Do rich people pay taxes?

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I hear you that you are thinking big picture and trying to untangle the interconnected issues; tough work. I disagree with your logic, but also know that you are smart enough that I might be wrong.

First, I would say that I do not agree with legislating morality, especially based on someone else's morals.

Secondly, I am not sure that you can advocate the reduction of inequality by actively legislating inequality. Simply put, I am not a fan of creating laws that say I am not equal to you and do not deserve equal protections.

Maybe we could just get everyone to keep their morality to themselves and act ethically towards each other? Nah, probably not...

ETA: I agree that income has little to do with productivity. I personally contribute almost nothing to society while I "earn" more money than seems appropriate. I do not agree that their should be some linear relationship between the two... I just don't see the logic that dictates that it must be so.

GameboyRMH said:

...which leads directly to boat, small aircraft, and luxury car manufacturers going out of business or reducing employee counts when sales inevitably dip.It's happened before.

To extend on my moral argument in my previous post, there are some things that I think it's wrong for an individual person to be able to afford.

Wow.  I don't want to live in your world.  I think I will leave this discussion now, before I make it uninhabitable for the rest of you.  Carry on, everybody.

I don't like any tax systems that promotes sitting on ones laurels. Whether that's someone who's poor and has given up on joining the workforce and sucks up the social welfare of others, or a rich kid who got a hand-me-down empire who considers traveling the world and posting it on instagram as a job. Taxes and welfare should be relative to ones input and value to society. 

pheller said:

 Taxes and welfare should be relative to ones input and value to society. 

I am sincerely listening... Why?

I regularly hear people criticize “rich” folks about not paying enough taxes. If they have the $$ to hire good accountants who LEGALLY have them paying less taxes,  i have no prob with it. If its illegal, then sure, tear em up. 

Also as for loosecannons comments and his being in Canada, my family that loved to talk up Canada for the “FREE” stuff, healthcare mainly, got a nice eye opener when we visited. Sister was getting married there, her (now ex) husbands mom lived there and was dying of cancer, real ugly. Sis that loved to champion the Canadian healthcare system accidently mentioned that her mom in law had to have supplimental insurance to get the treatment she needed and was pretty much going broke for it. So much for free. Then a trip to the liquor store, haha, 25$ of beer in the states was 40-50$, cheapest bottle of whisky, 20$ in the states was about 40-50$ if i remember right, told the family, HERES YOUR FREE STUFF! The house we stayed at was a small farm. Owners mower was a decent husqvarna, big box store one, maybe 2k in the states. It still had the price tag on it, was like 4500$. Crazy. 

at the time the canadian dollar was within pennies of the us dollar. 

tb said:

pheller said:

 Taxes and welfare should be relative to ones input and value to society. 

 

 

I am sincerely listening... Why?

To encourage input and value to society?...

Pretty much how the tax code is "supposed" to be setup anyway (rewarding, or not punishing people for doing "good" or "required" things).

GameboyRMH said:

SVreX said:

Flat tax does not mean the same tax on all products. It means everyone pays the same tax on the same products. 

A flat tax could easily also be progressive. 

For example, if groceries and clothing were taxed at 0%, most consumer products were taxed at 15%, luxury boats, cars and planes were taxed at 35%, and vices were taxed at 75%, we would instantly have a progressive flat tax system. The rich and the poor would all pay the same tax rate, but we could direct the progressiveness by the products selected. Most of us would pay 15% on the majority of our purchases except groceries.

It would NOT be a greater impact on the poor.

Progressive tax rates and flat tax are NOT mutually exclusive. 

OK, fair point. Although this tax system is getting rather complicated, and wasn't the point of the flat tax to be simple?

I don't think it complicated at all. Regardless of the breakdown, it could be summarized on a 3x5 card. Not 70,000 pages. 

The most important aspect is not simplicity. It's fair taxation, point of purchase collection, and the ability to tax people for their consumption (which completely eliminates discrepancies like income vs wealth). 

If I make ALL my money from a trust fund, I'd still pay when I consumed. No one would care any more about capital gains tax rates, deductions, etc. 

If I make my money from drug sales, prostitution, or even human trafficking, I'd still pay tax at the moment if consumption. 

Government would collect taxes through existing POs systems. Every accountant and tax collector could be reallocated to more productive societal uses. 

If a consumer is unable to consume very much (poor), they would not pay much in taxes. 

Its just better. 

I'll add to the suggested reading list:

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

It is quick and easy to digest

In reply to z31maniac :

Flat Federal sales tax, not flat income tax. 

Enyar said:

SVreX said:

Flat tax does not mean the same tax on all products. It means everyone pays the same tax on the same products. 

A flat tax could easily also be progressive. 

For example, if groceries and clothing were taxed at 0%, most consumer products were taxed at 15%, luxury boats, cars and planes were taxed at 35%, and vices were taxed at 75%, we would instantly have a progressive flat tax system. The rich and the poor would all pay the same tax rate, but we could direct the progressiveness by the products selected. Most of us would pay 15% on the majority of our purchases except groceries.

It would NOT be a greater impact on the poor.

Progressive tax rates and flat tax are NOT mutually exclusive. 

You want to know how you move manufacturing offshore? This way.

 

I suspect a mass exodus of luxury cars, boats and planes to non US jurisdictions. It would be a win win for the anyone making even just a little money. Less taxes, mo money for the rich...the government loses.

I don't see how a flat sales tax would move a single job. All manufacturers products  (both foreign and domestic) would have taxes paid at the point of sale, not based on anyone's income. 

aircooled said:

tb said:

pheller said:

 Taxes and welfare should be relative to ones input and value to society. 

 

 

I am sincerely listening... Why?

To encourage input and value to society?...

Pretty much how the tax code is "supposed" to be setup anyway (rewarding, or not punishing people for doing "good" or "required" things).

Ok, i respect your view. Personally, I do not support that purpose. I am not in support of other people judging my value to society, nor weighing my input, and deciding my fate based on their morals. I don't feel compelled to do anything, for anyone beyond my own free will and do not stand extortion lightly.

tb said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I hear you that you are thinking big picture and trying to untangle the interconnected issues; tough work. I disagree with your logic, but also know that you are smart enough that I might be wrong.

 

First, I would say that I do not agree with legislating morality, especially based on someone else's morals.

 

Secondly, I am not sure that you can advocate the reduction of inequality by actively legislating inequality. Simply put, I am not a fan of creating laws that say I am not equal to you and do not deserve equal protections.

 

Maybe we could just get everyone to keep their morality to themselves and act ethically towards each other? Nah, probably not...

You're right that I'm advocating legislating morality. All societies do it to a degree on issues the people can mostly agree on, generally deciding that murder, theft, fraud etc. are wrong and should be illegal for example. It's not a bad thing in moderation.

Anything but a flat tax is "actively legislating inequality" in the tax system, but having seen the real-world inequality that results from equal-ish treatment of people on tax forms, I'm very much ready to accept that as the lesser evil. And we're only treating people differently based on how much money they make in a year, that's not an immutable trait, or even really about the person so much as some dollars.

Ethics have a moral basis, if not they would be uselessly misguided, you can't completely separate the two.

tb said:

pheller said:

 Taxes and welfare should be relative to ones input and value to society. 

 

 

I am sincerely listening... Why?

It's impossible to gauge people's input to society, and support services would suffer. 

I manage a medical facility. Doctors here treat cancer- one of the most profitable treatment centers in the country. 

No one could argue that these Doctors contribute greatly to society. But you could take away 1, 3, or even 10 of them, and we'd still be treating cancer. 

Take away my janitorial staff, and I promise the place would shut down in just a few days. 

SVreX said:

GameboyRMH said:

SVreX said:

Flat tax does not mean the same tax on all products. It means everyone pays the same tax on the same products. 

A flat tax could easily also be progressive. 

For example, if groceries and clothing were taxed at 0%, most consumer products were taxed at 15%, luxury boats, cars and planes were taxed at 35%, and vices were taxed at 75%, we would instantly have a progressive flat tax system. The rich and the poor would all pay the same tax rate, but we could direct the progressiveness by the products selected. Most of us would pay 15% on the majority of our purchases except groceries.

It would NOT be a greater impact on the poor.

Progressive tax rates and flat tax are NOT mutually exclusive. 

OK, fair point. Although this tax system is getting rather complicated, and wasn't the point of the flat tax to be simple?

I don't think it complicated at all. Regardless of the breakdown, it could be summarized on a 3x5 card. Not 70,000 pages. 

The most important aspect is not simplicity. It's fair taxation, point of purchase collection, and the ability to tax people for their consumption (which completely eliminates discrepancies like income vs wealth). 

If I make ALL my money from a trust fund, I'd still pay when I consumed. No one would care any more about capital gains tax rates, deductions, etc. 

If I make my money from drug sales, prostitution, or even human trafficking, I'd still pay tax at the moment if consumption. 

Government would collect taxes through existing POs systems. Every accountant and tax collector could be reallocated to more productive societal uses. 

If a consumer is unable to consume very much (poor), they would not pay much in taxes. 

Its just better. 

But then the rich could just fly elsewhere, do all their shopping there and live like kings. What happens when the economy tanks and no one is spending? We just stop running the government because we don't have tax revenues?

In reply to jj :

He's probably talking about effective tax rates and not marginal rates.

In reply to SVreX :

So now we're requiring Gamefisherman, a Costa Rican sport fishing boat manufacturer to collect sales tax for purchases to US citizens and then they have to remit that to the US Gov?

tb said:

ETA: I agree that income has little to do with productivity. I personally contribute almost nothing to society while I "earn" more money than seems appropriate. I do not agree that their should be some linear relationship between the two... I just don't see the logic that dictates that it must be so.

There's only a little logic to it, I'll try to explain it here: Society requires people's work to function, therefore rewards should be tied to work to encourage the good functioning of society. It doesn't need people to be famous or noble or even to be able to control huge amounts of money single-handedly, so I don't think it's important to reward those traits.

Now my challenge is, if rewards should not be tied to work, then what would be a better thing to tie it to?

jj said:

frenchyd said:

so let’s assume you make 800 million dollars this year.  If you do your taxes correctly you can qualify for food stamps or welfare!!  Technically you aren’t in the top percentage.  

Do you have a source for this statement?  I live in a mobile home, but make way to much to get food stamps.

 

*Spoiler Alert* - He does not.

GameboyRMH said:

tb said:

ETA: I agree that income has little to do with productivity. I personally contribute almost nothing to society while I "earn" more money than seems appropriate. I do not agree that their should be some linear relationship between the two... I just don't see the logic that dictates that it must be so.

There's only a little logic to it, I'll try to explain it here: Society requires people's work to function, therefore rewards should be tied to work to encourage the good functioning of society. It doesn't need people to be famous or noble or even to be able to control huge amounts of money single-handedly, so I don't think it's important to reward those traits.

Now my challenge is, if rewards should not be tied to work, then what would be a better thing to tie it to?

I get where you're coming from, I just don't think you should legislate your way into deciding how rich someone should be or what toys they should have. If people were smarter we would be taking advantage of a system already in place to control this now. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS PEOPLE!!!

I believe a Doctor should pay less taxes than a professional football player. Under a certain amount, it shouldn't matter, therefore a Janitor shouldn't be taxed and differently than a fast food worker. 

It goes back to previously mentioned idea of how people can get rich creating value from nothing, while legit business owners who employ hundreds, pay good wages and offer good benefits struggle to retire. I think there is something wrong with that.

I still like idea of corporate taxes based on average employee salary relative to CEO and Profits. If employees are making good money and have good benefits, a company should pay lower taxes. If I make millions but employ no-one (or employ people overseas), I should pay higher taxes. It's flawed, I'm sure, but it makes sense in my head.

SVreX said:

It's impossible to gauge people's input to society, and support services would suffer. 

I manage a medical facility. Doctors here treat cancer- one of the most profitable treatment centers in the country. 

No one could argue that these Doctors contribute greatly to society. But you could take away 1, 3, or even 10 of them, and we'd still be treating cancer. 

Take away my janitorial staff, and I promise the place would shut down in just a few days. 

Excellent point. If we're not going to let the free market do as it will, how should we decide what people should make? But let's be clear, the free market's decisions are very much made by people, especially in employee pay, within the bounds of the current rules (which are so loose that it seems like an unrestricted "free market" decision).

The way I see it, with an earnest attempt to honestly estimate what a person's work is worth, we can't do worse than the free market. The free market would put almost all of us in slums and create an uberclass of idle space royalty if left to its own devices (as we can see by example from different times and places).

So the "acceptable income range" I mentioned was one idea humans could use to take a stab at it. What's this employee worth from 1 to 10? 10 for most awesome, 1 for most basic. Choose, defend, debate. If the people at the top of the range want to make more, they have to pay the people at the bottom more, so a rising tide must lift all boats. Sounds like an improvement to me.

Enyar said:

I get where you're coming from, I just don't think you should legislate your way into deciding how rich someone should be or what toys they should have. If people were smarter we would be taking advantage of a system already in place to control this now. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS PEOPLE!!!

What's a practical alternative to legislation? Not one that requires me to vote with my wallet so that I have to live like the Unabomber to carry it out in my attempt to boycott every company with an overpaid CEO. That's so impractical that at scale, it's impossible.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Well said, thanks. I think we disagree on some key points but I am learning to accept the "lesser of two evils" argument as helpful, if imperfect.

It is interesting that I am also thinking about immutable traits, like how I am the same person now as 39 years ago. I am not convinced that my income is a suitable metric to use in order to treat me differently on an annual basis... The annual basis makes a little sense but I still have not been told why income inequality should equal legal inequality. If we taxed people based on height you and I would either be in trouble or doing really well, depending...

If it is all about dollars made, Why? There is much more to life than numbers on a sheet of paper...

SVreX said:

 

....It's impossible to gauge people's input to society, and support services would suffer....days. 

That's always the rub, isn't it.  Maybe a reasonable idea, but quantifying "input to society" gets tricky, and would likely move into opinion, which of course opens up potential abuse / manipulation.

But, as noted, the tax code already does this...  ... but as this thread is indicating, not many are entirely OK with the way it is setup now.

GameboyRMH said:

tb said:

ETA: I agree that income has little to do with productivity. I personally contribute almost nothing to society while I "earn" more money than seems appropriate. I do not agree that their should be some linear relationship between the two... I just don't see the logic that dictates that it must be so.

There's only a little logic to it, I'll try to explain it here: Society requires people's work to function, therefore rewards should be tied to work to encourage the good functioning of society. It doesn't need people to be famous or noble or even to be able to control huge amounts of money single-handedly, so I don't think it's important to reward those traits.

Now my challenge is, if rewards should not be tied to work, then what would be a better thing to tie it to?

First thought is simple... just eliminate rewards and the challenge is negated quite neatly