PM Series: Question 13

[Supersonic]

Usually disagree/Not critical

[IceSpear]

I voted neutral.  I find the demonization of the rich (which I technically am by President Obama's metrics) deplorable, and I think the top tax bracket is too high.  No one in the entire country should have to pay over 40% of their income back in taxes (once you add up ALL of the taxes, not just federal income tax); that's just absurd.  However, I have no problem with progressive taxation within reason.  All tax rates, for every bracket, are too high right now, though.

You make over $250k a year? Dayum

Anyway, disagree/critical.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lol, if you make over $250,000 a year you are rich by almost any metric. If you don't feel rich it's because you're wasting money on an irresponsible and unrealistic mortgage.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I really don't wish to continue on a discussion of this, but a family that earns a "high" amount of money might not feel rich as much as they feel fortunate.  A lot of people don't start off/grow up well off (me) and once they've "made it" wish to share that accomplishment with their children, giving them a childhood they only dreamed of. We give a lot to several charities, and I have no problem paying taxes to support infrastructure spending.  However, you have to keep in mind that when Obama says raising taxes on "millionaires," a lot of non-millionaires are actually included.  We're certainly not millionaires.

[IceSpear]

I really don't wish to continue on a discussion of this, but a family that earns a "high" amount of money might not feel rich as much as they feel fortunate.  A lot of people don't start off/grow up well off (me) and once they've "made it" wish to share that accomplishment with their children, giving them a childhood they only dreamed of. We give a lot to several charities, and I have no problem paying taxes to support infrastructure spending.  However, you have to keep in mind that when Obama says raising taxes on "millionaires," a lot of non-millionaires are actually included.  We're certainly not millionaires.

Can you contribute to the IceSpear charity?

(I'm a Democrat, I'm allowed to ask for handouts )

[Rockefeller GOP]

I really don't wish to continue on a discussion of this, but a family that earns a "high" amount of money might not feel rich as much as they feel fortunate.  A lot of people don't start off/grow up well off (me) and once they've "made it" wish to share that accomplishment with their children, giving them a childhood they only dreamed of. We give a lot to several charities, and I have no problem paying taxes to support infrastructure spending.  However, you have to keep in mind that when Obama says raising taxes on "millionaires," a lot of non-millionaires are actually included.  We're certainly not millionaires.

Can you contribute to the IceSpear charity?

(I'm a Democrat, I'm allowed to ask for handouts )

Sure.

[Redalgo]

Disagree / Critical

In general, rising levels of income deliver diminishing rewards for the individual. Someone bringing in $100 million/yr. is not meaningfully privileged in their access to opportunities for achieving happiness in life when compared to someone else who earns $100,000/yr., and the latter of them is not a whole lot better off than a guy brings in $50,000/yr. Yet when you start comparing folks of lower incomes - say $15,000/yr. and $30,000/yr. - the differences are quite significant.

If what we value is the happiness of our citizens and their empowerment to strive for that condition in life, in other words, the flat tax places the heaviest of its burdens on the poor and the lightest of them on the rich. It would only make sense to have if, say, the first $80,000/yr. of household income was exempt from taxation. Progressive taxation is much more reasonable than that - distributing tax burdens across all socioeconomic classes. It's just that the rates of it cannot climb too high for upper-income earners or else they will be strongly motivated to engage in tax avoidance.

[Njall]

Disagree (critical)

[AggregateDemand]

Disagree / Critical

In general, rising levels of income deliver diminishing rewards for the individual. Someone bringing in $100 million/yr. is not meaningfully privileged in their access to opportunities for achieving happiness in life when compared to someone else who earns $100,000/yr., and the latter of them is not a whole lot better off than a guy brings in $50,000/yr. Yet when you start comparing folks of lower incomes - say $15,000/yr. and $30,000/yr. - the differences are quite significant.

If what we value is the happiness of our citizens and their empowerment to strive for that condition in life, in other words, the flat tax places the heaviest of its burdens on the poor and the lightest of them on the rich. It would only make sense to have if, say, the first $80,000/yr. of household income was exempt from taxation. Progressive taxation is much more reasonable than that - distributing tax burdens across all socioeconomic classes. It's just that the rates of it cannot climb too high for upper-income earners or else they will be strongly motivated to engage in tax avoidance.

Do you think anyone takes seriously the notion of equal protection, when the rates of taxation vary widely based upon arbitrarily assigned financial privileges, like marriage, mortgage interest (rates), and number of children? Furthermore, why should various income brackets have different marginal propensities to save, invest, and consume best upon the government's unrelated agenda of revenue requisition?

Flat tax is the only way. Not only does it eliminate the preposterous system of penalties and privileges inherent to graduated tax systems, it can still be progressive without using absurd exemptions. Flat tax does not encourage or discourage saving/spending based upon household income because the marginal rate of taxation is the same for everyone.

[Redalgo]

Do you think anyone takes seriously the notion of equal protection, when the rates of taxation vary widely based upon arbitrarily assigned financial privileges, like marriage, mortgage interest (rates), and number of children? Furthermore, why should various income brackets have different marginal propensities to save, invest, and consume best upon the government's unrelated agenda of revenue requisition?

Flat tax is the only way. Not only does it eliminate the preposterous system of penalties and privileges inherent to graduated tax systems, it can still be progressive without using absurd exemptions. Flat tax does not encourage or discourage saving/spending based upon household income because the marginal rate of taxation is the same for everyone.

For clarification, I do not believe any tax exemptions or special provisions in the code should exist. The impact on how people decide to use their money is honestly not of great importance to me, meanwhile, though to be fair I am open to being persuaded that it deserves to be a serious consideration.

The flat tax is somewhat less off-putting in the context of market socialism. If there was already a basic income in place, some income controls, and businesses controlled by their workers regardless of whether they are benefiting from outside investments I could see a flat tax not necessarily having to promote vast inequalities of income over time - and thus also large inequalities of opportunity and actionable freedom.

As things stand, however, I fear the policy merely exacerbates the flaws in trying to reconcile the goals of a liberal, constitutional republic with those of a capitalist economy.