Yes, we can. - Page 229

JWBear · 10-14-2008, 10:18 AM

Taxes are not merely a fee for use of public facilities.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 10:35 AM

What are taxes for? To provide for the functions of government.

Betty · 10-14-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

If they paid $1,000,000 and you paid $10,000, and they didn't receive the benefit of 100x more roads, military protection, etc. Then can you honestly say they deserve to pay even more? I know we use it as a way to even out the burden a bit, but how much is enough?

So - why am I paying for the libary if I never go there? Why do childless people pay for public schools for kids they don't have? Why are you paying for national parks that you've never visited? And why are the roads I drive on not pothole free when I'm paying for their maintenance to be kept that way?

innerSpaceman · 10-14-2008, 10:51 AM

It is a redistribution. If that data is correct, it's what they paid after the loopholes and shelters that shielded them from the much vaster amount of tax they would have owed without access to those methods unwealthy people have no access to.

And if 1% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, why should that 1% not pay 80% of the taxes? What difference does it make if 80% of the taxes is paid by 1% of the people, if that's their share according to the share of wealth they control?

Ghoulish Delight · 10-14-2008, 10:58 AM

The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it?

Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it?

Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do.

For the record, I say no, because that's double taxation. This is the main reason I oppose inheritance taxes as well....the taxes were already paid on the money (whether this includes legal loopholes or not to me is not the issue), so why should the government be allowed to have more just because the dead person left it all to their kid?

This is the main reason I oppose the income tax at all. I think the founders had it right with property taxes. Who possesses the most property? The wealthy. The wealthy can indeed take advantage of loopholes, but the fact is they are there often times passed into law by the very people that decry them as unfair.

I would have no problem with some form of wealth tax....after all, in reality, that's what a property tax is. I also don't oppose some form of national sales tax (both of those are assuming the income tax went away). I like a national sales tax because that is a tax on consumption rather than earning and is much, much more visible to the consumer.

wendybeth · 10-14-2008, 12:21 PM

Surprisingly, I agree with Scaeagles with regards to a national sales tax. It's consumer driven, and those who consume the most will pay the most. It seems more equitable, on paper anyway- it's just the implementation that concerns me. The rich have a way of worming out little loopholes and exceptions for themselves.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 12:30 PM

The main argument against it is a legit one....being that since some 30% of people pay no income tax now, they are immediately hit by the national sales tax on all purchases.

I'm sure those smarter than me can come up with some thing, such as a graduated scale based on the purchase price, no tax on food, etc.

3894 · 10-14-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For the record, I say no, because that's double taxation. This is the main reason I oppose inheritance taxes as well....the taxes were already paid on the money (whether this includes legal loopholes or not to me is not the issue), so why should the government be allowed to have more just because the dead person left it all to their kid?

Now that we have that settled, would someone like to leave me a boatload of money?

Morrigoon · 10-14-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betty

So - why am I paying for the libary if I never go there? Why do childless people pay for public schools for kids they don't have? Why are you paying for national parks that you've never visited? And why are the roads I drive on not pothole free when I'm paying for their maintenance to be kept that way?

I wasn't suggesting we completely nullify the difference, just pointing out that there is already an inequality in usage to explain why people MIGHT object to changes that make it even worse.

10-14-2008, 10:18 AM	#2281
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Taxes are not merely a fee for use of public facilities. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:35 AM	#2282
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	What are taxes for? To provide for the functions of government.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:51 AM	#2284
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	It is a redistribution. If that data is correct, it's what they paid after the loopholes and shelters that shielded them from the much vaster amount of tax they would have owed without access to those methods unwealthy people have no access to. And if 1% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, why should that 1% not pay 80% of the taxes? What difference does it make if 80% of the taxes is paid by 1% of the people, if that's their share according to the share of wealth they control?
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:58 AM	#2285
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it? Some say yes, some say no. But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 12:21 PM	#2287
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Surprisingly, I agree with Scaeagles with regards to a national sales tax. It's consumer driven, and those who consume the most will pay the most. It seems more equitable, on paper anyway- it's just the implementation that concerns me. The rich have a way of worming out little loopholes and exceptions for themselves. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 12:30 PM	#2288
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	The main argument against it is a legit one....being that since some 30% of people pay no income tax now, they are immediately hit by the national sales tax on all purchases. I'm sure those smarter than me can come up with some thing, such as a graduated scale based on the purchase price, no tax on food, etc.
	Submit to Quotes