still believe that they can reach an upper quintile through their own efforts and aren't willing to settle for the crumbs from the politicians as a substitute for the rewards of their own efforts"
Correction, they believe they can move up but are to lazy to do so.

"It's simple--ya gotta tax the ones that gots the money."
Which is unfair.

"Wait, you libertarians can support sales (and other regressive) taxes but not a progressive (or any at all) income tax? Someone, please explain that."
Taxes are needed, no one is going to deny that. However I personally think a large regressive tax is better then a small progressive.

"I'd like companies that create well-paying jobs with good benefits. I don't think that someone with a "lower corporate taxes and income taxes for the rich" mindset is likely to do that."
agree, but someone with high income taxes on the rich will do the opposite. I think it shouldn't be lower for the rich, it should be the same.

"In any case, there is no link of causation between high personal wealth and high corporate wealth. Indeed, it's much the other way around. Rich people get rich from the companies they own. What's the problem with taxing them when it's the company that's causing their wealth, not vice versa?"
Ok so in theory if we kill Steve Jobs and Apple doesn't replace him but instead fires all the board of directors Apple will, according to your theory, have a larger profit cause they wont have to pay their the executives massive incomes.

Lets see how long any company would last without an executive body...

The CEOs make money because if they weren't doing their jobs there wouldn't be any jobs for anyone else.

I'm sure that the argument that "the rich earned their place, the rest of society is lazy" has been around for centuries... I'm picturing noblemen in their castle's saying that... as they squeeze the labor from the uneducated masses at their disposal (those who worked the land they owned)... why did they own it? No doubt they earned it through hard work... nah, I was kidding... most earned it by being born into the right family being educated and trained from an early age how to run the estate and control the workers and then proceeded to pass the same privileges on to their offspring.

Why limit property rights to companies and the labor of your workers... how about extending it to the workers themselves... after all, you've earned it! Those slave holders in early America sure earned their high status! Pharaoh sure earned his, too! The world is a wonderful place where everyone gets what they deserve because they earned it. Huzzah!

The rich are evil and tend to vote republican. We need to make a maximum income of 250,000 dollars. No one person deserves to make 1000 times as much as another. The rich are evil and never work for their money. Your argument that everyone should be taxed an equal percentage is invalid, the proportion of actual work to money is way off for the rich. Dont think of a tax as a subtraction, think of it as an addition that the rich dont deserve.