Socialist Playbook-this isn't about politics, it's about overthrowing the USA.

[ocean_jet]

You think fairness in the tax code means that all taxpayers should pay the same dollar amount in taxes? Please explain your logic.

I didn't make any such assertion, even if you believe the implication is there.


I have though asked you several times now to explain how a flat tax on income is "fair" when it leaves one citizen paying so much more than another?

I say the U.S. Citizens need to demand the implementation of a flat tax, where all wage earners pay the same percentage of their income. This takes the whole "who's paying their fair share of taxes" question off the table.

You said the flat tax would take any discussion of who's paying their fair share off the table... yet you seem unable or unwilling to explain how it is fair. Not only do you claim it to be fair, but it is supposedly SO OBVIOUSLY fair that US citizens should be DEMANDING it.

Yet I still don't see the fairness in a system where two US citizens can end up owing such vastly different amounts.

 

[kastein]

ocean_jet you have got to be either trolling or playing devil's advocate.

 

[n1ywb]

ocean_jet you have got to be either trolling or playing devil's advocate.

Seriously. Seems like a matter of opinion to me which is more fair, flat in relative percentage terms or flat in absolute fixed amount terms.

As a practical matter I don't see how the country could survive with a fixed-amount federal tax.

I'm a computer engineer and it pisses me off how long it takes me to do my taxes. We certainly need a simpler tax system. I don't necessarily agree with a "flat tax" or "fair tax"; I'm fine with a progressive tax. After all income distribution isn't flat, so why should taxation be?

 

[XJEEPER]

Yet I still don't see the fairness in a system where two US citizens can end up owing such vastly different amounts.

US Citizen A earns $100k per year
US Citizen B earns $50k per year

Flat tax of 15%

Citizen A pays $15,000 tax
Citizen B pays $7,500 tax

They both pay 15% in tax. Please explain to us how this is not fair? :twak:

I have to agree with Ken.....my trolldar is pegged.

 

[ocean_jet]

US Citizen A earns $100k per year
US Citizen B earns $50k per year

Flat tax of 15%

Citizen A pays $15,000 tax
Citizen B pays $7,500 tax

They both pay 15% in tax. Please explain to us how this is not fair? :twak:

I have to agree with Ken.....my trolldar is pegged.

Ok... call me a troll if you like... but you have yet to explain how it is fair. It doesn't seem fair to me that citizen A has to pay twice what citizen B pays.


Let me ask you this... earlier, you said:

per popular Socialist opinion, I have no right to the property/wealth that I will inherit from my parents when they pass, without first paying the federal government "their share", of which they have done nothing to earn?

In your example above, how has the government "earned" it's $15K from citizen A, but only "earned" $7.5K from citizen B.


Did the government provide twice the service to citizen A relative to citizen B? Did citizen A have twice the access to our nation's natural resources? Did the armed services deliver twice the freedom to citizen A?


Or does it really just boil down to the fact that citizen A is able to pay more than citizen B?

 

[kastein]

I didn't make any such assertion, even if you believe the implication is there.


I have though asked you several times now to explain how a flat tax on income is "fair" when it leaves one citizen paying so much more than another?

In your example above, how has the government "earned" it's $15K from citizen A, but only "earned" $7.5K from citizen B.


Did the government provide twice the service to citizen A relative to citizen B? Did citizen A have twice the access to our nation's natural resources? Did the armed services deliver twice the freedom to citizen A?


Or does it really just boil down to the fact that citizen A is able to pay more than citizen B?

So let me get this straight.

Do you or do you not think that everyone should pay the same tax with no regard for how much they make?

So far you have argued in favor of both while claiming you don't think either one is correct. Please choose ONE.

... troll. or just bad at math and logic?

 

[ocean_jet]

So let me get this straight.

Do you or do you not think that everyone should pay the same tax with no regard for how much they make?

So far you have argued in favor of both while claiming you don't think either one is correct. Please choose ONE.

... troll. or just bad at math and logic?

LOL... maybe...

But... it seems it really does just boil down to the fact that citizen A is able to pay more than citizen B?


Is that the case... with a flat tax on income, fairness is defined by the fact that citizen A pays twice what citizen B pays because citizen A is able to pay twice what citizen B pays.

 

[XJEEPER]

I think I've figured it out......it was right there in front of me.

Jet's "fair" is that all should only pay for their exact percentage of the governmentally provided services that they consume.

The only way for this model to work is if for the government provides the citizens with a job, housing, food, healthcare, etc, etc...........Jet, the answer to all your questions can be found here:

http://slp.org/what_is.htm

atriot:

 

[ocean_jet]

I think I've figured it out......it was right there in front of me.

Jet's "fair" is that all should only pay for their exact percentage of the governmentally provided services that they consume.

Not at all.


The US annual budget for 2012 is $3.729 trillion. There are approximately 310 million people in the United States.

FAIR is each man, woman, and child paying exactly $12,029 in 2012. No more. No less. That is FAIR. Please, explain to me how ANYTHING different is "FAIR".

But, as I said before though, I think it's meaningless to talk about what is "FAIR" in the tax system. It's simply not practical.

In the real world of the USA, anyone paying more than $12,029 next year in federal taxes is subsidizing anyone paying less than $12,029 in federal taxes.





As for the flat tax you are a proponent of... you consider a flat tax on income "fair" because since citizen A is able to pay twice what citizen B can pay, it is fair for citizen A to pay twice what citizen B pays.

From each what they are able.

Hmm.... where have I heard that before...

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
- Karl Marx



Meanwhile, when anyone even hints at a tax on wealth, you evoke the evils of Marxism.... all the while expounding the virtues of a tax code that achieves 50% of the Marxist utopia.

A flat tax on wealth is no more or less Marxist than a flat tax on income.

Once you move away from each citizen paying their exact equal share of the national burden, you are dabbling in socialism and social engineering.




So, the argument of whether we should tax wealth or income, is not pitting Marxist ideals against capitalistic ideals... They're BOTH MARXIST... it's not pitting Marxist ideals against capitalistic ideals... no, it's simply pitting those with wealth against those with income.

And your preference for a tax on income, not wealth... is well, just the social engineering that you find the most appealing. Neither one is less Marxist than the other.

 

[ocean_jet]

No, I am not proposing a true flat tax (each citizen pays an equal share)...

but just imagine how voting booth behavior might change if each year you received, and had to pay, a bill for your share of public spending.



We'd value leaders who would deliver economic results, not those who can win popularity contest.

 

[kastein]

Yeah, I wish the world was fair too.

Sadly it isn't. I just stare at my tax forms every year and wish I could toss them out the XXXXing window and use my total pay for the year, what was withheld, and a desk calculator to figure out what I owe or am owed.

 

[XJEEPER]

but just imagine how voting booth behavior might change if each year you received, and had to pay, a bill for your share of public spending.



We'd value leaders who would deliver economic results, not those who can win popularity contest.

My share of public spending, or national debt?

Current national debt per citizen is $47,210.00, but debt per taxpayer is $131,488.00.....time to rethink fair?



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Socialism means direct control and management of all industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Marxism has nothing to do with a flat tax model under the US Constitution and an ecomomy based on capitalism. The US was not created to be a democracy, but a republic. Were we find ourselves today, as a country, is in a battle to retain our Republic. We find our government policies and agendas being overrun by those who prefer the democracy of Marx. The two cannot co-exist.

I'm not opposed to taxing wealth, I've yet to hear a compelling arguement to prove that this will work better than a flat tax.

 

[Darky]

So, you support a flat tax, not because it is any more "fair" than the current system, but because it is easier, and it prevents "social engineering".

But you didn't comment on "fairness"....

You mentioned before that a flat tax takes the question of tax fairness off the table.




Why is the flat tax on income more "fair"... how does it take the question of fairness off the table, when you end up with one citizen paying so much more than another?

To me, using the income from my last job, a $30k car, while that may be near the average cost of a new car, is outrageously overpriced. Not because I don't think the value is there but because there's no way in hell for me to swing the $500 monthly payment. For the supposed middle class (somehow being rich - $250k/yr - has become middle class), a $30k car would be an insult to their taste. They expect a $60k car. For me, paying $15k a year in taxes would severely limit me. My kids would have no opportunities to play sports outside of school, no opportunities for anything other than precisely what is needed to get by. To the aforementioned middle class, $15k/yr is nothing. How is it fair that they can empty the change in their pockets once a year and get by while I am destitute, even though I work as hard if not harder (I regularly pulled 9-10 hr days, laying out in the desert in the middle of summer, waiting to ambush the Marines on their patrol training, inventorying and moving transit cases weighing in at between 120-350 pounds, etc.) than the typical upper management middle class person.

Ok... call me a troll if you like... but you have yet to explain how it is fair. It doesn't seem fair to me that citizen A has to pay twice what citizen B pays.


Let me ask you this... earlier, you said:



In your example above, how has the government "earned" it's $15K from citizen A, but only "earned" $7.5K from citizen B.


Did the government provide twice the service to citizen A relative to citizen B? Did citizen A have twice the access to our nation's natural resources? Did the armed services deliver twice the freedom to citizen A?


Or does it really just boil down to the fact that citizen A is able to pay more than citizen B?

There was once a great man who said, "Ask not what the country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." We don't necessarily pay taxes just to get something back. There is a little bit of a socialistic bent built into running this country. It needs to be there to a certain degree because otherwise it wouldn't make sense to take money from the people to pay for the military, police, roads, etc. In order to fund these things, we need money. If citizen A made twice as much and paid twice as much in taxes, he still ends up with twice as much as citizen B.

Not at all.


The US annual budget for 2012 is $3.729 trillion. There are approximately 310 million people in the united states.

FAIR is each man, woman, and child paying exactly $12,029 in 2012. No more. No less. That is FAIR. Please, explain to me how ANYTHING different is "FAIR".

So...I, being unemployed, collecting unemployment and going to college on my GI Bill, would be expected to pay $60k+ in taxes? I'd be paying my tax load, plus my wife's and each of my three kids. Basically, I'd be making negative $35k, and there are those who find themselves even worse off in this recession than I am. Explain how that would not only be fair, but even possible!


Based on the rest of your post comparing income against wealth, I think I've figured it out: You're arguing to argue because you're idea is different from either of the sides you've been arguing...

EDIT:Also, the person making more money likely receives a larger share of the tax benefit. Police patrols are more heavily focused on richer neighborhoods, they likely have larger cars that put more wear on the roads that they likely drive more miles over, buy more federally subsidized fresh organic produce, etc.

 

[ocean_jet]

Marxism has nothing to do with a flat tax model under the US Constitution and an ecomomy based on capitalism.

No more or less than a flat tax on wealth model under the US Constitution and an economy based on capitalistic.


Any tax system where the amount owed is based on ones' ability to pay has elements of Marxism.


Whether you use ones' wealth or ones' income to determine ones' ability to pay, "from each by their ability" is a Marxist ideal.

 

[ocean_jet]

My share of public spending, or national debt?

Current national debt per citizen is $47,210.00, but debt per taxpayer is $131,488.00.....time to rethink fair?

Spending. US budget is $3.729 trillion for next year. Your share is $12,029 for you and each of your dependents. If you think that isn't fair, you favor some elements of socialism.


Yes, "un-socializaing" the national debt is all but impossible at this point.

 

[ocean_jet]

There was once a great man who said, "Ask not what the country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." We don't necessarily pay taxes just to get something back. There is a little bit of a socialistic bent built into running this country. It needs to be there to a certain degree

Exactly!

there are those who find themselves even worse off in this recession than I am. Explain how that would not only be fair, but even possible!

I don't think it's possible, nor am I proposing it...

No, I am not proposing a true flat tax (each citizen pays an equal share)...

Based on the rest of your post comparing income against wealth, I think I've figured it out: You're arguing to argue

Not really... I am not trying to argue... I am trying illustrate the hypocrisy of evoking the evils of Marxism/Socialism at any mention of wealth being used to determine someones' ability to pay taxes, while at the same time supporting a tax code that has obvious elements of Marxism.

 

[Darky]

No more or less than a flat tax on wealth model under the US Constitution and an economy based on capitalistic.


Any tax system where the amount owed is based on ones' ability to pay has elements of Marxism.


Whether you use ones' wealth or ones' income to determine ones' ability to pay, "from each by their ability" is a Marxist ideal.

In statistics, there's a big difference between rate and amount. If everyone is being taxed at the same rate, it would be reasonably fair. The amounts may be different, but the rate is the same. If, as under the current model, your rate is based on your ability, that would have elements of socialism and be less fair.

 

[ocean_jet]

I'm not opposed to taxing wealth, I've yet to hear a compelling arguement to prove that this will work better than a flat tax.

It's not a matter of "working better"... at this point it is a matter of necessity.

The USA is bankrupt and MUST get it's national debt under control...



The US national debt is $14.7 trillion.

The bottom 50% hold only about $1.6 trillion in total wealth.

We cannot tax the poor out of $14.7 trillion in debt when the bottom 50% of ALL citizens could only possibly contribute 11%...




It's not Marxist... it's reality...

We need several years of budget surpluses to get our financial house in order, and that means more taxes, and less spending.

 

[ocean_jet]

If everyone is being taxed at the same rate, it would be reasonably fair.

Maybe it is fair, but it's still a system where the amount you pay is based on your ability to pay... which is Marxist.

 

[Darky]

Maybe it is fair, but it's still a system where the amount you pay is based on your ability to pay... which is Marxist.

I'd argue that our current system is actually more Marxist. IIRC, the top of the heap are officially taxed at a higher rate than the bottom of the heap. Whether they actually pay it or find loopholes or not is another story. Taxing everyone at the same rate would eliminate that. The rate at which you are taxed does not changed based on your income bracket.