Occupy Wall Street

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Perhaps the biggest "reward" has been too much of a free pass on bearing responsibility for the national upkeep. We'll do what we can to reduce the cost of that responsibility of course, but it's time the dead weight start making a reasonable contribution.

Absolutely! You work 3 jobs to try and feed your family? FUCK YOU, spend more time in National Upkeep, since clearly the 3 jobs you're working contribute nothing to society.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Isn't this a form of discrimination?

No more so than a flat tax on income.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

No more so than a flat tax on income.

How is a flat tax on income discrimination? Everyone is paying the same percentage. Sounds fair to me. Just because someone can afford something more than someone else doesn't mean they need to be penalized.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Full rebate on earners under $25,000

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

By all means, let's continue to reward those who've done the least to deserve it. That's been working just great.

Yes. Fuck those poor schlubs who are barely squeaking out a miserable existence. Why should they catch any kind of break?

[RainMaker]

A flat tax wouldn't reduce the tax rate for the wealthy. They already pay a low tax rate. Most people with money are making their money through capital gains and only being taxed at 15%. The middle class are those who are taxed at the highest rates in this country as they don't have enough to make large capital gains returns and too much to fall into the low tax brackets that low income earners get. So any talk of a flat tax for "fairness" would have to include taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, something I'm sure those felating the wealthy would oppose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Perhaps the biggest "reward" has been too much of a free pass on bearing responsibility for the national upkeep. We'll do what we can to reduce the cost of that responsibility of course, but it's time the dead weight start making a reasonable contribution.

Sorry, the dead weight has been those who pay taxes who have had to prop up the financial industry with trillions of dollars. If you talk about equal taxing, you have to have equal distribution.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Graduated income tax brackets provide "fair & equitable treatment for all". The same exact rules apply to everyone. If people that make more money don't like the rate they're paying, they're more than able to cut down on the amount of income they're earning and take advantage of the "rewards" you seem to think the poor get. Income is not an immutable characteristic like race or gender.

You might still think it's a bad policy--although I disagree--but I fail to see how it's unfair or discriminatory.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How is a flat tax on income discrimination? Everyone is paying the same percentage. Sounds fair to me. Just because someone can afford something more than someone else doesn't mean they need to be penalized.

I'm really curious about the discrimination angle here. To make the numbers simple, I'm going to use "Person A making $250K per year and Person B making $50K per year"

Which is fairer?

Each person pays $5K per year in various fees to the government between property tax for the local school, car registration, sales tax on groceries, etc.

1) Flat tax of 10% of income.
Person A pays a total of $30K per year for a total of 12% going to the government.
Person B pays a total of $10K per year for a total of 20% going to the government.

2) Progressive tax rate with deductions so that someone making under, say, $50K pays no tax, and each additional dollar above $50K is taxed at 10%
Person A pays a total of $25K per year for a total of 10%
Person B pays a total of $5K per year for a total of 10%

Again, which scenario is "fairer"? Should just income tax be flat or should all payment into the government be equal?

SI

[Warhammer]

If people want to be equal, then we should be equal. Let everyone share the same amount of burden. 5% is 5%. Don't make excuses that 5% to someone eats into necessities more than someone else's 5%. 10% is 10%, etc.

The problem is, we have used taxes to modify behavior for a long time. We want people to own homes, let's give them a tax break for buying a home. We want people to have children, let's give them a tax break for having kids.

I would prefer to have the income tax abolished all together and go to a straight sales tax, but you'll have a bunch of people crying because that's regressive and hurts people with less money harder. The thing with a sales tax is suddenly you don't have the rich playing games with their money. If they are using services here, they pay the tax when they buy something. Sure, you wind up running deficits in hard economic times, but you'll run surpluses during the good economic times.

[RainMaker]

It's impossible to calculate fair either because a stable government is far more valuable to a wealthy individual than a poor individual. Are safe and efficient ports from China more valuable to me or to Wal-Mart? It's why the "pay your fair share" argument is so laughable.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I actually think linking criminal fines to income makes a heck of a lot of sense tbh - if I get a speeding ticket then it hits me far less than it might my daughter who is 17.

As such the deterrent for me to speed is far less than it is for her, thats wrong - basing the penalty on the ability to pay would help balance that situation and deter more speeding and suchlike.

This happens to a degree. I went to court for a stupid traffic thing that I half assed took care of, half assed enough that I had to go see a judge. Many Many people saw the judge before me. These were the unwashed masses here that I'm talking about. Many had very serious offenses like multiple driving with a suspended license incidents. Almost none of them had jobs. These people were getting off with fines that were pennies on the dollar. I made the mistake of wearing a suit. He asked what I did, as soon as I was identified as a professional, I was screwed. I ended up with five times the fine that the deadbeat dealt with immediately before received for a much lesser offense. I learned my lesson, and if I ever have to see a judge from that side of the justice system, I'm darned sure going to wear coveralls.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If people want to be equal, then we should be equal. Let everyone share the same amount of burden. 5% is 5%. Don't make excuses that 5% to someone eats into necessities more than someone else's 5%. 10% is 10%, etc.

The problem is, we have used taxes to modify behavior for a long time. We want people to own homes, let's give them a tax break for buying a home. We want people to have children, let's give them a tax break for having kids.

I would prefer to have the income tax abolished all together and go to a straight sales tax, but you'll have a bunch of people crying because that's regressive and hurts people with less money harder. The thing with a sales tax is suddenly you don't have the rich playing games with their money. If they are using services here, they pay the tax when they buy something. Sure, you wind up running deficits in hard economic times, but you'll run surpluses during the good economic times.

To get anywhere close to revenue neutral, and remember taxes as a percentage of GDP are as low as they've been in over fifty years, you'd need a sales tax of @20%. Now add the state sales tax and most states you're over 25%. There's plenty of research available that says that number is above the threshold for rampant black market activities.

Even if you could solve the black markets, having everything suddenly cast 20% more, even with the abolition of income taxes, will fuck the economy. It's hard to predict exactly what will happen, but certainly buying habits initially will change dramatically.

[Julio Riddols]

If they would let individuals borrow money from the fed like the banks evidently did, we'd all be financially set.. Until the prices of everything blew up.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

If they would let individuals borrow money from the fed like the banks evidently did, we'd all be financially set.. Until the prices of everything blew up.

They'll let you borrow $150k, with very low interest, you just have to use it on school, and your living expenses when you're in school. And IMO, that's done more than almost anything else to create this huge age/income hybrid wealth gap, where you have to start your 20s way in debt if you want to have a career that requires college. It's pretty much impossible to ever catch up for a lot of people. And that's one of the things people are complaining about. If regular people could borrow many for ANY purpose - people would just be even more pissed off when they couldn't pay it back, and blaming....I'm actually not even sure who's fault they think that is.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This happens to a degree. I went to court for a stupid traffic thing that I half assed took care of, half assed enough that I had to go see a judge. Many Many people saw the judge before me. These were the unwashed masses here that I'm talking about. Many had very serious offenses like multiple driving with a suspended license incidents. Almost none of them had jobs. These people were getting off with fines that were pennies on the dollar. I made the mistake of wearing a suit. He asked what I did, as soon as I was identified as a professional, I was screwed. I ended up with five times the fine that the deadbeat dealt with immediately before received for a much lesser offense. I learned my lesson, and if I ever have to see a judge from that side of the justice system, I'm darned sure going to wear coveralls.

And here I thought the lesson would be to pay your ticket so you don't have to go to court

SI

[jeff061]

As someone who has been to court(deservedly) with numerous driving infractions, I can confirm the court system is heavy with the Walmart crowd.

That said, without fail the ones who dressed nice got off easy. I believed it was because they showed respect by dressing up and because there was the assumption it was a one time fuck up. That they have motivation outside of whatever penalty the court hands out not to make the mistake again.

I don't think the judge gives a shit about how much money he can pull off someone.

[SFL Cat]

I think it depends on the judge's politics. If he's a leftie, Mr. Suit is a Wallstreet type and can afford (and deserves to pay) the fine. If he leans to the right, Mr. Suit is an upstanding citizen, and if he doesn't have any priors, deserves a break.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If people want to be equal, then we should be equal. Let everyone share the same amount of burden. 5% is 5%. Don't make excuses that 5% to someone eats into necessities more than someone else's 5%. 10% is 10%, etc.

Do you really consider that an excuse, or are you being sarcastic? Because it most certainly is true that 5% of income means a lot more to someone who is barely affording necessities for their family than for someone who is saving 10% of their income, or spending on vacations or luxuries. For many people a flat tax would mean going either homeless or food-less. For others it would mean not taking a third vacation. Clearly flat taxes do not affect everybody equitably.

[SFL Cat]

Set a minimum income cutoff. Past that, everyone pays the same percent of taxes on their income. That way, everyone has some skin in the game. Also kill withholding. Everything goes into a dedicated bank account. Then on April 15th, everyone gets to write their check to the government. They see how much of their money is going to Uncle Sam (no more -- wow, I got $1000 dollars back from the IRS!!!) and the government doesn't get an interest free loan from Joe taxpayer until they have to send you a refund.

[JPhillips]

Everybody who works or buys gasoline has skin in the game.

[SFL Cat]

Not when it comes to income tax. I have found everyone pays closer attention to what is going on when money is coming out of their pockets, as opposed to someone else's.

[larrymcg421]

A flat tax or sales tax won't be fair to the rich if their stores are empty, which is what will happen if the middle and lower classes suddenly have 20% less to spend.

[jeff061]

I'm not in the 1% or anywhere remotely near it. I do make enough money where I'm perfectly ok paying a higher tax rate than most. You have to be incredibly greedy to fight against that, imho. Arguing "it's the principle" does not cut it as an excuse

That sums up my opinion.

[JPhillips]

So should people that don't own property pay property taxes? Should people that don't fish or hunt pay fishing and hunting taxes?

The point of the "no skin in the game" argument is that people are getting from the government without paying anything. For almost everyone that isn't true, they are paying federal taxes. You can't isolate one tax and claim that means people aren't paying anything.

[SFL Cat]

When did I say anything about property taxes? Most property taxes are levied at the state or local level, anyway. So that's a completely different topic.

[SFL Cat]

jeff, if you think the government is more capable of spending your money wisely than you are, then more power to you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

When did I say anything about property taxes? Most property taxes are levied at the state or local level, anyway. So that's a completely different topic.

Well shouldn't everybody have to pay something for every tax so they'll have skin in the game?

You want to isolate one tax and not look at total tax burden. If you're going to isolate one tax why not look at every tax in isolation?

[jeff061]

That's not even an argument. The goal of spending on myself is different than the governments goal. Yeah, fuck, I love my car, my savings and all my toys. I wouldn't call them wise or necessary purchases. My financial necessities for living a pleasant life have long since been fulfilled.

[SFL Cat]

Strawman argument Jphillips. If everything was levied at the federal level, then you could make that case. Anyone who owns property should have to pay for services and upkeep that a gov't provides. And if a property owner is smart, he factors those expenses into the rent someone pays to live on a piece of property he owns.

[SFL Cat]

jeff. Why is it not a valid argument? Maybe the gov't should be allowed to step in and make sure YOU spend your money more wisely. You might laugh, but where does it stop? And what exactly is the government goal? Rather nebulous don't you think? Based on recent news, it seems to be politicians from both parties enriching themselves and their cronies.

[DaddyTorgo]

Man I didn't miss SFL Cat. Didn't I have him on ignore before?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

jeff. Why is it not a valid argument? Maybe the gov't should be allowed to step in and make sure YOU spend your money more wisely. You might laugh, but where does it stop? And what exactly is the government goal? Rather nebulous don't you think? Based on recent news, it seems to be politicians from both parties enriching themselves and their cronies.

You're right.

Let's just get rid of taxes altogether.

[JPhillips]

You could easily limit it to federal taxes. Should everyone pay gasoline taxes regardless of whether they drive? Should everyone pay excise taxes? Corporate taxes? Estate taxes? Gift taxes? Why aren't you worried about people not having "skin in the game" when it comes to those taxes?

The lowest income quintile payed about 4.5% in federal taxes. Almost everyone has skin in the game. Are you advocating massive tax increases?

[larrymcg421]

Of course, the most unfair taxation in America isn't for the rich, but for the residents of D.C. They pay federal income tax, but have no representation in Congress. The right can stop wining about unfairness in the tax system when that changes.

[SFL Cat]

JPhillips, Even if a person uses public transportation, the owner of the conveyance passes the cost of the taxes they pay onto the person who uses the service. So what is your point? How does any of this relate to income taxes? I understand you support a progressive income tax, but nearly 50% of wage earners don't pay federal taxes. How is that fair? If you think rich people should be soaked, then just say so. Personally I suppport a flat tax. If it's, say, 10%, then a person who earns $1,000,000 annually would pay $100,000. If a person earns $40,000, then he pays $4,000. How is that unfair?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

JPhillips, Even if a person uses public transportation, the owner of the conveyance passes the cost of the taxes they pay onto the person who uses the service. So what is your point? How does any of this relate to income taxes? I understand you support a progressive income tax, but nearly 50% of wage earners don't pay federal taxes. How is that fair? If you think rich people should be soaked, then just say so. Personally I suppport a flat tax. If it's, say, 10%, then a person who earns $1,000,000 annually would pay $100,000. If a person earns $40,000, then he pays $4,000. How is that unfair?

No. Almost everyone pays federal taxes. You just want to limit it to one tax while ignoring all the others. Anyone who works and makes less than 100k pays @15% in FICA taxes. Why doesn't that count for "skin in the game"?

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

JPhillips, Even if a person uses public transportation, the owner of the conveyance passes the cost of the taxes they pay onto the person who uses the service. So what is your point? How does any of this relate to income taxes? I understand you support a progressive income tax, but nearly 50% of wage earners don't pay federal taxes. How is that fair? If you think rich people should be soaked, then just say so. Personally I suppport a flat tax. If it's, say, 10%, then a person who earns $1,000,000 annually would pay $100,000. If a person earns $40,000, then he pays $4,000. How is that unfair?

The slobbering worship of the rich--usually done by those without even a basic understanding of economics--has has had a far more deleterious impact on society than any envy or scorn for the rich has.

[SFL Cat]

My bad. I should have been more specific. Nearly 50% of the wage earners in this country don't pay federal income taxes.

[SFL Cat]

lcjjdnh...I don't slobberingly (nice word) worship the rich...but on the other hand, I've never been given a job by a poor person. But in all seriousness, I think the increasing materialistic secularization of our society, the idea that "greed" is good, has had a far more deleterious impact on our society than anything else, but that's another discussion.

[JPhillips]

But again, why does that tax matter when the other federal taxes don't? All the money goes to the federal budget. Why does it matter if 50% of people aren't paying the income tax when they are paying other taxes?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

JPhillips, Even if a person uses public transportation, the owner of the conveyance passes the cost of the taxes they pay onto the person who uses the service. So what is your point? How does any of this relate to income taxes? I understand you support a progressive income tax, but nearly 50% of wage earners don't pay federal taxes. How is that fair? If you think rich people should be soaked, then just say so. Personally I suppport a flat tax. If it's, say, 10%, then a person who earns $1,000,000 annually would pay $100,000. If a person earns $40,000, then he pays $4,000. How is that unfair?

It's unfair because it will destroy the economy. Are you really gonna tax someone who scrapes by on $20,000 a year an extra $2,000? Say goodbye to tons of purchases. Far fewer people makein the millions and the extra money they know get back won't all be spent in the economy as a good portion of it will be saved. So now you're increases the tax burden for a ton of people, decreasing it a ton for a few people, and taking an insane amount of money out of the economy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

The slobbering worship of the rich--usually done by those without even a basic understanding of economics--has has had a far more deleterious impact on society than any envy or scorn for the rich has.

Utter & complete bullshit.

It's the demonization of success that's led to a such a pervasive (and perverse) culture of embracing mediocrity (or worse).

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

The slobbering worship of the rich--usually done by those without even a basic understanding of economics--has has had a far more deleterious impact on society than any envy or scorn for the rich has.

In what way? That just sounds like typical OWS blabberspeak. Can you give specifics, and maybe a specific plan about what we should do about "the rich"? What can they, and people just below them, do about the "deleterious impact on society?" Again, do Clinton-era tax rates fix all this or do we need to do a lot more (I shudder to think what you have in mind.).

And who are the rich, just that 1% cutoff, or are you defining them some other way? I don't live paycheck to paycheck, am I part of the problem too if society considers that a good thing, and a worthwhile accomplishment? "Slobbering" as you would put it? I mean, I do get and am sympathetic to the liberal side of the tax the rich argument, but I would love to hear more about this societal "deleterious impact"...(.and if I start a band I'm also stealing that to be the name) I'd like to compare that to the impact we're having on the youth of America, convincing them that none of their individual failings are ever their fault, that others are responsible for their success or failure. And that all you have to do to be a good moral person is think someone else should give more money to the federal government - that that makes you "enlightened".

Edit: Our "rich" are actually competitive in a global economy. Our service industry workers are not. Yes, the rich benefit from a country that allows them to be so globally competitive, and they should pay a hefty tax bill for that. But they're not the problem. They are a huge asset. The fact that this has become a debatable point is a very scary development for this country.

[JPhillips]

Just some numbers to illustrate what you are advocating.

In 2009 the average % of income collected through the federal income tax was 11.06%.

So to make it revenue neutral we'd need a national sales tax of 11.06% if we're only replacing the federal income tax.

Based on Tax Foundation charts, that would mean 90% of filers would face a tax increase. Fifty percent of filers would see a tax increase on average of nearly 1000% (from 1.85% to 11.06%).

The top 10% of filers would see their tax rate fall from 18% to 11.06%.

The top 5% would see their tax rate fall from 20% to 11.06%.

The top 1% would see their average tax rate fall from 24% to 11.06%.

Even if you're foolish enough to think that's good for the country, there's no way in hell you can pass that legislation.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But again, why does that tax matter when the other federal taxes don't? All the money goes to the federal budget. Why does it matter if 50% of people aren't paying the income tax when they are paying other taxes?

Again, liberals are the ones who are all concerned about "fairness" in taxation. Nothing is more fair than if everyone pays the same percentage, especially if you eliminate all the loopholes "rich" folks are able to use by hiring tax attorneys (in many cases ex-lawmakers) who know how to exploit them. Besides, if everyone had to write a check to the government on April 15, and saw just how much of their money from income went to the Fed (in personal income taxes, FICA, SS, etc., etc.) I think people would pay a LOT more attention to how Washington spends that money. Don't you think?

[JPhillips]

You aren't advocating a flat overall tax, just a flat federal income tax. We're pretty close to a flat overall tax burden as it is.

And fairness doesn't mean everyone always pays the same amount.

[SFL Cat]

Same percentage means everyone wouldn't pay the same amount, $-wise. Obviously, I'm one who believes our nation's problems are due more to runaway spending than not enough taxation.

[JPhillips]

Would your proposal also include eliminating the wage cap on FICA taxes? Shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage on those taxes as well? You wouldn't want to exclude the one regressive federal tax.

[SFL Cat]

Let me put it this way...FICA and SS taxes were sold to the public as "insurance," in case we lose our jobs or find ourselves unable to support ourselves in our senior years. In reality, there is no personal component involved with those programs or the monies we see taken out of our monthly/weekly pay checks. That money is funneled into a general fund and spent according to government discretion. As far as we're concerned, that money is gone forever.

I'm all for a complete overhaul of that system. I don't think DC has proven itself trustworthy to spend the trillions it collects in revenues. Think about it, our nation collects more in annual revenues than all the third world nations on this planet will generate during their entire existence, and yet we still run deficits in the trillions. Now...do you argue that we don't tax our people enough, or that we need to take a hard look at how government spends the money it takes in?

[cuervo72]

When I look at the rich, I think about what recently happened in FOBL.

We have a closed financial system in FOBL that we use rather than OOTP's finances. There is a fixed amount of cash, and that cash enters the pool through contracts, then gets distributed to teams at the end of the year based on a number of performance factors.

Some seasons ago owners became pretty skilled at playing the system - they wouldn't spend as much for players but would win enough games to still make a profit. And they accumulated more and more money. They sat on it and didn't put it back into the system, which meant the other owners had less to spend. Salaries dropped, which led to more hoarding and things entered into a downward spiral that nearly killed the league.

So what did we do? We put a cap on how much you could bank, and put floors on what you could spend based on how much cash you had. Money flowed back into the system, and the league started coming back to life (there were other contributing factors, but this was a major one).

I don't have any problems with the rich earning money. Make as much as you can. But you know what (and I guess this will sound like trickle-down econ)? Friggin spend it. Don't sit on all the cash. People complain about celebs/the wealthy throwing $1M parties? Screw that. Throw those damned parties - blow all the effing money you want. Go hog wild. Preferably stateside, of course.

It's too bad that we can't link income tax to expenditures somehow. You made $10M? Great. You spent $7M of that? Fantastic. You get off easy on your tax. You, you only spent $1M? Well pay up, Mr. Stingy.

(Yes, I know this is really simplified and I'm sure there are a million reasons why this wouldn't work.)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Let me put it this way...FICA and SS taxes were sold to the public as "insurance," in case we lose our jobs or find ourselves unable to support ourselves in our senior years. In reality, there is no personal component involved with those programs or the monies we see taken out of our monthly/weekly pay checks. That money is funneled into a general fund and spent according to government discretion. As far as we're concerned, that money is gone forever.

I'm all for a complete overhaul of that system. I don't think DC has proven itself trustworthy to spend the trillions it collects in revenues. Think about it, our nation collects more in annual revenues than all the third world nations on this planet will generate during their entire existence, and yet we still run deficits in the trillions. Now...do you argue that we don't tax our people enough, or that we need to take a hard look at how government spends the money it takes in?

If we could only be more like Somalia...