I hardly know how to introduce this since there is a video with full explanation. So, struggling to comply with forum rules, lets try this out. I want to know why Democrats want an unjust tax system? Seriously, why do you Democrats preach to us we must use an unjust tax system. Explain why you use a half baked tax system? Why do you not mind the poor paying what has to be unjust for you, fuel taxes? A lot of very low income people who own autos pay the same fuel tax as the ultra rich. The poor must eat. But when they purchase food, they pay the same as the rich at the same store. Costco does not, nor does Walmart examine your tax status to pick out what you must pay for goods and food. I have yet to read Democrats backing in commerce what they back in government. For government, you are intensely nosy about our earnings. See how many of you demand Trump's tax forms. Why would you get to read private papers? Government provided a system to examine candidates economics. FEC forms are used. But the 1040 has one function. To levy charges to pay for Government. A government I may add that most of you hate for one or more reasons. Yes, you despise government as much as I do. We once had government in a form I loved. We know of this as the founders government.
Rather than going for cartoons, why don't you actually provide a definition for 'equitable tax system'?
Everyone pays the same rate...20% of a million dollars is a hell of a lot more than 20% of 50k dollars. So the wealthier pay more in taxes still but at the same rate as everyone else.
We know, with certainty, that the same rate is inequitable. Diminishing marginal utility of income after all! The dilemma is over what represents the best possible progressive system.
Those who cannot afford to pay for a beer should not be drinking beer, unless another is willing, by their own choice, to offer them one free.
Beer is an excellent way to teach taxes and what fair vs unfair looks like. Burp!! Just finished off a can, time for one more.
The idea that you can use your founders to ignore economic rationality does have a level of amusement value to me.
What has happened is that since FDR the people here have been accustomed to get something for nothing. Hardly what I call fair. Fair means all take an interest in Government though not for free. 47 percent do not pay the bills of the Feds.
FDR was a conservative who failed to embrace Keynesianism. However, note that market fundamentalism has just inflamed inefficient inequalities. You think that is a fair outcome? Higher productivity gaps; inequality hinding economic growth; rent-seeking behaviour by corporations; intergenerational immobility etc etc etc
You included definitions I do not agree with. I said what is fair. Skin in the game. We will have out of control spending when the public has no skin in the the game. Corporations operate as tax collectors for government.
They're not my definitions, they're economic ones. No you misinterpreted the history in order to try and defend your bias. You'd need a definition of 'out of control spending'. Was Reagan out of control when he increased the US military burden?
Reiver, I do not operate in the fashion you do. I speak for myself, make my own points and do not presume to explain to you what you said.
I adopt the logical approach: use economics when referring to either efficiency or equity. Why don't you? Why do you think you can simply ignore all economic analysis through a whim?
Fine, so when do I make my points and you make yours and leave me out of claims about me or you as posters? I don't agree with your comments above in various posts yet those are your views. I can live with posters making errors. Such as alleging FDR to be conservative. Back to my own views of income taxes. First, i never support income taxes. No matter who is taxed. I support the FAIR tax due to it being on spending. As well it contains a stipend to keep poverty very low. It has flaws. But all in all, I think Americans can far easier live with the flaws than the present extremely hateful and unfair system. A very good way to harm the economy is the income tax. It hammers production. Production needs to be encouraged, not hammered. Imagine you are the merchant. And you are told the more you earn. you will pay much more in taxes. The typical human has in mind in general figures, what they want for working 12 months. I have tested this on groups of salesmen. I saw results monthly. I know what human nature looks like, testing it. So, the person earning comes up with his own worth in earnings per year. So since at the same time he spends, he gains things, he is more likely to keep spending than keep earning. It taxes the right thing to tax. This may account for why so many states go after spending and some states totally do not go after incomes. My idea of taxing is to drag in revenue to pay for government necessary items. I mean state highways. Local highways are state funded anyway. So are schools, paid for at the level where the schools are. County roads paid for by the locals. We do not drive less due to road taxes. We are taxed on spending is why. We keep purchasing from the hardware store or the auto dealer since we walk out happy with our purchase. I also point out the miserable rate of success at the Fed level due to taxes on income. The Fed's do not come close to a balanced budget nor a budget with a surplus. Tax spending and only spending to solve many things. Income taxes turn into a blame game. Spending taxes do not. Income taxes turn out to be punishment. This is why America hates the income tax. Finally, take note, I did not come close to telling you what you think nor pass judgement on what you think. To hammer this home, spending leaves the payer with things the spender desires. Income taxes does not reward the payer with a thing he thinks of as rewards. A good part of taxes are psychological in nature. Leave that out and you find people upset and complaining over taxes. Say we walk into a produce store. We test apples. We think we got some decent apples so we pay the price. This means we believe the price paid is fair. We get the apples home and then learn 5 percent of the apples contain worms. This we do not want. But 95 percent are free from worms. Since we did get 95 percent good fruit, we are happier than had we handed the grocer a dollar per pound assuming that down the road the grocer would deliver apples. Government delivers after the fact. Groceries deliver upon demand. When we buy apples, we do not worry if it is a deficit nor profit to the grocery man. But with taxes, we constantly worry about the stability of government. Take mass transit. We are under construction in CA today. But the system will never deliver today. The delivery is well into the future. Taxes paid are not benefiting us. And later on, only users will benefit. At the grocery store, with spending, you receive your needs then and there. We conservatives realize this. We work hard to try to get America to understand.
You simply have to refer to economics. It doesn't matter if its the likes of the Chicago School because it agrees with your bias, just do more than opinion. Again, you don't have a relevant point. You have opinion that simply isn't consistent with economic comment. FDR was eventually forced to accept Keynesianism. He was conservative, by definition. I'm not interested in your ideology. I'm interested if you can support it with relevant economics. You haven't so far. The FAIR tax (why the capitals?) is just trying to appropriate vocab. It cannot be fair as it is not based on any logic application of equity. It would need pre-tax income to be strikingly equal for it to work. It would work in socialism! It doesn't hammer production. The very notion is silly as capitalism ensures the distinction between productivity and wage. Still wrong. Even the orthodox economists are ambiguous on tax effects. It depends on the magnitude of income and substitution effects. One thing we do know is, without progressive tax, the highest effective marginal ax rates (taking into account tax increase and benefit withdrawal) are on the low paid. Why aren't you referring to optimal taxes? There are numerous experts who can go way beyond our comprehension. Saying "I thinks" just isn't credible. You're denying the law of demand? Interesting!
