Support NeoGAF

[Princess Carl]

Whoa, who said anything about all taxes being evil? Not me. You know, there was a time when income tax didn't exist and America kept on chuggin'.

One should also consider the vast amount of superfluous bullshit our government collects taxes for before rushing to the defense of the IRS.

no one is arguing that the irs is good. My largest complaint is that taxes right now are tailored to the rich. They pretty much have a big cheat sheet that shows them every break in that bloated ass book.

 

[yuna55]

Lol. You probably should have gandered at my other posts before getting so defensive and worked up.

:lol Stating facts also does not mean anyone is getting defensive and worked up.

Seriously, I love my job. It's pretty much the only job where I can tell customers they're wrong for saying some stupid bullshit like, "Well I should get back $1000 because my friend makes the same amount and probably has the same withholdings, and that's what he got!" or "Well, I claimed more kids this year! Shouldn't I get that $3000 per kid?!"

My boss flat out asks people, "Did you hear that on the radio or something?" :lol

Half of GAF is sarcastic and the other half is too stupid to be sarcastic, so it's hard to tell what side everybody falls on sometimes.

 

[bill0527]

the problem with that argument though while there are two sides to every story, the is a bigger responsibilty and obligation to regulate the top 1% then the bottom.

Given the current distribution of wealth in the country:
say 20 times more people on the bottom took advantage income tax and gained at most 5000 dollars more than they should have then the top 1%

The top 1% will still account for an unfathomable amount more lost than the bottom of the income pool.

Both sides have their bad people, but theres a bigger responsibility to regulate the top 1%

No.. there is NOT a bigger responsibility to regulate the top 1%.

We are all Americans, we are all supposed to be equal.

If you want to start singling out groups of people, apply one set of rules to them, and a different set of rules for a different group, how the hell does that make any sense? What you're suggesting is nothing more than class warfare or economic discrimination.

And because this country depends so much on that top 1%, you'd better make damn sure that you don't push them to the breaking point, or they just might pack up and take their fortunes to a country that will look on them a little more favorably.

Its the same concept that the mayor of New York commented on last year. They don't want to raise taxes anymore on the wealthy in New York, because if people in certain New York counties were to pack up and move to a more favorable state, then you'd have entire local governments collapse because of lack of tax revenue.

 

[Stinkles]

No.. there is NOT a bigger responsibility to regulate the top 1%.

We are all Americans, we are all supposed to be equal.

If you want to start singling out groups of people, apply one set of rules to them, and a different set of rules for a different group, how the hell does that make any sense? What you're suggesting is nothing more than class warfare.

And because this country depends so much on that top 1%, you'd better make damn sure that you don't push them to the breaking point, or they just might pack up and take their fortunes to country that will look on them a little more favorably.

Its the same concept that the mayor of New York commented on last year. They don't want to raise taxes anymore on the wealthy in New York, because if people in certain New York counties were to pack up and move to a more favorable state, then you'd have entire local governments collapse because of lack of tax revenue.

The top 1% have FAR more tax "instruments" at their disposal, so even discounting abuse, of course they should be regulated more, arithmetically, if nothing else.

 

[Gallbaro]

Genuinely curious, how?

All the documentaries and information I had seen has painted it as a looming catastrophe that only worsens when you add the fact that the next generation retiring will heap a lot more costs on to it with health care costs and social security collection.

He thinks that for ever % of taxes levied you decrease, economic activity will increase making up for and increasing revenue.

In reality it is bullshit, he will cite increased capital gains revenue from the Reagan Years when the capital gains tax was lowered but an increase in transaction still increased total transaction. In truth the increase in collection was due to public choice regulation (regulation that favors existing companies) and developments in the markets that allowed for easier trading mechanisms.

 

[daycru]

how can he pay for a better education when he has no money?

He should have thought about that when he chose which vagina he came out of. Should have picked better, why should I pay for his poor choices?

 

[adamsappel]

Whoa, who said anything about all taxes being evil? Not me. You know, there was a time when income tax didn't exist and America kept on chuggin'.

You know, there was a time the top income tax rate was over 90%. And America kept on chuggin'.

 

[Princess Carl]

No.. there is NOT a bigger responsibility to regulate the top 1%.

We are all Americans, we are all supposed to be equal.

If you want to start singling out groups of people, apply one set of rules to them, and a different set of rules for a different group, how the hell does that make any sense? What you're suggesting is nothing more than class warfare.

And because this country depends so much on that top 1%, you'd better make damn sure that you don't push them to the breaking point, or they just might pack up and take their fortunes to country that will look on them a little more favorably.

Its the same concept that the mayor of New York commented on last year. They don't want to raise taxes anymore on the wealthy in New York, because if people in certain New York counties were to pack up and move to a more favorable state, then you'd have entire local governments collapse because of lack of tax revenue.

MORE FAVORABLY?? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

They will never leave because they have almost every government official from congress to the treasury to the white house in their pocket. And we should treat them more favorably?

No. They need to be regulated much closer than most other americans because of their wealth. If we dont regulate them then these people will get away with anything. (see the HOUSING CRISIS and subsequent bailout by the taxpayers who didnt cause the mess)

 

[Evolved1]

The alternative to legislating morality would be not legislating morality. Yes, that would lead to more freedom. Done.

All my liberal friends are quick to denounce the big bad government for making marijuana illegal (it's our body, man!) or limiting the rights of homosexuals (it's not a choice, man!), but when the focus is shifted from social issues to economic issues they have no qualms with the government getting in the way.

Cherry picking some middle-of-the-road contentious issues as examples of the ills of big government doesn't really do anything to support your position... I'm assuming you're quite a bit more extreme -- well beyond quibbling over reefer and marriage rights. I don't know to what extent exactly (you nutters come in so many flavors) but it's probably some fucking overly-romanticized fringe ideology.

Time for bed.

 

[Fei]

And because this country depends so much on that top 1%, you'd better make damn sure that you don't push them to the breaking point, or they just might pack up and take their fortunes to a country that will look on them a little more favorably.

I feel like this can't be posted enough. And it is habitually ignored. So here goes:

 

[Gallbaro]

No.. there is NOT a bigger responsibility to regulate the top 1%.

We are all Americans, we are all supposed to be equal.

If you want to start singling out groups of people, apply one set of rules to them, and a different set of rules for a different group, how the hell does that make any sense? What you're suggesting is nothing more than class warfare or economic discrimination.

And because this country depends so much on that top 1%, you'd better make damn sure that you don't push them to the breaking point, or they just might pack up and take their fortunes to a country that will look on them a little more favorably.

Its the same concept that the mayor of New York commented on last year. They don't want to raise taxes anymore on the wealthy in New York, because if people in certain New York counties were to pack up and move to a more favorable state, then you'd have entire local governments collapse because of lack of tax revenue.

Well that is the thing, for a healthy economy you need the financial power to reside with the middle class, such is not the case and why we have to worry about the rich and all their money leaving. You need to keep in mind though, leaving NYC for New Jersey is much different than leave the USA.

The economy we have today is inherently flawed and is designed, from government bumble fucking and not a republican conspiracy to gather wealth at those who already have it, at a rate much faster than those who do not.

 

[The Faceless Master]

the problem with that argument though while there are two sides to every story, the is a bigger responsibilty and obligation to regulate the top 1% then the bottom.

Given the current distribution of wealth in the country:
say 20 times more people on the bottom took advantage income tax and gained at most 5000 dollars more than they should have then the top 1%

The top 1% will still account for an unfathomable amount more lost than the bottom of the income pool.

Both sides have their bad people, but theres a bigger responsibility to regulate the top 1%

the middle class only sees the rich people cheating on the news... they see poor people cheating in real life all the time, so it seems more 'real' and is more upsetting because of that. just driving by the parking lot of a housing project is enough to make some people mad.

 

[Princess Carl]

You know, there was a time the top income tax rate was over 90%. And America kept on chuggin'.

and then former ceos of the largest banks in the country went into the treasury and single handily changed the tax code in favor of the rich. Funny how money changes things for the better for the rich and never for the poor.

 

[bill0527]

MORE FAVORABLY?? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

They will never leave because they have almost every government official from congress to the treasury to the white house in their pocket. And we should treat them more favorably?

No. They need to be regulated much closer than most other americans because of their wealth. If we dont regulate them then these people will get away with anything. (see the HOUSING CRISIS and subsequent bailout by the taxpayers who didnt cause the mess)

Absolutely nowhere did I say that they should be treated MORE FAVORABLY.

They should be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE !!!

 

[Fei]

While I support a progressive tax system, some of its supporters ITT are so irritating at playing the victim. The fact is (on topic) 47% of the public didn't pay income tax last year. Don't tell me there's no help for the less-than-fortunate.

 

[Princess Carl]

the middle class only sees the rich people cheating on the news... they see poor people cheating in real life all the time, so it seems more 'real' and is more upsetting because of that. just driving by the parking lot of a housing project is enough to make some people mad.

i really dont see this logic. You should tell those people getting mad to stop what they are doing and live on those housing projects' income and live there.

Im sorry but i am much mored angered by what i see in Washington today. Thats more sickening than any less fortunate person doing anything they can to survive.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Well an easier way to get to that end would just be to privatize every single function of government, because your talking fees and not taxes. And the permanent ruling class will be glorious!

wait, so it's not a tax because it's not a %?

 

[Foxtastical]

:lol

You had every right to feel that way.

I get sick of arguing with both sides, I know so many people on both of them. Rich people don't get poor people, and poor people don't get rich people.

 

[Jonm1010]

While I support a progressive tax system, some of its supporters ITT are so irritating at playing the victim. The fact is (on topic) 47% of the public didn't pay income tax last year. Don't tell me there's no help for the less-than-fortunate.

Jesus fucking christ. 50% of the wealth is concentrated by the top 1%. Theres a reason most dont pay income taxes. That doesnt mean they dont pay taxes period. Sales tax, S.S., Medicare, property(if they have any to their name, or its reflected in the rent to offset the owners who do pay it) etc.

 

[Evolved1]

people do it at dinner all the time, it's not really a hard thing to figure out.

Yeah... and how many billions is your dinner tab? Holy fuck.

 

[Princess Carl]

Absolutely nowhere did I say that they should be treated MORE FAVORABLY.

They should be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE !!!

but they arent being treated like everyone else. Thats the problem. They are being treated like people that have enormous amounts of money in influence.

Enough money to corrupt a government run by the people into a government run by the few rich.

Everyone has the same responsibility. But everyone doesnt get treated the same. The top 1% get treated better, go figure.

 

[Fei]

Jesus fucking christ. 50% of the wealth is concentrated by the top 1%. Theres a reason most dont pay income taxes. That doesnt mean they dont pay taxes period. Sales tax, S.S., Medicare, property(if they have any to their name, or its reflected in the rent to offset the owners who do pay it) etc.

Um, didn't I specify income tax? I make plenty and own a home, so I am well aware of where a decent chunk of my money goes.

 

[Zaptruder]

People should watch this as a primer before arguing with libertarians...

http://justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=10

Their fundamental premise is appealing, but ultimately deceptive.

In essence, the libetarian argument is a giant strawman; a deliberate reframing of the economic issue as one of self ownership, when the reality of taxes is that they're a reflection of indirect costs required for social economic activity. They are in essence a cost of doing business, be it by providing goods or by services.

You ARE free to own yourself. You are free to choose whether to interact with society on an economic basis or not. But if you do, just realise that there are many costs that need to be covered that would be inconvenient at best to collect from the individual, impossible (thus rendering the service impossible to provide) at worst. The services that the government and nation as a whole provide run that gamut.

It's pretty evident how broken the libertarian argument is when you watch that guy in the video arguing about how taxation equates to slavery. Except you know... the whole choice of working and actually getting money out of it thing.

As an example, just so I'm not been wishy washy about it: Roads are in nearly all instances (with exceptions been driveways, parking lots, etc) a public service. If they were a privatized service, you'd either end up paying tolls at every intersection change, where the ownership of the road changed, or pay exorbitant rates to monopolies.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Cherry picking some middle-of-the-road contentious issues as examples of the ills of big government doesn't really do anything to support your position... I'm assuming you're quite a bit more extreme -- well beyond quibbling over reefer and marriage rights. I don't know to what extent exactly (you nutters come in so many flavors) but it's probably some fucking overly-romanticized fringe ideology.

Sure you've heard this before, but government does more than infringe on people's rights... you know what, fuck it... same shit different day. You don't matter. Time for bed.

They were used to highlight the hypocrisy of my liberal friends. Forgive me for not using some obscure issue to seem more intelligent, it wouldn't even apply - my liberal friends know only of what they see on television.

(you nutters come in so many flavors)

Admittedly true.

but it's probably some fucking overly-romanticized fringe ideology

It happens to be the ideology of the largest American third party, not that it matters much. Two-party systems suck

You don't matter.

Also true.

Time for bed.

Aww, just a little bit longer?

 

[ronito]

I get sick of arguing with both sides, I know so many people on both of them. Rich people don't get poor people, and poor people don't get rich people.

On the contrary my good chap, I can get as many poor people as I want. I say, they're rather cheap with this so called "recession"

 

[Princess Carl]

On the contrary my good chap, I can get as many poor people as I want. I say, they're rather cheap with this so called "recession"

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Vast Inspiration]

serioujsly, there should be a flat tax. and i don't mean a flat %age, i mean a flat dollar value. take the budget, divide by the amount of elegible taxpayers, that that's what everyone pays. that would be fair, everyone pays their own equal share.

Give me a fucking break. I'm not rich - in fact, I'm pretty goddamn poor. College does that to a guy. But even I can see what a crock of shit that is. If I were rich, I'd be pissed as hell about my money's redistribution. It's not about the value of the money, or how much I would still have afterwards, it's the basic concepts of freedom and capitalism. It's my fucking money.

What makes you think the rich have any "responsibility" to the middle and lower classes? Fucking bullshit.

It doesn't matter if they're shitty people or not. It's still their money. Welcome to America, a country built on the principle that people can choose to live their lives as they please and not have to worry about the government or anyone else taking away their shit.

tl;dr: Income tax is BS

You kids are so fucking naive, it pains me to read this. Honestly, this shit is so so wrong that it depresses me that people like you will go into the workforce. I hope with every fibre of my being that none of you (and your ilk) ever have any serious say in policy making.

There are a million things I can write and say on this topic (and I have in real life). But I'll say this simply, go look at the Human Development Index and see what the countries on top have in common.

You don't even need your BS ideological world. Just go look at what parts of the world are considered the best places to live in RIGHT NOW, and see what they have in common.

 

[demon]

Absolutely nowhere did I say that they should be treated MORE FAVORABLY.

They should be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE !!!

But they're not "just like everyone else". They're a tiny percentage of the population that controls the vast majority of wealth and holds massive influence over our government.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i really dont see this logic. You should tell those people getting mad to stop what they are doing and live on those housing projects' income and live there.

Im sorry but i am much mored angered by what i see in Washington today. Thats more sickening than any less fortunate person doing anything they can to survive.

yeah, that's what i say, and usually, there's no real comeback other than "it's still wrong..."

 

[Princess Carl]

yeah, that's what i say, and usually, there's no real comeback other than "it's still wrong..."

They are right, it is wrong. But is morally right to live right and not by what others do.

*insert bridge jumping adage here

 

[Timedog]

I'm pretty sure the faceless master is trolling. The country would cease to exist after a very short time under his plan. I'm pulling it out of my ass but I doubt the money accrued from his plan would even cover a fraction of the interest on the national debt during the year, let alone leave a functional, working government.

At a flat tax of 1000 per person, 1/3 aren't going to have money to pay, leaving 1000 * 200 million = 200 billion

This is far below our yearly interest payments on our debt. As the dollars per individual amount goes up, marginal tax revenue rate slows down as a higher percentage of people don't or can't pay. If people cant pay do we punish them? If we have no funds available, how do we pay for prisons/courts/police to enforce nonpayment laws? If we dont enforce these laws why would the ones that can afford to pay, pay? It would not be in their self interest to support a country based off a failing economic model.

This is INCREDIBLY oversimplifying things but it serves to debunk the 3rd grade logic behind your idea. Maybe if the country had a population of 50 and was the size of a tiny village it could work.

 

[The Faceless Master]

You kids are so fucking naive, it pains me to read this. Honestly, this shit is so so wrong that it depresses me that people like you will go into the workforce. I hope with every fibre of my being that none of you (and your ilk) ever have any serious say in policy making.

There are a million things I can write and say on this topic (and I have in real life). But I'll say this simply, go look at the Human Development Index and see what the countries on top have in common.

You don't even need your BS ideological world. Just go look at what parts of the world are considered the best places to live in RIGHT NOW, and see what they have in common.

how old are you? and yes, you can use fingers AND toes to count...

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

There are a million things I can write and say on this topic (and I have in real life). But I'll say this simply, go look at the Human Development Index and see what the countries on top have in common.

You don't even need your BS ideological world. Just go look at what parts of the world are considered the best places to live in RIGHT NOW, and see what they have in common.

1 - Please don't lump me in with The Faceless Master.

2 - Being considered the best place to live in the world right now is not the equivalent of being the best possible place to live. The "BS ideological" world I speak of has not yet seen the light of existence, so judging its merits with those of established systems could be considered a tad excessive.

You kids are so fucking naive, it pains me to read this. Honestly, this shit is so so wrong that it depresses me that people like you will go into the workforce. I hope with every fibre of my being that none of you (and your ilk) ever have any serious say in policy making.

Let's try an exercise here: When engaging in reasoned debate, try not to be so blatantly obvious with your uncontrollable hate and vitriol. Also, it would would be best if you didn't wish my ilk and I failure in our country.

 

[Evolved1]

how old are you? and yes, you can use fingers AND toes to count...

Last person who should be making jokes about counting...

 

[The Faceless Master]

I'm pretty sure the faceless master is trolling. The country would cease to exist after a very short time under his plan. I'm pulling it out of my ass but I doubt the money accrued from his plan would even cover a fraction of the interest on the national debt during the year, let alone leave a functional, working government.

At a flat tax of 1000 per person, 1/3 aren't going to have money to pay, leaving 1000 * 200 million = 200 billion

This is far below our yearly interest payments on our debt. As the dollars per individual amount goes up, marginal tax revenue rate slows down as a higher percentage of people don't or can't pay. If people cant pay do we punish them? If we have no funds available, how do we pay for prisons/courts/police to enforce nonpayment laws? If we dont enforce these laws why would the ones that can afford to pay, pay? It would not be in their self interest to support a country based off a failing economic model.

This is INCREDIBLY oversimplifying things but it serves to debunk the 3rd grade logic behind your idea. Maybe if the country had a population of 50 and was the size of a tiny village it could work.

pretty sure you can go to jail for tax evasion if you .. well, evade paying taxes.

 

[Timedog]

1 - Please don't lump me in with The Faceless Master.

2 - Being considered the best place to live in the world right now is not the equivalent of being the best possible place to live. The "BS ideological" world I speak of has not yet seen the light of existence, so judging its merits with those of established systems could be considered a tad excessive.

What are your thoughts on the viability, not the morality, of communism?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Last person who should be making jokes about counting...

i used to be pretty good at math when i was in school!

 

[Timedog]

pretty sure you can go to jail for tax evasion if you .. well, evade paying taxes.

:lol :lol :lol

You didn't understand a word of what I wrote.

 

[Yaweee]

While I support a progressive tax system, some of its supporters ITT are so irritating at playing the victim. The fact is (on topic) 47% of the public didn't pay income tax last year. Don't tell me there's no help for the less-than-fortunate.

Basically, this.


It's very easy to construe the statistics in any which way to garner sympathy for some group, but a highly progressive tax system is the only way that works. You can't have the poorest 90% of the country pay 90% of the taxes, because they just flat out don't have enough wealth to do that.

Still, I disagree with the vilification of the wealthy that often goes on these threads. With few exceptions, people get wealthy through legal and fair means.


EDIT:
Also, the Flat Tax debate in this thread is a cluster fuck. It almost never is a flat dollar amount (except in the psych ward where The Faceless Master lives), and most systems aren't even perfectly flat. The first X dollars earned are tax free, and everything above that point is taxed at a set rate, making it a slightly progressive system. Depending on that cutoff and the slope, it can lower the rates most pay while eliminating the loopholes abused by the wealthy. However, there's not a chance in hell it will ever pass.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

how old are you? and yes, you can use fingers AND toes to count...

I called you a kid because of your extremely rudimentary grasp on the real world and how ridiculously bad your logical reasoning was. I don't really care for how old you actually may be (I'm hoping you're in your [early] teens). Read what Timedog wrote for more clarification.

This is INCREDIBLY oversimplifying things but it serves to debunk the 3rd grade logic behind your idea. Maybe if the country had a population of 50 and was the size of a tiny village it could work.

 

[eznark]

Should be 100%

 

[Jonm1010]

i used to be pretty good at math when i was in school!

Did that come at the expense of skipping reading class?:lol

 

[The Faceless Master]

I called you a kid because of your extremely rudimentary grasp on the real world and how ridiculously bad your logical reasoning was. I don't really care for how old you actually may be (I'm hoping you're in your [early] teens). Read what Timedog wrote for more clarification.

maybe you should read the thread.

 

[surrogate]

serioujsly, there should be a flat tax. and i don't mean a flat %age, i mean a flat dollar value. take the budget, divide by the amount of elegible taxpayers, that that's what everyone pays. that would be fair, everyone pays their own equal share.

You do realize that would work out to around $10k for every man, woman, and child? Much higher if you exclude children, retired people, ect. Perhaps you should set an example for the rest of us by sending the government the difference between what you pay and your "equal share" next tax season.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

Still, I disagree with the vilification of the wealthy that often goes on these threads. With few exceptions, people get wealthy through legal and fair means.

You actually have no real data whatsoever, so don't say "with few exceptions".
While holding back laughter (and tears), I'll give you legal.
But you have no idea what the word "fair" means. That is a topic and which academics can write 10,000 word essays. Believe me, if 95% of the world knew exactly how the top 5% of the people earned their money, they would NEVER use the word "fair" to describe it.

 

[The Faceless Master]

You do realize that would work out to around $10k for every man, woman, and child? Much higher if you exclude children, retired people, ect. Perhaps you should set an example for the rest of us by sending the government the difference between what you pay and your "equal share" next tax season.

considering i said "eligible taxpayers", i'd say it's pretty clear that i don't mean "every man, woman and child".

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

What are your thoughts on the viability, not the morality, of communism?

It's hard to give an assessment for such a broad ideology - hundreds of factors specific to single countries may have a huge influence on the success of Communism. But for the sake of argument, I think Communism is absolutely viable under the right conditions.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Did that come at the expense of skipping reading class?:lol

 

[Yaweee]

You actually have no real data whatsoever, so don't say "with few exceptions".
While holding back laughter (and tears), I'll give you legal.
But you have no idea what the word "fair" means. That is a topic and which academics can write 10,000 word essays. Believe me, if 95% of the world knew exactly how the top 5% of the people earned their money, they would NEVER use the word "fair" to describe it.

I'd really like to hear your argument. The top 5% in the US is around 15 million people, and I'm having difficulty imagining that many people are gaming the system to extreme wealth. Outside of monopolies, economic exchange is "fair" in my book.

As to the bolded, that just makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.

 

[Cloudy]

They still pay state/local and payroll taxes. What else do you want from the less fortunate? Blood?