Rather than look at specific numbers yet, let us set parameters of what people should be paying. Is it the responsibility of the Government to treat people the same and tax them at the same percentage regardless of income or social class?

If so, what would this percentage be?

If not, why the discrimination from the Government based upon social strata?

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Are you saying that it is equitable to have people pay different percentages? Not different amounts, but different percentages.

Yes, I do think that is the case. For example, I would guess that there's a basic level of income below which people will find it difficult to get by, about what you might get on the minimum wage for a standard working week? taxing that income would affect someone more than taxing income over it, even at the same rate.

I guess my question is: Should the poor need to help with revenue? Is it only the responsibility of the rich to solve the revenue problem?

Umm, there's a whole heap of people in the middle, too. the rich are more able to help, the poor less able, and those in the middle are about in the middle.

If the other way to deal with the deficit is to make a lot of cuts in spending, chances are that this will affect the poorest more than the richest too.

Oh, you repeated yourself. It's not 'discrimination by social strata'. It's taxation based on ability to pay, which is based on income. You may feel it is discriminatory, but I don't. I'd rather that the richest were paying more, but apparently being taxed at much more than half the rate of a janitor will lead the rich to revolt and leave.

PCHiway wrote:even if you taxed the uber-wealthy at 100%...it wouldn't be enough to cover the existing budget. The question then becomes...who's next?

Well, no. but who is actually calling for 100% taxes on the very rich and zero for everyone else? I missed that one. Because that's what that is a counter argument to.

So what is the number than Danivon? 100% is too much. 15% is too little. Should a rich person have to work for the Government 50% of the time? How about 30% How much is too much for a person to be taxed?

bbauska

Is it the responsibility of the Government to treat people the same and tax them at the same percentage regardless of income or social class?

When a jurisdiction has tax levels that graduate it means that (for instance) everyone is taxed x% for the first say $30,000 of income. Then for those who earn more, the next say $90,000 is taxed at y% and finally for those who earn more the remaining income is taxed at $z%
But everyone is treated the same. For everyone the first 30 is taxed at one rate.
This framing of a graduated income tax structure as "unfair" ignores this fundamnental . Everyone is under the same structure and being treated equally. It would be unfair only if someone in the highest tax bracket paid the higher rate on his whole income. But he only pays that high rate on the amount over the 90K,

By the way B, the top tax rate in the US in the 1950's was 91%. Low tax rates are a fairly new phenomenon in the US. So are deficits, by the way.

I know that graduated rates are allowed by the Government. I also now that rates were exorbitantly high in the past.

How much is too much for a tax rate? How much should a person have to work for the Government? (nice non-answer, btw)

How much is too much for a tax rate? How much should a person have to work for the Government?

There is no absolute answer.No simple solution.
One way to think of this is that too much is when people move to competing jurisdictions primarily because of the tax rates and take their talents or business with them. And partly this is gauged by what you receive for your taxes. Do you get health care as part or is that an added cost? Do you get a decent retirement pension?
There are a lot of low tax jurisdictions in the world, but there may be no way to make a living in those jurisdictions or the quality of life may be poor...
In a certain way, the various world nations and their provinces are competing for populace and industry. Of course its not a fluid market, as there are many factors that make a decision to emigrate one of the most difficult. Certainly taxation rates aren't often a compelling reason for very large numbers of people who make the choice.

People who believe high taxation rates is a deterrent to effort, seem to forget that in periods of high taxation the US often had very expansive economies and increased standards of living. After all, we compete with others taxed at the same rates. And compete for products and services with the same (proportionally) after tax incomes. So, relative to our fellow citizens whatever we earn at the higher end will also have relatively more value within society.

I suppose there is a belief that if the taxation rate is too high, then people simply stop attempting to earn more. They quit working after a certain point. First that supposes that people only work because of the money. There are all kinds of intrinsic reasons people work besides the need to earn a living. Then there is the assumption that if the net reward somehow is proportionally less for the income earned at the top end, that people stop working if they've reached that magic point. That working for only 50 cents (or whatever) on the dollar earned is a reason to stop endeavor.
People make that kind of decision all the time, regardles of the tax regime. Its balancing leisure versus money. Perhaps a higher tax level would seem to be demoralizing this way, but there a lot of high taxation regimes where productivity is very high. So that doesn't necessarily seem to be the case.
And there's a lot of people who pass up more money for better quality of life too.
If this is a non-answer B, I think its because there isn't an answer.
On the other hand, govenrments do have to, eventually, run themselves within their means.

bbauska wrote:So what is the number than Danivon? 100% is too much. 15% is too little. Should a rich person have to work for the Government 50% of the time? How about 30% How much is too much for a person to be taxed?

Make up your mind, Brad. Are we talking in absolute figures, or not? Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to put arbitrary limits on things, there always needs to be a reason, and reasons will change with reality.

But you see taxation as 'working for the government'. The way I see it, the rich get quite a bit out of that government. Law enforcement and courts that protect private property, national defence that give stability, regulations that keep business from becoming too cuthroat, etc.

The thing is, that in a democracy, the government is us. Given how much the rich pay in donations to political parties, seems that they believe it's worth paying a little more sometimes. Ever wonder why?

Several points:
RickyP...
When my Government runs within it's means, I will be shocked!

Danivon,
I see the poor getting alot out of the government as well. Do you favor the poor having to pay for it's share? The examples you gave all support the poor as well. That is what I call "General Welfare"
You said "in a democracy, the government is us". The problem is that we do NOT have a democracy. We have a Representative Republic". I would love to see the people vote for the bills directly. At Redscape 1.0 you declared such an idea as ridiculous, and completely unworkable.

Do I wonder why? Yes, I do. I often imagine what would happen if only people could give. Not businesses, and not unions, but just people. That would be a democracy though...

You are a representative democratic republic. The people are sovereign, and they elect their proxies to represent them. If you end up with bums in office, it's because you (well, the majority of those who vote) elect them. 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms, Brad. And a representative democracy is still a democracy.

Direct democracy, which you proposed, does not work, it not only collapsed in ancient Greece, but it caused just as much financial strife in Orange County and in California as anywhere else, when referendums would successively be held on keeping taxes low and on spending more money on stuff. Thus OC in the 90s and California today ended up with budget deficits which the 'people' then whined about having to deal with.

The thing about the poor is that they can't afford to pay for what they get from the State - that's kind of why they are getting it. So good luck getting the money back from them. However, the examples I cited don't help the poor as much as the rich. The rich have more private property to protect, do they not? The poor often can't afford the same kind of justice as the rich, can they? The emphasis should be on getting the poorest to a position where they can afford to pay taxes, through their own efforts and with assistance where needed. Then today's poor person receiving benefit becomes tomorrow's taxpayer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

Funny, I can't seem to find the word democracy when looking at the US form of government. Of course it shows up in the Puerto Rico act of 2007 in the footnotes...

Yes, the rich can afford more. The poor can work for benefits until they become "tomorrow's taxpayer".

BTW, How is that going? Has the poverty line increased or decreased since Johnson's wonderful programs...

Just because it's not in the wiki article, it doesn't mean it is not democratic. Even so, in a Republic, the people are sovereign, and that is certainly the US form of government. Every adult citizen is entitled to vote, they all have certain rights as equals, and the government acts in their collective name. The original US constitution was not very democratic (but a lot more so than most contemporary states), but there have been several changes since then which have made it so.

Even the roots of the words are very similar. Democracy comes from the Greek for 'Rule by the people', and Republic for the Latin for 'Public thing'. "The people" = "Public", and if the people rule it, it is theirs. That many republics are far from democratic does not mean that the US is one of them.

Oh, and on poverty, I'm not sure that the Great Society is the only factor since the 1960s. I seem to recall a lot of jobs being shipped overseas, a recession or two, minimum wage rates being held down, several industries going up the wall...

Even so, absolute poverty has declined, has it not? Relative poverty is about the same, and the poorest are getting a lower share overall than they used to (most income groups are, apart from the very top, but that combines with a period by sheer utter coincidence when tax rates on top earners have been cut).

Danivon,
I am not going to analyze the differences between Republic and Democracy with you.
I just stated what the US was. It was not what you stated.

What is the end result of what you are looking for in the income inequality? Does everyone have to make the same amount? Does the people who make 100 dollars less than someone else need to have the government redistribute wealth?

What is the equality that the left is looking for?
Is it the Government's responsibility to legislate the reduction of this difference?
Where is that stated in charter documents of the United States?

These are important questions. As for jobs being shipped overseas, I agree that it is better for the US to have jobs, and the rest of the world can find whatever job in their own economy. I really don't give a rip about other countries. Recessions happen cyclically, and when minimum wage increases, the cost of the products that people are buying goes up. Is that what the left is looking for? Increased costs for those buying products?

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I am not going to analyze the differences between Republic and Democracy with you.
I just stated what the US was. It was not what you stated.

Sorry, but the US is both. You can't start being pedantic and get annoyed when someone turns back with more pedantry...

What is the end result of what you are looking for in the income inequality? Does everyone have to make the same amount? Does the people who make 100 dollars less than someone else need to have the government redistribute wealth?

Umm in order: That paying for the State to run is fair across society, with a basis on ability to pay; No, they don't; Not necessarily. This is about how you balance the cost, not redistribution. We can discuss that as a separate issue, if you want (ie: another thread)

What is the equality that the left is looking for?

Umm, we'll have a meeting and I'll get back to you. Oh, wait, the Left is not a homogeneous lump!

Is it the Government's responsibility to legislate the reduction of this difference?
Where is that stated in charter documents of the United States?

No, it's not, but we do have to recognise that when such inequalities arise they can be socially divisive and cause disharmony in the Union.

These are important questions. As for jobs being shipped overseas, I agree that it is better for the US to have jobs, and the rest of the world can find whatever job in their own economy. I really don't give a rip about other countries. Recessions happen cyclically, and when minimum wage increases, the cost of the products that people are buying goes up. Is that what the left is looking for? Increased costs for those buying products?

Again, I can't answer for 'the left'.