News Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[nismaratwork]

Maybe IMP meant that only the threat of death or loss of a limb should be used?

I'm kidding... truly I am.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Except what happens when someone doesn't use a service and so doesn't pay taxes for it, then decides they want to use it, followed by "not wanting to use it" until the next time? People could potentially abuse this type of system unless the taxes are directly tied to it (like how the taxes on gas are supposed to be used for road maitenence/repair).

the ideal system is to have, as you say, an easy way to charge for something "when used".

 

[IMP]

Maybe IMP meant that only the threat of death or loss of a limb should be used?

I'm kidding... truly I am.

Okay, maybe I worded that awkwardly.
I just don't feel like you should be able to take someone's labor from them directly, by force. Maybe an income tax on businesses/companys/corporations, which would tax us indirectly.

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, maybe I worded that awkwardly.
I just don't feel like you should be able to take someone's labor from them directly, by force. Maybe an income tax on businesses/companys/corporations, which would tax us indirectly.

Oh IMP, I was kidding around, I got your point! Sorry, this internet really needs fonts for joking...

 

[Perspicacity]

@Perspicacity: Fair enough, and I need some time to consider the second portion of your post. I'm not sure if you're angered in principle by what you perceive as group theft, or if it's a more thoughtful analysis. My gut reaction is that you dislike another's control, but when it comes to spontaneous action you're clearly not greedy or selfish. So much for pathological... ah well, that would have been fun.

One question left: what is it about alimony that you would have avoided given the chance, whereas child support is clearly not an issue for you? Would you say it's something that if asked for, you'd have given freely? Would you say that it's something you object to for other reasons?

The very thought that the government would presume to order me to financially support another adult human being directly comes very close to sending me into a rage. As I am also completely opposed to marriage I've never been placed in the position, but I think I would actually destroy everything I own and go to prison before I paid so much as a penny in alimony.

I will also not interact socially with another person who receives court-ordered alimony—I consider him or her to be the most repugnant form of thief imaginable.

Also, if I were to find myself member of a jury in a case where a man or woman took drastic violent action to avoid alimony—well, let's just say jury nullification.

 

[nismaratwork]

The very thought that the government would presume to order me to financially support another adult human being directly comes very close to sending me into a rage. As I am also completely opposed to marriage I've never been placed in the position, but I think I would actually destroy everything I own and go to prison before I paid so much as a penny in alimony.

I will also not interact socially with another person who receives court-ordered alimony—I consider him or her to be the most repugnant form of thief imaginable.

Also, if I were to find myself member of a jury in a case where a man or woman took drastic violent action to avoid alimony—well, let's just say jury nullification.

Well, I applaud your honesty, but I can't claim to agree with you. Still, thanks for answering my questions.

To answer yours, no, I'm not posturing, but rather I'm glolating. I was not exactly shocked by the injunction (as a reading of this thread should indicate), and while Walker certainly may evade recall, he's destroyed his political capital for nothing.

Am I amused? Oh hell yes, but am I posturing? No. I have no stake in this beyond pure dislike of the tactics used, and illegal passage of legislation.

 

[Perspicacity]

Well, I applaud your honesty, but I can't claim to agree with you. Still, thanks for answering my questions.

To answer yours, no, I'm not posturing, but rather I'm glolating. I was not exactly shocked by the injunction (as a reading of this thread should indicate), and while Walker certainly may evade recall, he's destroyed his political capital for nothing.

Am I amused? Oh hell yes, but am I posturing? No. I have no stake in this beyond pure dislike of the tactics used, and illegal passage of legislation.

Don't you think it may be possible that you're gloating prematurely? The bill may survive its court challenges, and if it does, and the economy improves at all in Wisconsin, it is likely that Gov. Walker will get the majority of the credit—whether it is deserved or not. I'll admit he made a very large gamble, but the dice haven't stopped rolling yet and you're acting like he's already lost the game.

 

[nismaratwork]

Don't you think it may be possible that you're gloating prematurely? The bill may survive its court challenges, and if it does, and the economy improves at all in Wisconsin, it is likely that Gov. Walker will get the majority of the credit—whether it is deserved or not. I'll admit he made a very large gamble, but the dice haven't stopped rolling yet and you're acting like he's already lost the game.

It's possible that I am, but I'm willing to take it in the chops if I'm wrong.

 

[Al68]

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate specifically?

Yes, to a degree.

Basically Marx was a revolutionary socialist. He advocated the outright theft of the means of production, to be owned by government, and a permanent ban on private ownership of any means of production. A permanent ban on private employment and commerce. Government was to use force to maintain a complete monopoly of every industry.

Basically the same thing as if Walmart were to use force to put every other business in the country out of business, overthrow government, use force to maintain a complete monopoly over all industry and commerce, and use force to assert lawmaking power over every person in the country.

For their own good, of course.

 

[Al68]

And when you choose to not pay your taxes then you can't use ANYTHING that has been paid for with government funds. So when you're being robbed the police can't come help you, when you're house is burning down the fire dept won't stop it (though they would stop it from spreading; and this has actually happened to a family that didn't pay the fire fighter fee in their area), you can't drive on public roads, etc.

Those things are not generally paid for by the income tax historically in the U.S., cost a very tiny fraction of current tax revenues, and basically have nothing to do with why we have an income tax.

Local property taxes and state sales taxes are more than adequate to pay for fire and police plus many other things, and the fuel tax (and tolls) covers the cost of roads.

Of course, you're right that those taxes are not voluntary, but their collection can at least be justified on the basis that the money is owed for services rendered. And yes, police and fire protection are services rendered to a person whether or not his house catches fire.

And for those that don't know, the fuel tax is not required for fuel not used on public roads, and if you do pay the tax for fuel not used on public roads, you can even get a refund. You can't get any more "tax only for services rendered" than that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Those things are not generally paid for by the income tax historically in the U.S., cost a very tiny fraction of current tax revenues, and basically have nothing to do with why we have an income tax.

Local property taxes and state sales taxes are more than adequate to pay for fire and police plus many other things, and the fuel tax (and tolls) covers the cost of roads.

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

 

[Al68]

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

Sure, but then my response would have been quite different, if I even posted one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sure, but then my response would have been quite different...

Please don't let the slightly different looking letters in my username stop you from sharing your thoughts!

Seriously, it's questions like this - what I consider the slightly harder ones - that I was hoping to hear responses to when I made this thread. For supporters of taxation systems that rely on payment linked to usage - and you could count me among that number - the hard question is not how governments ought to seek funding for building roads, or running fire and police departments, or maybe even paying for public education. It is the funding of duties that are not easily associated with individual use, like providing for a national defense or responding to a large-scale infectious outbreak, that make the basis for a valuable discussion, in my opinion.

 

[Aknazer]

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you come across to me as so. I do think that the military should protect us from those that would directly threaten us, but going into "spread democracy" is a craptastic reason to go to war. Hell we're not even a "democracy" but rather a democratic republic. So if Hussein were to threaten the U.S. with ICBMs I would have no qualms with the military launching a preemptive attack to prevent them from being able to carry out the threat.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you come across to me as so.

Yes, I was, though that wasn't the primary purpose. What can I say? I couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot!

I do think that the military should protect us from those that would directly threaten us, but going into "spread democracy" is a craptastic reason to go to war. Hell we're not even a "democracy" but rather a democratic republic. So if Hussein were to threaten the U.S. with ICBMs I would have no qualms with the military launching a preemptive attack to prevent them from being able to carry out the threat.

Agreed. And I'm solely at fault for inviting this discussion, but I'd like to request that people not respond to the obvious insinuation in my post, lest the thread veer off into a discussion about the Iraq War. As punishment, I shall accept one post each, filled with slings and arrows of outrageous rebuke, from whosoever shall choose to hurl them.

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously, it's questions like this - what I consider the slightly harder ones - that I was hoping to hear responses to when I made this thread. For supporters of taxation systems that rely on payment linked to usage - and you could count me among that number - the hard question is not how governments ought to seek funding for building roads, or running fire and police departments, or maybe even paying for public education. It is the funding of duties that are not easily associated with individual use, like providing for a national defense or responding to a large-scale infectious outbreak, that make the basis for a valuable discussion, in my opinion.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters except for people on the far ends of the spectrum. Most proposals I've seen for flat taxes and national sales taxes include provisions for exempting low-income people or many of the items low-income people spend much of their money on (such as food). Ultimately, people have an idea of what they think people should pay in taxes and will adjust any tax system to make that profile happen.

I support the current type of system only because it is possible to implement it in a simple way, whereas it is not possible to simply implement a usage-based system in a way that makes it progressive. Regardless, the reality is that our tax system is ridiculously overcomplicated, so my vision is only that: a vision.

 

[Al68]

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

I don't know of any kind of plan to fund the military that resembles the "pay for services" model like the road tax. Of course there are many other alternatives to an income tax to fund the military, such as a sales tax, VAT tax, excise taxes, tariffs, etc.

 

[Al68]

Ultimately, people have an idea of what they think people should pay in taxes and will adjust any tax system to make that profile happen.

That's true for any tax system except an income tax. It can and is made so complex that people are misled about what different people actually pay. That enables politicians to enact tax policies that most people oppose.

As a single, but IMO very representative example, I heard Rev Sharpton on talk radio say that the income tax should be changed so that the top 5% pay about 15% of all income taxes. He had no idea that such a change would greatly reduce the taxes paid by the rich, and even advocated the opposite in the same interview.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's true for any tax system except an income tax. It can and is made so complex that people are misled about what different people actually pay.

As a single, but IMO very representative example, I heard Rev Sharpton on talk radio say that the income tax should be changed so that the top 5% pay about 15% of income taxes. He had no idea that such a change would greatly reduce the taxes paid by the rich, and even advocated the opposite in the same interview.

Of course, this is just for taxable income. My tax bracket is much higher, but in the end I normally pay about 15% of my real income in Federal taxes. I do opt to pay Self-Employment tax for the sake of SS but could easily avoid most of it.

 

[Aknazer]

Yes, I was, though that wasn't the primary purpose. What can I say? I couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot!

Agreed. And I'm solely at fault for inviting this discussion, but I'd like to request that people not respond to the obvious insinuation in my post, lest the thread veer off into a discussion about the Iraq War. As punishment, I shall accept one post each, filled with slings and arrows of outrageous rebuke, from whosoever shall choose to hurl them.

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

Ahh. Well I wasn't really directing it at that particular war, but in general I believe in preemptive attack. And to add to the discussion, I would say the military would need to be properly funded to be able perform such preemptive attacks. A "military" such as Japan's that is only able to "defend" itself will not be able to properly defend the country against anyone truly intent on attacking the country. A country that is too weak to properly attack is too weak to properly defend.

 

[ginru]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

 

[nismaratwork]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

Uh huh... and when people like Perspacitity show up, what then?

Sorry ginru, that pipe dream has been tried, and AFAIK it leads to predators ruling the roost.

 

[Aknazer]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

But how would it work? It might just be me, but I honestly don't understand how something like this would actually fund a government. What exactly do you mean by "Pay-into-Progress" as to me that simply sounds like having companies charge more for the goods so that they can then re-invest that added cost into more research, which then makes me wonder how one would pay into roads, the military, firefighting, and various other government functions. Also with your talk of "social investment for services" and "incentive-based solutions among all its members" it sounds a lot like the socialism ideal to me.

In addition, it generally takes far more than the "involuntary taking of one's wealth" for a government to collapse because it is that taking of the money that pays for what the government does, but it's things like oppresion, tyranny, incompetence, etc that cause rebellion. Even the American Revolution wasn't directly caused by the taking of the money (the taxes) even though they played a part, but rather the fact that the colonies didn't have a voice when it came to being taxed (ie they were oppressed) while all areas inside of Britain had a voice in the matter. Now I'm not saying there's never been any revolts because of the taking of money (over-taxation can easily lead to it), but that there is generally other reasons for the revolt outside of simply the taking of one's money.

 

[nismaratwork]

But how would it work? It might just be me, but I honestly don't understand how something like this would actually fund a government. What exactly do you mean by "Pay-into-Progress" as to me that simply sounds like having companies charge more for the goods so that they can then re-invest that added cost into more research, which then makes me wonder how one would pay into roads, the military, firefighting, and various other government functions. Also with your talk of "social investment for services" and "incentive-based solutions among all its members" it sounds a lot like the socialism ideal to me.

In addition, it generally takes far more than the "involuntary taking of one's wealth" for a government to collapse because it is that taking of the money that pays for what the government does, but it's things like oppresion, tyranny, incompetence, etc that cause rebellion. Even the American Revolution wasn't directly caused by the taking of the money (the taxes) even though they played a part, but rather the fact that the colonies didn't have a voice when it came to being taxed (ie they were oppressed) while all areas inside of Britain had a voice in the matter. Now I'm not saying there's never been any revolts because of the taking of money (over-taxation can easily lead to it), but that there is generally other reasons for the revolt outside of simply the taking of one's money.

I took away: "crystal-gripping hippie colony", and not in the good way from his post.

 

[Astronuc]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Nothing in life is fair, but death is a great equalizer, so I guess that's fair. Beyond that, I agree with you.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't find an option I like.

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

There has to be some taxation.

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

Which do you like?

 

[Gokul43201]

I put my vote in as soon as I started the thread. The poll is public - votes can be seen by clicking on one of the histogram tallies.

 

[nismaratwork]

I put my vote in as soon as I started the thread. The poll is public - votes can be seen by clicking on one of the histogram tallies.

Ahhhh, "I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation"

Thanks, I didn't know the vote-breakdown system.