The Progressive Income tax

Originally posted by normbenign
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.

Tax codes also seldom get less complex because the government attempts to buy vote by giving benefits and exceptions to segments of their citizens.

Originally posted by normbenign
If tax rates were totally flat on income, big earners would still pay much higher total taxes. Why are Progressive rates needed?

This assumes, as everybody seems to, that "flat tax" means flat percentage. But a tue flat tax means flat amount. I wonder why you and others don't argue for this.

According to data in

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14databk.pdf

the 2104 IRS Data Book, US individual income tax revenues in 2014 were about $1.6 trillion, with about 240 million individual returns being filed. (Page 3 and 4.) This is about $6500 per return. Granted, low-end wage earners would be hard pressed, but that would create political pressure for the federal minimum wage to rise.

Or is my math wrong?

Originally posted by normbenign
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.

Realistically, there is this graph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg

Do you see taxes "seldom" going down as a function of time in this graph?

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

Anyone suggesting limiting government in any way transforms into a raving mad anarchist.

It's magic. 😵

[i]Originally posted by JS357[/iThis assumes, as everybody seems to, that "flat tax" means flat percentage. But a tue flat tax means flat amount. I wonder why you and others don't argue for this.

According to data in

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14databk.pdf

the 2104 IRS Data Book, US individual income tax revenues in 2014 were about $1.6 trillion, with about 240 million individual ...[text shortened]... at would create political pressure for the federal minimum wage to rise.

Or is my math wrong?

Minimum wage is another issue. Clearly, wages are based on the value of work, and could never be equal over all the spectrum of labor.

There appear to be intractable issues with a flat amount tax, which might be addressed by smaller government, but you would hear outcries of how unfair that would be. Heck even the much less extreme of flat tax rates is attacked on the basis of unfairness, but it would still require taxation on a relative basis of ability to afford the tax. To assure actual "fairness", I would eliminate all deductions and exclusions, so that every person actually paid that same rate, from dollar 1 to infinity. No loopholes, no exclusions.

Such a taxation plan would make every person consider what government does, and get more people involved in questioning spending, as opposed to the present system where so many pay no income taxes, so support whatever they perceive benefits them.

Originally posted by quackquack
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.

I note with a shrug that you lack the honesty to seriously think about the appropriate role of government and how it ought to be funded.

Originally posted by normbenign
Minimum wage is another issue. Clearly, wages are based on the value of work, and could never be equal over all the spectrum of labor.

There appear to be intractable issues with a flat amount tax, which might be addressed by smaller government, but you would hear outcries of how unfair that would be. Heck even the much less extreme of flat tax rates ...[text shortened]... esent system where so many pay no income taxes, so support whatever they perceive benefits them.

"There appear to be intractable issues with a flat amount tax, which might be addressed by smaller government, but you would hear outcries of how unfair that would be. "

Knee-jerk ractions to a flat-amount tax show a lack of willingness to think outside the box (I'm not accusing you). Just imagine the changes that would have to be made in values like basing wages on the value of work (a vague notion which isn't honored now).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I note with a shrug that you lack the honesty to seriously think about the appropriate role of government and how it ought to be funded.

It's OK we don't have to agree. I just finding it disappointing that you don't see how government expansion maximizes the utility of the government and that the citizens foot the bill.

Originally posted by quackquack
It's OK we don't have to agree. I just finding it disappointing that you don't see how government expansion maximizes the utility of the government and that the citizens foot the bill.

"...government expansion maximizes the utility of the government..."

This is the part I for one don't see. Do you mean maximizes its utility for the bill-footing citizen? If so, it's only rational for that citizen to happily foot the bill for that degree of expansion.

Originally posted by quackquack
It's OK we don't have to agree. I just finding it disappointing that you don't see how government expansion maximizes the utility of the government and that the citizens foot the bill.

Not sure what you mean, but your continued diversions are really quite irrelevant. Everyone agrees that the government shouldn't do the things it shouldn't do.

Originally posted by JS357
"...government expansion maximizes the utility of the government..."

This is the part I for one don't see. Do you mean maximizes its utility for the bill-footing citizen? If so, it's only rational for that citizen to happily foot the bill for that degree of expansion.

Government expands because it wants more power. It can sell more favors, it can influence more transactions, it can give those it wishes jobs and other benefits. The citizens pay the price both directly (through taxes) and indirectly (being crowded out by the government itself).

Originally posted by quackquack
Government expands because it wants more power. It can sell more favors, it can influence more transactions, it can give those it wishes jobs and other benefits. The citizens pay the price both directly (through taxes) and indirectly (being crowded out by the government itself).

Bread and circuses, then.

I see this image of government as a big sow that selectively wet-nurses the offspring of those who give it the sweetest slop.

Originally posted by JS357
I see this image of government as a big sow that selectively wet-nurses the offspring of those who give it the sweetest slop.

I couldn't have said it better. 😀

Originally posted by quackquack
Government expands because it wants more power. It can sell more favors, it can influence more transactions, it can give those it wishes jobs and other benefits. The citizens pay the price both directly (through taxes) and indirectly (being crowded out by the government itself).

How does government do this expanding in a representative democracy? To the extent it does (and there is no iron rule it will), it does so because that is what the People vote for. "Government" is not some foreign entity but the servant of the People's collective choices. You are guilty of personifying and caricaturing an institution which has no wishes and/or wants. Marx would call that "fetishism".

EDIT: Perhaps "anthropomorphism" would be a better term for ascribing human wants and desires to an institution like government.

Originally posted by normbenign
I couldn't have said it better. 😀

Perhaps, but I want to point out that it is an image of government. We all have images of government. (And many other things.) They may reflect our values, fears, upbringing, position in society and whether we slept well last night.