I dunno. I've heard so many conflicting tax rates bandied about, it's hard to determine exactly who pays what.

However, if your figure is correct, things are about as they should be. I think I do favor a progressive tax structure of some sort. I'm not terribly inclined to hose the poor.

__________________
This is what happens when we have panderers instead of leaders...

Nobody wants to "hose" the poor, but making them pay their fair share (ie, the same percentage of their income as the rest of us) would be a nice start. I don't owe them anything more than they owe me, so why exactly am I paying for their food, housing, medicine, AND paying a higher tax rate? Seems to me that those recieving government assistance should be the ones paying for the services, be it through dollars or days of service.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Fair point, and "flat tax" ideas sound the most fair, on the surface. The only thing I have concerns about is that 10% from someone making $25,000/year is qualitatively different than from someone making $250,000. There's some sort of liveable bottom line somewhere that I think gets lost in the quest for "fairness".

I also think that there is a duty to give back to the society that enabled such wealth, and I see nothing wrong, in principle, with higher rates on richer folk. But, that's more of a philisophical issue than an economic one.

Personally, I think my tax rate is about right, at roughly 28%, neither burdensome, nor do I feel I am freeloading. It's a privilege to live in the United States, and I pay my just dues for it.

__________________
This is what happens when we have panderers instead of leaders...

How's this then?

First $20k, non-taxable, period, no strings. After that, 10% tax on the excess. I lived on less than $20k in college while being taxed, it's not fun, but it's do-able, so tax-free should be a lot easier. How's that sound?

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Generally, the vast majority do, to my understanding, quietly and consistently. It's primariliy the rich who desire a lowering, and do most of the evasion of their just due. People making $14,000/year generally don't have offshore account managers or shelters in the Caymans.

Because you are not an island unto yourself, and have some degree of obligation to your society. We're only as strong as out weakest links, and I certainly don't begrudge my taxes going to help those less fortunate.

It almost sounds as if you are far more concerned with righteous punishment of the poor, rather than a desire to get them back on track and contributing. I don't like, and don't support "piling on".

They generally do. But, I suspect you've never had to be on the public dole, so you may not have the same frame of reference as to what it's actually like, and how hard it can be to get off it and back to the upwardly moble track, which is supposed to be the goal. (For the record, I haven't, myself)

I understand not liking people getting "something for nothing", but when we get to the point where we start to begrudge people food and housing assistance, we have to ask what kind of society we are, morally.

I think most people consider the reestablishment of debtor's prisons or indentured servitude to be a step backward.

__________________
This is what happens when we have panderers instead of leaders...

That might work. I'd like to tie it to something like the national average, or sometthing that slides over time, because $20K won't be the same in 50 years.

Not a bad idea, though.

__________________
This is what happens when we have panderers instead of leaders...

What about the flat-tax problem of the one person making $19,999 and the other who makes $20,001?

Oh, and we'd DEFINTIELY have to eliminate ALL exemptions and various dodges. Taxes could be filed on a 3x5 card, if we didn;t have all that figuring nonsense.

__________________
This is what happens when we have panderers instead of leaders...

Through the earned income credit and current tax system a person making $14k a year will not only qualify for federal and state living assistance, but also have 100% of their income taxes returned to them every year. They do NOT pay the same percentage because they don't make enough money to qualify for taxation.

I agree, the poor, middle class, upper middle class, and mildly rich don't have the capacity to create off-shore accounts or launder their money, but why do you suppose the ultra-rich do that? Could it be because they're taxed heavily enough to piss them off to the point of moving their money out of the country? How does this help the domestic economy (that is, losing millions if not billions of dollars to offshore banks)?


You lost me right there. I am not an island unto myself and so I don't get to decide that all citizens should be taxed the same rate, but you are allowed to decide that you don't have a problem with social spending and unequal taxation? You're right, we do live in a society, but the only obligation we have to it is to respect the rights of others and collectively pay for items of collective benefit (like fire trucks and roads). Anything beyond that is generosity, and state-coerced generosity is theft, plain and simple.

Who's punishing them? I simply want them to pay the same percentage of their income that I do to pay for the services THEY use. It has nothing to do with malice, but has an awful lot to do with legal equality.

I've never been on the public dole because I've been working since I was 15 and paying taxes since I was 16. I worked my way through college, got my commission, used my military benefits to pay for law school (I don't practice though, no money in it anymore), and now I work for a living to keep my wife (who also works her *** off) and I in the style to which we've become accustomed. There is something wrong with a man's character when he can be "ok" with accepting public funds for his private use, and when you've got generations of people on public assistance, it demonstrates the total lack of effectiveness inherent in those programs aimed at "helping". You want to help the poor? Treat them as your equal, give them some self-esteem, and make them earn it like the rest of us.

I'm in favor of private charitible contributions, I oppose STATE welfare programs. If you have to force people via taxation to be generous, then your society is no more altruistic than one in which the poor are starving in the street (though more legally unequal and potentially tyrannical). I make a point of giving away some of my good fortune every year (Dave Ramsey says its virtuous, I agree) but it's always to charities that benefit the sick, or the young. Sorry, grown men and women without handicap who made bad choices deserve neither help nor sympathy, they deserve a kick in the *** that their parents failed to provide.

Hyperbole is not flattering sir. Since defaulting on one's debts is tantamount theft, I am torn on the reestablishment of the debtor's prison, but current bankruptcy laws are certainly far too liberal in their scope. If you borrow money, you must pay it back, period. Indentured servitude should always remain legal as a right of association. Lest you forget, indentured servantitude is always voluntary (as involuntary servitude has another name).

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

No, many of us who want to lower taxes also want to reduce the size and power of government - especially the federal government.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

But you are "terribly inclined" to hose the rich!

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."