6 ms·

> By your logic I shouldn’t have to pay income tax on sales because my customers already paid income tax. People often believe that because something has been

by Alupis 2y ago

> By your logic I shouldn’t have to pay income tax on sales because my customers already paid income tax. People often believe that because something has been for a while, it must always be so. Not too long ago we didn't have sales tax (introduced in the 1950's), and things were fine. You are taxed on your income, and you are taxed on your expenses. If you invest that money or do anything productive with it, it gets taxed again. That's such a ridiculous idea - pick one and stick with it. Make it whatever percentage it needs to be, and that's it. When someone looks at their bank account - that ought to be the final word on how much purchasing power that individual has. It shouldn't be handwavy minus 7-12%. Mind you, that's 7-12% in addition to the 20-30% you already paid.

mulmen 2y ago
Only the income on the investment is taxed though. The capital isn’t double taxed. I’d love to abolish regressive sales taxes and return to 1950s level progressive income tax rates. You have my vote.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. The idea of "Paying what you can afford" is BS everywhere it's been implemented - from school tuition to soccer camp to taxes. Everyone feels burned and like the "others" aren't paying what they should be. Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). The incumbent tax apparatus would never allow us to have something so simple, though. For a nation that got it's start in no small part due to being over-taxed, it's very interesting to see just how much tax shenanigans we tolerate today.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Our philosophies differ. > Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. I think "pay what you can afford" is fair because the only way to make half a million dollars (or more) a year is to disproportionately reap the benefits of society. Marginal income tax is fair in the sense that everyone does pay the same. Your $11,001st dollar is taxed the same as everyone else, just like your $578,126th dollar. If you don't want to pay the highest rates then take advantage of deductions (aka incentives aka loopholes) and invest in creating jobs. > Everyone feels burned and like the "others" aren't paying what they should be. I definitely don't feel this way and I am happy to pay my marginal rates. I just don't think they go far enough. > Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). Do you propose a flat income tax or a flat wealth tax? Should capital gains be taxed as income? > For a nation that got it's start in no small part due to being over-taxed, it's very interesting to see just how much tax shenanigans we tolerate today. My understanding was that the issue was lack of representation or ability to levy local taxes but I admit my knowledge of that point in history is weak. The America of today is certainly different from revolutionary times. I would say it is better.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      > disproportionately reap the benefits of society This is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy products because you want/like them. The people who make them are not disproportionately reaping benefits of society - they are reaping benefits of creating productive and desirable products. This view flirts with the idea that people "extract" wealth from the public, and that people are taken advantage of and/or manipulated into buying things. > I definitely don't feel this way and I am happy to pay my marginal rates. I just don't think they go far enough. People universally feel the government (local, state, federal) overwhelmingly wastes their tax money - yet so many people demand others pay more of their earned income to this uncaring ineffective machine. Tax receipts will never be enough for the government, and some people will continue to advocate plowing more of other people's money into the dark abyss. That's madness. > Do you propose a flat income tax or a flat wealth tax? Should capital gains be taxed as income? I propose a straight flat income tax percentage, without any deductions, credits, anything. While the percentage is fixed, the dollar amount obviously scales with income. Things like capital gains are solved this way by taxing the actual income you generated from the investments. I'm making up numbers, but say it's 20%. No matter if you earned $1 of income, or $1,000,000 - you pay 20%.
      - mulmen 2y ago
        I think a person who gains $10,000,000.00 a year should be paying a higher tax than someone gaining $20,000.00 a year because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. When money moves value is created. The incentive should be to spread that wealth out, not to concentrate it. A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. That can’t be sustained without an enormous increase in income or some guarantees around living expenses. If I understand your definition of flat tax then capital gains would be untaxed as well so the wealthiest would pay even less. I understand the ideology. Taxes should be simple and equal. I just don’t think that ideology is worth defending. The price is too high when the benefits are so unclear.
        2y ago
  - tzs 2y ago
    > Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government Ok... > Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). Flat percentage? A flat percentage means that if you earn N times what someone else earns you pay N times as much tax as they do. But you just said a couple of paragraphs earlier that just because you earn more money that someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. If that's going to be the basis of your tax policy shouldn't the tax be a flat amount?
    - Alupis 2y ago
      A flat percentage means exactly that - everyone pays the same percentage. Everyone derives the same value from the government, ie. the same percentage of their income.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - tzs 2y ago
        Let's say the flat percentage is 10%. Alice makes $10 million/year, so her tax is $1 million/year. Bob makes $20 000/year, so his tax is $2 000/year. Alice and Bob get the same benefits from the government so what is the justification for her tax being 500 times as much as Bob's?
        Alupis 2y ago
        If you want to make it a flat dollar amount, you won't find an argument from me. I happen to think a flat percentage without deductions or credits is the best compromise with the people who think everyone else isn't paying their "fair share". If everyone pays this 10% (or whatever) then there's no quibbling about this or that deduction or tax shenanigan (buying art, etc).
        2y ago

by Alupis 2y ago

mulmen 2y ago

Only the income on the investment is taxed though. The capital isn’t double taxed. I’d love to abolish regressive sales taxes and return to 1950s level progressive income tax rates. You have my vote.

Alupis 2y ago
Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. The idea of "Paying what you can afford" is BS everywhere it's been implemented - from school tuition to soccer camp to taxes. Everyone feels burned and like the "others" aren't paying what they should be. Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). The incumbent tax apparatus would never allow us to have something so simple, though. For a nation that got it's start in no small part due to being over-taxed, it's very interesting to see just how much tax shenanigans we tolerate today.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Our philosophies differ. > Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. I think "pay what you can afford" is fair because the only way to make half a million dollars (or more) a year is to disproportionately reap the benefits of society. Marginal income tax is fair in the sense that everyone does pay the same. Your $11,001st dollar is taxed the same as everyone else, just like your $578,126th dollar. If you don't want to pay the highest rates then take advantage of deductions (aka incentives aka loopholes) and invest in creating jobs. > Everyone feels burned and like the "others" aren't paying what they should be. I definitely don't feel this way and I am happy to pay my marginal rates. I just don't think they go far enough. > Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). Do you propose a flat income tax or a flat wealth tax? Should capital gains be taxed as income? > For a nation that got it's start in no small part due to being over-taxed, it's very interesting to see just how much tax shenanigans we tolerate today. My understanding was that the issue was lack of representation or ability to levy local taxes but I admit my knowledge of that point in history is weak. The America of today is certainly different from revolutionary times. I would say it is better.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    > disproportionately reap the benefits of society This is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy products because you want/like them. The people who make them are not disproportionately reaping benefits of society - they are reaping benefits of creating productive and desirable products. This view flirts with the idea that people "extract" wealth from the public, and that people are taken advantage of and/or manipulated into buying things. > I definitely don't feel this way and I am happy to pay my marginal rates. I just don't think they go far enough. People universally feel the government (local, state, federal) overwhelmingly wastes their tax money - yet so many people demand others pay more of their earned income to this uncaring ineffective machine. Tax receipts will never be enough for the government, and some people will continue to advocate plowing more of other people's money into the dark abyss. That's madness. > Do you propose a flat income tax or a flat wealth tax? Should capital gains be taxed as income? I propose a straight flat income tax percentage, without any deductions, credits, anything. While the percentage is fixed, the dollar amount obviously scales with income. Things like capital gains are solved this way by taxing the actual income you generated from the investments. I'm making up numbers, but say it's 20%. No matter if you earned $1 of income, or $1,000,000 - you pay 20%.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      I think a person who gains $10,000,000.00 a year should be paying a higher tax than someone gaining $20,000.00 a year because a person can’t personally create $10,000,000.00 of value in a year. Or even $8,000,000.00 of value. The only way to do that is to own a disproportionate slice of the American economy. When money moves value is created. The incentive should be to spread that wealth out, not to concentrate it. A flat tax of 20% would be ruinous to the poor and lower middle class. That can’t be sustained without an enormous increase in income or some guarantees around living expenses. If I understand your definition of flat tax then capital gains would be untaxed as well so the wealthiest would pay even less. I understand the ideology. Taxes should be simple and equal. I just don’t think that ideology is worth defending. The price is too high when the benefits are so unclear.
      - 2y ago
- tzs 2y ago
  > Progressive income tax is also silly. Just because you earn more money than someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government Ok... > Federal taxes should be a flat percentage, no deductions, no credits, no so-called "loop holes"... nothing. Every citizen pays the same percentage (whatever it needs to be). Flat percentage? A flat percentage means that if you earn N times what someone else earns you pay N times as much tax as they do. But you just said a couple of paragraphs earlier that just because you earn more money that someone else doesn't mean you derive more benefits from the government. If that's going to be the basis of your tax policy shouldn't the tax be a flat amount?
  - Alupis 2y ago
    A flat percentage means exactly that - everyone pays the same percentage. Everyone derives the same value from the government, ie. the same percentage of their income.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tzs 2y ago
      Let's say the flat percentage is 10%. Alice makes $10 million/year, so her tax is $1 million/year. Bob makes $20 000/year, so his tax is $2 000/year. Alice and Bob get the same benefits from the government so what is the justification for her tax being 500 times as much as Bob's?
      - Alupis 2y ago
        If you want to make it a flat dollar amount, you won't find an argument from me. I happen to think a flat percentage without deductions or credits is the best compromise with the people who think everyone else isn't paying their "fair share". If everyone pays this 10% (or whatever) then there's no quibbling about this or that deduction or tax shenanigan (buying art, etc).
        2y ago