Taxes: A Question for Kerry Supporters

[MMMMMM]

That is the only fair way, Andy. The money isn't the government's, it's the income-earner's. The government isn't giving anything back to you with a tax cut, they're just robbing you less. And people earning 40 million have the same right to not be robbed as people earning 40 thousand.

When the federal government cuts its budget--and taxes--by about 75% then maybe I'll change my mind. Until then I believe the government should not be playing favorites with whom they rob for money to waste and buy votes with.

[IrishHand]

I would say that $50K is a fair number to use for "amount a family needs to live a good life (by industrialized worldwide standards - meaning modest home, 2 cars, health care, etc), on average". (Yes, this varies by location - but looking at the country as a whole, it seems in the ballpark.)

So, I'd say that $50K allows you to reasonably claim to be "middle class". The reason I'd rate $200 as upper class is that they've got $150K in money to do with as they please - none of it goes to necessities...it's all ultimately luxury items. Yes, a family making $5M a year has a LOT more of that luxury money ($4.95M as opposed to $0.15M), but you're still talking about an economic elite.

However, after reading that site, I agree that it's reasonable to call the $200K group "upper middle class" and the insanely rich "upper class" if only to preserve the value of the distinctions.

[andyfox]

Given, then, that the government is stealing, don't you think that the theft hurts the person making $40,000 a year more than the person making $40,000,0000? I know people in both conditions, and the people making $40,000,000 have a much nicer life. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I think we can agree that it's probably the case in general.

Given the fact that the $40,000 earners pay a much higher percentage of their income in other taxes, a progressive income tax serves to flatten out overall taxes. And since you seem to feel a flat tax (i.e., everyone, regardless of income, paying the same percentage) is the fairest system, a progressive income tax fits the bill (pun intended) perfectly and, thus, giving the lower income earners a larger tax cut would have been fairer.

[MMMMMM]

Well I would argue that 50K is just about enough for a family to squeak by on today, and that if they earn 100K or even \200K most of the money will just be spent on saving for college expenses, living in a better neighborhood so the kids get in better public schools, better health insurance, better cars, etc. Sure a bit of it will be spent on things like better vacations too, but just because you can "get by" on 50K doesn't mean you can't find good non-frivolous non-luxurious use for that "extra" 50K or 100K. Really just living well and not even ostentatiously could take most of it for a family, especially considering planning for college.

As for preserving the value of the distinctions, I think it is important only because people like Kerry call those earning 200K "the rich" and thus promote a class warfare mentality. If he had said he wanted to roll back tax cuts for "the well-off" I really wouldn't have objected so much, but I just think it is divisive and disingenous to portray it as affecting only "the rich".

[MMMMMM]

First off I only think it is stealing insofar as they waste a great deal of the money and use it to pander to special interests to buy votes. If the tax collected were actually what a very-trimmed down federal budget would require (more in keeping with my idea of the constitutional intention of the federal government's duties), I would not be objecting so nor calling it stealing. Just to get that out of the way.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the fact that the $40,000 earners pay a much higher percentage of their income in other taxes, a progressive income tax serves to flatten out overall taxes. And since you seem to feel a flat tax (i.e., everyone, regardless of income, paying the same percentage) is the fairest system, a progressive income tax fits the bill (pun intended) perfectly and, thus, giving the lower income earners a larger tax cut would have been fairer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think a consumption tax on non-necessity items in lieu of income tax would be the fairest and best system, but since we're talking about income tax...let's see...I don't quite agree with your line of reasoning because you are mixing two types of tax. Another way of looking at your argument would be to say that sales taxes should be modified somewhat according the purchaser's income if the goal is a flat tax structure. This will require further contemplation but basically I don't think it should even be the government's business what anyone earns, and a consumption tax would keep them out of our hair, pockets and private lives in a way that an income tax never can.

As for the ramifications of your argument, I agree you have a point in a way, and will think about it late when I don't already have a headache.

[andyfox]

Whether or not the government collects too much shouldn't make any difference in the argument. It's the method of collection that is at question: is it fair to take a higher percentage (or a greater absolute amount) from those who can afford to give a higher percentage, or should everybody pay the same percentage (or absolute amount)?

Hope that headache is better.

[$DEADSEXE$]

it amazes me how dumb the american public is...three debates and we're still geting questions like this.