FlightOfHeaven said:
I wouldn't say that they are trying to focus the system on them. They are just trying to make things slightly more balanced. A wage earner gives 36%. A capital income earner gives 15%, and that's not counting various methods of legally lowering or avoiding taxation. That's a bit low, numerically. I'd say raising it to 20% or 25% would be re-balancing things.
Why bother? Just tax the different types of income equally and be done with it, but don't have different percentages on income just because of how much you earn.
I can agree with this sentiment. Too bad there isn't a system where you can opt in or out of these programs, although that could get tricky with things like universal healthcare and the like.
It would be better to be able to opt in or out of certain programs, but best of all would be the government returning to it's mandates.
Oh. Thanks for clarifying. So basic mandates (that justify taxation) would be things like public transportation, police force, (in my view!) healthcare, and the like? Things that do not justify taxation would be umm, things not used by the taxee that the government creates, espouses, or employs.
Essentially, yes (and thank you for clarifying that UHC is your view so I don't have to jump on it right now).
No, wait, it'd be things that the government does not directly control or influence that the taxee has done. Or a mixture of the two? I'm just trying to get what you're coming from.
If we have to have a basic level of taxation (rather than things like excise taxes/tariffs in addition to fines and such for law breaking and user fees such as gas tax and even a limited sales tax) then it should be the same for everyone across the board. However, ideally the government should only charge for services they directly perform, yes. That means little to no research funded by the government (though if was reforming the current system that'd be one of my later cuts), no funding for the arts by the federal government, no department of education (because that should be controlled by the states, not the feds), etc. There's a LOT that goes beyond the government's mandate to protect us from threats at home and abroad (and no, that doesn't justifying occupying a country and having foreign military bases), engaging in diplomacy, coining money, enforcing contracts, etc.
So, income taxes and capital gains taxes would be gone, since they are based on things created and worked for by the user, but things like sales taxes and gas taxes would stay because... I don't see how the government is involved in the transfer of goods from a company to a person. Perhaps I'm just thick. : (
The government's involvement is theoretically providing police protection for the product and ensuring that it reached you to be able to purchase it. It's also a user fee so you're not compelled to buy it if you don't wish to, it's not an obligatory charge.
The government is inefficient, sure. But I am inherently wary of all out capitalism, even if I am a big proponent of all the good it brings to the table. Capitalism is out for a profit, not the overall good of a country or a people, which means if a company can increase profits at the expense of a people and can perpetuate that abuse without any drawbacks, then it will.
The more efficiently a company handles a government contract the more money they're likely to earn (most companies put in bonuses for doing a job well faster), and the more likely they are to earn a similar contract for another job down the road. Similarly if they do a poor job there are plenty of companies willing to take over and do the job right. There's no such check on government inefficiency and ineptitude, it's extremely difficult to fire a bureaucrat.
As to your response to maynerd, if I may interject in that conversation, I believe that the problem manifests itself precisely when the differences in wage earning is great. The difference between two people earning 95000 and 99000 may not be much, in terms of taxation, because their salaries allow for them to afford basic necessities (in the U.S. basic necessities are a car, a house, and the ability to provide for yourself and your family). The taxation only cuts into their ability to engage in luxurious spending.
I'm with you so far.
Where as with someone that earns, say, 36000 a year, that 36000 might just barely cover living expenses, with few if any chances for luxury. Someone earning 20000 might not even have enough for living expenses, thus working two jobs to make ends meet. So a flat tax might affect someone earning a lower wage because it'll directly cut into the base amount they need to live.
Well, really, the way it would have to work is an income cut off, say 50k and under no taxes, beyond that you pay the same flat rate. Although I'm not sure that your comment about "luxury" is relevant, people aren't entitled to luxuries afterall.
In this scenario, I must include the following; I have taken into account that the people earning 95000 and 99000 probably live in better neighborhoods than those earning 36000 and 20000, and thus end up paying more for living expenses. Also, the fact of the matter that minimum wages, or lower wages, have not kept pace with costs of living.
If I'm wrong, please point it out! Thanks!
You're right up to the point that your remedy is flawed.
Also, yes, an income disparity is growing. I don't see that as a problem if everyone is earning more and doing bettter. And if the middle class is getting smaller by everyone making more I REALLY don't see the problem. Upward mobility is a GOOD thing.
