The Progressive Income tax

Originally posted by quackquack
every sane person would agree with you.

Then it should be a simple matter for all these "sane" people to band together and abolish all government programs.

Originally posted by Eladar
If the government can simply go further into debt, then would it require taxes to provide services like roads and bridges?

it requires to actually pay for that stuff. to prove it can, even if at a later date.

you go into debt today to pay for a bridge, you gather taxes from this day forward to get revenue, you make a promise to the bridge builder you will have his money in X years.

Originally posted by quackquack
I never said that we should increase taxes on anyone. In fact we should cut taxes for everyone even if it means cutting services and let people use the extra resources they have to fund what they'd like.

I see. So you think that the government should do less than what you think the government should do? You're not making an awful lot of sense.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the government does exactly what you would like it to do, and there is a (in your view) legitimate reason why costs will go up next year. Who should pay the additional taxes?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it requires to actually pay for that stuff. to prove it can, even if at a later date.

you go into debt today to pay for a bridge, you gather taxes from this day forward to get revenue, you make a promise to the bridge builder you will have his money in X years.

Government simply need to take out loans to pay their debt, just as they already do today.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. So you think that the government should do less than what you think the government should do? You're not making an awful lot of sense.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the government does exactly what you would like it to do, and there is a (in your view) legitimate reason why costs will go up next year. Who should pay the additional taxes?

At this point in time, government should either operate within its current budget or make cuts. It should not raise taxes at all and it should certainly not raise taxes on those who already pay the most in dollars terms.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then it should be a simple matter for all these "sane" people to band together and abolish all government programs.

I did not say we should abolish all government programs. Although if I could keep the other half of my income, I'd take my chances.

Originally posted by quackquack
At this point in time, government should either operate within its current budget or make cuts. It should not raise taxes at all and it should certainly not raise taxes on those who already pay the most in dollars terms.

I note with bewilderment that you, in a rather cowardly fashion, refuse to answer my rather simple question concerning a rather simple hypothetical.

Your support for a flat tax is irreconcilable with the notion that the government should "certainly not" raise taxes for the highest contributors. Something's gotta give, so which is it going to be?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I note with bewilderment that you, in a rather cowardly fashion, refuse to answer my rather simple question concerning a rather simple hypothetical.

Your support for a flat tax is irreconcilable with the notion that the government should "certainly not" raise taxes for the highest contributors. Something's gotta give, so which is it going to be?

I can answer what ever you want but your hypothetical is completely unrealistic and I was trying to bring the conversation back to reality. The realistic view is that government needs to shrink not continually expand and we need to allow the economy to grow without the money continually being sucked out by the government. I don't have a favorite governmental program, so I'm willing to cut what ever needs to be done. I don't want to raise taxes on anyone and I don't believe that their should be a higher tax rate for those who earn more and therefore would pay a larger bill if they got the same rate as everyone else.

Originally posted by quackquack
I can answer what ever you want but your hypothetical is completely unrealistic and I was trying to bring the conversation back to reality. The realistic view is that government needs to shrink not continually expand and we need to allow the economy to grow without the money continually being sucked out by the government. I don't have a favorite govern ...[text shortened]... who earn more and therefore would pay a larger bill if they got the same rate as everyone else.

If a government has legitimate duties, then the cost for performing these legitimate duties may vary due to varying circumstances. In such a case the tax burden will go up (or down) if it is desired that the government ought to be able to perform its legitimate duties. If there is a flat tax this means that the tax burden of the top earners will go up. You cannot both demand a flat tax and that the tax burden of top earners may not go up; it is logically inconsistent.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If a government has legitimate duties, then the cost for performing these legitimate duties may vary due to varying circumstances. In such a case the tax burden will go up (or down) if it is desired that the government ought to be able to perform its legitimate duties. If there is a flat tax this means that the tax burden of the top earners will go up. ...[text shortened]... d a flat tax and that the tax burden of top earners may not go up; it is logically inconsistent.

I can have a flat tax and a smaller government. Government has an incentive to expand. We should vigorously fight this not just acquiesce and pay more taxes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then it should be a simple matter for all these "sane" people to band together and abolish all government programs.

What if there are more insane persons who think others ought to support them?

Originally posted by quackquack
I can have a flat tax and a smaller government. Government has an incentive to expand. We should vigorously fight this not just acquiesce and pay more taxes.

The only way one can consistently demand an ever-smaller government is when one advocates anarchy. If a government has legitimate duties it takes a finite amount of resources to perform those duties and these duties will not be performed as well with fewer resources.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If a government has legitimate duties, then the cost for performing these legitimate duties may vary due to varying circumstances. In such a case the tax burden will go up (or down) if it is desired that the government ought to be able to perform its legitimate duties. If there is a flat tax this means that the tax burden of the top earners will go up. ...[text shortened]... d a flat tax and that the tax burden of top earners may not go up; it is logically inconsistent.

Realistically, taxes seldom if ever go down. Why? There are always politicians attempting to buy votes by promising the government will do more for more people. Morons somehow believe that there will always be others who will pay the bills, and they support tax increases they think will never reach them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The only way one can consistently demand an ever-smaller government is when one advocates anarchy. If a government has legitimate duties it takes a finite amount of resources to perform those duties and these duties will not be performed as well with fewer resources.

We are no where close to having an optimal sized government. I only consistently ask for a smaller government because we don't get one. But paying half your money to the government is unconscionable and I'd be happy to have many services that you might believe are essential.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The only way one can consistently demand an ever-smaller government is when one advocates anarchy. If a government has legitimate duties it takes a finite amount of resources to perform those duties and these duties will not be performed as well with fewer resources.

What a hoot?! Anarchy? We could reduce government size for decades, perhaps centuries before reaching that state. Tyranny is much closer.