Originally posted by sasquatch672Please Mr. Sasquatch...restrain your leaps of illogic. You cannot accuratley stereotype over 100 million people in this country. Liberals do not view conservatism as a mental illness, nor are they the hate filled group you'd like us to believe. Differences in political views, while sometimes heated, don't normally go to this extreme on either side. Things are not all that gloomy! 🙂
Even when they do wrong, it's our fault. The wiring in the liberal brain does not permit the application of logic. It's the only explanation for Obama. I understand the liberal mind. While I disagree with it, I understand its basis. However, the only explanation for conservatism, in their eyes, is mental illness. Talk about a hate-filled group.
Originally posted by EladarA consumption tax discourages consumption which is necessary to the economy and encourages hoarding, which is bad (well, okay, that's an oversimplification).
Why are you so married to the idea of an income tax? Why not simply change the form of taxation, such as a national sales tax? Income tax is inherently dangerous and should be avoided.
I'm not necessarily opposed to a sales tax as a partial replacement for the income tax, but I would not do away with the income tax?
01 Jun 13
Originally posted by sh76The problem inherent in the income tax is that it is invasive of privacy. It requires a mountain of record keeping, much of it by employers who are not compensated for the paperwork. It also seeks to motivate actions by taxpayers, (social engineering) like getting people to buy homes, whether it is in their best interests or not.
Well, how about we focus on stopping the abuse rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
It induces constant lobbying, and political gamesmanship and class warfare, in attempts to twist the law in the favor of various special interests.
And of course that includes the current scandal where the IRS is used to determine who gets tax favored status for political reasons.
01 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Careful, as you could wind up with the worst of both worlds. In fact it only discourages consumption that isn't necessary, and economic decisions are good for an economy.
A consumption tax discourages consumption which is necessary to the economy and encourages hoarding, which is bad (well, okay, that's an oversimplification).
I'm not necessarily opposed to a sales tax as a partial replacement for the income tax, but I would not do away with the income tax?
Hoarding, or less pejoratively saving is necessary to the accumulation of capital, which is necessary for a growing economy.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by sh76The US population is known for restricting consumption? I'd say it is quite the opposite.
A consumption tax discourages consumption which is necessary to the economy and encourages hoarding, which is bad (well, okay, that's an oversimplification).
I'm not necessarily opposed to a sales tax as a partial replacement for the income tax, but I would not do away with the income tax?
Of course you would not do away with the income tax, you like the idea of the government having total power of the population. You are a liberal who views the government as a way of forcing your beliefs on the rest of us.
What we really need is a way of letting the government continue to do what it is doing, but doing it in a better way so that it isn't quite so obvious. That's what you want.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by EladarA progressive income tax is the most logical and fair form of taxation. Most people pay their bills out of their income; why their share of taxes should be determined by something else is a puzzle. Of course, it would probably be better if the exemptions and perks for rich folks were done away with.
The US population is known for restricting consumption? I'd say it is quite the opposite.
Of course you would not do away with the income tax, you like the idea of the government having total power of the population. You are a liberal who views the government as a way of forcing your beliefs on the rest of us.
What we really need is a way of letting ...[text shortened]... doing, but doing it in a better way so that it isn't quite so obvious. That's what you want.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by normbenignThe amount of extra paperwork required by an income tax these days is minimal; one has to keep payroll records in any event and all that is required additionally is the filing of a quarterly form with appropriate payment.
The problem inherent in the income tax is that it is invasive of privacy. It requires a mountain of record keeping, much of it by employers who are not compensated for the paperwork. It also seeks to motivate actions by taxpayers, (social engineering) like getting people to buy homes, whether it is in their best interests or not.
It induces constant ...[text shortened]... nt scandal where the IRS is used to determine who gets tax favored status for political reasons.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you want to make it progressive, then don't tax things that low income people spend most of their money.
A progressive income tax is the most logical and fair form of taxation. Most people pay their bills out of their income; why their share of taxes should be determined by something else is a puzzle. Of course, it would probably be better if the exemptions and perks for rich folks were done away with.
Make food tax free. Make clothing tax free. Of course you could tax certain foods and certain clothing by creating a luxury tax on items too expensive for the average person to buy.
Originally posted by EladarA consumption tax burdens economic activity far more than income taxes. I see no reason to impose one.
If you want to make it progressive, then don't tax things that low income people spend most of their money.
Make food tax free. Make clothing tax free. Of course you could tax certain foods and certain clothing by creating a luxury tax on items too expensive for the average person to buy.
Collection of sales taxes is far more onerous on businesses than the collection of income taxes is.
02 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarNo one is ever punished for making more money under the marginal system the US income tax uses. In the real world with unemployment of resources, every person doesn't have the option of "making more money" whenever they desire.
If you have more money to spend, then you are more likely to spend money. If you don't punish people for making money, then they are more likely to make even more money.
Nice of you to admit that taxes have a negative effect on the economy.
Taxes, in and of themselves, can have a negative effect on the economy. Whether government as a whole does depends on what they do with the tax revenue collected.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by no1marauderI'd beg to differ. People who are close to a tax bracket difference will not take an opportunity to make more money because it means they'll get a lower amount of money on their pay check.
No one is ever punished for making more money under the marginal system the US income tax uses. In the real world with unemployment of resources, every person doesn't have the option of "making more money" whenever they desire.
Taxes, in and of themselves, can have a negative effect on the economy. Whether government as a whole does depends on what they do with the tax revenue collected.
I remember one time I lost an assignment which would have paid me an extra $1k so I got a new pay stuff showing how much I'd be taking home on the next pay check. I ended up getting a larger pay check. I asked why and the woman in the office said that it is because it lowered me to the next tax bracket.
02 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarPeople make these type of claims all the time. They are wrong; you can't possibly get less in your pay check by making more gross income. You can't get more in your pay check by making less gross income. The tax rates are the same for the first X dollars amount of income at any level:
I'd beg to differ. People who are close to a tax bracket difference will not take an opportunity to make more money because it means they'll get a lower amount of money on their pay check.
I remember one time I lost an assignment which would have paid me an extra $1k so I got a new pay stuff showing how much I'd be taking home on the next pay check. I en ...[text shortened]... hy and the woman in the office said that it is because it lowered me to the next tax bracket.
For example, if you are single and had $150,000 of taxable income in 2013, you would pay 10 percent on the first $8,925, 15 percent on the amount from $8,926 to $36,250, 25 percent on the amount from $36,251 to $87,850, and 28 percent on your income above $87,850.
http://people.opposingviews.com/federal-marginal-tax-rate-4499.html
The rates and brackets are somewhat different now but the principle remains the same.
You screwed yourself, El.
02 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right, of course, that a marginal dollar will not cost you more in income tax. But when you factor in eligibility for government benefits, it is very possible for a marginal dollar to cost you more than a dollar in income taxes and loss of benefits. There are scenarios in which people are, in effect, punished for earning more money.
People make these type of claims all the time. They are wrong; you can't possibly get less in your pay check by making more gross income. You can't get more in your pay check by making less gross income. The tax rates are the same for the first X dollars amount of income at any level:
For example, if you are single and had $150,000 of taxable income ...[text shortened]... what different now but the principle remains the same.
You screwed yourself, El.