Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

This is always good for discussion on other forums that I frequent.

 

First, the term "Income Inequality".  What exactly does that mean?

 

Second, "fair share".  What exactly is a person's "fair share" when it comes to paying income taxes?  To be clear, this is not the same as the "death tax" or capital gains taxes, just income taxes.  Why exactly is it "fair" for someone that earns a higher income to pay a higher percentage of that income in tax?

I think most people's problem is that the the richest individuals and corporations pay much less than those with lower incomes. 

Quote:I think most people's problem is that the the richest individuals and corporations pay much less than those with lower incomes. 

 

Care to expand on this a bit?  Because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Say you define a "rich" individual as someone that earns $100,000.00 per year.  Why should that individual have to pay a higher percentage of his/her income than someone that makes say $30,000.00 per year?

 

This has nothing to do with corporations, we are talking about income tax.

Quote:Care to expand on this a bit?  Because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Say you define a "rich" individual as someone that earns $100,000.00 per year.  Why should that individual have to pay a higher percentage of his/her income than someone that makes say $30,000.00 per year?

 

This has nothing to do with corporations, we are talking about income tax.

 

Because the government will make better use of that money than the person who earned it. Lib Playbook, Page 1.

Maybe the poor should get taxed more as an incentive to get off their [BLEEP] and get an education and better job. Maybe work fort their [BLEEP] instead of getting handouts.

Not a serious suggestion, but figured I'd throw it out there.

Quote:Care to expand on this a bit?  Because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Say you define a "rich" individual as someone that earns $100,000.00 per year.  Why should that individual have to pay a higher percentage of his/her income than someone that makes say $30,000.00 per year?

 

This has nothing to do with corporations, we are talking about income tax.

Yeah I could have been more specific. I was referring to the lower percentage. I don't think they should pay a higher percentage. I know some liberals do but I do not. I think everything should pay their fair share based on a percentage. 

 

Also, I don't think many people consider 100,000 a year being rich. Comfortable or well off? Sure but certainly not rich. Half a million plus maybe.... I'd consider myself rich as that point though.

All of that Is eliminate when you change the tax code. The income tax is unconstitutional and was only supposed to be temporary when it passed. Should be a lesson for anyone that wants government to fix anything.


Change the tax to a consumption tax

Quote:Yeah I could have been more specific. I was referring to the lower percentage. I don't think they should pay a higher percentage. I know some liberals do but I do not. I think everything should pay their fair share based on a percentage. 

 

I think I understand what you are saying.  So you think that everyone should pay a fixed amount of their income based on a percentage regardless of how much income that they make.  Am I understanding you correctly?

 

As an example, and individual should pay say 23% of their income in taxes regardless if they make $30,000.00 per year or $150,000.00 per year?

Quote:All of that Is eliminate when you change the tax code. The income tax is unconstitutional and was only supposed to be temporary when it passed. Should be a lesson for anyone that wants government to fix anything.


Change the tax to a consumption tax

 

Hmm... it seems like I've heard of this concept before.  Something along the lines of Fair Tax. 

Quote:I think I understand what you are saying.  So you think that everyone should pay a fixed amount of their income based on a percentage regardless of how much income that they make.  Am I understanding you correctly?

 

As an example, and individual should pay say 23% of their income in taxes regardless if they make $30,000.00 per year or $150,000.00 per year?

I know next to nothing about tax codes and what percentage would be a proper number, I'll be the first to admit that but yeah in essence I don't see why more income should pay less percentage overall, in the current setup for taxation. I am sure there is a fine balanced number somewhere.

 

I do agree with EricC85 though. I have done some looking into a consumption tax since he has started talking about it and I think that could be a fair way to tax.... I think.... I probably don't know nearly what he knows about that topic though.

Quote:Hmm... it seems like I've heard of this concept before.  Something along the lines of Fair Tax. 

Are they the same thing?

Quote:I think I understand what you are saying.  So you think that everyone should pay a fixed amount of their income based on a percentage regardless of how much income that they make.  Am I understanding you correctly?

 

As an example, and individual should pay say 23% of their income in taxes regardless if they make $30,000.00 per year or $150,000.00 per year?

To me, I think that is the most fair way. The rich will lay more, but not getting screwed for it because it's a fixed %. I don't know much about taxes and economy. If there is a HUGe flaw in that PLEASE inform me. Because I don't know. Just seems to me to be fair across the board. Sure the rich will always pay more incentive for them to grow without getting screwed for paying more in taxes if they exceed "x" amount in profits or whatever. Every one is treated and taxed equally but it's all up to you on how much you want to earn, this paying in taxes.

Quote:Are they the same thing?

 

it's a version of the consumption tax. There's a couple different versions but of all of them the Fair Tax has gained the most steam so it's the one I support. The Idea is just stop taxing production and tax consumption.

The problem with the tax code is how many times you get taxed. People don't even realize how often their taxed. Even the poorest of people are taxed to near death. I'm of the opinion EVERYONE pays to much in taxes.

Income inequality is just a catchphrase and meaningless on its own.

 

To anyone espousing the virtue of taxing consumption rather than earnings, you should probably take an introductory economics class to gain the slightest of understandings of why such a method of taxation is not only idiotic, but would be economically suicidal for the nation.

Quote:Income inequality is just a catchphrase and meaningless on its own.

 

To anyone espousing the virtue of taxing consumption rather than earnings, you should probably take an introductory economics class to gain the slightest of understandings of why such a method of taxation is not only idiotic, but would be economically suicidal for the nation.

 

Educate us please, I can give you study after study demonstrating a consumption tax would actually increase revenue. 

Quote:Income inequality is just a catchphrase and meaningless on its own.

 

To anyone espousing the virtue of taxing consumption rather than earnings, you should probably take an introductory economics class to gain the slightest of understandings of why such a method of taxation is not only idiotic, but would be economically suicidal for the nation.

 

Are you going to avoid giving your personal information on this claim as well? A consumption tax is actually creating more revenue streams to collect taxes but you claim a production tax is the only way to keep from committing economic suicide, why?

 

Right now you have millions of undocumented workers, that pay NO income tax, under a consumption tax when they purchase goods they would be paying taxes like the rest of us.

 

Black market industries such as narcotics, prostitution, and so on generate millions of untaxed earnings. That money would also be taxed when it is spent.

 

Having a consumption tax also ENCOURAGES individuals to work MORE since they keep all of their income. Individuals are also ENCOURAGED to SAVE money, that's the two things vital to any economy. Production and Savings are the economic fuel that drive any economy, you punish both of those with production taxes. 

 

I know it's a crappy deal if you don't pay any income tax and get 4-8k back in income tax returns right now, but it's simply not a path we can afford to continue on. 

Quote:Educate us please, I can give you study after study demonstrating a consumption tax would actually increase revenue. 

 

Go ahead and link the studies.

 

As for the short answer of why taxation at the time of earning is more effective, it removes the economic disincentive to spend that is created when the taxation occurs at the point of purchase with consumption based taxation schemes.

 

It's the same reason why deflation is dangerous.

 

Additionally it's a regressive scheme that taxes those who have to spend their entire income more heavily than those who are just filling up their investment account with more and more digits.

 

Quote:Are you going to avoid giving your personal information on this claim as well? A consumption tax is actually creating more revenue streams to collect taxes but you claim a production tax is the only way to keep from committing economic suicide, why?

 

Right now you have millions of undocumented workers, that pay NO income tax, under a consumption tax when they purchase goods they would be paying taxes like the rest of us.

 

Black market industries such as narcotics, prostitution, and so on generate millions of untaxed earnings. That money would also be taxed when it is spent.

 

Having a consumption tax also ENCOURAGES individuals to work MORE since they keep all of their income. Individuals are also ENCOURAGED to SAVE money, that's the two things vital to any economy. Production and Savings are the economic fuel that drive any economy, you punish both of those with production taxes. 

 

I know it's a crappy deal if you don't pay any income tax and get 4-8k back in income tax returns right now, but it's simply not a path we can afford to continue on. 

 

I didn't mean a production tax (VAT?), I said that the income needs to be taxed at the point of production, IE, when the value is produced, in the wage phase.

 

As for your black market stuff, money spent in black market activities will never be taxed, but it will eventually be taxed once it cycles back into the legitimate market.

 

Why would mexicans suddenly start paying taxes if they're not currently doing so? If they have a legitimate employer they're already being assessed taxes, and if they're not then they'll only pay taxes when they interact with legitimate businesses.

Quote:Go ahead and link the studies.

 

As for the short answer of why taxation at the time of earning is more effective, it removes the economic disincentive to spend that is created when the taxation occurs at the point of purchase with consumption based taxation schemes.

 

It's the same reason why deflation is dangerous.

 

Additionally it's a regressive scheme that taxes those who have to spend their entire income more heavily than those who are just filling up their investment account with more and more digits.

 

 

I didn't mean a production tax (VAT?), I said that the income needs to be taxed at the point of production, IE, when the value is produced, in the wage phase.

 

As for your black market stuff, money spent in black market activities will never be taxed, but it will eventually be taxed once it cycles back into the legitimate market.

 

Why would mexicans suddenly start paying taxes if they're not currently doing so? If they have a legitimate employer they're already being assessed taxes, and if they're not then they'll only pay taxes when they interact with legitimate businesses.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, I'll bet you've never read anything about the consumption tax.

 

ok this will be long but here it goes;

 

" it removes the economic disincentive to spend that is created when the taxation occurs at the point of purchase with consumption based taxation schemes."

 

The Fair Tax removes the disincentive to keep wages low. Under the current tax code you're better off not working overtime, ask anyone that's worked a 50 hour work week how much in taxes they pay on that extra 10 hours they worked. Ending production Tax encourages everyone to work and earn as much as they want with no penalty in the form of taxation. 

 

You quickly call it a scheme but why? No one's being ripped off, it's the same taxes being collected, just at a different point in the economic cycle. Under a consumption tax you can save money which is GOOD for the economy and not be penalized. Under the Production tax you pay taxes when you earn the income and when you spend the income, your being double taxed. 

 

The Fair Tax is not a reform it's a replacement, a national sales tax would replace all federal taxes. 

 

"Additionally it's a regressive scheme that taxes those who have to spend their entire income more heavily than those who are just filling up their investment account with more and more digits."

 

Again this isn't true at all, there are prebates that give monthly disbursments to all individuals. Here's the chart from the Fair Tax oragnization:

 

Quote:Under a consumption tax you can save money which is GOOD for the economy and not be penalized. Under the Production tax you pay taxes when you earn the income and when you spend the income, your being double taxed.

 

Ah the prebate, I figured you'd bring that bizarre invention in. It helps to weigh the brunt onto the middle class.

 

In any case your idea that income tax is a disincentive for higher wages show that you have no idea how our progressive marginal income tax system even works. The idea that anyone would be motivated to not make money because of the marginal tax rates on some portion of their higher earnings creates a disincentive is absolute absurdity.

 

If it's any comfort I've met a lot of people who are utterly confused with the current tax system even without considering the more complex facets of it.

 

I left this single passage in the quote because it so blithely illustrates your complete lack of understanding about how marginal propensity to spend affects the economy and why the country is in its current economic condition.