Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dems should keep a PROGRESSIVE tax system

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:22 AM
Original message
Dems should keep a PROGRESSIVE tax system
if you make millions a year then you can pay more fucking taxes.

A flat tax sounds simple but 30% of $12 grand is crippling for the poor.

I like to call it the Fair Share Tax plan, if you make more money you pay more taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Indeed, Ma'am
For the record, Mr. Adam Smith, who many rightist claim to swear by but evidently have not read, is foursquare in favor of progressive taxation, on the ground that as the wealthy derive more benefit from government, they ought to pay a greater proportion of its costs. That remains as true today as it was in the eighteenth century....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queeg Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why should somone with 12K pay any tax?
while a Knee jerk reaction just to say No, No,No. may have worked in the past it is time to get on with the business of moving this nation into the 21st century ---I think a tax plan where those under say 35k would pay No tax, and those above that would be subjected to a flat tax with deductions ONLY for child credits to be completely reasonable---

The whole F-ing point of a flat tax is to get rid of deductions for being a Republican or for owning three houses or for owning a nuclear power plant---its all those freking deductionss that allow millionaires to pay No tax---

I am For a reasonable flat tax system with the understanding that there are NO deductions and that at a specific point and below a person is not subject to tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Do you have any actual points?
Or can you only accuse those who disagree with you of "having knee-jerk reactions" and being "obstructionist", without even bothering to acknowledge any valid arguments against your position?

Hardly conducive to constructive debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It Is Not That Simple, Sir
Deductions for mortgage interest, for example, are essential to widespread ownership of homes. Deductions for medical expenses are often invaluable.

The real fiddles have nothing to do with wage income. They involve wrinkles in investment, that generate paper losses deducted from actual income. The leading iniquity is the taxation of investment income at a lower rate than wage income. A flat tax on wage income would do nothing to adress any of these things, and no "flat tax" proposal suggests applying the rate to investment income as well as wages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Take the existing tax code and remove those deductions you oppose
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:43 AM by Selatius
It doesn't require you to totally toss out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, you can make the first 35,000 in earned income free from taxation by writing it into the existing tax code without having to restructure the entire code. All you'd have to do is increase the minimum amount where anything beyond that is taxed. In this case, you'd be moving the limit upward to 35,000.

For the current income tax, for instance, you could set a tax rate at 10% for everything after 35,000 but before 50,000. For everything between 50,000 and 250,000, you could set a rate at 20%. Then you could set a 30% rate for everything that falls between 250,000 to 500,000. You can make the existing code more progressive by readjusting the tax brackets up the income ladder as well as going through and systematically eliminating the loopholes and credits and gimmicks and whatever but at the same time incorporating in child tax credits and exemptions for purchasing a home, for instance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queeg Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. and you just added 5000 pages to the tax code as it stands
Its the bigest pile of weasley ass loopholes and underpasses that Washington has ever contrived, and unless you can start with a blank slate it will NEVER get any better---it's time to think like a progressive and not an obstructionist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Demonstrate where you got the 5,000 figure from then
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:49 AM by Selatius
How long did it take you to come up with that calculation? Or are you tossing out a number on the fly?

You'd like to have an open conversation, and I'm trying to give you my views, but continuing to claim everyone who may hold a differing view as obstructionist isn't going to do anybody here any good. It would more likely harm the atmosphere needed for constructive discussions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queeg Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Point being you don't have a different view
other that No,No,No,No.NO

lot of good that does--and yeah obstructionist--if the shoe fit buddy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. That's an unfair characterization of my position, imho
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 03:00 AM by Selatius
I do propose reforms to the existing income tax, but I'm not going to do it at the expense of the working class while letting off the wealthiest corporatists in the land.

If you want the first 35,000 free, then write it into the current tax code. If you want to make the tax code even fairer, you could also couple that 35,000 credit with a 90% tax rate for earned income beyond, for instance, 1,000,000 dollars. You could also equalize the disparity between current capital gains taxes and the income tax and undo the current changes to the capital gains tax when the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

As far as taxes go, the ones who should pay should be the ones most able to pay. That's not true of the current tax code.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate where you got "5,000" from...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. That's highly amusing.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:59 AM by Spider Jerusalem
No matter what anyone says to you on the issue, you just stick your fingers in your ears and chant "obstructionist" over and over again, like a bad-tempered child.

Can you see all right, with that beam in your eye?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Ninety Percent Of Taxpayers, Sir
Encounter none of those things. Do not make the mistake of conflating personal wage income tax with all federal taxation. The things are very different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. progressive taxation worked very well in this country . . .
for a long time . . . until the greedy wealth-holders and their Congressional minions (many of whom are millionaires themselves) started chipping away at it . . . a return to true progressive taxation would be a good first step toward correcting the massive wealth imbalance that has resulted . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
podnoi Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. Progressive Taxation is tied to the rise of the middle class
The tax code was changed to be more progressive at the end of the depression and is closely paralleled to the rise of the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
12. as a high UK income tax payer
I totally agree that tax should be progressive. WTF I'd do with more money I can't fathom. That might sound a tad stupid but if we all asked ourselves "how much is enough?" we might get the basis of a good debate going. The ceaseless pursuit of more and more wealth is obsessive behaviour imho. It's not necessary so it must be driven by motivations other than simple necessity. Let's leave out the argument that personal advancement underpins our struggle to succeed in material terms because that requires detailed discussion; I want to keep this simple for now.

The oriental concept of yin and yang is relevant here. The current wealth imbalance is so great that our societal structures are waaay out of balance with the concomitant tensions that result therefrom. As long as we live in a society where wealth imbalance is so great that a large part of that society has to struggle to survive in the midst of obscene wealth is just asking for trouble. The imbalance wil eventually trigger a breaskdown to try and redress the situation.

In short, progressive taxation is an essential component of a fair and just society where equality of opportunity is open to all. The current concentration of wealth in a tiny segment of society excludes entrepreneurs from the market and makes a mockery of free market principles that would have Adam Smith turning in his grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. But do you have to file
My UK taxes are taken without any obligation on my part of file
anything at all. It is impressively efficient and WAY more effective
than the US system of filing state and federal income tax forms of
awesome complexity to account for every possibility of how you earned
and spent money the previous year.

That said, the VAT is a progressive flat tax, and what a lot of tax
reform thinking is about, is to apply a similar progressive flat tax
as the european VAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. PAYE Sweetheart
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 03:10 AM by McKenzie
I've never filled out a tax form except when my taxation liabilities have changed.

Yes, it efficient and avoids abuses apart from corporate tax evasion (edit: avoidance is the correct term because it's legal)and offshore shell companies.

I'm glad I live in the UK (Scotland) although I'd live in France, Germany, Belgium or Holland at the drop of a hat. Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are other possibilities.

regards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
17. Flat taxes can be progressive
There is no reason, with the computer technology of 2005 for an
individual to have to assemble the tax returns of a previous era.
A progressive tax can be implemented at the "point of payment" all
across the economy, and not a single bit of paper need be filed or
filled out to achieve 100% compliance.

The mistake many folks make is th presume that the existing code IS
progressive to start with, and/or that a flat tax system will
be regressive. A flat tax like the european VAT is clearly progressive,
by the way it was implemented. Tax regimens are tools, like
screwdrivers, they are only regressive if you screw poor people, but
to attach this moral power to the tool is getting overly emotional.
You can just as well put the screws on rich people with a comprehensive,
unavoidable 100%-coverage payment tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queeg Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. DAMN straight
and exactly some of the points I am attempting to make--

Even pointing out that there may be a different way to implement a reasonable tax system that simplifies life seems to get jumped on without even an ounce of consideration that there may indeed be a better method that does away with the 10s of thousands of pages of the completely incomprehensible current tax system.

I lived in Australia 15 years ago when the Tax number system came into effect and trhe screams could be heard far and wide until the actual day that everyome filed...and guess what it was ok---and for the nuttos out there, this was proposed and implemented during the prime ministership of a progressive liberal. so there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC