3 ms·

That doesn't make sense at all. There is a certain level of spending everyone must be at - food, shelter, a bit of clothing, i.e. the poverty line. Sure the ric

That doesn't make sense at all. There is a certain level of spending everyone must be at - food, shelter, a bit of clothing, i.e. the poverty line. Sure the rich eat at Ruth Chris and the poor eat a McDonalds, but if you break it down to the normal level it is tough to spend more than $500 a month at the grocery store per person. It is also tough to spend less than $150 per person per month. When I'm making $75 an hour as a programmer today I remember when I was making $8 an hour at McDonalds 6 years ago. When 90% of your income is going towards food, rent, shelter and then the government comes in and takes 30% it would effectively leave you with zero. No money to save, no money to pay for education etc. But for me at $75 an hour, necessities are a small part. Now I'm saving and investing and have no debt and all this great stuff. So your saying it is a huge burden on me to pay 40% tax now so that people trying to get ahead like I was 5 years ago don't have to? Absolutely not. I still have plenty of money for everything I want. It is more unethical to subsidize your personal discretionary spending at the expensive of somebody's necessities because you are simply greedy. That's the reason why the tax code has always been and will always be progressive - even in schemes like the flat tax system there is a credit for the bare necessities.

webwright 18y ago
"It is more unethical to subsidize your personal discretionary spending at the expensive of somebody's necessities because you are simply greedy." Is that really the best language to use? Is it subsidizing people to NOT take their money? Given that you support increased taxation for the wealthy, can I ask why you aren't voluntarily sending extra money to the government? In any event-- governments are good at certain things that require huge scale to work-- national defense, highways, trips to the moon, etc. What they are really freakin' lousy at is redistributing wealth efficiently. For every taxed dollar, how much actually finds its way to deserving poor? How good is the government at deciding between those who deserves it and those who made a bunch or stupid decisions and should live with the consequences? On the other side of the coin, what does "rich" mean? What about a family that pulls down $300k a year but has fabulously expensive medical bills for a dying parent/grandparent? Or a sick kid? Or a big extended family that's actually pretty poor that they want to set up college funds for? I agree that we have a responsibility to help those who are deserving and in need. As someone who's on the high side of the scale by many standards, I'm happy to take that responsibility. But why, exactly, should I be forced to hand the responsibility (and then wealth I've generated) to a government who is horrible at distributing wealth and pretty bad at filtering out people who aren't really deserving? There are organizations that rate charities on how efficiently they distribute donated dollars. How do you think the US government would fare on this scale?
- krschultz 18y ago
  My point is not at all that I support higher taxes for the wealthy (I'm actually quite libertarian on taxes) - my point is that flat taxes don't work because there is a minimum non-discretionary spending every person has regardless of income. If you have a flat tax as the OP proposes (in fact declares as the only "ethical" way) then some people get hammered more than others simply based on the fact that we all must eat and we all much live somewhere. The right solution to lowering taxes is cutting spending to match. But even if you did that and all we had were programs libertarians agreed on - you will still have progressive taxes. Even if the top bracket was 15% - the bottom bracket should be lower to be fair. To say that progressive taxes are unethical is to not understand what those at the bottom are fighting to get ahead.
nanijoe 18y ago
If you had to spend a sizable chunk of your money supporting your parents or paying for a sibling's college education or [fill in the blanks], I wonder how welcoming you would be of a 40% tax rate when making $75 an hour. There is something inherently unfair in making people pay taxes at a higher rate, just because you arbitrarily determine that they can afford it
- carbon8 18y ago
  If you had to spend a sizable chunk of your money supporting your parents or paying for a sibling's college education or [fill in the blanks], I wonder how welcoming you would be of a 40% tax rate when making $75 an hour. Why would it feel any different than doing so when making $20 or $40 or $60 an hour, other than being obviously easier when making $75 an hour?

webwright 18y ago

"It is more unethical to subsidize your personal discretionary spending at the expensive of somebody's necessities because you are simply greedy." Is that really the best language to use? Is it subsidizing people to NOT take their money? Given that you support increased taxation for the wealthy, can I ask why you aren't voluntarily sending extra money to the government? In any event-- governments are good at certain things that require huge scale to work-- national defense, highways, trips to the moon, etc. What they are really freakin' lousy at is redistributing wealth efficiently. For every taxed dollar, how much actually finds its way to deserving poor? How good is the government at deciding between those who deserves it and those who made a bunch or stupid decisions and should live with the consequences? On the other side of the coin, what does "rich" mean? What about a family that pulls down $300k a year but has fabulously expensive medical bills for a dying parent/grandparent? Or a sick kid? Or a big extended family that's actually pretty poor that they want to set up college funds for? I agree that we have a responsibility to help those who are deserving and in need. As someone who's on the high side of the scale by many standards, I'm happy to take that responsibility. But why, exactly, should I be forced to hand the responsibility (and then wealth I've generated) to a government who is horrible at distributing wealth and pretty bad at filtering out people who aren't really deserving? There are organizations that rate charities on how efficiently they distribute donated dollars. How do you think the US government would fare on this scale?

krschultz 18y ago
My point is not at all that I support higher taxes for the wealthy (I'm actually quite libertarian on taxes) - my point is that flat taxes don't work because there is a minimum non-discretionary spending every person has regardless of income. If you have a flat tax as the OP proposes (in fact declares as the only "ethical" way) then some people get hammered more than others simply based on the fact that we all must eat and we all much live somewhere. The right solution to lowering taxes is cutting spending to match. But even if you did that and all we had were programs libertarians agreed on - you will still have progressive taxes. Even if the top bracket was 15% - the bottom bracket should be lower to be fair. To say that progressive taxes are unethical is to not understand what those at the bottom are fighting to get ahead.

nanijoe 18y ago

If you had to spend a sizable chunk of your money supporting your parents or paying for a sibling's college education or [fill in the blanks], I wonder how welcoming you would be of a 40% tax rate when making $75 an hour. There is something inherently unfair in making people pay taxes at a higher rate, just because you arbitrarily determine that they can afford it

carbon8 18y ago
If you had to spend a sizable chunk of your money supporting your parents or paying for a sibling's college education or [fill in the blanks], I wonder how welcoming you would be of a 40% tax rate when making $75 an hour. Why would it feel any different than doing so when making $20 or $40 or $60 an hour, other than being obviously easier when making $75 an hour?