How much tax..

[Bruce Wayne]

..would you like to pay? I know many will say 'none please' but being serious, how much do you think is fair to get the services you want from government?

[PrincessPerky]

heh, now that is a question no Libertarian likes to have to answer, zero is of course nice, but I do like knowing there is police around, and such, so I would like a flate rate, and I would like the govt to stop going over the budget, instead of borrowing and or raising taxes, admit that somethings are not well produced by a government, actually most things are not well done by a government. Can't be by the very nature of government.

What flate rate I would be willing to pay sortof needs a deeper economic lesson than I have time to research right now.

[Bruce Wayne]

Its lovely to meet a fellow Libertarian. We're thin on the ground here in the UK

[jmjj215]

Are you talking about state tax too? What about the tax levied on phone usage, gasoline tax, sales tax, estate tax, property tax, cigarette tax, etc.

[Bruce Wayne]

Originally Posted by jmjj215

Are you talking about state tax too? What about the tax levied on phone usage, gasoline tax, sales tax, estate tax, property tax, cigarette tax, etc.

I'm talking about the overall tax burden. Here in the UK tax is around 40% of GDP.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

heh, now that is a question no Libertarian likes to have to answer, zero is of course nice, but I do like knowing there is police around, and such, so I would like a flate rate

A “Flat Tax” will never work, for all the reasons I presented previously in post #6:

http://************/aebts

#

[PrincessPerky]

NO a flat tax to cover what the govt is currently spending would be to high, I never said the govt should continue its spending funded by you and I. The govt is not good at most things, come to think of it I can't think of anything they are good at , oh wait propeganda, very good at that one.

But, my point is looking at a flat tax as something middle class/poor can't afford is the wrong way, I don't look at my budget as a I have to earn X amount, I look at it as I do make X amount where can it go (and how far can I stretch it!) The govt is now looking at money backwards, instead of trying to manage with less like most families have to, they are trying to figure out how to squeeze more out of people.

I do feel that there is a disparaty between the percent rich pay and lower class pays, but then I am fairly certain that the rich still pay more total cash. Mind researching that for me?

Regardless, the govt taxes it in, out, and in between I do not think that is fair, and I am sure George is rather poed at being called the father of this system.

As for local taxes that is a whole nother debate , but basically the whole attitude of 'we want more money, lets tax something else' has made the country that fought a simple stamp tax turn into one of a million stamps.

[Bruce Wayne]

Quite right. Governments around the world are all the same. When they run out money they don't look to see if they can do things for less money they simple raise taxes or add an extra tax and take the money from the people.

The crazy thing is that they've got people believing that this looting is such a vital service to society that without it people would be starving and dieing left, right and centre. You get alot of people here in Britain actively campaigning for higher taxes because they believe this is the only way that society will improve.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

NO a flat tax to cover what the govt is currently spending would be to high, I never said the govt should continue its spending funded by you and I.

What would you propose cutting ? Almost 2/3rds of every dollar you pay in federal income tax is spent just on the Military Industrial Complex and the interest on the Reagan/Bush federal debt.

In 2000, we had the smallest federal government of any of the twenty industrialized nations on the planet.

The govt is not good at most things, come to think of it I can't think of anything they are good at , oh wait propeganda, very good at that one.

They are very good at Social Security. Medicare, the Post Office, the NIH... (I could go on). Notice that all of these agencies are ones this administration would like to privatize or eliminate.

But, my point is looking at a flat tax as something middle class/poor can't afford is the wrong way

How would bankrupting and impoverishing the Middle-class be the wrong way to look at it ?

The govt is now looking at money backwards, instead of trying to manage with less like most families have to, they are trying to figure out how to squeeze more out of people.

Because federal income tax revenues are at 1959 levels, thanks to this administration’s tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate.

I do feel that there is a disparaty between the percent rich pay and lower class pays, but then I am fairly certain that the rich still pay more total cash. Mind researching that for me?

No need to. They don’t.

#

[PrincessPerky]

Thanks for the stats, I always like hard numbers (sarcasim there)

I went looking for some of my own, unfortunatly not a non biased site . but the figures sound a bit more real than your non figures .

US income

* The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
* The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.


Now like I said it would be more fair if their were a flat rate, same percentage paid by all, no benifits for misc annoying sneaky tricks the rich pay accountants to find, just flat rate one size fits all, assume for every dollar you make 10 cents goes to the govt (right now it is a sneaky 50 or 75)

How is looking at it wrong? as I stated and you breezed right past, govt should not look at how do I get more, but how do we manage on less. Big spending does not make for better services, while there is a constant complaint about the amount spent on schooling there is no proof (and plenty of proof to the contrary) that loot does not make for a better education. Your theory that a flat rate would bancrupt the middle class is based on the govt deserving what they are getting now, not true IMO, since this is all about opinions, my opinion of what they spend is integral to my opinion of what they take.

Lets see postal working well? sorry but a company that has to have a law stating they are the only rout to go when mailing a simple letter seems to me is prolly not actually running very well, they wouldn't be able to stand up to the competition. (not to mention the misc reports of postal financial mishaps)

Social security is run well? I so do not need to go there! please, are you counting on having social security? you may and I certainly hope you don't suffer for your faith, but I am not taking that risk.

sorry dunno what NIH is.

What would I propose cutting? How about go back to what is legal allowed to be done by the federal government. That would cover most of the costs right there.

Did a little research (google) of my own, seems by several accounts that health and human services costs more than the war group. Also while the percentage varies depending on how calculated, nowhere have I found your figure of 2/3rds. (more like 15%)

Two of the sites found:
federal budget
Budget explorer

Niether are particularly fond of the government, and both had links to the data used for the pretty pictures.

[Bruce Wayne]

It seems to me that many advocates of high taxation do so on emotional grounds rather than factual grounds.

ie, "I don't really understand things but surely having money given to a government that has our best interests at heart (no sniggering at the back) has to be better than giving it to private companies looking to make money"

Of course, even if taxes were reduced there is nothing stopping people contributing freely to charities to help those less fortunate than themselves, another point often overlooked by the "you can't reduce taxes, think of the poor people" brigade.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

* The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

Ah, but you (they) omitted the other half of that equation. Something over 60% of the nation’s income flows to that “Top 5% of taxpayers” who are only paying 50% of the taxes.

The wealthy are WOEFULLY undertaxed.

Now like I said it would be more fair if their were a flat rate

Except the creators of the “Flat Tax” have explained that it WOULD NOT be fairer, but instead far less fair.

same percentage paid by all, no benifits for misc annoying sneaky tricks the rich pay accountants to find, just flat rate one size fits all, assume for every dollar you make 10 cents goes to the govt

A 10% flat rate wouldn’t even pay the tab for our current budget allocation for the Military Industrial complex. You want to default on our federal debt, close down the federal prisons, send the federal marshals home, eliminate the food inspectors, pull all the border patrol and customs agents from our borders, close all the air traffic control towers, eliminate the FDIC’s $100,000 guarantee on bank deposit accounts, not have an FBI or CIA or Secret Service, and not have FEMA available the next time a hurricane or tornado devastates entire communities ?

The Reagan White House rejected the idea of a Flat Tax in the early ‘80s, as the Treasury Department during the Reagan administration concluded that a 17% Flat Tax would not be revenue neutral and come up hundreds of billions of dollars short every year. Of course now, with federal tax revenue at 1959 levels, one would need to first raise federal revenues back to 2000 levels before one would be merely hundreds of billions short every year.

(right now it is a sneaky 50 or 75)

Ah, no.

* According to both the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Treasury, almost 80% of American taxpayers paid only about 5% of their income in federal income tax in 2000 (and the federal income tax is the largest of tax payments).

* The CBO estimates the wealthiest 20 percent of families paid 16% of their income in federal taxes in 1999, about the same as the late 1970s, before the Reagan tax cuts took effect.

How is looking at it wrong?

So you think it’s OK to even consider a policy that even the originators freely admit will devastate the Middle-class ? Perhaps I can interest you in the construction of a toxic waste dump in your backyard ?

Your theory that a flat rate would bancrupt the middle class is based on the govt deserving what they are getting now, not true IMO, since this is all about opinions, my opinion of what they spend is integral to my opinion of what they take.

A) It is not a “theory”.

B) It is NOT my “opinion”. It is a statement from the originators of the “Flat Tax”. It is statements from the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Treasury.

Lets see postal working well?

Compared to what it costs to mail items in other industrialized countries (over much shorter distances), the Post Office is a bargain.

Social security is run well?

Quite well.

The administrative overhead in Social Security is between 1% – 2%. The administrative overhead in comparative private sector companies is 25% plus profits, commissions, stock dividends, and corporate bonuses and perks.

are you counting on having social security?

Absolutely, unless the propaganda from the American RightWing succeeds in dismantling it.

sorry dunno what NIH is.

‘National Institutes of Health’. Where close to half of all the life-saving drugs that the pharmaceutical companies are making billions selling originate from.

What would I propose cutting? How about go back to what is legal allowed to be done by the federal government. That would cover most of the costs right there.

Details. Details.

You currently have tax revenues at 1959 levels and about a trillion and a half of federal spending without the self-financed areas, and most of that is spent on the Military Industrial Complex and interest on the Reagan/Bush federal debt.

Did a little research (google) of my own, seems by several accounts that health and human services costs more than the war group.

You omitted the fact that they are self-financed and do not draw revenues from the U.S. Treasury. Apples and alligators.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Of course, even if taxes were reduced

Federal income tax receipts are already at 1959 levels because of the previous rounds of tax cuts, which have caused MASSIVE federal deficits and debt. How does one operate a 2005 federal government on 1959 level revenues ?

there is nothing stopping people contributing freely to charities to help those less fortunate than themselves, another point often overlooked by the "you can't reduce taxes, think of the poor people" brigade.

That has been historically proven not to work (the charities came hat in hand to the government during the Great Depression), not to mention that the wealthy, when given huge tax cuts, give even LESS to charities.

#

[jmjj215]

Welcome back VJW - I thought you had disappeared.

[Bruce Wayne]

That has been historically proven not to work (the charities came hat in hand to the government during the Great Depression), not to mention that the wealthy, when given huge tax cuts, give even LESS to charities.

If you work on the assumption that giving someone a job is better than giving them money then I'd say that the wealthy already do plenty for society by creating so many jobs.

Even so I'd be interested to read the research that has led you to make the assumption you have.

Federal income tax receipts are already at 1959 levels because of the previous rounds of tax cuts, which have caused MASSIVE federal deficits and debt. How does one operate a 2005 federal government on 1959 level revenues ?

Why do services have to be provided by a monopoly?

[VJW]

Jesse,

Thanks.

I was busy working on a project.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

If you work on the assumption that giving someone a job is better than giving them money

Well, I certainly operate on the assumption that providing a job is better than giving people, or corporations, money.

then I'd say that the wealthy already do plenty for society by creating so many jobs.

That has never happened.

The U.S. is not a ‘Supply-side’ economy. The U.S. is a demand economy, which is why 70% of the national economy is Consumer Spending.

Providing tax cuts to the wealthy and corporate has NEVER created jobs or improved the U.S. national economy at any point in our history.

Why do services have to be provided by a monopoly?

What “monopoly” ?

#

[Bruce Wayne]

What “monopoly” ?

I'm British so I'll use UK examples.

Education. State schools are paid for out of tax. You can use private schools but you still have to pay your taxes for the state education you could have had. You don't get a choice about paying for a state education, even if you choose not to have one.

Health. Similar situation in health services. You pay taxes for the National Health Service, whether you use it or not, and you pay on your ability to pay rather than your demand for the services. You can pay extra for private cover but, again, you're paying twice for one service.

This is what I mean by a monopoly. You can't say that choice is being offered in either health or education when you have to pay twice to get that choice.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Education. State schools are paid for out of tax. You can use private schools but you still have to pay your taxes for the state education you could have had.

Of course.

One of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, wrote into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

"It shall be the DUTY of the government to educate everybody".

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the oldest written constitution in existence that is still in use in the entire world today. It was a model for the U.S. Constitution, and it's objectives are embodied in our Preamble.

You don't get a choice about paying for a state education, even if you choose not to have one.

But you do have a choice. You can attend public schools or CHOOSE to pay for private schools.

Health. Similar situation in health services. You pay taxes for the National Health Service, whether you use it or not

Just as we pay for fire stations, whether we have a fire or not. It’s called public safety. Just as we pay for fire insurance, whether we have a fire or not. It’s called insurance.

and you pay on your ability to pay rather than your demand for the services.

You would want the sickest to carry most of the burden ? Such a system would quickly collapse. That’s where the concept of a ‘pool’ of insured stemmed from. Of course, American insurance companies have resorted to “cherry-picking” to increase their profits and limit their losses, and then gouging consumers.

This is what I mean by a monopoly. You can't say that choice is being offered in either health or education when you have to pay twice to get that choice.

You only “pay twice”, as you frame it, if YOU CHOOSE TO.

#