Filed My Taxes

[techman05]

I wouldn't be fine with paying that much, but I wouldn't feel like it was unfair. Honestly, I don't see is 'fair' about factoring in 'ability to pay.' That is already taken into account by the fact that x percent of $10k is always smaller than x percent or $100k. The person making 100k can afford to pay more and they still would in a flat rate system. If the tax rate was 15 percent, then the first guy would pay $1.5k and the other guy would pay $15k. By taxing income at a rate instead of a flat yearly government fee you have already made the system progressive. The question is - why should it be even more progressive? A 'progressive' system simply encourages you to gerrymander the tax code to target a minority of people that have the ability to bear the burden to unjustly benefit those that will have less financial flexibility if they paid the same rate of income. At least with a flat rate system you cannot have targetted tax hikes that don't affect some part of the population at all. If the government needs to raise more revenues, we all should be at least partly on the hook for that.

Stop it Guiss, you are making far too much sense. Don't forget, the feds have to make it far more difficult, that is just their way.

[mikedog]

I aint defending the any of the foreigner-in-chief's policies. Just progressive taxation as a principle. And if I were the king I'd tax the ever living mess out of un-earned income.

And, by doing so, you would kill 99% of the start-up companies in the United States before they even get started. These companies are primarily capitalized with outside investment through private placements or public offerings--not promissory notes from Capital One.

[Guisslapp]

And, by doing so, you would kill 99% of the start-up companies in the United States before they even get started. These companies are primarily capitalized with outside investment through private placements or public offerings--not promissory notes from Capital One.

Particularly in the technology sectors.

[Champ967]

And, by doing so, you would kill 99% of the start-up companies in the United States before they even get started. These companies are primarily capitalized with outside investment through private placements or public offerings--not promissory notes from Capital One.

Making money you didnt work for = welfare.

[Guisslapp]

Making money you didnt work for = welfare.

Which would be true if the money you invested was inherited. If it is money that you saved, then it is not much different than the income you would derive from being a small business owner. You are just a small owner of a big business.

[Champ967]

If the government needs to raise more revenues, we all should be at least partly on the hook for that.

agreed.

A 'progressive' system simply encourages you to gerrymander the tax code to target a minority of people that have the ability to bear the burden

Yeah -- I'm ok with that.

[Guisslapp]

So how is a flat rate not progressive? Why is it not progressive enough?

[Champ967]

it is not much different than the income you would derive from being a small business owner. You are just a small owner of a big business. .

Only if you are also employed there -- otherwise you are just making money off other people's hard work.

Sounds like wealth redistribution.

[Guisslapp]

Only if you are also employed there -- otherwise you are just making money off other people's hard work.

Sounds like wealth redistribution.

Sounds like you are letting people borrow the fruits of your labor, which they need to grow their business, in return for an opportunity to share in a portion of the profits but with the risk of losing the fruits of your labor.

[Champ967]

So how is a flat rate not progressive? Why is it not progressive enough?

I'd submit to you that it's effectively RE-gressive since there is a base level consumption (and by extension, income) necessary for subsistence / survival.

A 25% flat rate would be, in reality, a much bigger bite for someone earning $15K than someone earning $150K.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

This has probably been posted already.

UPDATE: Half of households pay no income tax...

link
TAX DAY: Obamas report income of $1.73 million; to get $12,334 refund...

The rest of the story. Well of course 43% like their tax level as 45% of them aren't even paying any taxes!!!

links
45% of households pay no income tax...

43% say tax level 'about right'...

[Guisslapp]

I'd submit to you that it's effectively RE-gressive since there is a base level consumption (and by extension, income) necessary for subsistence / survival.

A 25% flat rate would be, in reality, a much bigger bite for someone earning $15K than someone earning $150K.

$3,750 is a bigger bite than $37,500? Not so sure about that. Sure the guy making 150k has a greater ability to pay more than the person making 15k, but just as having to pay $3,750 affects the standard of living afforded to the person making 15k, having to pay $37,500 affects the standard of living afforded to the person making 150k. Government, just like food and shelter, is pretty much necessary for subsistence and survival. Just like no one should be entitled to be supported with food and shelter by someone else, no one should be entitled to having their cost of government being paid for by someone else. Don't get me wrong - I am not arguing against a 'safety net.' I am simply saying that this is not an argument about 'fairness.' That rhetoric is entirely misplaced in the setting of progressive taxation.

To me 'ability to pay' is purely a pragmatic factor and not a fairness factor. It is ridiculous to say that someone is paying more in taxes than someone else is not paying their fair share. If we all have an equal share of our government, then the guy paying $37,500 is subsidizing the guy that is paying $3,750. It is not fair that we have an equal stake an equal ownership of our government, but we do not share equal burdens and responsibilities.

[splicer]

It is not fair that we have an equal stake an equal ownership of our government, but we do not share equal burdens and responsibilities.

That sums it up pretty well!

[Cal&Ken]

Which would be true if the money you invested was inherited. If it is money that you saved, then it is not much different than the income you would derive from being a small business owner. You are just a small owner of a big business.

Incorrect. If you inherit money it is called a gift. It came from someone that did earn it and was not taxpayer money.

[Champ967]

It is not fair that we have an equal stake an equal ownership of our government, but we do not share equal burdens and responsibilities.

I'd submit that the person who prospered more has a greater responsibilty. Like Spiderman, ya dig?

To me 'ability to pay' is purely a pragmatic factor and not a fairness factor.

Actually, I'm totally ok with that too.