Tax Cuts Extension Back on the Drawing Board.

[Mikey]

Those were reasons added onto the flat tax, not apart of it in its own form. There for they don't apply.

The fact of the matter, though, that a flat tax just isn't flat. Like I mentioned above, 18% of yearly income is a lot more dear to a guy who makes $40,000 a year than it is to a guy who makes $5 mil a year, even though the dollar amount is a lot higher for the latter.

That's a fact of the flat tax, not of any extraneous issue. You want something fairer? Graded income tax - Q.E.D.

[Deepcrush]

It's about the same as saying "to me, the sun rises in the east."

No, its really not. The "they have more so they have to give up more" is only a 'fair' deal if its by percent. Not because "he's got money and I want it". Which is how what you said comes across without detail.

That's a fact of the flat tax, not of any extraneous issue. You want something fairer? Graded income tax - Q.E.D.

If you have a flat tax then add something to it... shock! That counts as adding something to it. Its not a complex thing to figure out. A flat tax, by itself, is a flat tax. That doesn't change just because it doesn't fit a party line or help someone who's begging for a handout.

[Mikey]

Nobody has argued the point that a flat tax is a flat tax. What has been argued, and you have yet to answer intelligibly, is the fact that a flat tax may tax everyone equally - but not fairly. A graded or bracketed income tax isn't "adding something" to a flat tax - it is a plan of itself, which is extant in lieu of a flat tax.

[Deepcrush]

Nobody has argued the point that a flat tax is a flat tax. What has been argued, and you have yet to answer intelligibly, is the fact that a flat tax may tax everyone equally - but not fairly. A graded or bracketed income tax isn't "adding something" to a flat tax - it is a plan of itself, which is extant in lieu of a flat tax.

Okay, lets spell it for you. If a flat tax is equal to all as income taxation. Then how is it not fair? You're talking about taxing more simply because someone makes more. Thats a personal bias of yours but that has nothing to do with being fair.

Fair is what works equally for all parties concerned and benefits all parties concerned.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Nobody has argued the point that a flat tax is a flat tax. What has been argued, and you have yet to answer intelligibly, is the fact that a flat tax may tax everyone equally - but not fairly. A graded or bracketed income tax isn't "adding something" to a flat tax - it is a plan of itself, which is extant in lieu of a flat tax.

Okay, lets spell it for you. If a flat tax is equal to all as income taxation. Then how is it not fair? You're talking about taxing more simply because someone makes more. Thats a personal bias of yours but that has nothing to do with being fair.

Fair is what works equally for all parties concerned and benefits all parties concerned.

The marginal utility (U) of the money earned (E) decrease as E grows. dU/dE when E --> 40,000$ is lower than dU/dE when E ---> 15,000$

Thus, even if the Utility function is relative to each individual, the progressive tax system is aiming at imposing fairly along U, not along E. It's not perfect, but it's the fairest, as a society we have set up so far. Social maths 8)

The problem doesn't start at this principle, but rather as the way the money is spent and all the tax structures put in place over the past 50 years providing loopholes and other money leaks. Thu, a lot of money is wasted on the action of collecting the money, and then spending it.

The government and the citizen aren't getting the bang for their buck, and should sometimes receive better for the money they earn than what they get right now, wether it's taxed or not.

[Deepcrush]

You went through a whole lot just to say that you like taxing people more just because they make more...

Which still isn't fair by any means, its called bias. You're trying to justify why you should be allowed to take from someone just because they have more then you.

[Tsukiyumi]

I guess we have different definitions of "fair", man. I don't think it's "fair" to ask a person who makes practically nothing to give up a third of it, and leave them near or in poverty, while a person who makes millions could give up 90% of what they have and still be perfectly comfortable.

[SolkaTruesilver]

You went through a whole lot just to say that you like taxing people more just because they make more...

Which still isn't fair by any means, its called bias. You're trying to justify why you should be allowed to take from someone just because they have more then you.

No. I went through a whole lot to explain why we believe progressive tax scheme is fairer and better than a flat tax rate, and you seem determined not to understand the argument. I ain't asking you to agree with it, just to understand it. Are you being deliberatly thick-headed or you just are lazy?


However, I do dislike the fact that some people ain't paying any taxes, or can simply afford to parasite the society. These people just get without giving, so they don't see any importance to contribute their own, nor do they see the need to respect public services/structures.

[IanKennedy]

See the problem there?

Honestly, I don't. If you have a flat tax that says you are charged this amount and those taxes cover your basic needs as a citizen then it shouldn't matter. That rich guy is still paying more and thats because he has more. The problem with our system isn't who pays what, its who's covered by what.

If I'm a good law following citizen then I'm SoL. If i'm a criminal or an illegal or Black then the government will pay for whatever I want. Thats the problem, not the tax rate but what its going to.

No, every body is covered for everything. There's no limit on your use of the health service, as I've said many times before. Even if you pay 0 tax you still get free health care, for life, for example. There's no rules about what colour you have to be to get benefits. Please explain what you mean.

[Deepcrush]

No, every body is covered for everything. There's no limit on your use of the health service, as I've said many times before. Even if you pay 0 tax you still get free health care, for life, for example. There's no rules about what colour you have to be to get benefits. Please explain what you mean.

I'm talking about the US, I should have stated such.

I guess we have different definitions of "fair", man. I don't think it's "fair" to ask a person who makes practically nothing to give up a third of it, and leave them near or in poverty, while a person who makes millions could give up 90% of what they have and still be perfectly comfortable.

You're talking about two people being equal, I'm talking about taxes being equal. The two are separate from each other.

No. I went through a whole lot to explain why we believe progressive tax scheme is fairer and better than a flat tax rate, and you seem determined not to understand the argument. I ain't asking you to agree with it, just to understand it. Are you being deliberatly thick-headed or you just are lazy?

Oh, an attempted insult from a Canadian who can't admit he's Canadian... You've wounded me so!

But no, the whole point is that you have taken a couple of made up numbers to declare your right to take from someone just because they have more then you. That amounts to stealing and nothing more. Take your excuses and keep them to yourself.

[Mikey]

Nobody has argued the point that a flat tax is a flat tax. What has been argued, and you have yet to answer intelligibly, is the fact that a flat tax may tax everyone equally - but not fairly. A graded or bracketed income tax isn't "adding something" to a flat tax - it is a plan of itself, which is extant in lieu of a flat tax.

Okay, lets spell it for you. If a flat tax is equal to all as income taxation. Then how is it not fair? You're talking about taxing more simply because someone makes more. Thats a personal bias of yours but that has nothing to do with being fair.

Fair is what works equally for all parties concerned and benefits all parties concerned.

Again, you're still operating under the incorrect presumption that "equal" is the same thing as "fair." It isn't. I have twice - and other people have, also - spelled out for you exactly how equal (flat-rate) =/= fair. At this point, the only explanation possible is that you don't want to acknowledge that point, rather than can't figure it out. [iThat[/i] is bias.

[Deepcrush]

If taxes are equal per income, then that is fair taxation. Unless you can prove that the terms no longer mean what they have for the last thousand years. I don't honestly care that its beyond your abilities to understand because thats not my problem. You don't like it, tough shit, move on and grow up. I get that most of you can't look past your own personal problems and see a larger picture, but yet again that is also not my problem.

To have fair taxation, you have to have a tax written to be equal in some form or another. Saying that "we should take more because they have more" isn't just unfair, its pathetic.

[Reliant121]

To define Fair, "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice"¹. The problem being is that the definition may be, in this case, somewhat self defeating. A flat taxation is indeed equal in a mathematical sense (x% of given number is in its nature equal) and as such is free from poor/rich bias. However, is it just? Justice is defined as "the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness" (same source) and as such it requires moral rightness, a phrase which sounds infinitely clumsy. It becomes rather cloudy at this point since it becomes personal opinion. I do not feel that a flat taxation rate is morally "right" since a low income earner will be forced to pay a far more consequential figure in relation to their earning when compared with someone who earns an inordinate sum of money.



1) Source

[Deepcrush]

Being JUST with taxes is a different line then being FAIR, at least to me. If I wanted to be just then I'd say strip the S.O.B.s who run the system I work for because they make 100k a year and couldn't be bothered to do real work if their lives depend on it.

[Reliant121]

Thats the whole point, justice or being just is an integral part of Fair at least for dictionary definition. This is where the argument becomes almost impossible since it will be argued on semantics back and forth for all eternity.