Conquer Club

I've seen people around here and elsewhere being ok with tax rates of 5% - 50%.

How much of my money do you think I should have to pay in to the central government to be spent at their discretion, with my only control over it being a representative and two senators who I can vote for but as soon as the results are counted, they leave for the capital city only to forget about everything they spoke of while on the campaign trail.

What percentage of my paycheck should I be forced to send to the federal and the state governments, while also being able to ensure I have enough left over to pay taxes on the items I buy, the property I live on, and also the services I utilize.

What percent you are comfortable taking off the top to send to the bureaucrats before I can touch my paycheck? And if companies didn't deduct this amount automatically and we had to personally mail a check in every week so that we all can notice the amount they were taking, would you have different feelings on this?

Discuss.

All the money. All of it.

Wow Natty, all of it? Slave-owner much?

I don't think the government should get another dime until they can prove they won't waste half of our hard earned money that we give them and they prove they can stop borrowing and spending twice as much as we send them on top of that.

when the government proves a worthy steward of our money, then we can talk %'s. Until then, my answer will always be to send them less. If we had a government we could trust and believe in, I would not necessarily be opposed to paying more taxes myself.

Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Flat tax, 20% on net income--wherever you got it from, doesn't matter. First $15,000 of your income is exempt unless you make over X amount, where X is equal to "rich guy/gal amount."


No more ability for the rich to avoid paying much of their taxes,
It's a mostly fair tax
No more sloppy central planning via tax incentives
etc.

There's no objective ethical basis for compelling people to forfeit their labor without being sentenced to do so as punishment for a crime and no right action can be taken without an objective ethical basis. Therefore, all taxes must be abolished.

To make-up for lost revenue, private property is also abolished. The state, as the sole owner of real estate, raises revenue by leasing parcels of land in 100-year terms on which people can build houses, engage in agriculture or make love.

saxitoxin wrote:There's no objective ethical basis for compelling people to forfeit their labor without being sentenced to do so as punishment for a crime and no right action can be taken without an objective ethical basis. Therefore, all taxes must be abolished.

To make-up for lost revenue, private property is also abolished. The state, as the sole owner of real estate, raises revenue by leasing parcels of land in 100-year terms on which people can build houses, engage in agriculture or make love.

Without prices, you can't have rational planning,

So how would the prices be determined?

patrickaa317 wrote:I've seen people around here and elsewhere being ok with tax rates of 5% - 50%.

How much of my money do you think I should have to pay in to the central government to be spent at their discretion, with my only control over it being a representative and two senators who I can vote for but as soon as the results are counted, they leave for the capital city only to forget about everything they spoke of while on the campaign trail.

What percentage of my paycheck should I be forced to send to the federal and the state governments, while also being able to ensure I have enough left over to pay taxes on the items I buy, the property I live on, and also the services I utilize.

What percent you are comfortable taking off the top to send to the bureaucrats before I can touch my paycheck? And if companies didn't deduct this amount automatically and we had to personally mail a check in every week so that we all can notice the amount they were taking, would you have different feelings on this?

Discuss.

I assume you will be happy to pose as a case study , please post exact details of the tax you paid to central government during the last fiscal year and what you recieved in exchange .

Federal income tax - flat 20% personal income tax rate with standard deductions imposed on all income, wherever earned (including capital gains, ordinary income, etc.). Standard exemption of $35,000 (or whatever the median wage is).

State income tax - flat 5% personal income tax rate imposed upon federal taxable income (after deductions).

Property tax- abolished

Sales tax and other consumpion taxes - abolished

Estate tax - 100% with a standard exemption of $500,000 and an exemption for land and businesses. Gifts are exempted up to $100,000 every five years per receiver.

Personally, I'd be okay up to 50%, but no more.
Assuming the 50% largely goes towards the benefit of an everyman. (Such as myself.)
As well as assuming the cost of living would be reasonable with this large tax in mind.
I'd like around 50% of my pay to actually be used to whatever end I may desire.

Personally, when someone demands "DISCUSS", it makes me feel like my mom telling me "Clean your room!" 40 years ago.....wouldn't "Let us discuss" be ever so much better?

I am probably just way too fussy......

Back to your fun tax topic

saxitoxin wrote:There's no objective ethical basis for compelling people to forfeit their labor without being sentenced to do so as punishment for a crime and no right action can be taken without an objective ethical basis. Therefore, all taxes must be abolished.

I agree. Their exists a misguided notion that the government needs taxes to pay for itself. This is incorrect. Creation/destruction of money needs to be taken away from the federal reserve, and given back to the government.

If the government needs money to do things, it should just print it, and pay it to it's employees as wages. If there is too much money in the system, they should use taxes to take some money out of the system(20% tax, no exceptions). Too little money in the system, it should offer tax rebates ($100 per person).

Banks should be required to keep 100% of depositors money on hand.

comic boy wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I've seen people around here and elsewhere being ok with tax rates of 5% - 50%.

How much of my money do you think I should have to pay in to the central government to be spent at their discretion, with my only control over it being a representative and two senators who I can vote for but as soon as the results are counted, they leave for the capital city only to forget about everything they spoke of while on the campaign trail.

What percentage of my paycheck should I be forced to send to the federal and the state governments, while also being able to ensure I have enough left over to pay taxes on the items I buy, the property I live on, and also the services I utilize.

What percent you are comfortable taking off the top to send to the bureaucrats before I can touch my paycheck? And if companies didn't deduct this amount automatically and we had to personally mail a check in every week so that we all can notice the amount they were taking, would you have different feelings on this?

Discuss.

I assume you will be happy to pose as a case study , please post exact details of the tax you paid to central government during the last fiscal year and what you recieved in exchange .

HOW MUCH HE PAID:
Patrick - please fill-in this part.

WHAT HE RECEIVED IN RETURN:
- 1/330,000,000/share of 70 naval surveillance drones
- exercise opportunities on up to $6 million worth of new bicycle lanes in Alaska for the next time he is biking near an oil field
- new knowledge of the effects of cocaine on the sex habits of Japanese quail
- pride in knowing the Battery Street Dance Group was performing in Indonesia
- the ability to watch a Bureau of Weights & Measures float in the New Orleans Mardi Gras parade
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317081.pdf
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bic ... edfund.cfm
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/ind ... 5a5e194365

this is the start of the list - someone fill in the exact details of the other $2.5 trillion of benefits Patrick received ... I'm late for a b-fast at IHOP and can't stick with it

Frigidus wrote:Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Do you feel that way because:

A. I have it and you feel it is better for the government to have it?
B. You are jealous of my success and feel better by confiscating my wealth through taxation?
C. You don't think I need, or should, have that kind of money at my disposal?
D. All of the above.
E. Fill in the blank with whatever i missed.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Flat tax, 20% on net income--wherever you got it from, doesn't matter. First $15,000 of your income is exempt unless you make over X amount, where X is equal to "rich guy/gal amount."


No more ability for the rich to avoid paying much of their taxes,
It's a mostly fair tax
No more sloppy central planning via tax incentives
etc.

Is this $15,000 regardless if I am in the sticks of Arkansas or in the heart of NYC?

Maugena wrote:Personally, I'd be okay up to 50%, but no more.
Assuming the 50% largely goes towards the benefit of an everyman. (Such as myself.)
As well as assuming the cost of living would be reasonable with this large tax in mind.
I'd like around 50% of my pay to actually be used to whatever end I may desire.

So if you have 50% that is using whatever you may desire; and I have 50% left for whatever I may desire; but you want the other 50% of myself to benefit everyman such as you; wouldn't it make more sense to let you keep say 80% so then you wouldn't need to utilize my 50%?

And by a 50% tax rate, do you really mean that 4-5 hours every day at my job, Uncle Sam is getting paid, not me?

saxitoxin wrote:

comic boy wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I've seen people around here and elsewhere being ok with tax rates of 5% - 50%.

How much of my money do you think I should have to pay in to the central government to be spent at their discretion, with my only control over it being a representative and two senators who I can vote for but as soon as the results are counted, they leave for the capital city only to forget about everything they spoke of while on the campaign trail.

What percentage of my paycheck should I be forced to send to the federal and the state governments, while also being able to ensure I have enough left over to pay taxes on the items I buy, the property I live on, and also the services I utilize.

What percent you are comfortable taking off the top to send to the bureaucrats before I can touch my paycheck? And if companies didn't deduct this amount automatically and we had to personally mail a check in every week so that we all can notice the amount they were taking, would you have different feelings on this?

Discuss.

I assume you will be happy to pose as a case study , please post exact details of the tax you paid to central government during the last fiscal year and what you recieved in exchange .

HOW MUCH HE PAID:
NUNYA!!!

WHAT HE RECEIVED IN RETURN:
- 1/330,000,000/share of 70 naval surveillance drones
- exercise opportunities on up to $6 million worth of new bicycle lanes in Alaska for the next time he is biking near an oil field
- new knowledge of the effects of cocaine on the sex habits of Japanese quail
- pride in knowing the Battery Street Dance Group was performing in Indonesia
- the ability to watch a Bureau of Weights & Measures float in the New Orleans Mardi Gras parade
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317081.pdf
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bic ... edfund.cfm
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/ind ... 5a5e194365

this is the start of the list - someone fill in the exact details of the other $2.5 trillion of benefits Patrick received ... I'm late for a b-fast at IHOP and can't stick with it

Thanks Saxi. I updated the above part.

patrickaa317 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Flat tax, 20% on net income--wherever you got it from, doesn't matter. First $15,000 of your income is exempt unless you make over X amount, where X is equal to "rich guy/gal amount."


No more ability for the rich to avoid paying much of their taxes,
It's a mostly fair tax
No more sloppy central planning via tax incentives
etc.

Is this $15,000 regardless if I am in the sticks of Arkansas or in the heart of NYC?

It would be a rule of thumb for the sake of shortening my post. If the tax policy was nuanced enough, it wouldn't rely on national aggregate data and optimally would rely on aggregated data of each district/municipality. (I don't think the government has much of an incentive to be that nuanced).

So, that $15,000 should depend on the PPP of one's district, or even municipality.

How much do we pay now? Doesn't the middle class pay @ 57% or something?

Juan_Bottom wrote:How much do we pay now? Doesn't the middle class pay @ 57% or something?

Are you ok with how much you pay now?

I would even pay more if it helped my country. But right now it's being used to fund a giant-ass army and sh*t.

Everyone wants a lower tax rate, and I only make about $20K a year. But I would pay a higher rate to fund stronger social programs instead of Corporate Welfare and militaristic programs.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Do you feel that way because:

A. I have it and you feel it is better for the government to have it?
B. You are jealous of my success and feel better by confiscating my wealth through taxation?
C. You don't think I need, or should, have that kind of money at my disposal?
D. All of the above.
E. Fill in the blank with whatever i missed.

Well, you definitely don't need more than one million a year and a government not owned in every by way private interests could do a lot more good with the massive stockpiles of money. At this point the top 1% own over 40% of the wealth in this country. That is obscene.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Maugena wrote:Personally, I'd be okay up to 50%, but no more.
Assuming the 50% largely goes towards the benefit of an everyman. (Such as myself.)
As well as assuming the cost of living would be reasonable with this large tax in mind.
I'd like around 50% of my pay to actually be used to whatever end I may desire.

So if you have 50% that is using whatever you may desire; and I have 50% left for whatever I may desire; but you want the other 50% of myself to benefit everyman such as you; wouldn't it make more sense to let you keep say 80% so then you wouldn't need to utilize my 50%?

And by a 50% tax rate, do you really mean that 4-5 hours every day at my job, Uncle Sam is getting paid, not me?

Consider how much of what we make that goes into health care and college education. It wouldn't be too much of a tradeoff.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I would even pay more if it helped my country. But right now it's being used to fund a giant-ass army and sh*t.

Everyone wants a lower tax rate, and I only make about $20K a year. But I would pay a higher rate to fund stronger social programs instead of Corporate Welfare and militaristic programs.

So I can assume that you donate a fair amount to programs and non-profits in the private sector that do these things, is that correct?

Frigidus wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Do you feel that way because:

A. I have it and you feel it is better for the government to have it?
B. You are jealous of my success and feel better by confiscating my wealth through taxation?
C. You don't think I need, or should, have that kind of money at my disposal?
D. All of the above.
E. Fill in the blank with whatever i missed.

Well, you definitely don't need more than one million a year and a government not owned in every by way private interests could do a lot more good with the massive stockpiles of money. At this point the top 1% own over 40% of the wealth in this country. That is obscene.

So you feel that I really don't need that much money but does anyone really need anything say over 30k a year? I mean that'll get you an apartment, food on your table, and some entertainment, if we are talking about what someone needs. Should we all strive for just what we need and be good with that? I mean does anyone really need anything over 75k a year? Those typically are just the people that drive around in Lexus or BMW's; they could definitely get by with a Focus or Cavalier, right? That's if we are talking about what someone needs.

On the flipside, does the government really need to take over 450,000 from a person that makes a million per year? Does the government really need that kind of money?

And do you feel it is the governments responsibility to make sure that more than 1% have a share of 40% of the wealth? What is an acceptable number there? What if 3% owned 40% of the wealth? Would that be better? 5%? 10%? 25%? What is a non-obscene number in your view?

patrickaa317 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Do you feel that way because:

A. I have it and you feel it is better for the government to have it?
B. You are jealous of my success and feel better by confiscating my wealth through taxation?
C. You don't think I need, or should, have that kind of money at my disposal?
D. All of the above.
E. Fill in the blank with whatever i missed.

Well, you definitely don't need more than one million a year and a government not owned in every by way private interests could do a lot more good with the massive stockpiles of money. At this point the top 1% own over 40% of the wealth in this country. That is obscene.

So you feel that I really don't need that much money but does anyone really need anything say over 30k a year? I mean that'll get you an apartment, food on your table, and some entertainment, if we are talking about what someone needs. Should we all strive for just what we need and be good with that? I mean does anyone really need anything over 75k a year? Those typically are just the people that drive around in Lexus or BMW's; they could definitely get by with a Focus or Cavalier, right? That's if we are talking about what someone needs.

There is a universe of difference between spending $5,000 on something frivolous and hoarding half of the country's wealth.

patrickaa317 wrote:On the flipside, does the government really need to take over 450,000 from a person that makes a million per year? Does the government really need that kind of money?

If we were to pay for universal health care, free college tuition and a reasonable social safety net, yes.

patrickaa317 wrote:And do you feel it is the governments responsibility to make sure that more than 1% have a share of 40% of the wealth?

The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people. This level of wealth disparity is not in the people's best interest.

patrickaa317 wrote:What is an acceptable number there? What if 3% owned 40% of the wealth? Would that be better? 5%? 10%? 25%? What is a non-obscene number in your view?

While the perfect level of inequality is hard to pin down, I'd say that we should be looking for something comparable to the rest of the first world. Instead we're one of the worst.

Income inequality: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Here's a map of that (note that we're roughly on par with China):