Bush's Tax Cut: Effective?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'd like to point out that CEO's high salaries is not capitalism at work, it is collusion.  It is uneconomically sound.  Basically, you get all the CEOs on boards of companies and they scratch one's back by approving a high salary and in return they have their own high salary approved.  Allowing these salaries is just as uneconomic as setting specific levels.  And if we are going to ignore proper economics, I prefer to ignore it in a way that raises the average quality of life of many, not the one that raises the quality of life of a few.

Remember, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."  Star Trek 3

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The rich will buy much more, but I don't think they could ever spend a higher percentage. Rich people invest their money, and poor people don't usually have enough left over at the end of the month to invest. Rich people are usually smarter with their money too. If anything, I think this income tax will cause people (especially the rich) to buy less. It also really depends on what type of items are going to count as "bare necessities". It seems like you are defining them pretty loosely. The tax you have proposed at the rate you have proposed will bring in miniscule revenues. It will also greatly favor the rich over the poor in my opinion. What about state sales taxes too? Will we tax things twice?

Couple things here Tasty.  

It's a Sales tax, not an income tax.  You keep saying income, and I'm not sure if you are confused or just misspeaking.

Next, think about what you said.  Rich people invest.  When you invest, what are you doing?  You are PURCHASING something.  That would fall under a SALES TAX.  If you invest in something you are buying into it.  Today, you only get taxed on the money you make from the investments (income), the way I say it, you get taxed on the investment, win or lose on it.

Another thing, we tax everything more than twice.  You pay state and federal tax now.  I pay a Federal Income Tax, a State Income Tax, a State Sales Tax, a City Income Tax, a Local Property Tax and a Local Millage.  Some areas even pay a County or City Sales Tax.  So, we are already getting taxed coming and going.  So talking about getting taxed twice has no meaning here.

The exact problem with this though is not the rich (six figured salaries) but the extremely rich, the ones with seven figure salaries or above. If you're Ted Turner or Bill Gates, there is a certain point where you just can't spend any more money because you've already bought everything there is to buy. The obscenely rich sit on more money than anyone else. I think that a sales tax alone would need to be augmented by other provisions - it sounds lovely, but its just too simplistic to get the job done

Ok, first, when you talk about the rich, and you look at stats about the rich, all those 6 figure salaries that me and my friends make are counted.  The mega rich are not where the government or the stats draw the line.

Second, Income Tax doesn't effect Ted Turner or Bill Gates if they are sitting on their money either.  All they have to do is not show that they MAKE MONEY (which the mega rich do so very well) and they don't pay Income Tax.  Taxing Sales would get much more of the mega rich peoples money.  Because they sure do buy things.  If they just sit on their money, they'll still pay more in Sales then Income.

Third, I'm glad you think it's too simplistic to work.  So, now, explain to everyone here how the states that just have a Sales Tax don't go bankrupt?  How is it that they can make the budgets meet?  You just called something too simplistic to work that has already been proven to work.

But its also not about punishing the people that earn less, which is what your proposal does. You have stated again and again your beliefs in concepts like meritocracy and social darwinism. Yet many people are NOT capitalists and do not use money as their motivation in their final career goals.

Ah, but this is a capitalistic nation.  It's called "the American Dream".  If people don't like a capitalistic society, they are free to find a socialistic one, are they not?  Are there not socialistic societies out there, where they can go?

A great majority of the people that came to America from other nations, did so because of what capitalism offered them.  And this was good.  But capitalism isn't for everyone, and if socialism is a persons game, that's great, and they should go to a socialist state and be happy.  What in the world is wrong with that?  Don't give me anything about not being easy.  Look how many people that have nothing get into America every day.  It can be done.

First of all, I don't agree that Steve Jobs is the only person that could have saved Apple. There may not be 10 million people who can be as good of a CEO, but I bet there are at least a thousand. I also believe that it is impossible to "earn" 10 million dollars. There is nothing that one person can do that is deserving of that much money, short of singlehandedly saving all of mankind or something like that.

So you can't Tasty, so what.  It's still all about supply and demand.  You are arguing with the whole economic system, and that's not about taxes.

Bottom line it.  I don't care if you or Bondo or anyone else thinks that salaries are out of hand, that should have no bearing on taxes.  Because you can't start drawing a line and discriminating against people, which is what you are talking about.  He makes XXX amount of money, or has YYY amount of money in the bank, so he's now guilty of having too much, and we are going to punish him for it by making him pay more.  That's bullshit.  May as well say that all black people have to pay a higher percentage because it's their minority that takes up most of the welfare.  It's just as unjust.

It is a folly that all of America's greatness is resultant from capitalism. There are plenty of motivating factors besides money.

Really?  So all these universities competing for grants, all this "venture capital", what is that?  GREED.  Greed is a motivation that works, and works well.  There are other motivations, but tell me, where are all those carb's and fuel injectors that were invented in the 70's that get 100mpg?  All sold to the oil companies, that's where.  Go ahead, name a wonderful invention in America that is free, that the owner isn't making or at least trying to make a bundle from.  How many?

According to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, Finland ranks number one in innovation. Obviously they don't need capitalism to motivate them to be innovative or invent new things, since they are doing it at a higher rate than the United States.  

Ah, should have checked your sources a little closer Tasty.  Here's the link for you:

http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CReports%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report+2002-2003#Comp

Now, if you just read the rankings, you'd think the facts you just provided were correct.  But, if you notice, they don't say innovation (but it is a factor).  However, if you happen to open the PDF's of the nations, you'll find that the USA ranked number 1 in innovation, and Finland ranked 3rd.

So, I think the "folly" was yours.

Sorry Tasty, you need to do some more homework.  Both on the fact that Sales Tax does indeed work, and on innovation.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bottom line it.  I don't care if you or Bondo or anyone else thinks that salaries are out of hand, that should have no bearing on taxes.  Because you can't start drawing a line and discriminating against people, which is what you are talking about.

My response to salaries being out of hand doesn't have a bearing on taxes, it has a bearing on salaries.  As I mentioned, the salaries have nothing to do with free markets, they have to do with a collusion failure in the markets.  I feel either you correct that failure and have proper salaries or you are forced to use a progressive tax system.  Either way, the quality of life for the poor needs to be better.  I prefer the first way, but failing that the second is what we are stuck with.

[tasty]

Your idea that if people don't like capitalism that they should move somewhere else is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I'm quite tired of you bringing it up. I am somewhat of a socialist. If all people with any socialist leanings left America, than what would you have left? Maybe 60% of the current population? People don't just leave their home countries when they disagree with something in it - they try to reform them. No country has every had the same governmental systems in place forever - why should America be any different? It would go against over 2000 years of recorded history to say that America's economic system will never change. Reformers usually make good things happen. I'd personally love to see America become more socialistic.

In my opinion, greed is a sin and it is morally wrong. So yes, I do want to punish greedy people. It's no lie that I want to make a good salary someday too - but I think people that do have a duty to share some of their wealth with the poor. Since most people refuse to do this voluntarily, I have no problem with the government stepping in and doing it for them. And if you want to argue history, the US has had a graduated income tax system for about 200 years. So if this is a "capitalist nation" and obviously you believe that should never change, than this is also a "graduated income tax nation" and that should never change either.

Perhaps a federal sales tax could bring in enough revenue. I don't really know much about it and never claimed to- I just brought up doubts, which you answered. But just because it could bring in enough revenue doesn't make it a just system. It is necessary to take income into account out of simple human mercy. Perhaps you don't care about the plight of the economically less fortunate, but other people do. If you dislike high taxes, you should consider yourself lucky. Before the Reagan presidency, the highest tax bracket was taxed a whopping 72%. After this latest round of Bush tax cuts the highest bracket will pay only about 38%. And now you want more?

BTW, I got the thing on Innovation from the Sunday issue of the Des Moines register. It was second hand source, and I didn't bother to check the original because I (obviously wrongly) assumed that they wouldn't print anything untrue, especially because it was one of the Gannett syndicated columnists (I forget which one but I'll look it up if you don't believe me).

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Hehe, well, I'm sort of taking Bucc's advice, I am moving to a more socialistic country at some point.  Although it is for conjugal reasons rather than political.  I would love to see a country with as much potential and influence as the US improve though.  Just like I would like to see the world as a whole improve.  I think most people want the world to be a better place, just not the current "leader of the free world" and his administration.

[jn.loudnotes]

I'd like to add to the whole leaving fray - there are no countries in existence that fit all of my political ideaologies (and I'd wager the same for tasty).  Furthermore, the ones that are close have completely different cultures from ours that we could never be assimilated into.  It's not as easy as you suggest - and America is far from paradise (otherwise we wouldn't ever have these debates!)

Incidentally, just as there is no country that has a competely government-controlled economy, there is no country that has an entirely free-market capitalized system.  Consider that a good thing if you consider yourself a moderate.

[[V] Silverblade]

well, we in germany pay up to 50 % taxes... if anyone has a bad tax system its us! noone pays more i think...

and with bush, i dont think the prob is his tax system, its that he is the pres of ur country...  

[kami]

Silver, taxes are even higher in Sweden. Bleh.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Your idea that if people don't like capitalism that they should move somewhere else is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I'm quite tired of you bringing it up. I am somewhat of a socialist. If all people with any socialist leanings left America, than what would you have left? Maybe 60% of the current population? People don't just leave their home countries when they disagree with something in it - they try to reform them. No country has every had the same governmental systems in place forever - why should America be any different? It would go against over 2000 years of recorded history to say that America's economic system will never change. Reformers usually make good things happen. I'd personally love to see America become more socialistic.

What you'd like to do is change some of the cornerstones that this society was built upon too.  And I for one don't like it at all.

My point is, you and Bondo seem to want to turn America into another Finland (or pick your socialist country and fill in the blank).  They already exist.  People leave socialist countries to come to America every day.  People leave the country they grew up in to come to America every day.  Why?  Because this country suits them.

So what in the fuck is outrageous or absurd about suggesting that people who want to live in a socialist country go and do so.  Be happy.  And let those that want to live in a Capitalistic Democracy live here.  

Think about it.  If you had your way, and all the countries were socialist, you would be forcing that way of life upon people that didn't want it too.  I say embrace the differences in the nations.  Find the one that fits you and be there.  And don't give me any bullshit about it not being that easy.  It's done every day, and not just by a few people.  People with no money at all seem to be able to accomplish it, so can you.  I've traveled, lived and worked in plenty of other countries.  It's not that hard, honest.  Except for Grand Cayman.  They make it very hard.

In my opinion, greed is a sin and it is morally wrong. So yes, I do want to punish greedy people.

Sin?  Sin?  You can't bring religion into government.  Bad form.

So yes, I do want to punish greedy people. It's no lie that I want to make a good salary someday too - but I think people that do have a duty to share some of their wealth with the poor. Since most people refuse to do this voluntarily, I have no problem with the government stepping in and doing it for them.

Fuck what?

You just said that most people don't give to charity (in America).  We give more voluntarily then most countries GNP.  And you can bet that a bigger percentage of it makes it to those that need it then if the government did the job.  They'd spend most of it paying for the infrastructure, and then changing it all the time.  

Greed is also a motivator.  And a good one.  We already talked about that (that where you brought up your very wrong fact).  

And you say you want to "punish" those that are successful.  You want to punish success.  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.  That's really motivation to go above and beyond.  

You want to punish people, and that's a good reason to be unfair to them.  Now that's good progressive thinking there.  Not.

And if you want to argue history, the US has had a graduated income tax system for about 200 years.

Really?  200 years?  When did Income Tax become the law?  And wasn't it found to be unconstitutional the first time?  If you are going to throw something like that out Tasty, do your homework.  The Income Tax Act was passed in 1913, so you are a little over 100 years off.  So not even half of the nations history.  So much for another point of yours.

Perhaps a federal sales tax could bring in enough revenue. I don't really know much about it and never claimed to- I just brought up doubts, which you answered.

I answered them before you even brought them up.  I mentioned that some states already do it quite a ways back there.  And I wouldn't say calling it "too simplistic to get the job done" is bringing up doubts.  

But just because it could bring in enough revenue doesn't make it a just system. It is necessary to take income into account out of simple human mercy. Perhaps you don't care about the plight of the economically less fortunate, but other people do.

Sure I do, and I give to charity too.  But even more, I'm not against welfare either (I just want it managed better).  And if you look into it, a sales tax is better for everyone.  That's one of the things I've been pointing out.  The real poor would be paying less in actual dollars since many of the things they need to buy wouldn't be taxed.  And the ultra rich wouldn't be able to hide their money as easily.  Add to all that the billions saved by not needing the IRS in it's bloated, stinking state.  

The problem is that you seem to think that all of the tax burden should be on us that make more, in the name of "mercy".  I say that a bunch of crap.  

IBTW, I got the thing on Innovation from the Sunday issue of the Des Moines register. It was second hand source, and I didn't bother to check the original because I (obviously wrongly) assumed that they wouldn't print anything untrue, especially because it was one of the Gannett syndicated columnists (I forget which one but I'll look it up if you don't believe me).

I believe you got it out of the paper, but it just goes to show you that you have to check your sources =D.  

Tax wise, I've shown you many, very many good things that can come with a Federal Sales Tax (aka a Consumer Tax).  The only real point you've made against them is you want to punish the rich and successful for being rich and successful, and stick it to them.  Not a very good motivation in my book.  I wonder how you'll feel about it when you are making 6 figures and still see the guy on welfare driving a new Caddy.  

One last note, Go HR25!  (Yes, it actually is a bill in the House)

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc, I'm not going to point out everything wrong with that, but why do you waste your time picking things apart when you know you're not any more correct than tasty?

For one, the only reason we give more money to charity is because our tax system gives a break for doing so.  It's basically deciding where to put your money.  Capitalism is inherently greedy, and that's why the government and tax system exist to transfer some of that money-making energy to the poor, who lack the same opportunities to develop wealth.

Two, what was the point of bringing up Income Tax?  It's not like that's the only tax our government has ever had - there have been graduated taxes throughout history.

Simple analogy for why graduated tax is a good idea.  Take a person with $1 million in the bank.  Each day in interest, he will earn 1000 times as much as someone with only $1,000 in the bank.  And that has nothing to do with work, investment to society, etc.  It's just money for existence.  The fact that their monies are growing at the same percentage rate doesn't change the fact that the rich person is getting richer every day without doing anything.  Frankly, if you have money, it's much easier to make more of it.  That's why some must be redistributed, or else the wealth gap will grow larger ad infinitum, because an everyday working person will never manage to quadruple their money many times over in order to catch up.  Capitalism is all about competition, but there's no reason that the playing field shouldn't be fair.  Graduated taxation just evens out the advantage of being rich.  If you're rich, you've won - you don't have to compete any more.  The fact that people want to doesn't mean the government can't make it a little harder for them, since they're already taken care of.  What's the big deal about losing half your income if you're left with $1 million to spare?  Do you think someone who's working day and night to make ends meet should lose the same percentage as a wealthy CEO or person with inherited riches?

[Mr. Lothario]

     Damnit, I knew it was a bad idea to read this before going to bed. Now I'm forced to post and postpone my sleepy-time even more.  

For one, the only reason we give more money to charity is because our tax system gives a break for doing so.  It's basically deciding where to put your money.  Capitalism is inherently greedy, and that's why the government and tax system exist to transfer some of that money-making energy to the poor, who lack the same opportunities to develop wealth.

     First, do you honestly think that the ONLY reason that ANYONE gives to charity is to avoid tax? I think that there are other significant reasons, like guilt at having more. I believe that even without the coercion of tax breaks, charities would still be funded.

     Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, the government and tax system existed to protect and manage the country, and to pay for that management and protection, respectively. Governments don't exist to transfer money from rich to poor; they exist to transfer money from citizens to soldiers and judges and cops and teachers, etc. I'm snickering behind my hand at your phrase "money-making energy". Since when has the government dole included a mystical urge to go and contribute? In my experience, getting handouts leads to getting more handouts, because that is the path of least resistance. NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO SKIM AND WHO WILL BITCH ABOUT MY "OBVIOUS HATRED OF THE POOR": I think that the concept of welfare is an excellent idea, in its original form, which was as a very short-term (no more than a couple of months, if memory serves) aid to people who were between jobs. Up with welfare, down with the welfare state. Anyway, to continue, smile when you say that "capitalism is inherently greedy". That is a point of pride, and the saving grace of the capitalist system. Capitalism provides an incentive, and more importantly, the freedom to accumulate whatever amount of money (and therefore power) that you are willing to accumulate, and in the process, you will contribute your time and energy to the economy and the state. Greed is a powerful motivator.

     I'm disturbed by the view that you and Tasty hold that says that being rich (or even well-off) is something vile and sinful that must be punished. Being "rich" means, in most cases, that the individual in question was willing to work his ass off to earn a lot of money. (In some cases, of course, it just means that they were lucky to be born to rich parents...) Working hard is good, right? Contributing to the economy is good, right? So why is reaping the benefits of hard work evil?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, as someone who recently was trying to make a move to a different country, it isn't easy at all.

To work in Canada, you need to get a job THEN apply for a work permit and then you can start working.  This is fine if you are going for a job that is selective in labor supply like I will be after I graduate, but trying to get a normal food service level job, they aren't going to bother hiring people on work permits.

Now we go to the study permits.  They require you to have a certain amount of money in the bank each year to get the permit.  Of course, this is made difficult in that they don't allow you to work due to the problem I mentioned above, so unless you just have a big college fund with cash to spare, it doesn't work out.

As for getting resident status, they don't just give it to you because you want to move there.  You either have to be filling a job they need filled or you need to be married with a citizen (the latter being my eventual ticket in).

So no Bucc, it isn't easy.  If it was easy, I'd be moving there this summer, but since it isn't easy, I'm waiting until after I graduate and hoping I can get hired and thus get a work permit to be there.  Otherwise I'll be stuck in the US until my girlfriend and I are ready to get married.


Ok, moving on, next to welfare, you say you support it but want it run better.  I've probably stated this before, but I have a rather conservative method for welfare and the other social programs.  I think they should be funded within the state without having to make it a federal issue at all.  I think the federal government should only collect a small amount of money, that being for defense, foreign aid, and the functions of the three branches.  I think the only role in social programs for the federal government is to set the standards that the states will put in action.  

I don't see why the federal taxes should be more than the state/local taxes.  I think a 5-10% flat tax would work find for the federal taxes.  It is state taxes that should be much higher.  Have the money controlled on a smaller state scale and it will be handled more efficiently.  I think the limit on taxes should be 1/2 of income for the very rich (no write-offs) so the state can tax 40% between a graduated income and VAT.  I think states would be much more capable of dealing with the social programs.  This is perhaps my one true conservative leaning is weakening the involvement of the federal government over the states (although I think all states should be forced to provide equal social services).


Loth, you are right to a degree there, I don't know if anyone looked at my write-up about the charity survey I did, but there is motivations to giving to charity outside of tax write-offs (not mind you, those I surveyed were probably not paying enough in taxes nor giving enough to have a write-off).  But there is some cynicism deserved to the big companies whose charity work is often more tax and PR based than true compassion.

My main complaint about the charity write-off, and most write-offs actually, is that they demand that it must be a minimum of a certain % of your salary to be written off.  This is inherently biased to the rich.  If you are making minimum wage, you can't afford to give 5% of your income.  If you are making a million, you can give 5% and wait for the tax break.  If they are going to give write-offs they should not have minimum amounts that need to be spent to earn the write-off.

Loth, what do you think about people on welfare because they are mentally or physically handicapped and CAN'T live through any other means?  What do you think of mother's on welfare who trying to work would mean neglecting their child/children...children that will likely end up poor if they are neglected.  I'm all for providing services to help people on welfare get off welfare, but there are so many cases where it isn't just a matter of it being easier to be on welfare.  To put limits on it would be devestating to as many people as it would motivate to make a living on their own.

As for why the rich are evil.  It isn't just rich, but everyone should long for the rise in quality of life for every other human on this earth.  The rich happen to have the means.  In Buddhism it is called the middle road.  Buddhism would look admonish those who live in extravagance as having poor intentions.  The Buddha himself was a prince living a great greedy type life when he snuck out of the palace and saw what is known as the Four Passing Sights, various people with little who were suffering.  At that he adopted a restrictive lifestyle having no material wealth...before settling on the middle way.

The point is to have the rich not live so extravagantly while others don't even have what they need.

[Cossack]

So Bucc how much tax should there be? Do you want to completley at all pay no taxes?

[jn.loudnotes]

Loth, that was my fault - I should have phrased more clearly.

I was responding to Bucc's comment that we give "more" in charity than elsewhere, and I think probably the reason for that has to do with the tax incentives.

But further on, read more carefully in my post (DON'T SKIM ).  I don't think being monied is evil or needs to be punished, although tasty did make the faux pas of saying that.  I think of graduated taxation as a way to even things out.  While capitalism is competitive, one of the goals of society is still quality of life for as many people as possible.  Thus if a lot of people can be rich instead of just a few, that's great.  If poorer people get a little bit of help, they will at least have the opportunity, whether they use it or not, to one day be rich themselves, and in turn help those beneath them.  Eventually in a perfect system everyone would grow continually richer and the "poor" would be at the level of today's middle class, while the net worth of the richest few might be around $500 million instead of $50 billion (to use a random example)  If you work it out, there's more than enough wealth to go round, while keeping rewards for further growth.

I'm not suggesting any kind of wealth cap, but as I said in the other post, increasing tax rates just make it harder to get rich faster.  For example, if you already have $10 million, the capital you can invest means it would be "easier" for you to make another million than it would be for someone who only has $1000 to their name.  However, if the $10 millionaire has a greater tax on earnings, that next million would be harder to earn, and more of his efforts would go to help out the guy with $1000.  This assumes that both work.  There are of course social issues to deal with those who are infirm or lazy. . .but this is just a simplified example.  In general, these tax issues would combine to foster competition, and the incentive for the rich to work remains just as strong - they just continue to grow at the same rate, instead of making exponentially more money.

Do you follow now?  I'm all for competition - I just don't think the wealth gap should get any bigger.  The rich can get as rich as they like, there's just no reason to do it at the expense of the poor, which is what a flat tax or regressive tax essentially does.

[tasty]

Greed is also a motivator.  And a good one.  We already talked about that (that where you brought up your very wrong fact).  

And you say you want to "punish" those that are successful.  You want to punish success.  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.  That's really motivation to go above and beyond.  

You want to punish people, and that's a good reason to be unfair to them.  Now that's good progressive thinking there.  Not.

A bit extreme in my last post, perhaps I was. I think one important distinction needs to be made. Greed is not the same thing as success. True success and happiness comes from other factors- the thrill of victory, self-condfidence, and genuinely helping people. I am not trying to squelch motivation or success, simply saying that there are other motivating factors. I believe that money can never bring happiness. Also, just because I want to punish something doesn't make it unfair. Arg I GTG I don't have time to write any more. Until later...

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I'm not going to point out everything wrong with that, but why do you waste your time picking things apart when you know you're not any more correct than tasty?

Wrong.  I'm not trying to punish anyone.  And I've gotten my facts right.  So, bite me Loudass.

For one, the only reason we give more money to charity is because our tax system gives a break for doing so.  It's basically deciding where to put your money.  

Learn how this works before you talk about it like you know.  First, most Americans can't deduct what they give to charity, because it has to be a "recognized" charity.  Second, you have to itemize your deductions, which most people don't do.  Third, you don't get all that money back, what it amounts to is that if you donate $500, after your tax refund it was like donating $400, since they just don't TAX you on that donation.  

So you are still giving money away, out of your own pocket.  Using charity as a tax deduction as motivation is only for the incredibly stupid, since it doesn't help much, and there are many other ways to do it without giving your money away.  

Do the math.

And I also find it laughable that people like you and Tasty, who think we should take care of the poor and underprivileged think that most Americans wouldn't give to charity on their own.  Now that's the old "I think I'm better then everyone else" attitude talking there.

Capitalism is inherently greedy, and that's why the government and tax system exist to transfer some of that money-making energy to the poor, who lack the same opportunities to develop wealth.

Where does it say that's the job of our government?

Two, what was the point of bringing up Income Tax?  It's not like that's the only tax our government has ever had - there have been graduated taxes throughout history.

Have you noticed that I'm against graduated taxes for their unjust treatment?  That was pretty stupid.

Simple analogy for why graduated tax is a good idea.  Take a person with $1 million in the bank.  Each day in interest, he will earn 1000 times as much as someone with only $1,000 in the bank.  And that has nothing to do with work, investment to society, etc.  It's just money for existence.  The fact that their monies are growing at the same percentage rate doesn't change the fact that the rich person is getting richer every day without doing anything.  Frankly, if you have money, it's much easier to make more of it.  That's why some must be redistributed, or else the wealth gap will grow larger ad infinitum, because an everyday working person will never manage to quadruple their money many times over in order to catch up.  Capitalism is all about competition, but there's no reason that the playing field shouldn't be fair.  Graduated taxation just evens out the advantage of being rich.  If you're rich, you've won - you don't have to compete any more.  The fact that people want to doesn't mean the government can't make it a little harder for them, since they're already taken care of.  What's the big deal about losing half your income if you're left with $1 million to spare?  Do you think someone who's working day and night to make ends meet should lose the same percentage as a wealthy CEO or person with inherited riches?

Loudass, I've addressed most of what you've said already.  Please, go back and read or drop it (rich by tax standards doesn't mean a million in the bank, you guys need to talk about reality, not this bullshit about the mega rich).  You are talking as if a flat tax and a consumption tax are the same things.  They aren't.  

And it's not the governments job to redistribute wealth either, not in America.  

And while it is harder for the poor to get rich then it is for the rich to get richer, it's still done every day.  I've gone from the poverty level 15 years ago to the rich level now.  All it took was applying myself.  Anyone with half a brain can do well.

Last point, you've all managed to ignore the fact that a consumption tax would bring more hard dollars from the rich, or the money that would be saved by the government.  No loopholes and less to police.  You've ignored it because you want to punish the rich and successful for being rich and successful, instead of actually talking about the merits of the system.  It's not the governments job to make sure that income is leveled, or even close.  It's not the governments job to redistribute wealth.  Those aren't anywhere in the constitution that I know of.  

The mega rich that you are so eager to punish don't pay nearly as much in taxes under the income tax rules as they would under a consumption tax system.  It's too easy for them to get around the system.  Who's getting the shaft by your wont for this discrimination is those like me, not the ones you keep on talking about.  

Funny how the liberals find discrimination ok as long as they are the ones choosing the targets.  You are just as fucking bad as the conservatives.

Bondo, as someone that has both lived and worked in Canada (amongst other countries) it is that easy.  Remember, I was living in Canada not that long ago.  You can pick up a student or temporary visa.  Yes, you actually have to look for a job before you get a work visa, but they are there if you look.  And if you have a student visa, there are plenty of conditions that let you work under it as well.  And so far, I'm just assuming that you want a visa in the first place, you can go to canada without one.  And if you need money in the bank to get the student visa, but plan on working, that's easy.  Have someone in your family put the money into your account for you while you apply.  The visa is good for the whole time you are at college, except in quebec, so once you have it, it's done.  There are always ways to get around the red tape, all you have to do is look.  There are probably dozens of ways to get around this crap, if you apply yourself.  It's all about applying yourself.  People do this all the time Bondo, so don't make it out like it's impossible.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'm all for competition - I just don't think the wealth gap should get any bigger.  The rich can get as rich as they like, there's just no reason to do it at the expense of the poor, which is what a flat tax or regressive tax essentially does.

If you read instead of skimming, and then think about it, maybe you would understand what a consumption tax really does effect the rich and poor alike.  Those poor trying to save will be able to do so without as much tax, those spending will be the ones paying the taxes, and the rich spend.  Makes it easier for the poor to start getting a leg up, and makes it harder for the very rich to avoid taxes.  What is wrong with any of that?

And as for the rest, don't discriminate.  Graduated taxes are discrimination.  You may not like the gap between rich and poor, but that is not what taxes are about, and abusing that system for your own agenda is the same kind of bullshit I hear you guys bitching about Bush.  You just have a different agenda, you still want to abuse it.

And you should also read Loth's post and mine more carefully.  The tax deduction angle doesn't wash.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, you need to renew the study visa every year...the first year you need 15k Canadian and after that each year you must have at least 10k.

And I can't just ask my dad to put money in my account.  He's now been unemployed for 8 months and we don't have money to throw around, even if it isn't going to be used.

Secondly, the only work I'd be able to get on a study visa is within the school...that is what the school told me.

Third, unrelated.  If you aren't Canadian you have to pay 35% down on a mortgage...that is somewhat excessive...my brother got like 3% down on his first and 10% on his current house here in the CO.  So it is tough to do anything permanant in terms of residence up there, just apartments.

Perhaps we have differing ideas of what is easy though Bucc.  Relative terms are hard to argue with.  Easy to you may be difficult to me.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, you need to renew the study visa every year...the first year you need 15k Canadian and after that each year you must have at least 10k.

Not exactly true from what I'm reading on Canada's immigration site.  Here's the snip:

Immigration Canada: International Students

Student Authorizations Are Required:
?
 Citizenship and Immigration Canada requires that foreign individuals who wish to study at Canadian educational institutions must obtain Student Authorizations. A Student Authorization is a document issued by Immigration Canada officials that permits a foreign individual to study in Canada, generally at a specific Canadian educational institution  and in a specific program, and always for a limited time.?

 Immigration Canada will normally issue a Student Authorization if an applicant has received an acceptance letter from a qualified Canadian educational institution, and possesses sufficient funds to pay for tuition and living costs. In some cases, Immigration Canada may require applicants to undergo medical examinations. In addition, holders of Student Authorizations must apply for and be granted Canadian Visitor Visas (unless they are citizens of a visa exempt country).?

 Applicants who wish to study in Montreal or another city in the Province of Quebec will also require approval from immigration authorities of the Government of Quebec.?

 Immigration Canada generally issues Student Authorizations that are valid for the duration                    of the intended course of studies. However, international students studying in Montreal or another city in the Province of Quebec must renew their status each year.?

And I can't just ask my dad to put money in my account.  He's now been unemployed for 8 months and we don't have money to throw around, even if it isn't going to be used.

First, it's not throwing money around, it's having it in your bank account instead of his.  Still his money to use, just looks like it's yours.  I've done this for a few people.  So you are talking about dropping around $10k us in your account.  Second, haven't you mentioned a brother and sister that do well?  It doesn't have to come from your dad, or all one place for that matter.

Secondly, the only work I'd be able to get on a study visa is within the school...that is what the school told me.

Not exactly true, according to immigration again.  That's the main way though.  You can also work in your field of study, and a few other jobs as well.  It opens up even more if you can get a scholarship (and if you are as smart as you say, you should be able to find some small ones)  Have you even applied for scholarships up there?  And, working on campus is the best option anyway, for many reasons.  One more note, it also says your student visa carries over as a temporary work visa after you graduate (assuming the job is in your field, not sure how that restriction works though).

Third, unrelated.  If you aren't Canadian you have to pay 35% down on a mortgage...that is somewhat excessive...my brother got like 3% down on his first and 10% on his current house here in the CO.  So it is tough to do anything permanant in terms of residence up there, just apartments.

I only had to pay 20% down for my condo in Windsor, which is in Canada.  I know those restrictions have gone down a lot in the past few years too.  It may be different by provence in any case.  But, so what.  Who buys a house when going to college?  And if you are talking about when you are out of school, then have your woman on the mortgage, she's Canadian, and doesn't have that problem.  But you are much better off in an apartment while at school anyway.

Perhaps we have differing ideas of what is easy though Bucc.  Relative terms are hard to argue with.  Easy to you may be difficult to me.

Easy is that all you have to do is apply yourself to the problem.  There are solutions.  You are obviously paying for college right now, so you have access to funds.  There's a start.  And like I said, it took all of 30 seconds to figure out this one way around the restrictions.  How many ways have you tried?  So, easy may be relative, but you sure as hell should be able to find a way that is "easy enough" if that's your goal.  The reason I've been successful is that I'm goal orientated.  I pick a goal and I find a way to make it happen.  It may not be my first choice, but I keep looking until I find a way.  I don't give up at the first sign of bad news.  

Hell, if I really wanted to do it, I'd already have applied to the Provence (that's the way they do it in Canada I hear, your app goes to every school in the provence), and I would be applying for scholarships right and left.  That would take a whole weekend or so.  Now, I'd look at how much money I could make this summer, putting all of it in the bank.  I'd add to that my tuition for the fall.  If I couldn't come up with 10k between the two of them, I'd be looking for other avenues of income.  Loans and grants, both from banks and friends / relatives.  Hell, I heard someone put a paypal donate account on the internet and paid tuition with it last year.  

There are options you can explore.  If exploring them is too much work, not easy enough, then I'd say your goal is not important enough to you.

[jn.loudnotes]

I'll admit, I may not be as up on the tax code as you.  However, I can see credits being an incentive to donating - my point is that I just don't see Americans as inately generous.  In fact, what with the competitive ideals of capitalism, I don't think the whole system is designed to be generous.

And incidentally, everything you've mentioned about leaving the country, imposing ideas on others, going against the Constitution, etc. - none of it is based on law.  While our country has had the system its had in place for 200 years, there's really no reason it couldn't change.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about what kind of economic system the nation should have.  

Where does it say that's the job of our government?

It's not the legal job of government, it's the theoretical reasoning behind the application of law.  Why do we execute murderers?  I'm sure you can think of a reason - but it certainly doesn't say that reason anywhere in the law books.  I'm giving reasons why a tax system does what it does - or why it should do something - they don't have to be directly out of the Constitution as long as they don't conflict with it.  Don't you remember the "necessary and proper" clause?  The job of government in the United States is whatever the people want it to be.  

Bucc, I believe it is the government's job to redistribute wealth, at least to a limited extent.  Yours and mine are two differing idealogies and you ought to at least have the sense to recognize that.

A couple notes - I'm arguing a hypothetical system.  The tax code as it is sucks; you're completely right about too many loopholes and such.  In my hypothetical tax code, the mega rich would be the ones getting the huge percentages - not the people such as you currently being "shafted".  

Also, I don't want to punish the rich.  They wouldn't lose money, they'd just earn it a little slower.  If you're making $10 million a year, it's not a "punishment" to "only" make $5 million, when everyone else is making far less than that.  Money is all relative anyway - the numbers are really meaningless compared to each persons wealth relative to another's.  Our system of quantifying is fine, but people lose track of the real values behind the number.  

As for consumption tax, it depends what you're taxing.  If you're taxing purchases that everyone makes, it is a flat tax.  Basic sales tax takes the same percentage away from everyone.  In a sense, it's even regressive.  A penniless woman buying a tomato at the grocery store feels the sales tax much harder than you or I would.  Doesn't that seem a little pointless?  I don't see any point to any consumption taxes except for luxury taxes and the like, which again attempt to even the wealth gap.  

Finally, I'm hardly a rampant socialist, calling for equality among everyone.  I see no reason for there not to be rich people or even mega-rich.  It's just after a certain point, as a society I think most people would agree there's no point in getting much richer.  However, not to deprive people of that, a tax system like what I've proposed would just make it a little harder.  No penalty - they're still rich as hell, and the middle class and poverty level would be constantly improving.  

Also, you seem really set that graduated taxes are unfair, but look at this way.  You seem justificably proud that you have succeeded in moving from the poverty level to middle class.  I have no idea what the actual figures are, but I'd guess that's an annual income increase of at most $100,000.  Whatever the number is, it's plenty of money to lead a comfortable life.  It's an accomplishment.

However, tell me why a rich person, no matter how hard they worked to get their money (or if they didn't) should have the opportunity to make income leaps even greater than what you've accomplished your whole life - year after year after year?  Just because they have more money gives them a right to earn more?  Why not limit them to the same opportunities as the rest - by taxing more of their income.  

I'm not a typical liberal.  I thought for a moment maybe you'd forgotten I can't even vote yet.  I still have some idealism, and I'm not for shafting anyone.  There's no reason the tax code couldn't be progressive enough to improve society.