Are you in favor of the FairTax?

[Soldier]

Oooh, you saved yourself with the Postal jab. I was about to have to come hunt you down...

[lochinvar]

You'd never be able to find me--all of your intel would be "dead wrong". Just ask Congress...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

"good Republican" is an oxymoron equivalent to "jumbo shrimp", "military intellignece", and "postal service".

Or even "epee fencer".

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

The subway tokens might have historical value now - in NYC there's the dreaded "Metro Pass" that you swipe through a reader - several times - till it registers. Bonus, they can be used for tracking your movements. And the Girl Scout cookies? Feh!

Avast ye swabs, it's threadjack time!

PS: Soldier: those were the good Republicans! (A small but non-empty set)

Two-words: EZ Pass

[jeff]

Oh yeah, EZ-Pass tracks your car's going through toll plaza. I guess that's admissable evidence in court, too.

Also, it must make the tin-foil hat wearing crowd real happy to have to drive through toll plazas chock full of radio transmissions and transponders!

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

So why is it any more right to "re-distribute" an inheritance?

Because social programs are beneficial to society as a whole, which is the point of them. By redistributing wealth through social programs, you can a) assure that the money is being spent relatively wisely (in other words, fund child care, don't just give a check to people with kids) and b) reduce crime and prevent redsitribution of wealth in more violent ways. as the income disparity increases, we move closer and closer to a point when redistribution will come in a much less civilized form.

Some may use the extreme example of wealth redistribution (communism) to prove that it doesn't work. It is true that social programs need to be balanced with capitalist ideas, as greed IS a strong motivator. As history has shown us, though, truly unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as communism, though it takes a little longer to get to the destructive part. Partial redistribution of wealth is beneficial to society and helps to sustain it.

-m

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Um, how did you arrive at those figures using the formula I posited?

According to the formula given:

A: Income of 5.51M, of which first 40K is not taxable and the rest is taxed at 25%. Tax bill = 1,367,500, or 24.8%.

B: Income of 822,126, taxable portion 782,126. Tax bill = 195,531, or 22.1%

C: Income of 69,995, taxable portion 29,995. Tax bill = 7,499, or 10.7%

And, in fact, if you do the math, you get the following formula for percentage of income paid:

p(i) = [(i-40,000)*.25]/i

Which for those making 40,000 or more can be restated as:

P(i) = .25 - (10,000/i)

This CLEARLY shows that for I > i, p(I) > p(i).

There's no arguing that this system is progressive. The system we have now, though, is more progressive. implementation of this system would result in a higher tax bill for a good chunk of the middle class and a lower one for the wealthy.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

I didn't use your formula ... those are actual incomes reported and paid by three taxpayers.
A = Senator & Mrs. Kerry
B = President & Mrs. Bush
C = Mr. & Mrs. Bum

Under the FairTax plan, assuming I saved nothing and spent 100% of my income, my taxes would be $69,995 - $20,000 (assuming this is the poverty level) x 23% = $11,499 which is less than I am paying now.

Of course we all know the ink would not even be dry on the FairTax bill before congress was making changes to it.

No clue where you got your numbers. If those are reported income, the Kerry's and Bush's would BOTH be paying 35% of it. My guess is that they folded in Cap Gains and Dividends for Kerry, which are not considered the same as earned income. Re-instate dividends and cap gains taxes and John Kerry's bill will go up DRASTICALLY (as will Mr. Bush's). Mr. and Mrs. Bum's will not go up nearly as much.

While it is true that if everybody spends 100% of their income, the tax is progressive (exactly the same as Lochinvar's proposed flat tax, in fact), it is quite clear that not everybody will spend 100% of their income. it is further clear (from a myriad of studies) that the less income you have, the higher the percentage you'll spend. so, the logical conclusion is that the tax would end up being REgressive, and would, btw, have to be a hell of a lot higher than 23%.

-m

[jeff]

Or to phrase epeemike's note a little differently: low income people who need all their income (and more) just to get by have to spend whatever they make - while the wealthy have the luxury to put income aside. So, a consumption tax that excuses from taxation earned but unspent money is a gift to the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

[scrapinpeg]

Except the poor don't pay taxes, and would continue not to pay taxes. Leave the poor out of it. There are much better arguments against this without resorting to poor vs rich memes.

[jeff]

Point taken. Fine then: relatively poor compared to wealthy. Or, middle class compared to wealthy. A gift to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Because social programs are beneficial to society as a whole, which is the point of them. By redistributing wealth through social programs, you can a) assure that the money is being spent relatively wisely (in other words, fund child care, don't just give a check to people with kids) and b) reduce crime and prevent redsitribution of wealth in more violent ways. as the income disparity increases, we move closer and closer to a point when redistribution will come in a much less civilized form.

So when somebody leaves me a gift after they die, you're going to take part of it away and give it to somebody else, because you decided they need it more, or you can spend it more wisely than I? I call that robbery. And "to prevent more violent redistribution" sounds to me like, "give me your money now, so somebody doesn't beat you up for it later." Which kind of sounds like a bribe. Or Mafia. In any case, it really doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Some may use the extreme example of wealth redistribution (communism) to prove that it doesn't work. It is true that social programs need to be balanced with capitalist ideas, as greed IS a strong motivator. As history has shown us, though, truly unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as communism, though it takes a little longer to get to the destructive part. Partial redistribution of wealth is beneficial to society and helps to sustain it.

-m

I must have missed that history lesson. Refresh me?

Originally Posted by epeemike81

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Yes, some taxes are necessary - need a way to fund the government (unless you can get into that many profitable wars, or better yet, find a rich new continent). But maybe we don't need to be funding the government and everybody else?

[Inquartata]

Soldier, you said precisely what I was going to say. ( Be afraid, be very afraid. )

I'd only add that neither politicians nor bureaucrats have displayed any greater propensity for "wisdom" than private individuals, and I wonder at the credulity at those who believe that they are likely to do so in future...

[epeemike81]

Perhaps wise spending WAS a poor choice of words. It doesn't take a particularly great deal of wisdom to see that social programs benefit society.

As to the point of whether or not it's stealing, we as citizens empower the government to do many things that we as private citizens are not allowed to do. Stop trying to apply private morals to public policy. the only relevant question to any new tax or program or any cut of old taxes or programs is "Does society as a whole benefit more from having this or not having it?"

As to the bribery charge, you could, I suppose, characterize it that way. that example was my attempt to point out to you that it IS in the self-interest of even the wealthy in society to not have a poor underclass who can't make ends meet. social programs lower crime.

As to the lessons of history, I'll just point out that unfettered capitalism is a system which inherently leads to increasing disparity between rich and poor. yes, it has more social mobility than a caste system, but the poorest of the poor still do not TRULY have the opportunity to climb out of their situation. The right level of social programs would lessen that disparity and allow more social mobility while still leaving enough elements of a competitive system to motivate people. I assume I don't have to point out the myriad of times around the world that a lack of social mobility and a wealth gap led to bloody revolutions...

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

unfettered capitalism is a system which inherently leads to increasing disparity between rich and poor.

An easy charge to make, inasmuch as "unfettered capitalism" has never been tried...and given the Iron Law of Oligarchy probably never will.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

An easy charge to make, inasmuch as "unfettered capitalism" has never been tried...and given the Iron Law of Oligarchy probably never will.

If you look at the list of developed nations, though, the more power is given to corporations and wealthy individuals over society as a whole in the form of a democratic government, the more disparity there is. This is true both in cases where a) the government is ruled by a wealthy elite class which retains the power (Russia) and b) the democratically elected government cedes most power to corporations and other special interests (US). Europe, on the other hand, where there is a strong social safety net, has far less income disparity (and, consequently imo, far less crime and a far better quality of life). while this doesn't logically prove causality, it is, at the very least, one HELL of a coincidence.

Some critics would charge that these policies will lead to a less competitive role in the world economy, but this is flat out untrue. The EU is the leading exporter in the world. of the largest 140 companies in the world, 50 are US, 61 are European. They're kicking our *** economically, and doing it all the while with a shorter work week, more vacation time, and a generally better quality of life for their citizens. There's a lesson there somewhere...

-m

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Perhaps wise spending WAS a poor choice of words. It doesn't take a particularly great deal of wisdom to see that social programs benefit society.

To what extent? How much wisdom does it take to see that when more money does not help the situation any more, you stop throwing money at it? Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting the outcome to change?

Originally Posted by epeemike81

As to the point of whether or not it's stealing, we as citizens empower the government to do many things that we as private citizens are not allowed to do. Stop trying to apply private morals to public policy. the only relevant question to any new tax or program or any cut of old taxes or programs is "Does society as a whole benefit more from having this or not having it?"

But what if I disagree? If I dont think it benefits society, why do I still get my money taken for it? If you think it will benefit society, why don't you freely give your own money?

Originally Posted by epeemike81

As to the bribery charge, you could, I suppose, characterize it that way. that example was my attempt to point out to you that it IS in the self-interest of even the wealthy in society to not have a poor underclass who can't make ends meet. social programs lower crime.

"Yeah, I s'pose you could call it bribery...just think of it as in your own best interests, see? You, as a wealthy businessman, see, don't want to have poor Tony here be underprivileged, do you? So you give me the money, and I takes care of Tony, and Tony don't takes care of you, see?"

Originally Posted by epeemike81

As to the lessons of history, I'll just point out that unfettered capitalism is a system which inherently leads to increasing disparity between rich and poor. yes, it has more social mobility than a caste system, but the poorest of the poor still do not TRULY have the opportunity to climb out of their situation. The right level of social programs would lessen that disparity and allow more social mobility while still leaving enough elements of a competitive system to motivate people. I assume I don't have to point out the myriad of times around the world that a lack of social mobility and a wealth gap led to bloody revolutions...

-m

What Inq said.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

To what extent? How much wisdom does it take to see that when more money does not help the situation any more, you stop throwing money at it? Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting the outcome to change?


But what if I disagree? If I dont think it benefits society, why do I still get my money taken for it? If you think it will benefit society, why don't you freely give your own money?


"Yeah, I s'pose you could call it bribery...just think of it as in your own best interests, see? You, as a wealthy businessman, see, don't want to have poor Tony here be underprivileged, do you? So you give me the money, and I takes care of Tony, and Tony don't takes care of you, see?"


What Inq said.

take a look at the level of social programs in given nations and you'll find a very strong correlation between that and lower income disparity, less crime, less hunger, less poverty in general. does correlation prove causality? no, but it would be one hell of a coincidence.

-m