President Bush - about bush

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-11 15:59:59

I remember now. The income tax began in preparation for WW1. The government needed money, and it was intended to be temporary. It was, I believe, a 1% tax.

Actually, it didn't have anything to do with WWI. (This was 1913 after all, the war didn't start until 1914 and the US didn't enter until the end of 1916, and then reluctantly) The tax was meant as a punitive measure on the "robber-barons" of the time.

A few decades before, there was a telephone tax imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War. We still pay it today.

soph · 2003-01-11 16:01:44

The US was supplying Britain all war. We knew that we were going to enter...there was no reluctance. The Lusitania just gave us an excuse to commit troops.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-12 17:25:42

Actually, there's nothing ?unconstitutional? about the 16th ammendment, because the constitution actually gives us the right to have ammendments that go against the actual contents within. (Unlike say, Cuba's former constitutionn which stated that any new ammendments or changes that contridicted other basic rules made the consitution defunct- the actual cause of the Cuban revolution.) Constitutions shouldn't contridict themselves.

But apparently the 16th ammendment was never ratified, that's why people make a big deal about it. And it is a big deal. If a majority of the states weren't in on it, but it went though anyway, can you imagine? That would be just as bad as Fulgencio Batista passing the anti-constitutional crap he did in Cuba.

clark · 2003-01-13 10:47:40

A flat tax penalizes the poor- those with less pay a disporportionate amount of their overall income versue those who can most afford it.

If 10% flat tax for all people: say you make 10,000 dollars.

Well, you pay 1,000 dollars in taxes- you get 9,000 dollars to live on.

If I make 100,000 dollars, I get 90,000 dollars to live on.

Yeah,w e both pay equal taxes, but you pay a disporportionante amount of the taxes in relation to how much you make.

Those who benefit most from this scheme are the wealthy, not the poor. It detracts from social mobility becuase it makes it harder for people to move forward since they get less money.

We can do away with the income tax- but say goodbye either to your social services or our military. You can only have one.

And you can pretty much kiss any chance of governmental involvement with the development of space if the income tax is repealed.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 11:49:09

Tax code is a mess.

soph · 2003-01-13 16:25:24

clark, that made no sense. 1,000/9,000 is the same proportion as 10,000/90,000.

This penalizes everybody equally. A person who makes ten times as much pays ten times as much. Should a wealthy person pay 91,000 dollars, so he can live on the same amount? Should the wealthy not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors? I would agree that tax policies that benefit the rich too much are wrong, but a flat tax is fair across the board.

clark · 2003-01-13 16:29:37

No, it is disproportionate compared to what we end up having to live on.

Most people would be hard pressed to make it on 9,000 a year, let alone 10,000. There is no real fundamenatal difference between 90,000 and 100,000.

You need to understand this in the corect context.

ry figuring out how much you can bdget for food, clothes, and housing with 10,000 dollars- see how much you have left. Do the same thing with 100,000.

those with mroe are the ones who can most afford higher taxes- those with less are the ones who can least afford the taxes.

That's the point of our current tax system.

soph · 2003-01-13 17:01:46

wait wait. Youre saying, you made more money, so you can afford to buy more.

If you work a 40 hour work week, you are making ~$12,000 a year. You get to live on $11,800 a year.

A rich person loses the equivalent of a small car. A poor person loses the equivalent of two computers. I would rather have the car.

It is all equal. And most people do not make minimum wage. The median income is somewhere around $35,000 (correct me if im wrong), meaning most people would lose $3,500.

A person should not be taxed more simply because he did well. there is no reason Bill Gates shouldnt pay the same 10 cents per dollar as John Doe. He loses the same percentage of his income.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 17:54:59

Funny soph, that's what Proudhon argues.

He's an anarchist, BTW...

But the actual justification for this wealth distribution comes from Keynesian Economics as far as I know (I'm not versed in the concepts, though). Supply side theory is a relatively new concept, and only perpetuates because it can be sold so easily.

soph · 2003-01-13 18:08:38

What is it that clark said? Common ground?

I guess all people have some issues that come into agrrement

clark · 2003-01-14 10:16:24

A rich person loses the equivalent of a small car. A poor person loses the equivalent of two computers. I would rather have the car.

What you are missing though is that the poor person dosen't ha ve enough extra income to get ahead. The amount of tax they must pay in relation to their overall earnings is oppresive since their base amount is hardly enough to get by as it is.

The person with the extra income though is taxed less than they can afford- the rich could well indeed afford two or three more cars- while the poor can hardly afford shoes.

soph · 2003-01-14 14:11:34

No, no. That's ridiculous. Should we tax only the rich?

Or how would you fund the government?

It's a perfectly fair system. Youre taxing them in a percentage, so they pay less because they make less. It's very hard to make below $15,000 in this country, unless you are unemployed.

It costs the same percentage to a rich person to buy a car as it takes the poor person, to buy, say a refrigerator. A poor person could buy 10 more refrigerators, the same way a rich person could buy ten more cars.

They can buy the ten more cars because they did well for themselves. And tell me, what is wrong with that? Should Michael Dell have to suffer because he made more money than John Doe?

Fine, how about this, below a $15,000 income, there is no income tax. The rest gets a flat 15% tax.

clark · 2003-01-14 14:44:24

Should we tax only the rich?

That's basically the system we have now, a tierd income tax where a larger percentage of your income is taxed based on which rnage you fall in. People making less than the poverty line are not taxed on their income- those making millions get taxed into the 50% range. Our system is also set up to allow those with lots of tax burden (the rich) to invest money in business (that make jobs) and real estate (which ostenibly leads to job creation) so they can avoid some of the taxes. In this way the government can keep more money in circulation, and thus the trickle down effect.

A flat tax means less income for the government, so you can kiss goodbye NASA or other assorted government funded research. Our military would probably take a big cut too (we spend more on the military then the next top 7 nations spend combined).

The rich also lose some incentive to reinvest that money since they no longer have to avoid the taxes. You create little Emperors (like Bill) who have entirely too much money.

Tax codes are a means for society to effect social change by providing incentives to do certain things, or disincentives to do certain things (financially).

the flat tax sounds nice in principle, but it is hardly practical.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 15:33:30

Shh, clark, don't mention our military spending.

It's been known to rile people up on these forums.

You forget our interest, too. The Regan-era deficits are a huge hit to our national budget, with only the military budget being bigger. Proudhon also doesn't like interest, funny guy, huh? No tax and no interest? Amazing. The only thing that makes those deficits ?okay? is that they're US debts, and not foreign. If they were foreign we'd be in worse shape. Paying on our interest is like paying back into the system, but it's still bullcrap.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-14 16:14:47

Funny how much debt the world is in with the US when we have such a large defecit...

soph · 2003-01-14 16:46:40

Actually, we operate at a trade deficit cal.

Second, Social Security is a larger part of the budget than Military. Somebody should take another look.

Third, a flat tax would force us to look at our spending more carefully, and maybe even stop operating at a trade deficit. That also means less handouts to other countries.

A flat tax is very fair in principle. Bill Gates would have to spend a few hundred million dollars a year in taxes. If they arent hiding income, thats more taxable income.

Workers might do less OTB working. Just maybe. It IS illegal.

Our tax system IS unfair. When people say a new plan only benefits the rich, thats obvious. A percentage decrease would obviously help the rich more in total dollars, because theyre more taxed to begin with.

A flat tax IS practical, and it is moral.

clark · 2003-01-14 16:58:55

No, a flat tax is "consistent".

It hardly qualifies as "moral", and it is far from "practical".

soph · 2003-01-14 17:07:21

It is very moral. It is immoral to tax people more for being successful.

You also seem to forget the idea that lowering taxes stimulates growth, which often leads to more revenue in the end. So, it is practical.

Nothing you've offered seems to refute this. A person paying 10% is the same as someone 10%. This is perfectly fair and moral.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 18:02:33

soph, depends on what you consider moral. Since such taxes are so disproportionate, the poorer people pay more tax when you compare their conditions to the rich. As you go up on the scale, your ablity to function increases. You can do a lot more with a million dollars than you can with twenty thousand. The tax, then, should affect you proportionately. If a poor person can buy X ammount of junk with the money they have, then a rich person ought to be able to bye Xn ammount of junk proportionate to how much they make. Of course, it doesn't work this way even now, because some of the very rich don't pay any taxes at all.

Proudhon's argument was that all the government existed for was to maintain roads, and so on, and uphold the security of a nation. And that it ought not cost any more for a rich person to use a road or be protected by a military than anyone else (common #### sense, really). What Prouhon doesn't realize is that the welfare of those at the bottom must be protected (actually, he does realize this, he just doesn't see why the state has any reason to do it, he thinks the individuals themselves ought to- anyway, the state has to protect the welfare of the individuals at the bottom our current condition, so we won't argue that), due to how fragile centralized systems are.

It's been proven that we must keep a certain level of unemployeement to decrease inflation and keep things at a sane level. How do we pay for that unemployeement if we have just a flat tax? I think the people for Tax Justice said that it would require a 40% flat tax to operate at our current levels. That's horrible for the little guy. Flat taxes can't work...

And soph, I was wondering, where do you get this whole, Social Security is more than military stuff? Have a source? I couldn't find anything immedately about Social Security. But since it currently pays right back into the system, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Military spending, however, doesn't pay back into the system, and arguably causes more harm than good since it's continuely perpetuated.

Here's a neat chart outlining where your income tax goes: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxes … CHart.html

You'll need Internet Explorer.

soph · 2003-01-14 18:06:56

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/bud34.html

And there was an economics book that is released each year or two with a summary of fiscal year spending. Ill get it for you as soon as i finish the stuff im working on.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 18:21:49

Ahh, SS, Medicaid and Medicare are all Mandatory spending items. No wonder they (the NPI) leave it out in their pie charts. We really need some sort of single payer system. It's been argued that single payer health care could cost three times as less than our current system.

Also, Social Security could use some tweaking.

soph · 2003-01-14 18:24:50

And our current levels suck. We should be more fiscally responsible. Government handouts in pork, government bureaucracy, and government mismanagement of funds costs a lot of money that could be saved.

Even a 20% flat rate is better than what we currently have now.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 18:28:37

Not for those at the bottom, soph.

But yes, most of our budget is lost in unnecessary pork. Most definitely.

soph · 2003-01-14 18:36:17

i think the average person loses over 30%. so yes, a 20% flat rate would be better than the status quo. 15% if money were trimmed where it isnt needed seems pretty feasible to me.

according to my father, who is in the defense industry and did his doctorate on said industry, about $65 billion of the $300 billion defense budget is spent on equipment. The rest is salary and other stuff.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 18:40:24

Well, I'm skeptical.

I'm pretty sure the flat tax thing has been done before.

And I'm willing to bet that a lot of our military spending goes to foreign countries for ?aid? and so on. 150 some billion dollars is a lot of money to be spent on salary and ?other stuff.? Who knows how much of that money is simply ?lost? due to misappropriation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#451 2003-01-11 15:59:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#452 2003-01-11 16:01:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#453 2003-01-12 17:25:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#454 2003-01-13 10:47:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#455 2003-01-13 11:49:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#456 2003-01-13 16:25:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#457 2003-01-13 16:29:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#458 2003-01-13 17:01:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#459 2003-01-13 17:54:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#460 2003-01-13 18:08:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#461 2003-01-14 10:16:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#462 2003-01-14 14:11:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#463 2003-01-14 14:44:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#464 2003-01-14 15:33:30

Re: President Bush - about bush

#465 2003-01-14 16:14:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#466 2003-01-14 16:46:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#467 2003-01-14 16:58:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#468 2003-01-14 17:07:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#469 2003-01-14 18:02:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#470 2003-01-14 18:06:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#471 2003-01-14 18:21:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#472 2003-01-14 18:24:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#473 2003-01-14 18:28:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#474 2003-01-14 18:36:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#475 2003-01-14 18:40:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer