Taxation...

[Slytovhand]

Who?
How much?
Who gets it?
Where should it go?

And the big one (no, seriously - the real reason for this thread)... WHY???

Especially with the little thread on Obama and his new tax policy of even heavier taxation on the rich... why should they get said burden just because they've earnt more... isn't that the ideal of a capitalistic society? You earn more, you get to spend more... Not you earn more, you get more taken off you...

Discuss.

[Sylvia727]

The problem with heavy taxing of the upper class is the truly elite, the 1% of the population that holds 40% of the wealth (or whatever the statistics are) skate out from under it with tax shelters. The ones who get hit hard by it, then, are the mundane upper class folk. The millionaires who live in suburbia, the ones who own their own businesses and do very well. The people who make tons and tons of money can afford to hire armies of accountants to cover their tracks. The doctors and lawyers, average-joe-done-well types, get slapped with the higher tax. Then folks hear about how the wealthy don't pay enough taxes and demand that their taxes be raised, not really bothering the elite and taking more away from the middle upper class.

Flat tax is the fairest way to go, in my opinion. Start taxing incomes at a certain point above the poverty line, and offer rebates on things like what Boozy mentioned in another thread, eco-friendly products or what-have-you. And do away with extraneous taxes, like the inheritance tax and property taxes.

Property taxes are just wrong. I can see some sort of tax or fee on homes, since that would ensure that people paid for their own county's roads and schools instead of making that a statewide concern, but cars? Really? To own a car, I first have to earn the money, which the government taxes as income, then I have to buy it, which the government taxes as sales, then I have to pay the government every year that I own it. Why? How many slices of my pie is the government entitled to? I can't see the need for sales taxes, either; perhaps someone else could enlighten me. Surely the government gets their money from the incomes of the shopkeepers; why do they need to tax the individual sales?

[Boozy]

As a general rule, a government should heavily tax the things that we don't want (ie pollution) and offer generous tax write-offs on the things that we do (saving for retirement, tuition for higher education).

(Taxing incomes at all is a bit silly in this respect, because do we not want people earning money? Unfortunately, we've never been able to come up with another solution that will raise enough revenue, so income taxes are a necessary evil.)

Richer people spend more than poorer people, so they can save more on taxes by making responsible and wise choices. A poor person is never going to get that write-off for buying a fuel-efficient car or paying her tuition, because she can't afford those things in the first place. Tax incentives do not benefit the poor. So I personally believe that the poor should pay less of their income, as a percentage.

I support sales taxes for this reason. They hit everyone equally, and generally only luxury goods are taxed heavily. We have very heavy taxes on liquor and cigarettes here in Ontario. Anyone, rich or poor, can choose to avoid paying these taxes by not drinking or smoking. Interestingly, the poor pay a higher percentage of these taxes than the rich, because studies show that they drink and smoke more. But that's their decision to make.

As far as how much to tax, that depends on what you want your government to spend and how badly they you want to spend it. A balanced budget should be the goal, although its not a bad idea to run a surplus while the economy is going well. That way, you'll be able to afford the deficit-spending that is necessary during a recession.

I can tell you one thing: You can't go to war in two countries and not raise taxes, despite what Bush thinks.

[Slytovhand]

Ok... why have an 'income tax' in the first place??

I do recall seeing a youtube to the effect that a few lawyers/accountants/(probably some rich ppl too) brought up a law suit to the effect that income tax was unconstitutional (goes against the life, liberty and property right you apparently have... or something). End result was the suit was thrown out (which, I take to mean, they couldn't or more likely, wouldn't, make a ruling on it... probably cos they'd lose, and it'd just make life hell).

[AdminAssistant]

Err, actually in the US Constitution it's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. John Locke's (at least, I think it was Locke) original statement was life, liberty, and property.

[Pedersen]

Err, actually, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence

[AdminAssistant]

Err, actually, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence

Whoops!

Heh, I guess I've been reading too much Euro History lately.

[joe hx]

As a general rule, a government should heavily tax the things that we don't want (ie pollution) and offer generous tax write-offs on the things that we do (saving for retirement, tuition for higher education).

really? saying this suggests higher taxes on gasoline, fatty foods, tabacoo, car miliage, sugar, etc. and yes, all this taxes have, at least, been talked about in congress.

in my opinion, government should only use taxes to fund government, not to force people to make certain decisions or wealth distribution

[Gravekeeper]

in my opinion, government should only use taxes to fund government, not to force people to make certain decisions or wealth distribution

The inherent problem, however, is that bad decision making on the part of an individual can lead to that individual putting an increased strain on a country's social systems either directly or indirectly. Thus consuming more tax dollars than the average citizen.

Thus, it is logical to try and encourage good decision making and discourage bad decision making when it comes to taxation.

This is especially true for us Canucks up here where we have free healthcare.

[joe hx]

that bad decision making on the part of an individual

saying this also implies that, since government is run by individuals, that they will make bad decisions, thus the slippery slope.

i'd rather make my own decisions than let the government make them for me.

[Gravekeeper]

saying this also implies that, since government is run by individuals, that they will make bad decisions, thus the slippery slope.

.....what? Thats a hell of a ridiculous stretch. I'm not even sure what you're attempting to argue? What slippery slope? Slippery slope to where?

By individual "bad" decisions I'm referring to what you'd call "vice" taxes. IE taxing the "bad" things such as cigarettes, alcohol, energy inefficient vehicles or products, environmentally unfriendly products, etc etc. While attempting to encourage "good" decisions by offering tax breaks on say green products or fuel efficient vehicles.

i'd rather make my own decisions than let the government make them for me.

and you're quite welcome too. All I'm saying is if you make a bad decision and it increases the tax burden on everyone else, than it makes sense for a government to try and use a tax on the source of your bad decision. To try and offset the potential increase in tax dollars you may consume as a result.

IE your freedom only extends as far as before it begins to adversely affect other people. If what your doing could potentially harm others or potentially case an increased tax burden on others, than the government may attempt to offset that by making you pay for some of that burden. Understand?

[Boozy]

i'd rather make my own decisions than let the government make them for me.

And you're welcome to purchase whatever'd you'd like (within reason). But any efficient and fair tax system will make you pay more for the things that cost society more. People who heavily pollute the environment should pay more for its clean-up than people who pollute less.

This isn't a way to restrict freedom. It's a way to give citizens freedom of choice while still holding them responsible for those decisions.

[joe hx]

.....what? Thats a hell of a ridiculous stretch. I'm not even sure what you're attempting to argue? What slippery slope? Slippery slope to where?

i must have my idioms messed up...

By individual "bad" decisions I'm referring to what you'd call "vice" taxes. IE taxing the "bad" things such as cigarettes, alcohol, energy inefficient vehicles or products, environmentally unfriendly products, etc etc. While attempting to encourage "good" decisions by offering tax breaks on say green products or fuel efficient vehicles.

curious, then, how do we determine what are "vices" and what are not? certainly cigarettes and alcohol are. what about sex? should we tax that? diseases are transferred by sex, even with condoms and other protection. could taxes be retroactive if we discover new vices?

----

not to confuse anyone, but jumping on the other side here maybe a "vice" tax can only be applied if there is a corresponding social service

[Boozy]

curious, then, how do we determine what are "vices" and what are not? certainly cigarettes and alcohol are. what about sex? should we tax that? diseases are transferred by sex, even with condoms and other protection. could taxes be retroactive if we discover new vices?

I think you're making this much more complicated than it is. Governments already operate their tax systems like this.... just not to the extent I would like to see.

There's no slippery slope, no "retroactive" taxes... and of course there's no tax on sex, since that is neither a good nor a service, has no assigned value, and therefore is non-taxable.

And "vice" is not the right word. One can theoretically have a vice that has no externalites (the cost to society), and therefore shouldn't be taxed heavily.

All I'm asking is that people pay for the damage and/or inconvenience they cause others. It's pretty basic.

[daleduke17]

Flat tax is the fairest way to go, in my opinion. Start taxing incomes at a certain point above the poverty line, and offer rebates on things like what Boozy mentioned in another thread, eco-friendly products or what-have-you. And do away with extraneous taxes, like the inheritance tax and property taxes.

Then that isn't a flat tax. "Flat tax" would have everything taxed the same. If I want a soda and fries, it should be taxed the same as if I wanted tofu and bean sprouts. Just the same as if I want to drive a pickup vs a hybrid car.