Actually I don't mind the idea of taxing only expendable income, but that is only justification for a two-bracket system or for a significant standard deduction, not justification for the multiple-bracket system that we have. Why should some expendable income be taxed at a higher rate than other expendable income?Originally Posted by Iriemon
TANSTAAFL
Sounds more like he might be saying that the fact someone has it to take is why we take it from Bob instead of Joe. Bob has it, Joe doesn't. It's the justification for 'why him' not 'why at all.'
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
And who decides what's expendable?
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
That is an interesting question, and part of the reason that the tax code is so convoluted. I'd be fine with setting it based on poverty line. Everything under poverty line is by definition required for survival, so not-expendable. Everything above poverty line would fall into the category of expendable income. Yes you may use it for living expenses, but it really goes to improving your living, not the minimum needed for survival.
TANSTAAFL
It's a sliding scale. Plus the quid pro quo regarding the person with higher income. The quid pro quo being that we allow a society where people can become unimaginably rich; the quid pro quo is they give some portion of that back to society by supporting the Govt.
Last edited by Iriemon; Apr 20 2012 at 07:21 PM.
Guru
No, you can hunt, garden, sew your own cloths, etc. You choose the style or level of luxury you want with your purchases.
Payroll is the same as income tax, it is taken unwillingly. Gas taxes and industry is all about the level of luxury you want.Never mind all the other involuntary taxes -- gas taxes, industry-specific taxes, payroll taxes.
The ones you have no choice to give to the government is not voluntary, the rest is all dependent on you.No tax, at base, is voluntary.
A little down from few years ago when Obama is touting we are drilling more now than ever. Kind of makes you wonder where the drilling is being done if not on public land. Oh, thats right, places Obama has no control over and can't shut down.And revenue off land leases and such is a pittance. Last year the government earned about $213 million from oil and gas leases.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/stat...bc615f6f1.html
There wasn't an income tax till Lincolns unconstitutional executive order for the northern aggression war, and then not again till progressive communist Woodrow Wilson passed the income tax amendment, and the government got by just fine without taking money from our paychecks.The Constitution gives Congress taxation authority for a reason. It's ludicrous to argue that the same document that grants taxation power turns around and defines taxation in such a way as to make that power all but meaningless.
Liberalism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.
Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
2012 = Turd sandwich vs Giant D*&che
Guru
And how does that benefit the country? I can work and produce a product and innovate that will help the country, but that doesn't mean I have to shop at the stores and fork over my earned money.
Liberalism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.
Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
2012 = Turd sandwich vs Giant D*&che
Guru
Only irrelevant if you want to ignore unconstitutional happenings of theft and slavery.
Liberalism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.
Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
2012 = Turd sandwich vs Giant D*&che
Analyst
Ya, I might buy that, except that Swamp_Music then goes on to equate taxes with theft,
as if to suggest that taxes are always immoral due to there being no reason for them other than to take what others have,
but obviously taxes do exist for a reason and not just because the government wants to take 'our' money just for the sake of taking it.
And I assume, Taxpayer, that you are saying that it is bad(?) to tax Bob who has a lot of money
rather than Joe who has little to no money because of why? Discrimination???
I addressed my views on that earlier in this thread,
and my view of general discrimination in another,
but now I want to understand the views of those who make this argument.
It is my belief that there are multiple types of discrimination,
clearly there is discrimination which is destructive and immoral by most people's standards,
but is it not the case that there exist discrimination which is not bad, perhaps even helpful?
If you agree that there is good and bad discrimination, then what do you believe it is exactly which makes some discrimination bad?
-Meta
I do. The topic of discussion in this thread is whether the 14th Amendment prohibits a progressive tax.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks