Is income tax necessary?

[The Don]

prove it



Please provide support.

I note that you split my quote. I said that the vast majority of money was either well spent and/or spent on programmes that other people think important so:

• Social security spending is close to 20%, social security is a very popular measure particularly among the retired
• Department of defense spending is close to 19%. Defence spending is an issue close to the heart of the right wing and any attempt to reduce it seems to result in "Oh noes, terrorism 9/11 !!11!!1!!!!!"
• Unemployment and welfare spending accounts for 16%. A lot of people seem to want to cut this, then again a lot of people want to maintain and/or extend it
• Medicare/medicaid accounts for a further 20%. Medicare/medicaid is another popular programme
  ....and it goes on

Just because you or I think that a particular area of spending is unjustified doesn't mean that it doesn't enjoy considerable support elsewhere.

 

[Mojo]

How about keeping income tax but calling it a "tithe"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's why I am in favor of cutting certain government entitlement benefits. I'm not saying to leave the elderly and disabled homeless and starving, but surely there are entitlements that can be reduced or eliminated.

Find them. How about the entitlements to testing companies about drug testing welfare recipients, those cost 10-100x more to administer than they save.

 

[Brian-M]

If not, I think your opinions really don't matter because in my opinion, you are just advocating something you never intend to be affected by.

I'm not advocating it particularly, nor would I likely benefit from a switch away from income tax (and the annual council rates on my property are already more than high enough). But there's fun to be found in examining a what-if scenario even if you never expect nor intend for it to become reality.

 

[Border Reiver]

I am just wondering how much the generous income tax lovers actually pay. Does anyone here pay max marginal and has anyone here ever paid 6 figures income tax? If not, I think your opinions really don't matter because in my opinion, you are just advocating something you never intend to be affected by.

Are you advocating that tax rates should only set by persons who may be paying those rates?

 

[wrs]

Are you advocating that tax rates should only set by persons who may be paying those rates?

The opposite. People who do not or never have made that kind of money should have no say in what those rates are. This is the whole problem with majority rule or supposedly democratic process. The majority will always dominate the minority. The people who have made more money are just as deserving of protection as are those who can't. That is to say, they don't deserve to be singled out for what is an obviously unfair levy on their earnings just because "they can afford it". That justification is mob psychology and affordability is a very, very subjective judgement. The basis of the graduated income tax is the fallacy that the high income earners can "afford" it and so they should subsidize those who can't.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why would a higher income person pay a higher share of the burden of society than a poor person when they both receive essentially the same benefits? In fact, the poor person probably receives greater benefits.

I doubt you could find substantial evidence for this proposition.

I personally benefit a great deal from my tax dollars. I pay what I consider to be a lot of taxes and while they are not in the six figures, I have been well into the five figures for about 20 years. Taxes are the cost of civil society. I enjoy living in a civil society, therefore I don't bitch about the tens of thousands of dollars I pay in taxes every year.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The opposite. People who do not or never have made that kind of money should have no say in what those rates are. This is the whole problem with majority rule or supposedly democratic process. The majority will always dominate the minority. The people who have made more money are just as deserving of protection as are those who can't. That is to say, they don't deserve to be singled out for what is an obviously unfair levy on their earnings just because "they can afford it". That justification is mob psychology and affordability is a very, very subjective judgement. The basis of the graduated income tax is the fallacy that the high income earners can "afford" it and so they should subsidize those who can't.

If only there were rich people willing to run for office and to represent the other rich people and rich corporations in our government. Maybe one day.

 

[wrs]

I personally benefit a great deal from my tax dollars. I pay what I consider to be a lot of taxes and while they are not in the six figures, I have been well into the five figures for about 20 years. Taxes are the cost of civil society. I enjoy living in a civil society, therefore I don't bitch about the tens of thousands of dollars I pay in taxes every year.

We can count you as a paragon of virtue then because your outlook isn't shared by many others who pay more than you. Indeed, your tax bite doesn't fall into the category I mentioned either so you still speak from those who don't get clipped so hard.

 

[wrs]

If only there were rich people willing to run for office and to represent the other rich people and rich corporations in our government. Maybe one day.

But they do and it's the corporations that actually are getting the tax breaks while the people don't. Now if you understand how to make a corporation work for you in order to give you non-taxable benefits, you love it because those benefits are expenses to the corporation and yet they are equivalent to income since they procure benefits.

 

[Dr. Keith]

We can count you as a paragon of virtue then because your outlook isn't shared by many others who pay more than you.

No, I'm have not virtue beyond self interest, it is simply in my self interest to live in a civilized society. My very livelihood depends on living in a civilized society. Absent a government we all get to be farmer and defenders, no thanks.

Indeed, your tax bite doesn't fall into the category I mentioned either so you still speak from those who don't get clipped so hard.

Yes, no matter how much I pay there will always be someone who pays more. How is your arbitrary line at all relevant?

How about states that take more money from the federal government than they send to the federal government, should their senators and congressman be allowed to vote anymore?

 

[Dr. Keith]

But they do

You don't say. I guess they must not hold much power in government if they are letting the rich get screwed so bad.

 

[wrs]

You don't say. I guess they must not hold much power in government if they are letting the rich get screwed so bad.

Please define rich precisely. As I have said, high income earners are not rich in my view and I see no justification for defining someone who makes a high income one year and not the next as "rich".

 

[wrs]

No, I'm have not virtue beyond self interest, it is simply in my self interest to live in a civilized society. My very livelihood depends on living in a civilized society. Absent a government we all get to be farmer and defenders, no thanks.

Then let's allow the rich to pay the same tax as you.

Yes, no matter how much I pay there will always be someone who pays more. How is your arbitrary line at all relevant?

Why should there be anyone who pays more than you? If your taxes are sufficient for your self interest then they should be sufficient for all.

 

[Border Reiver]

The opposite. People who do not or never have made that kind of money should have no say in what those rates are. This is the whole problem with majority rule or supposedly democratic process. The majority will always dominate the minority. The people who have made more money are just as deserving of protection as are those who can't. That is to say, they don't deserve to be singled out for what is an obviously unfair levy on their earnings just because "they can afford it". That justification is mob psychology and affordability is a very, very subjective judgement. The basis of the graduated income tax is the fallacy that the high income earners can "afford" it and so they should subsidize those who can't.

It's not difficult to get into the highest tax bracket in many countries. Here in Canada I've been there the last few years by virtue of having a decent salary from my primary employment (paralegal) and another salary by virtue of working part time with the CF Primary Reserves. The other part of your statement above causes me to ask the question, should the persons in the highest bracket then set the rates, etc for the lower income earners?

The higher income earners can afford living better than lower income earners - for example a loaf of bread costs the same whether you make minimum wage, or earn $200/hr as an attorney, but that $1.50/loaf is obviously going to take a larger % of the minimum wage earner's income.

 

[wrs]

The higher income earners can afford living better than lower income earners - for example a loaf of bread costs the same whether you make minimum wage, or earn $200/hr as an attorney, but that $1.50/loaf is obviously going to take a larger % of the minimum wage earner's income.

So then the high income earners are to be reduced to the low income earners and the govt gets the rest because it knows so much better how to allocate resources on behalf of the rest of us even though it's composed of people just like us?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Please define rich precisely. As I have said, high income earners are not rich in my view and I see no justification for defining someone who makes a high income one year and not the next as "rich".

You made a claim that the rich are being screwed by majority rule, but then I point out that the vast majority of those in government are rich and you hedge back to the definition of rich. Have fun with that.

Our government is run primarily by rich white males. No matter how you define "rich", "white", or "male" they are overrepresented in our government.

 

[wrs]

You made a claim that the rich are being screwed by majority rule, but then I point out that the vast majority of those in government are rich and you hedge back to the definition of rich. Have fun with that.

Our government is run primarily by rich white males. No matter how you define "rich", "white", or "male" they are overrepresented in our government.

Do you know the difference in tax treatment for ordinary income and capital gains? How about the difference in earned income and corporate income?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Then let's allow the rich to pay the same tax as you.

As a percentage Warren Buffet and Mit Romney paid less than me.

And you still haven't backed up your claim that the rich get less from the government than the poor. Please let me know how that research is going.

Why should there be anyone who pays more than you? If your taxes are sufficient for your self interest then they should be sufficient for all.

Not at all. As a first problem, a vast majority of people can't pay as much as me. As a second problem, the more you have the more important a civil society is to you having it.

 

[Border Reiver]

So then the high income earners are to be reduced to the low income earners and the govt gets the rest because it knows so much better how to allocate resources on behalf of the rest of us even though it's composed of people just like us?

Where do you get that from my statement?