Tax discrimination

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by jor, Feb 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jor

    jor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When I hear people saying the rich should pay more taxes it sickens me. Why do we feel the need to discriminate against the rich just because they are rich? If people said blacks/whites/minorities etc should pay more taxes people would be outraged calling out the discrimination and racism, but when we discriminate based on wealth people cheer. Are those people hypocrites or do they just not see / care about the discrimination?

    If we want to have an undiscriminating tax system everybody needs to pay the same % or the same $ amount otherwise the government is discriminating based on their wealth.
     
  2. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    People who oppose progressive taxation are typically the same people who understand very little economics. Progressive taxation is acceptable for various reasons, but primarily efficiency. The labor supply curve is backward bending, so higher taxes at upper incomes is less likely to result in work disincentives. Also because there is a marginal disutility of income, in other words each dollar earned provides less and less utility to the person earning.
     
  3. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How does this in any way make sense? Not trying to start a flame war here but I would really like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

    Using a flat tax the wealthy will still pay more no matter what(assuming you tossed the whole tax code, which I think is a stellar idea...) because they make more money. While those who are less affluent pay less because they make less money. The proportions are fair and linear.

    They both pay the same percentage, but one pays more because he earns/spends more. In my eyes I wouldn't even have an income tax, but something like a consumption/sales tax. That way if you want to pay less taxes you only need to spend less money and be more industrious. Perfectly acceptable option to me.

    Makes sense in my mind, but hey if you have some other solution I am all ears for it.
     
  4. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before even discussing the tax levels we probably ought to decide on what we need the money for though. Because until we decide on that there is really no point on raising funds. Just a thought.

    I walk into a grocery store with a list and once I am done I leave. I don't go in there with a blind intent and a credit card. That leads to bankruptcy when careless, and I think we could all point out many examples of carelessness in government spending.
     
  5. jor

    jor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just because I have a different opinion on economics and what is best for the economy does not mean I understand very little about economics.

    Please explain why you support discrimination when involving taxes? How would you like if our politicians made a certain race pay more than other races?

    Yes, this is exactly my opinion.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's used basic economics, understanding the nature of the utility function and the nature of income and substitution effects from net wage changes. In terms of whether he's correct or not, there is no debate. The best you could go for is a rejection that work is neutral (i.e. it only provides a means to exchange leisure for consumption). However, that would open up all sorts of issues which would reject the flat tax as complete folly. And that's the sad fact: the flat tax lobby is driven by dogma, rather than economic rationality
     
  7. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To tax a man who makes a million from invention more than a man who inherited, is discrimination against brains.

    I see you support the Death Tax, and everybody pays the same % of their wealth (what they want the government to protect) in tax, good for you.

    Brains, Brains...
     
  8. jor

    jor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, it is. Taxing people differently is discrimination in different ways.
    The only tax I support is sales tax and only if there is no tax on necessities such as food and water and it is capped at 5%.
     
  9. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If everyone paid the same, the rich would still live in their snobby houses while the poorer people are out on the streets because all the money goes on taxes.

    You earn more, you contribute more. Tough luck if you don't like it.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given diminishing marginal utility of income, a single tax would be discriminatory by definition. To argue otherwise we'd need to see equality and homogeneity in preferences
     
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't the true value of money dependant on how much you have?

    If you have literally nothing and get $10, it would be a huge amount, potentially the difference between life and death. If you have a billion dollars, you probably wouldn't bend over to pick $10 from the street.

    Can you have a morally fair tax system that doesn't take account of those differences?
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Equity would certainly have to take that into account. That ensures most right wing comment about single tax rates have nothing to do with equity or equal treatment. It instead describes a specific sense of righteousness alien to any appropriate economic consideration of taxes
     
  13. jor

    jor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You earn more you will pay more if everybody paid the same percent...If you made $1 and paid 10% you pay less then somebody who made $10 and paid 10%.
    No it wouldn't be. If we only had an income tax with the same percent then everybody pays the same portion of their pay. Nobody would be discriminated against.
    The value of money is dependent on how much you have. However, money is still money. If you have $1billion then a dollar is still a dollar. It might mean less to you then somebody who makes minimum wage, however it is still the same money.
    I am not right wing just so you know...

    I personally don't think we should have an income tax, however quite a few people seem to like it. I would want a completely voluntary tax system. You choose to give to the government if you want. If you don't want to then don't. However, many people feel the need for a tax and as such I would be fine with a sales tax. No tax on necessities would ensure that the poor do not have to pay and only those who can afford luxuries will have to pay. Sales tax is much more fair and equal than income tax.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The impact differs according to a person's wealth (i.e. a dollar is worth more to a poorer person)

    A recipe for the maximisation of free rider problems
     
  15. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds good, but to eliminate tax discrimination we first redistribute all priniciple means of production wealth, and each time someone comes of age they get an equal distribution of property, so as to not discriminate against those who do not already own a Landed Estate or business and then impliment a sales tax.



    "What pillar of security does the landed interest require more than any other interest in the state, or what right has it to a distinct and separate representation from the general interest of a nation? The only use to be made of this power (and which it always has made), is to ward off taxes from itself, and throw the burthen upon those articles of consumption by which itself would be least affected...

    ...Men of small or moderate estates are more injured by the taxes being thrown on articles of consumption, than they are eased by warding it from landed property, for the following reasons:

    First, They consume more of the productive taxable articles, in proportion to their property, than those of large estates.

    Secondly, Their residence is chiefly in towns, and their property in houses; and the increase of the poor-rates, occasioned by taxes on consumption, is in much greater proportion than the land-tax has been favoured. In Birmingham, the poor-rates are not less than seven shillings in the pound. From this, as is already observed, the aristocracy are in a great measure exempt." (Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine 1792) http://www.constitution.org/tp/rightsman2.htm

    "But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to extirpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principal sources of corruption at elections." (ibid)

    "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
     
  16. Terrant

    Terrant New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I agree that progressive taxation is discriminatory, a consumption tax is just as discriminatory. With a consumption tax, it is the poor that suffers the discrimination. The poor have no choice but to spend almost all of their income on necessities whereas the wealthy need only a small fraction. Regardless of the percentage used, the poor will inevitably be paying a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy.
     
  17. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Translation: because we can get away with it.

    American's have voted themselves benefits that they cannot pay for themselves. The only recourse is to reduce those benefits or take more from those who can pay the bill most of us cannot afford. No one want's to have less benefits and we can get away with taking more from those who provide more value -- so we do.
     
  18. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the purposes of this thread, I am only referring to percentages. Approximately half of this country doesn't pay any federal taxes. Why is it they deserve a free ride?

    If the wealthy have to pay, so the the poor guys. Fair is fair. Progressive taxation seems like a penalty for success. When you penalize the successful they lose their incentive to produce, innovate, invest, and so on...

    If we switched to a national sales tax, people could choose to be more industrious and thus dodge taxes, or they could buy things like a regular Joe and pay taxes out ease. Wealthy people have more money, this much is obvious, wealthy people also spend more money and under a sales tax they would pay MUCH more than their less affluent counterparts.

    Of course for such a system to work we'd have to slaughter a series of government organizations and make massive overhauls to entitlement programs and military spending. It would only work with a lean government. You'd also have to toss the current tax code in its entirety. And fire every member of the IRS with a vindictive sense of glee while skipping and singing.

    Utopia...
     
  19. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You sir have struck at the heart of the issue. Well spoken.
     
  20. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It's even more effecient just to take everything and give people what you want them to have.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't consistent with reality. The wealthy do not face effective marginal rates of tax above 100%. That's the poor! A progressive tax is actually required to maximise work incentives
     
  22. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're going to have to define some of these terms so this makes any sense, because as it stands this is pure gibberish to any free thinking person who can do basic math, or has ever worked a job.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're on a tax thread about discrimination and you don't even know what an effective marginal tax rate is? Golly gosh!
     
  24. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Than by all means, feel free to educate me so long as you are willing to learn yourself.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not interested in teaching from first principles. I'd have joined the teaching profession if I was. I just find it interesting that you have such strong opinions but don't know the tax basics. Other than that happy to end the conversation
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page