[Irviding]

QUOTE

Capital gains taxes right now are slightly progressive (the very, very poor don't have to pay capital gains, which I like), but even then they are way too high (especially for the lower/middle class who make only a little bit off of their investments anyways). Lower/middle class people will soon be paying capital gains tax rates that are going to be 20%! Considering their investment potential is already reduced through inflation and taxes already paid, that extra 20% tax on their meager investments is a kick in the teeth for people who are struggling to get by. It's not like the taxes collected from the lower brackets are that much anyways, so reducing it down to zero wouldn't be a big deficit burden, but it would help the lower/middle class improve their lives through a bigger retirement and/or a larger amount of supplemental income through dividends. Can we at least agree that a reduction of the capital gains tax rates for the lower income brackets would be beneficial?

Yes. I can agree with that.

Leftcoast, why shouldn't the very rich pay a higher amount? Say we had a flat tax on EVERYONE at 15%. There is no shared burden there. A poor family earning around 30,000 a year has a whopping 4,500 dollars taken from them, whereas my father who earns slightly over 275,000 dollars, has 41,000 dollars taken from him. How is that fair at all if the poor family bringing in 30k has to make all these sacrifices and hardly afford clothes, and probably can't even pay for a car, where the rich person loses nothing and can still afford tons of luxuries? I'm not saying we shouldn't have an upper class and we should have 99% tax rates on the very wealthy to bring them down to the level of everyone else, but a flat tax is so completely and totally flawed for that reason.

[sivispacem]

How about a flat tax system with a personal allowance? Say, you pay no tax on the first $20,000 you earn and a flat 17.5% on everything else? That keeps lower incomes out of the tax system entirely, gives middle-income earners a reasonable proportion of their income tax-free and the more you earn, the less the tax-free allowance comprises as part of their income and therefore the more real-World tax they pay. Theoretically, it should help mitigate tax avoidance as it puts everyone on a level playing field and doesn't automatically penalise success.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 04:00)

How about a flat tax system with a personal allowance? Say, you pay no tax on the first $20,000 you earn and a flat 17.5% on everything else? That keeps lower incomes out of the tax system entirely, gives middle-income earners a reasonable proportion of their income tax-free and the more you earn, the less the tax-free allowance comprises as part of their income and therefore the more real-World tax they pay. Theoretically, it should help mitigate tax avoidance as it puts everyone on a level playing field and doesn't automatically penalise success.

That falls disproportionately on the middle class though. I really don't see how higher taxes equal penalizing success. It's simple fairness. Everyone should be burdened equally here. The idea you have allows a millionaire to pay the same tac percentage as a middle class family.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 11:31)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 04:00) How about a flat tax system with a personal allowance? Say, you pay no tax on the first $20,000 you earn and a flat 17.5% on everything else? That keeps lower incomes out of the tax system entirely, gives middle-income earners a reasonable proportion of their income tax-free and the more you earn, the less the tax-free allowance comprises as part of their income and therefore the more real-World tax they pay. Theoretically, it should help mitigate tax avoidance as it puts everyone on a level playing field and doesn't automatically penalise success. That falls disproportionately on the middle class though. I really don't see how higher taxes equal penalizing success. It's simple fairness. Everyone should be burdened equally here. The idea you have allows a millionaire to pay the same tac percentage as a middle class family.

I suppose it depends where you establiah the boundaries of "upper", "middle" and "lower" class. To "British-ise" the example (and set the tax rate at 15% for ease of calculation), someone on an average income of £26,000 would pay only £400 a year in tax (1.5% of income), with anyone below that being basically exempt. Someone with an income of £75,000 would pay around £3,700 (4.9% of income) and someone on £250,000 would pay around £15,500 (6.2% of income). Of course, you vould remove the personal allowance at a certain point, which would make the final figure closer to £17,000 or 6.8%.

Of course, these are relatively crude figures but the purpose is to demonstrate a well-thought-out flat tax is workable in theory.

In regards to "penalising success", in some ways it does. It's not so much about actual policy as implementation. Take the UK income tax system for example. Those earning £100,000 loose their tax free allowance and therefore end up paying a real real rax rate above the basic tax of higher earners because of it- an individual on £99,000 will take home more money, after tax, as someone on £101,000. How counter intuitive is that? If your an employee whose paid on a comission basis, it's a disincentive to work as hard as you would had this idiotic policy not existed- ergo, penalising productivity.

I'm not saying that a flat income tax system is infallibe, just that it isn't unworkable if the correct provisions are in place. A "sliding scale" of personal allowance set at £15,000 and decreasing, say, 1% every £1000 between £25,000 and £125,000 creates a system where the tax as a proportion of income is based on actual income, rather than arbitrary cliff-edges and class warfare- which, in my view, is all top rates of 50% (as exists in the uk currently) are good for.

Please excuse any errors, I'm posting from my phobe.

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

Leftcoast, why shouldn't the very rich pay a higher amount?

I'm all for a progressive tax system taxing the rich at a higher percent. At the very least, if you have a flat tax I believe the lower and lower middle class should at least get a break.

QUOTE

In regards to "penalising success", in some ways it does. It's not so much about actual policy as implementation. Take the UK income tax system for example. Those earning £100,000 loose their tax free allowance and therefore end up paying a real real rax rate above the basic tax of higher earners because of it- an individual on £99,000 will take home more money, after tax, as someone on £101,000. How counter intuitive is that? If your an employee whose paid on a comission basis, it's a disincentive to work as hard as you would had this idiotic policy not existed- ergo, penalising productivity.

There will probably always be that point when you get screwed by getting bumped up to the next tax level/bracket. I don't feel that it has to be unfair to those who are successful, the more successful people are still doing much better than the poor. For example; this year I could not write off the interest of my student loans because I now make too much money. It was a bummer for sure, however, I'm still better off with my new salary and not getting the tax break from my student loan interest.

[Irviding]

That proposal makes sense and is not unworkable, but unfortunately a big problem with it is that it's not going to bring in enough revenue, at least for a country as big as the United States. The British budget is about a fourth of that of the United States, and I just don't see how a flat tax could ever work here. Even with your idea, in all honesty it is really not fair. There is simply no shared burden there when the wealthiest are practically not hurt at all. As John Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy. We don't need to destroy people, but taxation is necessary and it should put a dent in everyone, not just the poor and lower middle class.

I agree though that 50%+ tax rates are just wrong. I do however think the US needs one more higher tax bracket. Once Obama is reelected and the Bush tax cuts expire and Clinton's 39.6 top rate goes back, I personally believe we should have a 42 or 43% rate on the top-top earners. It's totally unfair that a somewhat affluent middle class family earning say, 250k a year should pay the same tax rate as people raking in 70 million dollars a year.

[Dimitri.]

QUOTE (Mockage @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:14)

Poor people (depending on what socio-economic background they're coming from) are lazy and posses a state of mind that entitles them to receive money because of what position they're situated in. That being said, why should we pay our taxes on lazy, inconsiderate people who are simply sitting around at home waiting for the next job to hit them?

I will try to be civilised here.

Do you have a f*cking clue about what you're saying? Do you really think you can throw about this stupid, uneducated prejudice about the unfortunate? Let me tell you, poor people probably do twice as much hard work, and have a damned harder life than you, and for what? Enough money to pay the water bill?

Whilst I'm not denying that certain groups exist out their that take advantage of the welfare system, the simple fact you assume, in your petty argument, that all poor people are "lazy, inconsiderate people" angers me. My mother suffers from M.E., Bi Polar and a few mobility problems, so cannot get a job. But just because she is unemployed, doesn't mean she expects everything to be handed to her on a plate, as certain un-educated people as yourself seem to assume. In fact, I can safely say she works a damn sight harder just to keep the f*cking house than you do. People like you are the most spoilt, advantaged people in society, and you don't even know it.

Have you ever worried about if today is the day you get evicted from your council house for late rent? Have you ever felt that fear of opening the door, in case it's the debt collectors coming to take what measly posessions you have? Or how about having to stay at a relative's house, simply to save paying the electricity bill so you can pay for a close relative's funeral? I doubt it.

Without this welfare money, I'd have been in a care home when I was a child, my Dad would have killed himself with drugs, and my Mum would have either killed herself or currently be locked away in an institution.

Yet there you are, sitting comfortably, actually having enough money to buy that next GTA, yet being so stupid, careless and spoilt to throw prejudice at people to depressed to even care.

You make me sick.

[sivispacem]

I have to agree with the above, to some extent (though without the same aggression). Voluntary laziness isn't really a product of socio-economic class; it's prevalent across all society, just far better disguised in higher income bands as the nature of individual connections, the inevitable better education and the wealth of family members rather masks it. The wealthier you are, the easier it is to find work, regardless of any other factor. The wealthier you are, the easier it is to scrounge without being on benefits.

[thecommander]

This is a case where the few ruin it for the many. The rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard was still cashing welfare checks when he was famous and he stated that is "free money", that is how many people see it. The state of Florida tried to pass a law that made drug screening mandatory to receive state checks. We later found out that only 5% of people on welfare in Florida were using drugs.

That being said, the United States was known around the world as a country where if you work hard, you can achieve your dream, the American Dream. The term "entitlement program" is thrown around a lot when talking about welfare. Nobody in the US is entitled to anything. There are still plenty of jobs that require only a high school diploma, you don't have to have a college degree. If you have a criminal record, its your own fault, I have no sympathy for you, neither should society.

^^ As for your mother, I am sorry to hear that, but at the same time I applaud her attitude. I've never heard of a council house so I assume you're not from the US?

For the record, I support government disability programs, after all its not their fault that they can not work. But I am against welfare and entitlement programs.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (thecommander @ Thursday, May 10 2012, 23:52)

This is a case where the few ruin it for the many. The rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard was still cashing welfare checks when he was famous and he stated that is "free money", that is how many people see it. The state of Florida tried to pass a law that made drug screening mandatory to receive state checks. We later found out that only 5% of people on welfare in Florida were using drugs. That being said, the United States was known around the world as a country where if you work hard, you can achieve your dream, the American Dream. The term "entitlement program" is thrown around a lot when talking about welfare. Nobody in the US is entitled to anything. There are still plenty of jobs that require only a high school diploma, you don't have to have a college degree. If you have a criminal record, its your own fault, I have no sympathy for you, neither should society. ^^ As for your mother, I am sorry to hear that, but at the same time I applaud her attitude. I've never heard of a council house so I assume you're not from the US? For the record, I support government disability programs, after all its not their fault that they can not work. But I am against welfare and entitlement programs.

Why don't you agree with them though? Your post doesn't really convey any reasons I can try to argue with you on. As for that jobs comment, that's unfortunately very untrue. What about a family of say, a father with a college degree and a mother with a high school diploma. They earned maybe 50 k a year and were living nicely, but the father gets laid off during the recession and now has no money. Should he not get unemployment benefits?

And what's wrong with medicare and social security?

[Melchior]

QUOTE (thecommander @ Friday, May 11 2012, 14:52)

If you have a criminal record, its your own fault, I have no sympathy for you, neither should society.

Yeah, it's not like people commit crimes for a myriad of complex socio-economic and psychological reasons that are totally beyond their control. They're just bad people.

Honestly man, you need to get with the program. There's no way you can actually believe this trash.

[rentalman]

they say it is needed, but when you go to other countires you just realize how far people go to make money, they will even sell gum on the streets to people..

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (rentalman @ Wednesday, May 16 2012, 14:36)

they say it is needed, but when you go to other countires you just realize how far people go to make money, they will even sell gum on the streets to people..

Which is all well and good, but selling gum in a Western country on the streets won't earn you money to live on. It probably won't earn you money full stop. And what about those too ill to work?

[DarrinPA]

Selling gum, haha. It's impossible to beat the prices of places like Walmart because they can buy in quanity millions of dollars from the manufacturer which in turn gives them the best prices. It's hard to get ahead in America. But once somebody does get a profitable company going they turn on the little guy. Look at GTA IV, the guys at the top keep all the money while the people who actually made the game get less than 1% of what the Housers made. Which is what a capitalist market is about. But when that greed starts making people suffer*, that's when taxes are needed to protect those who don't hold that type of power.

As for a flat tax. It could be good but here in America companies and corporations have specific bills [or laws] written by them and for them to get a different tax rate. It's quite disturbing that they hold so much power that they can submit a bill [or law] to a politician and can get it passed - all for their own benefit.

Welfare is needed, BUT the middle class shouldn't be paying so much towards it, the top 1% need to realize that they have an obligation to actually pay a fair tax amount. It's sick how people like Romney brag about their low tax payments while owning 9 houses. America is in this hole because of an even tax code, not welfare.


*Not that Hollick "suffered". I'm talking about people being paid minimum wage and such.

This post has been edited by DarrinPA on Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 22:26

[MIKON8ERISBACK]

I think welfare needs to be limited to those who are physically disabled or severely mentally disabled. Those who apply for welfare should be subject to testing to ensure they meet strict criteria. They could be physically handicapped, injured, or mentally disabled in a way that limits their ability to hold a steady job. Unemployment insurance and other such handouts should come from the private sector.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (MIKON8ERISBACK @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 11:04)

Unemployment insurance and other such handouts should come from the private sector.

that would never work.

unemployment insurance is not a money-maker.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 18:57)

QUOTE (MIKON8ERISBACK @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 11:04) Unemployment insurance and other such handouts should come from the private sector. that would never work. unemployment insurance is not a money-maker.

Obviously it's not a money-maker when the government runs it.

Someone could come up with a profitable system in which monthly contributions would provide a hedge against some of the financial perils of unemployment. But that's just absurd libertarian bullsh*t, like car insurance. Oh, wait...

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 12:33)

Obviously it's not a money-maker when the government runs it.

no see, this goes back to your biased view about taxes.
you don't get it.

government-run programs are not supposed to be profitable. at the very least they don't have to be profitable in order to define their success (or failure, for that matter). government is not a business. its services are not meant to be viewed in so strict a context as making or losing money. by and large it is government that is supposed to support the private sectors ability to produce its OWN capital which is returned - in part - by way of taxation; and as the GDP goes the private sector goes.

government is supposed to be the neutral purveyor of public good.
it was never meant to be a profitable Fortune 100 company.

QUOTE

Someone could come up with a profitable system in which monthly contributions would provide a hedge against some of the financial perils of unemployment. But that's just absurd libertarian bullsh*t, like car insurance. Oh, wait...

once again you're simply off-base.

car insurance cannot compare with unemployment insurance.
you can live just fine without a car. you can't live in anything but squalor without a job.

apples, meet oranges.

[spaceeinstein]

Are there any prosperous countries that lack a welfare system?

[El_Diablo]

North Korea!