They need to tax the poor/middle class more!

1. Are you saying there are no rich tax cheaters?

2. Again, my second question is, IS IT ACTUALLY DOABLE? So who is going to legislate “the Fair Tax” and enforce it? Santa Claus? Your “solution” is not practical.

 

Of course not. But those who comply with the tax code are not tax cheats.

The people who will legislate it and enforce it are those who the people elect to do so. If enough people agree with you (and I) then they will have no choice but to enact change.

 

Yeah, like I said. “NOT DOABLE”.

 

the top 1 percent pay twice as much of the income tax burden as their share of the income. a flat tax would be progressive and would strip congress of much of the power it gets from the income tax

the estate tax is an abomination that can work ruin upon some estates. A family I knew well had this happen. around 1974, the last grandparent died=massive estate taxes.within a year both parents were killed in a wreck by some scumbag trying to commit suicide by driving his station wagon southbound on a northbound interstate (it might have been the other direction). two girls I knew well were in the back seat of their parents' Porsche. They survived. the estate was hit again with massive taxes. the insurance and estate planning for the grandparent wasn't around 2 months later. a 20 million or so (IIRC) estate, was destroyed. the death tax was sort of designed to allow a small growth of an estate during the NORMAL lifespan of the heir.

This abomination needs to be ended. It impacts those who pay the most income taxes. It's based on pandering to envy

 

right now they pay far more

 

how do the rich get more benefit from the government than those who are dependent upon the government for food, housing and medical care? you confuse society with the government. and most rich people are rich because they do things that benefit society. Why is Jimmy Page so wealthy? because millions of people want to listen to his music.government didn't give him wealth, people did

 

not this nonsense again. I think everyone should pay the same amount of tax since everyone gets the same number of votes. If someone pays more taxes then they should have a greater say how those taxes are spent. 10 net tax consumers shouldn't have more votes than a person who feeds those ten with his taxes

 

not per dollar they don't

 

yeah they do the bottom 50% pay almost nothing in income taxes. they pay far less of the income tax burden than their share of the income. we are talking about the federal income tax here

 

we can't count the people too poor to pay taxes, were talking about the middle class vs the rich, what they pay per dollar

I would prefer a flat tax, one where everyone pays the same % for every dollar they earn over the poverty line, it is the only fair system, for both rich and poor and everyone in-between alike

if the poverty line is set at 20k, and you make 41k, you pay taxes on 21k

that way everyone is taxed the same, rich or poor alike

 

I prefer a national sales tax since that removes the cancer that the income tax and the IRS works upon the fourth amendment but a flat tax is far better than the crap we have now

 

the problem is, once you make over a certain amount, you no longer need to buy more stuff, thus it would not be equal

maybe tax stuff, property and investment income - income tax is untaxed - that might work

 

everyone buys stuff-trust me, I know lots of millionaires and multimillionaires. they are constantly buying stuff.

 

buying stocks is stuff

maybe tax stuff, property and investment income - income tax is untaxed

food is untaxed as well as cloths, the essentials

have a luxury tax as well

 

lets stop allowing government to spend beyond its constitutional limits and when it does spend make everyone who has a vote pay more. Then we will reign government excess in. the progressive income tax was specifically designed to allow the pimps in office to pander to the many while making a small minority bear most of the costs

 

That makes no sense whatsoever. Now I understand why you favor income tax: you don't know anything about taxation economics, and you prefer injustice to justice.

 

Which makes a lot more sense having them pay the same as their share of the income, as the latter would inevitably mean taxing the poor into destitution. But probably that is the result you desire.

By definition, no, it would not.

The only power the income tax gives to Congress is the power to provide tax loopholes for the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich who fund election campaigns.

No it can't.

So your anecdote is completely irrelevant to the current estate tax. Check.

The 1940s-70s saw the highest estate tax rates and lowest inflation-adjusted exemption rates in US history, and was also the period when the country enjoyed the broadest sustained increase in working people's real standard of living. Coincidence?

The exemption is now ~100x larger, and the rate a little over half what it was then. But I'm curious: on what basis are you arguing that it is more important for a handful of rich heirs to remain exorbitantly wealthy (rather than just rich) than for the great majority of people to be better off?

No it wasn't. The heirs just got ~$6M rather than $20M. $6M was still a lot of money in 1974. If they'd put it into an index fund, they'd have hundreds of millions by now without lifting a finger.

There is no death tax, don't be ridiculous.

Yes, well, if you inherit when you are very young, you have a lot more time to enjoy the growth of your assets.

While I do not favor estate taxes, the other taxes in common use, like sales tax and personal income tax, are almost all much worse, and the estate tax is one of the fairest and least economically harmful taxes the USA currently has.

No it doesn't, as the example you gave above proves.

Every accusation that others are pandering to envy is pandering to the greed, privilege, and parasitism of the rentier class.

 

The people who are dependent on government services and benefits have to pay the privileged, especially landowners, full market value just for permission to access such benefits. That is why despite all the money spent on them, they stay poor, while their landlords get rich without lifting a productive finger.

No, I do not.

No they aren't. They are rich because they own government-issued and -enforced privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc. that legally entitle them to steal from society.

Garbage. He is rich mainly because he owns (or owns shares in companies that own) government-issued and -enforced copyright monopolies.

 

if the poor and middle class actually started bearing a more reasonable share of the income tax compared to what they get from the government, maybe they would be less likely to eagerly vote for big spending pimps in office. . The estate tax is the least fair of all taxes and is nothing more than envy based theft. Your comment about Page is something everyone should read to get a proper perspective on your radical hatred of enterprise and talent

 

It is fact.

<yawn> Yes, well, once upon a time, landowners paid all the taxes, and only landowners could vote. Problem is, the first thing those landowners voted for was to make someone else pay the taxes.

The fact that everyone gets the same number of votes is not evidence that they get the same amount of benefit from government spending. As the Henry George Theorem shows, effectively all government spending on desirable public services and infrastructure is a welfare subsidy to landowners. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH.

Not if they are paying more taxes because they are already taking more from society. If you are taking more bread home from the bakery than other customers, you are paying more, but that doesn't give you any greater say in how the baker does his job: by taking so much bread, you are already agreeing that he is doing a good job without your input.

As the Henry George Theorem shows, it is landowners who are the net tax consumers. The landowner qua landowner doesn't feed anyone, he is just legally entitled, by government, to charge others full market value for his permission to feed themselves. So it's the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich who are getting far more from government than the poor, and I will thank you to remember it.

 

why do the rich get "more from society".

 

Before we had income taxes and death taxes etc, the rich did pretty well-the peasants not so much. what modern government has done is make things far better for the least productive, the least intelligent and the least ambitious. So all this nonsense that the rich benefit most from government is complete bullshit that is a fiction dreamed up by those who try to hide their envy for the more productive by pretending that their goals is "fairness"

 

Thus enabling those who actually benefit the most from that spending -- i.e., landowners -- to steal more...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

Government excess?? What you are proposing is a poll tax, one of the most regressive and unjust taxes ever conceived. That's the real excess.

Garbage. The progressive income tax was designed to prevent the ablest of the poor from accumulating the assets needed to offer competition to the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich.

 

more nonsense-sounds like someone is upset that they cannot buy as much land as they want. The progressive income tax was designed to give congress all sorts of extra constitutional powers and the immense power of buying the votes of the many by promising them that only the few will see tax increases. Divide and conquer

LIFE IS REGRESSIVE

 

I already told you: their government-issued and -enforced privileges -- land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, etc. -- legally entitle them to profit from the abrogation of others' rights, to charge others full market value just for permission to do what they would otherwise have been at liberty to do, to exercise legal powers that are denied to others, etc.