Tax Plan

[u8477]

Socialism Discussion

Here is your progressive tax plan, which, for any of you obamanots questioning my knowledge of socialism, should read thet communist manifesto, one of marx's ten planks of a socialist society, a progressive tax plan is one of them

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!'

shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Is this how we really feel towards the wealthy?

[Afrobean]

I came into this thread ready to get mad at you, but I find myself unable to.

I think taxes should be even across the board to be honest, proportionally, I mean. This is why I'm not fond of either of the two primary Presidential candidates. One wants to give too much favor to those at the bottom, one wants to give too much favor to those at the top. Rather than a "I'm gonna increase taxes for the rich" or "I'm not going to give tax breaks to the poor", why can't they just cut bull**** spending and give EVERYONE a nice fat relief?

Taking your example into my philosophy, all 10 fellows would pay 10 dollars each, and they would all get 2 dollars on 20% cut. For anyone that can't afford it: **** them. They don't deserve beer. Go get your free beer in Canada, you bastard.

ps I am totally serious. **** those freeloading bastards.

EDIT: I probably should have emphasized one thing a little more. Stop bull**** spending is of more importance in this philosophy than equality in taxing. Equal taxation is impossible as far as how expensive and bloated **** is.

[devonin]

The whole tax system is really interesting insofar as the harder you work, the more successful you are, the more you produce, the larger the percentage of your earnings you are obliged to give away to other people.

It actually indirectly encourages you to -stop- trying to work at all harder, to become any more successful once you reach an income where you can live at what you consider a reasonable level of comfort. Work harder, and even more of your profit gets taken away from you.

[TD_Project]

Originally Posted by devonin

Work harder, and even more of your profit gets taken away from you.

For the good of the society you live in. Socialism does not leave out the poor, making lives hell for the unfortunate. Sure it sucks getting more money taken when you earn more, but it's to give the money to people who need a chance to enter the workforce and strengthen the economy.

That would be in a perfect world, and it never exactly works out. Like communism. Good idea, horrible in practice.

Welcome to Canada.

[Clarissa_Rainbow]

Well it makes perfect sense though, if you pay the most for things, you should get back the most. If you pay for nothing, should you get back nothing... Now I can't entirely say that cause I understand it is extremely hard when your poor, but that starts going into morals, the logic of this makes perfect sense. Yes it'd be alot simpler if we all could get the same, but then every job would have to pay the same no matter how hard you work.... Which would cause alot of problems, and yeah it just wouldn't be good...

[devonin]

For the good of the society you live in. Socialism does not leave out the poor, making lives hell for the unfortunate. Sure it sucks getting more money taken when you earn more, but it's to give the money to people who need a chance to enter the workforce and strengthen the economy.

If you want to encourage people to actually put their full effort into achiveing and producing and bettering the world, punishing them for their success, more the more successful they are is the worst way to go about it.

Convince them that it is in their personal best interest to choose to be benevolent with their success and perhaps they will be. Telling me that it is my DUTY to give what I've earned and produced from my own abilities to someone who neither earned it, produced it, or intends to give me any kind of compensation whatsoever for it doesn't encourage me to work harder to produce more.

As much as I support social welfare programs and socialised institutions, I'm not blind to the sheer volume of abuse and outright theft in those systems is ALL OVER THE PLACE in Canada.

Welfare guarentees a minimum income to support your standard of living. As soon as you actually get gainful employment (Often for less money per year than welfare shells out) you are immidiately cut off from social support. As a result it is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST to do the absolute minimum amount of work to meet the requirements for welfare (Which includes that you demonstrate that you are at least looking for a job) and then to do your best to never ever get a job, never produce or earn ANYTHING because Welfare will give you a more profitable free ride.

Once the system starts to encourage and support incompetance, you're going to encourage competant people to stop trying.

[TD_Project]

Originally Posted by devonin

If you want to encourage people to actually put their full effort into achiveing and producing and bettering the world, punishing them for their success, more the more successful they are is the worst way to go about it.

Convince them that it is in their personal best interest to choose to be benevolent with their success and perhaps they will be. Telling me that it is my DUTY to give what I've earned and produced from my own abilities to someone who neither earned it, produced it, or intends to give me any kind of compensation whatsoever for it doesn't encourage me to work harder to produce more.

As much as I support social welfare programs and socialised institutions, I'm not blind to the sheer volume of abuse and outright theft in those systems is ALL OVER THE PLACE in Canada.

Welfare guarentees a minimum income to support your standard of living. As soon as you actually get gainful employment (Often for less money per year than welfare shells out) you are immidiately cut off from social support. As a result it is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST to do the absolute minimum amount of work to meet the requirements for welfare (Which includes that you demonstrate that you are at least looking for a job) and then to do your best to never ever get a job, never produce or earn ANYTHING because Welfare will give you a more profitable free ride.

Once the system starts to encourage and support incompetance, you're going to encourage competant people to stop trying.

Note the post being in a perfect world. On paper. Not in practice. The system is abused in practice. In a perfect world, we would be happy to give some money to help people get a better start, but as humans, we don't really care, and aren't motivated when we are at the bottom, aren't motivated to help when at the top

[devonin]

Should we be? If we got -up- to the top through hard work, effort, and skill, why shoudln't we be able to enjoy the fruits of that success without feeling obliged to help the people who either didn't work hard enough, didn't put in enough effort, or didn't have enough skill?

Bear in mind that I'm primarily playing devil's advocate here before you denounce me as a horrible person, I'm a lefty at heart despite having been upper-middle class pretty much my whole life, but you'll have to forgive me, I've been reading Ayn Rand, and she's nothing if not compelling in her arguments.

[TD_Project]

Well, you work hard to give people other chances in my argument.

Another random scenario. Rich boy/girl gets lucky in life and has rich family, all assets handed down to him when they pass on. Takes advantage of the money and hogs it to himself for constant parties, when could be used to help society a little bit.

Scenarios are scenarios, my argument being minded in a perfect world is still clear. But we already resolved that the world is far from perfect, corrupting the system.

[devonin]

So if your argument is one that you admit simply fails in reality, why are we disucssing it at all?

[u8477]

Originally Posted by devonin

So if your argument is one that you admit simply fails in reality, why are we disucssing it at all?

I am curious to know if this is how you actually feel or if you are just saying this stuff for arguments sake. If not, then I am happy to see there is SOMEONE who understands why socialism and Obama's tax plans won't work. It shouldn't be a crime to be rich. I shouldn't have to pay for lazy drop-outs because I studied hard and made something of myself.

Damnit.. I had more, but everyone distracts me and I lose my train of thought completely.. Well, stick with that thus far.

[kotorfanboy]

The idea of the rich paying more taxes only would work if the taxes do not increase too quickly as one's wealth increases.

The rich would still work hard if the money they make is not all wasted in taxes. Even though they would be making less money than if there was a set tax rate for all people, they are still make taking in more money (after taxes are taken out of income that is) than regular people for the amount of work put in.

Let's say a middle class worker gets a certain amount of tax money taken out of their paycheck. A rich worker may get four times as much money taken out by taxes, but he may make 16 times as much money. This validates the rich's incentive to work harder for more money. They may not get as much as under a different system, but at least they still get more.

The system only works if it doesn't lean too heavily on the rich's high taxes, if there is still incentive for the rich to work hard. The system only works if it is run like the in the above paragraph. Finding that perfect balance is a tough job, but that is what politicians should be striving to reach.

[devonin]

A rich worker may get four times as much money taken out by taxes, but he may make 16 times as much money.

Except that it works in the exact opposite way both currently and in most proposed methods of taxation. The more income you make, the higher the percentage of your income is taken in taxes. The logic tends to run along the lines of "You can't by that third porsche, so that a poor family has food to eat"

The thing is that income tax is pretty much straightforward theft of your property, just done in a way that convinces you to sanction it and let them take it. Whether that sanction is your moral duty to grant or not is the real subject of debate.

The government is telling you that it is for the common good that the more successful you are, the more of your property you ought to give to the unsuccessful.

[TD_Project]

I don't mean to try to justify both answers, but both sides of the argument are pretty solid. I can't see this discussion coming to a conclusion.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by TD_Project

I don't mean to try to justify both answers, but both sides of the argument are pretty solid. I can't see this discussion coming to a conclusion.

They are, but that's because the two sides of the argument have different valuation systems and ethics systems. One is utilitarian and the other is some pseudo-Kantian/Platonic hybrid. I guess what it would be about is one is about a utilitarian approach towards improving society, where the group takes precedence over the individual and the other is more leaned towards freedom, equality, and individualism. Now the reason you are willing to humor both sides of this argument is because you, like me, see that in different situations both sides of this argument hold some serious weight and strike a chord with something intrinsic to you.

The thing that has to be done is you have to decide what the goals of taxation are, what the goals of government are, and how you think we ought to prescribe policy. It's tough, but on a very basic fundamental level what you have to do is decide if you believe the philosophy is more important or the numbers are more important. It's not one or the other, it's just which one is more important.

The idea behind Progressive tax is that the marginal utility and value derived from dollars at the lower quintiles is much higher than marginal utility and value derived from extra dollars at the higher levels, and it is utilitarian in that sense. The government has musts and it wants to have a taxation scheme in which it takes an amount of money that each group can afford to lose in order to pay for those musts. Now this is not an argument about what the musts are, it's simply stating that they exist. Roads is a prime example of this, and very few people will be willing to dispute that roads are a government must so it's probably the best example.

The idea behind fair tax is that you should pay a flat tax rate or pay based on the amount of unessential goods you consume. That each of us should be equally responsible for the public musts, and that the burden should not be shared unequally. That it is the responsibility of all of us.

[AOD_ELEMENT]

this was a good ass thread true besides the part where they might go over seas. i doubt people would leave because of the taxes because the tax isnt being raised a ridiculous amount.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by AOD_ELEMENT

this was a good ass thread true besides the part where they might go over seas. i doubt people would leave because of the taxes because the tax isnt being raised a ridiculous amount.

You may think this, but the people the tax is being raised on are much, much richer than you, and their mobility is high, and to them making 5% less a year may be grounds for leaving. I'm not saying this is widely true, but I'm certain some people will leave.

[lumphoboextreme]

i say the tax systems are horrible. someone who has busted their ass their entire life basically has to pay 35% of their income to federal tax while some high school drop out drug addict is only paying 10%. everyone should just pay their 15% and if you don't make enough money just think back at how you blew off highschool and didn't do much of anything. also why do you think the economy is crashing right now? it's because we're taxing the hell out of the business owners and the wealthiest people. quite a shame how people have lost their life savings and can't send their kids to college or even retire. i haven't really been following then election at all but whoever wins will probably continue the same tax plan and just drive america into the ground. it really sucks that all of us americans will be paying off what bush screwed up in taxes for the rest of our lives.

[u8477]

Originally Posted by lumphoboextreme

i say the tax systems are horrible. someone who has busted their ass their entire life basically has to pay 35% of their income to federal tax while some high school drop out drug addict is only paying 10%. everyone should just pay their 15% and if you don't make enough money just think back at how you blew off highschool and didn't do much of anything. also why do you think the economy is crashing right now? it's because we're taxing the hell out of the business owners and the wealthiest people. quite a shame how people have lost their life savings and can't send their kids to college or even retire. i haven't really been following then election at all but whoever wins will probably continue the same tax plan and just drive america into the ground. it really sucks that all of us americans will be paying off what bush screwed up in taxes for the rest of our lives.

Bush didn't start this. This entire charade has been going on for years. But if you are talking about the economy crashing, that is not Bush's fault, either. As President, it is not in your hands how the economy is doing. Want to know who's hands it is in? Community Organizers, like Obama (his ONLY "experience"), who go down and bitch and moan to get loans out to the poor people. They bug the banks and send letters, show signs and make threats about the banks to give out these loans until the banks finally give in.

Once the banks give in, they hand out these loans to people who will never be able to repay them. Most likely, this money will be spent away and never made up for. So, as a result, the economy starts to crash.

**** this. Here's exactly what I am saying, but with more information.

http://blip.tv/file/1367906

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by lumphoboextreme

i say the tax systems are horrible. someone who has busted their ass their entire life basically has to pay 35% of their income to federal tax while some high school drop out drug addict is only paying 10%. everyone should just pay their 15% and if you don't make enough money just think back at how you blew off highschool and didn't do much of anything. also why do you think the economy is crashing right now? it's because we're taxing the hell out of the business owners and the wealthiest people. quite a shame how people have lost their life savings and can't send their kids to college or even retire. i haven't really been following then election at all but whoever wins will probably continue the same tax plan and just drive america into the ground. it really sucks that all of us americans will be paying off what bush screwed up in taxes for the rest of our lives.

Progressive taxation is not the reason the economy is failing. It's not even a factor in it. Not even a little. The economy failing has to do with either poorly done or missing regulation and inability to determine risk, not taxes.