What Type of Tax-Cut is most effective?

[lonejedi]

I couldn't think of a quality topic name for this, but I'll go into detail what I mean.

Our economy is supposedly going down the tank. As of now, President-elect Obama is promising to cut 95% of Americans taxes, while raising taxes for those who make 250,000 dollars and more.

We've also had the tax cuts of Ronald Reagon. Give tax cuts to the rich, thinking that the extra money that they gain from these tax cuts will be used to create more jobs. This is also known as Trickle Down Economics, or Reagonomics.

Another proposed tax plan is the FairTax. The FairTax, is the idea of abolishing the income tax, but then increasing sales tax drastically.

There are other ideas for taxes, but these are the main plans that I can think. In this economy, and in economy in general, what plan do you think is best?

Personally, I'm for Trickle Down Economics. After the Carter Administration, inflation was horrible. We used the system, and the economy improved. Of course, we did spend A LOT on a National Defense System.

I really don't like Obama's plan. Too many small businesses are right on that borderline of 250,000. And we already have a problem with companies outsourcing to different countries, how will increasing their tax keep them here?

 

[manhunter098]

Well I would think that ideally taking the most from the rich is the most sensible way to raise taxes, however to raise your money from the businesses of the wealthy is just foolish, because those businesses provide jobs for people. If you want to tax the wealthy do it based on how much they spend on themselves or something to that effect, dont take money that could go towards paying somebody's salary.

 

[MasterWarlord]

Here's an idea: Give the fairtax to the people who earn 250k and over, and only them. This way they'll still be able to pay salaries, but they'll still get taxxed on buying their 17th mansion.

This is just a shot in the dark, so I don't know if it'd work that well, but it sounds good on paper. Thoughts on this?

Out of the three basic choices, I'm for trickle down economics. I don't want Obama taking money from my pocket to make people depend on the government. More often then not these people stay in these states so they don't have to work and make their living off free money from the government.

 

[manhunter098]

Well thinking about it, if we didnt have such a bloated federal government we wouldnt even need taxes to be very high. Federalism all the way.

 

[AltF4]

Trickle down is just silly. Give more money to rich people because they'll eventually give it back to poor people (by providing jobs)? How about just give the money to the people you want to give the money to? Not all of the money trickles down anyway. You're increasing the gap between rich and poor.

Also, the Fair Tax discourages spending. If you a want to promote stimulation through spending, you can't discourage spending by increasing taxes on purchases. And neither is it "fair". That's a nice loaded term that plenty of rich people came up with to try to fool the rest of everyone into agreeing with them.

 

[manhunter098]

Trickle down is just silly. Give more money to rich people because they'll eventually give it back to poor people (by providing jobs)? How about just give the money to the people you want to give the money to? Not all of the money trickles down anyway. You're increasing the gap between rich and poor.

Also, the Fair Tax discourages spending. If you a want to promote stimulation through spending, you can't discourage spending by increasing taxes on purchases. And neither is it "fair". That's a nice loaded term that plenty of rich people came up with to try to fool the rest of everyone into agreeing with them.

But in order for an economy to actually function people need to work for their money, otherwise there would be a severe limitation on the amount of goods and services being made. The trick is finding a way to tax people and spend government money that will encourage the willfully unemployed to work, the wealthy to provide jobs, and everyone to buy stuff, not to mention trying to keep the poor people in the nation from being so poor that they cannot afford the essentials. Its truly a very tricky task, one which I think doesnt really have a solution, but I do think that trickle down does a better job of that than any tax system.

 

[pockyD]

I really don't think taxes should be "cut" at all, given that we have nothing to indicate that the government is capable of budgeting properly

I personally would prefer to pay more than I need to; if choice A is an effective fire/police department AND wasting a million dollars to find out how long it takes to cook eggs, and choice B is neither of them, I'd probably rather go with A. I realize that this isn't an inherent truth and obviously people differ on how big of a role government SHOULD play

Also, I think taxes should be flat, and there shouldn't really be any bracketing all (except maybe for the extreme lower end). It's unfair to punish people for success. More often than not, the rich have "earned" their way to their wealth, and if not, the solution is not to take it away via taxes; instead, the inherent corruptions themselves should be directly addressed

 

[AltF4]

Also, I think taxes should be flat, and there shouldn't really be any bracketing all (except maybe for the extreme lower end). It's unfair to punish people for success. More often than not, the rich have "earned" their way to their wealth, and if not, the solution is not to take it away via taxes; instead, the inherent corruptions themselves should be directly addressed

Flat taxes aren't "fair". A single percentage for everyone isn't an adequate measure of how much money is available to be taxed. What you want as a government is to get as much money as possible from taxes without ruining anyone financially. Think of it like this...

There's no effective difference between having 1 or 2 billion dollars. In both cases, you are wildly wealthy enough to buy pretty much anything you want. There is just about nothing you can't buy with 2 billion dollars that you can't with 1. You could tax the 2 billionaire 50% of his entire worth and he would not even notice it.

Now try taking 50% of a person's entire worth when they only make 15k per year. You'll make the person starve. That person can only afford to spend a very small percentage on taxes.


So, in essence, as a person's wealth goes up, the percentage of their wealth that is able to be taxed also increases, not just the total amount taxed.

A flat tax ignores this, and lets the wealthy effectively get out of paying taxes.

 

[pockyD]

What you want as a government is to get as much money as possible from taxes without ruining anyone financially.

I disagree

I believe it's unfair to make someone else pay for my services "just because they can afford to"

It's not right that we arbitrarily determine that someone is "rich enough", such that it's fair to take the rest of their money away

A flat tax is less "effective" to the government (translated: they end up with less money), but much more fair to the citizens

 

[AltF4]

Then perhaps we should seek to agree on a definition of "fair", then.


I claim that a "fair" tax is one which is equal in the respect of everyone's ability to pay it. IE: The tax's impact of a person's wealth (not worth). But as I claimed earlier, a flat percentage is not equal for everyone. It only sounds like it's equal at a quick glance. Taxes must increase in rate as one's income raises in order to account for this.

I believe it's unfair to make someone else pay for my services "just because they can afford to"

I wanted to address this line specifically. Making others pay for your services "because they can afford to" is the essence of taxes! Are you trying to insinuate that you don't think we should have taxes at all?

 

[pockyD]

Then perhaps we should seek to agree on a definition of "fair", then.

Of course. Our real disagreement centers around what is "fair", not what is "effective". Flat tax is not optimally "effective" - no argument here.

I claim that a "fair" tax is one which is equal in the respect of everyone's ability to pay it. IE: The tax's impact of a person's wealth (not worth). But as I claimed earlier, a flat percentage is not equal for everyone. It only sounds like it's equal at a quick glance. Taxes must increase in rate as one's income raises in order to account for this.

I disagree.

I don't believe that the goal of a fair tax policy is to "hurt everyone *equally", especially when such a standard will undoubtedly be decided arbitrarily without proper justification.

I wanted to address this line specifically. Making others pay for your services "because they can afford to" is the essence of taxes! Are you trying to insinuate that you don't think we should have taxes at all?

The essence of paying taxes is making *everyone* pay for the services because they "need" them and benefit from them.

Just as a point of reference, I do legitimately believe that having everyone pay an equal absolute amount (i.e. $10000) is as "fair" as it gets for some sort of base income tax, but it's severely impractical and really, counterproductive. To me, how "fair" a tax is would be reflected by its proximity to this standard. I suppose I could really get on board with the massive sales tax idea in theory, though such things would really suffer in practice from outside circumstances like getting things shipped in internationally, driving to canada/mexico for lunch, etc.

People should not be punished for success.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Mmmm, I don't think that Alt's trying to say that people should be punished for success. In reality, you're not. The more you make, the more you are taxed, but so what? Even with the taxes you still make more money than other people. You're not being punished. You're getting taken from you what you don't need. Honestly, why would a single individual EVER need 1 billion dollars? They wouldn't, I know. So the more successful you get the more is taken from you, but that's completely fair because you really don't need all of what you make, now do you?

So no, flat taxes aren't fair.

 

[pockyD]

Mmmm, I don't think that Alt's trying to say that people should be punished for success. In reality, you're not. The more you make, the more you are taxed, but so what? Even with the taxes you still make more money than other people. You're not being punished. You're getting taken from you what you don't need. Honestly, why would a single individual EVER need 1 billion dollars? They wouldn't, I know. So the more successful you get the more is taken from you, but that's completely fair because you really don't need all of what you make, now do you?

So no, flat taxes aren't fair.

...but who gets to decide how much they "need"?

People aren't driven to success purely to fill their needs; otherwise, every millionaire would be long retired. Instead, they continue to put in effort to achieve what they WANT, and if they are legitimately earning that extra income on top, why is that suddenly more taxable?

If people should only have what they "need", that's certainly drifting towards communism... (not that it's necessarily bad {another argument, another time perhaps}, but certainly contrary to the existing principles held by American society)

 

[AltF4]

...but who gets to decide how much they "need"?

The government, lol.

People aren't driven to success purely to fill their needs; otherwise, every millionaire would be long retired. Instead, they continue to put in effort to achieve what they WANT, and if they are legitimately earning that extra income on top, why is that suddenly more taxable?

If people should only have what they "need", that's certainly drifting towards communism... (not that it's necessarily bad {another argument, another time perhaps}, but certainly contrary to the existing principles held by American society)

Clearly this is a disguised debate about pure capitalism versus socialism. Of course neither in it's entirety will work in the real world. There is a middle ground somewhere which encourages citizens to seek success (as in pure capitalism) and also keeps the class gap from growing too large.

 

[pockyD]

The government, lol.

-_-

Poorly phrased on my part - I meant to ask something more along the lines of "How do you determine how much they 'need'?"

Clearly this is a disguised debate about pure capitalism versus socialism. Of course neither in it's entirety will work in the real world. There is a middle ground somewhere which encourages citizens to seek success (as in pure capitalism) and also keeps the class gap from growing too large.

In the context of capitalistic ideals, "Fair" is a lot closer to "you get what you deserve" than "everyone gets the same". Once again, whether the rich "deserve" to be rich is something that I personally believe should be addressed in other manners rather than just assuming they don't deserve to be "that" rich and taking the money from them. If a senator doesn't need to be paid $500,000 on top of expenses (I just made that number up, so don't jump me for that -_-), then pay him less, don't tax him more. Obviously, this specific case where the government is signing the pay check is a lot more visible than, say, CFOs of successful companies (or worse, highly paid executives at UNsuccessful companies O_o), but my opinion is that direct regulation of business practices would be the better approach

 

[Jam Stunna]

I was moving in the direction of supporting a fair tax until, of all people, a libertarian talked me out of it. I think it comes down to this: the progressive tax system is designed to place the burden on those who can bear it best. Is it fair? Maybe not. But consumption taxes take a larger percentage of income from poor people than rich people. Is that fair? In my opinion, "fair" is a pretty loaded term, no matter who tries to use it. Instead, I'd argue that we try to go with what's practical. And practically speaking, the rich have more money, so they have more money to give (or to be taken, as the case may be).

 

[MojoMan]

I'm with Obama on this one. It provides the most fair balancing of money, sort of like a Robin Hood tax plan (lol).

 

[lonejedi]

I'm with Obama on this one. It provides the most fair balancing of money, sort of like a Robin Hood tax plan (lol).

But here's that I'm wondering, does this help the economy? Sure these people have less of a load to carry, but is that boosting our economy? Let's be honest, the majority of americans today have A LOT of debt, so with the tax cuts that you are getting, you are most likely to use that money to either A) Pay off a credit card B) Pay off money you already owe the IRS C) buy some sorething with your additional 1000-2000 dollars. Most people are under category A and B. How is this helping our economy? How is this creating jobs?

Everyone assumes that thsoe who make 250,000 dollars a year can survive a tax increase, but they don't understand that many small businesses operate with those numbers. Those small businesses will have to cut workers, and raise prices, so all the money you got back from your tax cut, will just be spent on higher prices due to companies raising their prices.

 

[Eor]

Everyone assumes that thsoe who make 250,000 dollars a year can survive a tax increase, but they don't understand that many small businesses operate with those numbers. Those small businesses will have to cut workers, and raise prices, so all the money you got back from your tax cut, will just be spent on higher prices due to companies raising their prices.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

But here's that I'm wondering, does this help the economy? Sure these people have less of a load to carry, but is that boosting our economy? Let's be honest, the majority of americans today have A LOT of debt, so with the tax cuts that you are getting, you are most likely to use that money to either A) Pay off a credit card B) Pay off money you already owe the IRS C) buy some sorething with your additional 1000-2000 dollars. Most people are under category A and B. How is this helping our economy? How is this creating jobs?

Most people are not using all of their tax cuts to pay off their debts. However, if the debts are not paid off, the companies will eventually fall under, forcing everyone who works for that company out of a job. You might say, "BUT QUILT, WONT TAXSING THHE BUSYNESZIZ MAYK THEM LOSE MONEY FASTER?!??!!1" No, that money gets circulated into the lower classes, who will then reinvest that money into the goods and services offered by the companies. It may not create jobs immediately, but it will atleast keep things afloat until more debts are payed off and business become more regulated, allowing people to invest their money directly into the economy, which will then increase demand and give companies the incentive to create more product-producing jobs that will fill these demands.

Everyone assumes that thsoe who make 250,000 dollars a year can survive a tax increase, but they don't understand that many small businesses operate with those numbers. Those small businesses will have to cut workers, and raise prices, so all the money you got back from your tax cut, will just be spent on higher prices due to companies raising their prices.

Small businesses are not the largest source of employment in US. While the number of small business may outnumber companies 4:1, large companies make 86% of all sales and make 2/3 of all the profits. (2002 Statistical Abstract of the United States). My point is, while small businesses make up the majority of all businesses, they come nowhere near the purchasing or employing power of larger corporations.

Now, perhaps your source should clarify. When you say something has an income of $250,000, that can mean two things: All of the wages earned or liabilities reduced that a business has, or the amount of money left after all expenses are paid (the latter is the typical business use of the word.) If, after all expenses paid, a small business has $250,000 left over, they are not hurting for anything if taxed. What incentive do they have to raise the prices of their goods and services or cut workers? Anyway, if you're raising prices because you're losing money, you shouldn't be running a business anyway. You will lose your market this way. The goal of a business is to produce a product at the price of demand.

 

[manhunter098]

Most people are not using all of their tax cuts to pay off their debts. However, if the debts are not paid off, the companies will eventually fall under, forcing everyone who works for that company out of a job. You might say, "BUT QUILT, WONT TAXSING THHE BUSYNESZIZ MAYK THEM LOSE MONEY FASTER?!??!!1" No, that money gets circulated into the lower classes, who will then reinvest that money into the goods and services offered by the companies. It may not create jobs immediately, but it will atleast keep things afloat until more debts are payed off and business become more regulated, allowing people to invest their money directly into the economy, which will then increase demand and give companies the incentive to create more product-producing jobs that will fill these demands.

I have to say that to an extent what you say is definitely true, that money would be circulated and eventually end up in the hands of the large company owners who provide most of our jobs. However what you are saying could be taken to imply that any tax will always find that the money spent by the government would later find itself in the hands of large company owners. As for reducing the debts of the middle class, I greatly agree with you here. This would help the frequently indebted middle class citizens to pay off their debts more effectively, but again I dont think it comes close to solving the real problem, which is credit in itself, which is both a blessing and a curse for our economy. I do certainly think that that Obama's tax plan is worth trying out, though I wish we were more stable economically when a system such as this would be implemented.

Personally though I dont think that taxes really are the problem here. The real issue is government spending. The only thing we need in terms of a tax plan is one that will promote spending for each income level as effectively as possible, and we need to stop taxing economic success of businesses as well. Taxing individuals who own a successful business is all fine and dandy, but taxing the business itself is just foolish because that is taking away money that would normally be reinvested into the business. Right now though we have an absolutely MASSIVE federal government, and thats mostly because the federal government assumes so many responsibilities that could be left up to the states to decide. Passing on these responsibilities to the states would cut down on the total number of government officials since the current systems already in place within states would be the only people necessary in fulfilling these responsibilities.

 

[GhostAnime]

The goal of a business is to produce a product at the price of demand.

No. The goal of a business is to maximize profit.. at least based on what most economists would prefer to say.

 

[manhunter098]

No. The goal of a business is to maximize profit.. at least based on what most economists would prefer to say.

Well ideally competition should be high enough that maximum profit is something a business can only obtain BY producing a product or service at market value. But thats assuming that other businesses can actually compete with large scale manufacturing and the people who want the product actually care enough about saving money to do some research.

****, is it me or is education the solution to everything?

 

[Omis]

Personally I prefer the Obama plan, The Reagan Plan, and than the "Fair" tax plan in that order.
Honestly however, I can not see how people could support the "fair" tax plan. If anything it will lower the amount of goods lower class people will purchase.
Obamanomics seem to work best for me because of the reasons Altf4 has listed. If someone is making 6 billion dollars taking away 3 billion of those dollars will not affect them. The goal of taxes are to take as much money as possible without bankrupting anyone. Thusly, it is only natural for the more wealthy to pay more taxes.

****, is it me or is education the solution to everything?

Another debate my friend, another debate.

 

[aeghrur]

This might be a bit late, but anyways, I prefer Obama's plan much more than Reaganomics.
It doesn't work. The trickle down only works if you think people will always use the money they have to hire more people... but... they don't. Instead, they just... save that money. That doesn't really put money back into circulation to use and just makes the business owners richer.

To note on the inflation thing, Reaganomics did not stop that. Volker, from Jimmy Carter's cabinet, basically stopped stagflation by making interest rates go through the roof. Don't credit reaganomics with something it didn't stop.

 

[IDK]

"trickle down" is why communism doesn't work. we cant trust all the wealthy people to just give their money to those lower than them in order to make everyone have the same amount of money. along with that, however, if the government is going to do it, they must be well trusted, responsible, and everything they do should be monitored and available to the public. yet again, this in itself also forms a problem. if everything is monitored and available to the public, does that put the nation at risk, leaving information also visible by other countries? thats almost like letting iraq read our soldiers' mail...

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Trickle down is just silly. Give more money to rich people because they'll eventually give it back to poor people (by providing jobs)? How about just give the money to the people you want to give the money to? Not all of the money trickles down anyway. You're increasing the gap between rich and poor.

I agree with everything you just said. Someone can say "Hey, we'll give all these rich people money and then they can use it to increase salaries for workers, etc. and then the poorer end of the spectrum will in turn get more money," but whose to say that that will actually happen? It may sound fine and dandy, but I like Obama's plan the best. It makes the most sense, if I make lots of money, then it would be the most fair if in turn I'd have to pay the most taxes, and vice-versa as well.

 

[Overload]

I think the trickle down method is a little ridiculous. The rich can't be expected to donate money or use it to better the lives of others in any way for that matter. It shouldn't be assumed they will even do anything with that extra money they are saving. They may not even do anything while the middle and lower class citizens are working multiple jobs just to bet by. I would have to agree with some of the other posts in that the rich should get taxed a little more heavily than the middle to lower class. Taxes should always be relative to what your income is. If Mr. Maximillion is swimming in cash making 300k a year while Joe Schmoe is struggling to put food on the table with 55k a year it would make sense for Joe Schmoe to get a break on taxes while Mr. Maximillion on the other hand wouldn't notice much of a difference if he was taxed a little more because he would still be able to live comfortably. When you take something from those who have less it is worth more to them than it is to those who have more.

 

[East]

I think the trickle down method is a little ridiculous. The rich can't be expected to donate money or use it to better the lives of others in any way for that matter. It shouldn't be assumed they will even do anything with that extra money they are saving. They may not even do anything while the middle and lower class citizens are working multiple jobs just to bet by.

And that's the problem with Economics. You can't predict how people will spend money. If we tax the middle and lower class less, we would expect for them to spend more money, but we can't say for sure. The same problem exists with Reagenomics. We hope that the higher class spends more money to create more jobs.

I've always been a fan of the question, "Is it selfish for the happiness of one to out rule the happiness of many?"

If the richer have to pay higher taxes, even with the taxes they are able to still live comfortably. So why not take the slight hit so that everyone is able to live comfortably. Though both types of tax cuts ultimately come down to how/if people spend money I feel that if you place money in the hands of more people you have a higher chance of them spending it thus overall helping boost the economy.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

As others have said, the "Trickle down method" is a little bit ridiculous. Not very many people will just throw their money down to lower levels. It's like building a brick wall for the sole purpose of breaking it down; why not just pour a pile of rubble on the ground and not build anything at all?


And the idea of taxing those of higher incomes a higher percentage of income tax is frustrating. Democrats are like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or rather, taking less from the poor). They practically encourage anybody who is too lazy to get up on their feet and find a better job to stay that way and continue paying less taxes or receiving some sort of welfare, while anybody who has managed to obtain a high salary has to spend a large portion of it to pay for this welfare!

I'm not saying taxing more isn't fair...it's just taxing a higher percentage. All citizens should spend a fixed percentage of their income on taxes. Whether you make 10$ a year or 100,000$, it should make no difference. (Excluding sales tax, of course. Those with more money will buy more things).

 

[manhunter098]

As others have said, the "Trickle down method" is a little bit ridiculous. Not very many people will just throw their money down to lower levels. It's like building a brick wall for the sole purpose of breaking it down; why not just pour a pile of rubble on the ground and not build anything at all?


And the idea of taxing those of higher incomes a higher percentage of income tax is frustrating. Democrats are like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or rather, taking less from the poor). They practically encourage anybody who is too lazy to get up on their feet and find a better job to stay that way and continue paying less taxes or receiving some sort of welfare, while anybody who has managed to obtain a high salary has to spend a large portion of it to pay for this welfare!

I'm not saying taxing more isn't fair...it's just taxing a higher percentage. All citizens should spend a fixed percentage of their income on taxes. Whether you make 10$ a year or 100,000$, it should make no difference. (Excluding sales tax, of course. Those with more money will buy more things).

A flat tax isnt exactly a good idea, people who cant afford it well, cant afford it and putting them in prison or making them and the government incur expenses for no reason is just being wasteful. Im more for creative taxes that would encourage the rich to reinvest into the economy more, its not like they dont get anything out of it (they just get greater returns even later), its just that for those who are greedy they prefer success in the short term rather than the long term, if everyone looked to the future we would really do just fine economically, of course people get greedy and sacrifice the good of their business for their own needs.

 

[Overload]

As others have said, the "Trickle down method" is a little bit ridiculous. Not very many people will just throw their money down to lower levels. It's like building a brick wall for the sole purpose of breaking it down; why not just pour a pile of rubble on the ground and not build anything at all?


And the idea of taxing those of higher incomes a higher percentage of income tax is frustrating. Democrats are like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or rather, taking less from the poor). They practically encourage anybody who is too lazy to get up on their feet and find a better job to stay that way and continue paying less taxes or receiving some sort of welfare, while anybody who has managed to obtain a high salary has to spend a large portion of it to pay for this welfare!

I'm not saying taxing more isn't fair...it's just taxing a higher percentage. All citizens should spend a fixed percentage of their income on taxes. Whether you make 10$ a year or 100,000$, it should make no difference. (Excluding sales tax, of course. Those with more money will buy more things).

I'd have to disagree with you pyrotek. It isn't that everyone is "too lazy" to get a better job. You make it seem like anyone can just get up one day and get a high paying job with ease. Also, I don't think it encourages people to stay that way either. Nobody wants to be struggling with money. I'd say nearly everyone who has money problems would love to be in a more comfortable position financially.

 

[Aesir]

Wow you tax the super rich for very simple reasons.

1. They can afford it, Joe Billionaire can be taxed more and still live lavishly

2. The biggest reason is, these people wouldn't have become insanly rich if it weren't for the tax loopholes that they exploited.

Secretary of Treasury Paulson benefited the most from deregulation during the late 90's under the Clinton Administration.

He's not the only one.

 

[East]

In truth, only a very small population of the unemployed try to exploit taxes so they don't have to work. The U.S. experiences a normal unemployment rate of 4.8%. This is the long-run average of the unemployment. Most of this is caused by homemakers, people who are currently looking for a job, or those unable to work because of health or physical or mental handicaps. The percent of people who try exploit low taxes for the poor will end up exploiting the government in one way or another, regardless of how much they're taxed, so to say that they are the main cause of not taxing the rich just a bit more than the lower and middle classes, because a lot of people are exploiting the system is not even a valid argument.

If the rich can still live lavishly even with a bit more of their money taken from them through taxes, why hurt the larger percent of the population?

 

[manhunter098]

Well thats true, but taking away money that the rich might have spent on their businesses or investments is wasteful and harmful as well. The rich should definitely be paying more in taxes, but only if they are not reinvesting in their company. After all if everyone can be made more productive, the government will generate more revenue, and it kind of goes along the lines of taxing less and making more because of a productive economy.

 

[Aesir]

In truth, only a very small population of the unemployed try to exploit taxes so they don't have to work. The U.S. experiences a normal unemployment rate of 4.8%. This is the long-run average of the unemployment. Most of this is caused by homemakers, people who are currently looking for a job, or those unable to work because of health or physical or mental handicaps. The percent of people who try exploit low taxes for the poor will end up exploiting the government in one way or another, regardless of how much they're taxed, so to say that they are the main cause of not taxing the rich just a bit more than the lower and middle classes, because a lot of people are exploiting the system is not even a valid argument.

I don't think you understood what I'm saying, but that's okay I wasn't clear enough I guess.

You get rid of tax loopholes, we're the only western country that has such a complicated tax system. You get rid of the loop holes and tax the top 1% who became super rich off the tax exploitation.

Also where are you getting your information from, because those loopholes really only would benefit the rich. We're one of if not the only nations in the west that have a tax system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

A Progressive tax is best, especially if we can get rid of all tax loopholes the government can actually collect large amounts of revenue without stiffeling the working family.

If the rich can still live lavishly even with a bit more of their money taken from them through taxes, why hurt the larger percent of the population?

I have no idea what you're getting at here. You realize the rich represent a minority right?

 

[East]

I understood you, my apologies. I should have denoted who I was making a response to. I was speaking to pyrotek7x7. I agree with your thinking Aesir.

If the rich can still live lavishly even with a bit more of their money taken from them through taxes, why hurt the larger percent of the population?

By this I meant that if the rich are still rich even if they pay higher taxes then why not tax them a little more instead of taxing the poor more who couldn't afford it.

Just for the record, my facts came from Gregory Mankiw's "Principle's of Economics" 4th Edition.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I suppose that the FairTaxes should go to the people who make over 250,000 a year.

I hope something like that happens.

I am kind of neutral on this issue. In terms of starting the economy again this might get in the way.

In my view at least.

 

[cmpr94x]

I agree with a proportional tax making it so that everyone has to pay the same percentage. It would abolish all complaint in my opinion.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

A flat tax isnt exactly a good idea, people who cant afford it well, cant afford it and putting them in prison or making them and the government incur expenses for no reason is just being wasteful.

But that's part of my point. Why couldn't they afford it? They're still paying less. If it's a percentage of income that is being taxed, then it will be just as hard for everyone to pay. The man with one pie must give away a third of it (for example), but the man with three pies must give away one. In the end, they both still have two thirds of what they started with, and this is completely fair.