News Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

[MarcoD]

It seems to me your argument is that since the poor make money for the rich, they can then turn around and confiscate a portion of that money the rich made.

Of course not. I am saying it really doesn't matter. If people make that small amount of money that they can't really pay federal taxes, then that only means that wealth was moved to higher-income individuals. I.e., you could tax taxi drivers more, but it would only mean you'ld end up paying more for getting around.

 

[MarcoD]

When taxes become oppressive, money disappears from the economy. Seems pretty logical to me.

Money can't disappear. Taxes are nothing else then redistributing/spending a part of a person's income on something else. You can disagree with the amount of taxing, or whether you need a government, or on what it is being spend, but money can't disappear. It's just milled around in another fashion than an individual would do.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Money can't disappear. Taxes are nothing else then redistributing/spending a part of a person's income on something else. You can disagree with the amount of taxing, or whether you need a government, or on what it is being spend, but money can't disappear. It's just milled around in another fashion than an individual would do.

Money can easily disappear by moving it abroad.

 

[MarcoD]

Money can easily disappear by moving it abroad.

Yeah, that's a bit (more) true for the US. Normally, moving money abroad usually just means it has to return to the economy in some fashion.

 

[mege]

I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.

It's a thought exercise more than any actual advocacy. Part of the exercise is to think about: why is 1/2 of a country's population not paying income taxes? This is a form of corruption, IMO, and it seems to be overlooked because there's so many that benefit from it. This isn't about 'attacking disabled folks' or the like - it's about democracy gone wrong where an majority is allowed to dictate to a minority what to do with their personal property.

Fill in the blanks: The _____ person in the majority told the _____ person in the minority that he had to pay more taxes.
If that is white/black, straight/gay, Natural-born/immigrant - people are up in arms. The moment it becomes not-rich/rich - it's OK?

Maybe 'social status' or 'income' needs to be added to the list of discrimination protection?

Ultimately, I don't blame the 'entitlement-voters' at all - they're acting in their own short-term self interest. I think it's a scam, though, that elected officials are allowed to campaign using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money under the guise of 'helping people' when they know it's not sustainable. It's passing the buck, but at least they got into power to help their friends out!* The only thing it really sustains is their own elevation of power.
*(Anyone else notice that Warren Buffett made a few hundred million in profit off of this BoA mortgage deal? Everyone thought he was crazy for investing that much in them last year, but now it all make sense!)

 

[MarcoD]

I wouldn't know. To be honest, taxes are that low in the US that as a European I hardly understand what all the fuss is about. It's been a long time since I visited the US, but I think I can guarantee the net effect of lower incomes not paying a lot of taxes: labor is incredibly cheap in the US. That means that buying a Latte, or groceries, or getting around by taxi, or whatever, should be dirt cheap.

You can tax the lower incomes more, but it would ultimately just mean that life for the 'rich' would become more expensive.

 

[mege]

I wouldn't know. To be honest, taxes are that low in the US that as a European I hardly understand what all the fuss is about. It's been a long time since I visited the US, but I think I can guarantee the net effect of lower incomes not paying a lot of taxes: labor is incredibly cheap in the US. That means that buying a Latte, or groceries, or getting around by taxi, or whatever, should be dirt cheap.

You can tax the lower incomes more, but it would ultimately just mean that life for the 'rich' would become more expensive.

Just federal taxes are lower in the US. Add in the other layers of government in the US (state income taxes are high-single digits, property taxes are a wealth-tax, etc) and the difference isn't as stark. Another factor is that the average American works more (total and per week) than the average European - so if services were the same per person (I know they're not...) then Americans would need to pay lower taxes proportional to the difference in time worked anyhow.

And for the most part - stuff is cheaper is significantly cheaper in the US. Most of the impoverished in the US own appliances, TVs, and a car... in Europe that's not the case.

Finally, it isn't about 'taxing the lower incomes more' it's about having a responsible government that doesn't just pay capable people to live. In any system, there are going to be rich and poor - but that doesn't mean that the rich have to be giving up their life to pay for the poor. Intrinsically - I don't think that the fight is really about '1/2 not paying any taxes.' What grinds my gears, is that part of this 50% which isn't paying taxes is also demanding that the rich pay more. Fair is fine... but that's far from fair.

 

[MarcoD]

That. I think the taxes problem is an entire economical problem and that the US economists don't really care about what the population think. It may seem unfair, but I expect the average rationale to be something like: US external debt is lousily huge, but US net investment position isn't too bad. I.e., assets abroad largely make up for foreign owned assets in the US. But assets owned abroad are largely owned by the rich, and taxing the rich would just drive them out of the US, and the US would end up with only an enormous debt. So the US simply cannot tax the rich, even if people would like to.

Similarly, keeping wages low is good for the US's international competitiveness, so nothing will change there either.

It's a lot of speculation on my part, but I don't think anything will change since it cannot.

 

[WhoWee]

The tax burden should be carried primarily by the people with the largest incomes, which it is. Seems fair to me. Additionally, it would be quite fair to tax income from dividends, interest, capital gains at much higher than current rates, imo.

Be careful what you wish for - it's not a very big leap from this point to a point where the Government grabs 30% of 401K's over some random level that sounds "rich" - maybe $100,000? That will also sound fair to the "poor" - won't it?

 

[WhoWee]

Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?

That would not be reasonable - would it?

 

[WhoWee]

First, let's strip out the loaded word punish. Now, let's ask why tax investments? Because the alternative is to tax people without investments more. You have to get the money from somewhere.

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.

Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?

 

[WhoWee]

I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.

Slavery (?) - your 'feelings' just don't make sense to me. If someone works two or three odd jobs they might make enough to pay $1.00 in net taxes - if they receive a redistribution of income taxes they probably don't?

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course not. I am saying it really doesn't matter. If people make that small amount of money that they can't really pay federal taxes, then that only means that wealth was moved to higher-income individuals. I.e., you could tax taxi drivers more, but it would only mean you'ld end up paying more for getting around.

We're talking about $1.00 in federal income tax - not depending upon others for survival - self sufficiency and financial freedom.

 

[MarcoD]

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.

As a business owner you're probably glad you're not taxed too much, and in case you own a factory, or small business, you're very glad your employees don't pay a lot in tax, otherwise their wages need to go up. It's good for everyone, except for the middle incomes. (Except for that more factories means more wealth for everybody, of course.)

 

[WhoWee]

As a business owner you're probably glad you're not taxed too much, and in case you own a factory, or small business, you're very glad your employees don't pay a lot in tax, otherwise their wages need to go up. It's good for everyone, except for the middle incomes.

I'm not certain the basis of your assumptions?

As a business owner, I can assure you the cost of payroll services, accounting, HIPPA/MIPPA/compliance (in my industry OSHA in others along with Workers
's Comp), training, benefits, matching taxes, and comforts are considerable.

 

[phoenix:\\]

I stipulated a payment of $1.00 in federal income taxes - and you express outrage?

As for your comments about women and black people - what is the purpose and what is the basis of your attack and devisive rhetoric?

Slippery slop logic primarily in his post.

The system needs to be fixed, but in terms of voting procedures go, that idea isn't smart. It disallows some individuals to vote and holding down 3 meager jobs whilst supporting a family =/= being able to pay federal income tax. No. 1 reason why the government is allowing much leeway to those suffering in financial obligations.

 

[jtbell]

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.

Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?

Uh... wouldn't taxing capital gains the same as earned income simplify the tax code?

 

[WhoWee]

Slippery slop logic primarily in his post.

The system needs to be fixed, but in terms of voting procedures go, that idea isn't smart. It disallows some individuals to vote and holding down 3 meager jobs whilst supporting a family =/= being able to pay federal income tax. No. 1 reason why the government is allowing much leeway to those suffering in financial obligations.

Why don't you support your comments - or label as opinion?

 

[WhoWee]

Uh... wouldn't taxing capital gains the same as earned income simplify the tax code?

I responded to this comment by PG:
"You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income. "

Does that sound like an attempt to simplify?

 

[phyzguy]

What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?

 

[jduster]

I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?

$1 is an arbitrary number, the value of which will change over time. How would you index this figure, as in 50 years, $1 will likely be worth 50 cents? What is the significance of $1? Is it supposed to be a token number?

Could a felon vote if he has a job? Could a 12 year old vote if he has a job? Even jobless people could donate $1 to the IRS, no?

Above all, what good purpose would this acheive?

 

[WhoWee]

What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?

Should we assume you spent all of your money and no have no other means of support for yourself - isn't unemployment subject to income tax?

 

[WhoWee]

$1 is an arbitrary number, the value of which will change over time. How would you index this figure, as in 50 years, $1 will likely be worth 50 cents? What is the significance of $1? Is it supposed to be a token number?

Could a felon vote if he has a job? Could a 12 year old vote if he has a job? Even jobless people could donate $1 to the IRS, no?

Above all, what good purpose would this acheive?

I thought my Post #73 was clear?

"We're talking about $1.00 in federal income tax - not depending upon others for survival - self sufficiency and financial freedom."

Also Post #35 referred back to Post #25
"I commented on this in Post #25: my bold

"There are three possible categories of persons in this conversation.
1.) People who pay $1.00 or more per year in net federal income taxes.
2.) People who pay $0.00 in federal income taxes and receive $0.00 federal income tax return - don't contribute and don't receive.
3.) People who do not pay $1.00 in federal income taxes but receive assistance from a program they did not contribute to (not Social Security or Medicare or VA-contribution was service to country).""

 

[ThomasT]

Why? Why punish investments? Why punish retirees who prudently invested in the economy and saved instead of spent? Why punish people that save so they don't need to be a burden on society in their old age? Who do you think actually benefits from dividends, interest, and capital gains?

Investments are not only for billionaires.

I meant that it would, imo, be fair to tax the largest dividend, interest, and capital gains incomes at much higher than current rates.

 

[SixNein]

That would not be reasonable - would it?

The whole idea you have is unreasonable and in my opinion extreme. You are proposing to create a hierarchical society where the government only represents people who have x amount of income where x is high enough to be taxed at least 1 dollar by federal income tax standards. Have you even considered just how many latent functions such an action would carry? Such an idea is essentially replacing democracy with plutocracy.

I suppose the people who don't get to vote would still have to pay other taxes right? But they don't get any kind of representation.

In my opinion, this sounds like libertarian hogwash.

 

[SixNein]

The entire problem with our government right now is essentially the thousands of different and competing interests. I don't think liberals or conservatives are at a disagreement with the concept that the tax system needs to be completely overhauled. But I do think people must get rid of their ideological religions in order to get things running correctly. And I don't see any leader on the horizon who could get people to snap out of it. Good leadership simply does not exists in this nation.

 

[WhoWee]

The whole idea you have is unreasonable and in my opinion extreme. You are proposing to create a hierarchical society where the government only represents people who have x amount of income where x is high enough to be taxed at least 1 dollar by federal income tax standards. Have you even considered just how many latent functions such an action would carry? Such an idea is essentially replacing democracy with plutocracy.

I suppose the people who don't get to vote would still have to pay other taxes right? But they don't get any kind of representation.

In my opinion, this sounds like libertarian hogwash.

Why would the Government only represent the people who pay taxes?

 

[SixNein]

Why would the Government only represent the people who pay taxes?

Your idea would remove voting privileges for people who are deemed to not be contributing enough to American society. As a result, these people would lose their voting privilege and the government representation that goes along with the privilege to vote. But they would still be coerced into paying other taxes.

Essentially, your idea is to basically remove government representation for a portion of society that isn't deemed to be good enough.

 

[SixNein]

Why would the Government only represent the people who pay taxes?

In my opinion WhoWee, we would need to build a decision tree in order to understand how to fix the tax system. And I think it would take quite a bit of work in order to come up with a real solution. And even if we succeed in constructing something sensible, I really doubt it would even get looked at by government.

A good idea would be to start a thread about the creation of such a tree. Start with a basic proposition like: We will have a progressive tax system. And have members contribute to pros and cons of such a system. And we eliminate branches of the tree with the most risk while taking branches with the most benefit for the republic.

Honestly, congress should be doing this... but its broken and bogged down with ideology and pandering to bases.

 

[WhoWee]

Your idea would remove voting privileges for people who are deemed to not be contributing enough to American society. As a result, these people would lose their voting privilege and the government representation that goes along with the privilege to vote. But they would still be coerced into paying other taxes.

Essentially, your idea is to basically remove government representation for a portion of society that isn't deemed to be good enough.

My idea is to motivate them to become productive - get off the Government handout list - even if that means working multiple jobs.