...

Originally Posted by Gerald

There will always be class envy as long as there are classes. The method, if not the goal, of the socialist is to eliminate class distinction by reducing all to the lowest common denominator. It permits no one to excel by his own merit.

Agreed. It also generates a 'why exel' mentality in many of those that would otherwise excel. Why work hard when the fruits of my efforts are taken and given to those that don't. And though some may say this is a classless society... but I disagree, as there is just as much bitterness among those that do and those that do not as there is between the current classes.

GenesisCreation,
Bless you my son Too bad this is not taught in schools.

The tax code is truly a mess. Both parties use it as a tool and waste time on nonsense in place of they're constitutional duties. Perhaps they need to be educated again on constitutional law, Oh that’s right, they are lawyers...

I say no weekly withholding for everyone until April 15 when everyone rights a check for what they owe... I wonder how long it would take before the next Boston tea party.

Gerald I hope you keep helping me with my models.

We can all agree the current tax system is a mess. A huge debate has raged in this country for nearly a century over progressive vs. flat tax. Each is flawed. I come out on the progressive side.

Yes hard work and other personal decisions enters into wealth and create an “I earned it it’s mine” feeling among those of success. I have dealt with a couple billionaires and believe me they are totally convinced that they earned it by their efforts alone.

But wealth creation is also impacted by many other factors over which the individual has little or no control such as heredity, quality of early education, parents, parent’s wealth, basic intelligence, skin color etc. and yes even luck. Statistically this is incontestable. You can also argue the military, roads, and virtually all the things government does for us creates a stable environment allowing wealth creation. Shouldn’t those who benefit the most from this environment pay the most for it?

This is very complex. IMO progressive lets you get richer while paying more tax, sort of a compromise. However I could be talked into a neutral (flat) tax. But we don’t have that – it is a regressive system (after all the taxes I name earlier). I cannot agree that regressive taxation is anything but soaking the poor(er).

...

Gerald I should have posted one of these on my model comment. Thanks.

By regressive I mean that the lower earners pay a larger share (%) of their income than higher income groups. I appreciate your view that you look at the dollars not the percent. You are correct based on $ it is a progressive system. However there have been no serious tax proposals offered by either side for decades that suggest a flat $ approach to distributing the tax burden because that would be SO regressive - again using the percentage approach which is how the debate is generally framed.

The charts at #3 don't address percentage of income paid by the INDIVIDUAL taxpayer - they address relative contribution of the income groups. Two different things. And they exclude all the other taxes I mentioned.

The small amount of data that Ldog quotes at #6 makes my point. The same relationship exists broadly over the whole taxpayer income spectrum.

To me the most important issue is government spending. The fact is no matter which systems of taxation (and boy are there a bunch, the government keeps coming up with new ones all the time.) we devise or use, the real issue is spending. I am completely disheartened when I look at the growth of government each and every year. Not just federal, but all levels.

Here in the state of Tennessee the legislature has been trying to implement a state income tax, (yes we are one of the few lucky states without an income tax.) to fund their ever growing budget. One of the legislatures favorite tactics is to parade all the budget cuts they have made and then state that without an income tax the government will have to shut down. Yet when you look at their definition of budget cuts you find they are merely talking about cutting proposed budget increases. So in other words after making all of their cuts the budget was still going to be $1.1 billion more than the previous year (an increase of 5.4%).

If our leaders could get spending under control we could use just about any tax system to successfully fund government. I wonder what it will take to get something done about this.

I have oftened wondered what George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and a few other founding fathers would think if they were to visit America in the year 2004. They started a Revolution over a few pennies tax (I know pennies were worth a lot more then) , but imagine what they would have to say today. I think I can see George Washington pulling out his sword now.

Originally Posted by GenesisCreation

...but imagine what they would have to say today. I think I can see George Washington pulling out his sword now...

They likely would puke and ask what happened.

The pie charts posted are accurate and the data comes directly from the figures supplied by the IRS.

An interesting observation, 96% taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.

50% don't vote.

Food for thought.

Originally Posted by Gerald

This seems to be the key point where many disagree. There is a large proportion of the population who are of the opinion that actual dollar ammount paid is the basis for what is fair (of which I am one), not the percentage of income.

I'm in complete agreement with Gerald on this one, and here's why.

What do our tax dollars buy?

Fire departments, police forces, roads, utilities and infrastructure of all kinds, social programs, schools, national defense, et cetera ad infinitum.

Do the rich consume more or gain any more from these benefits paid for by tax dollars than the middle class or the poor? I would argue NO, and in fact, in some areas much LESS than their poorer fellow citizens (e.g. welfare and other social program handouts).

If the consumption/benefit from all things the government buys and provides us citizens from our tax dollars is more or less equal across all economic demographic lines, why ought the rich pay more for the very same spectrum of goods and services that the poor benefit from too?

'Splain dat one, Lucy.

Rick

The REAL author

Just to make thinks clear . . . . . Ronald Reagan DID NOT write this!!

Viper

Originally Posted by GenesisCreation

The Modern Little Red Hen

By Ronald Reagan . . . . .

The REAL author

Just to make thinks clear . . . . . Ronald Reagan DID NOT write this!!

Viper

Originally Posted by Viper Pilot

The REAL author

Just to make thinks clear . . . . . Ronald Reagan DID NOT write this!!

Viper

Hmmm...that is interesting. The copyright says 1995. I transcribed this from a tape recording made by Ronald Reagan in 1976. It is entitled Reagan in His Own Voice, which is a collection of recordings he made for radio broadcast. It's true that he didn't write all of them, but he did write most of them, there were about 1,000 made. It is possible that this wasn't written by him. But I believe it is also safe to say that it wasn't written by Mark E. Howerter in 1995 as well.

Here's another link I just found:

http://www.republicanradio.com/newsinfo/reagan.php

The point this story makes is still good regardless of who wrote it. I'm going to still hold out that Reagan wrote it until I see better proof.

Originally Posted by ElectRick

I'm in complete agreement with Gerald on this one, and here's why.

What do our tax dollars buy?

Fire departments, police forces, roads, utilities and infrastructure of all kinds, social programs, schools, national defense, et cetera ad infinitum.

Do the rich consume more or gain any more from these benefits paid for by tax dollars than the middle class or the poor? I would argue NO, and in fact, in some areas much LESS than their poorer fellow citizens (e.g. welfare and other social program handouts).

...'Splain dat one, Lucy.

Rick

You would argue 'no', so what is the basis for that argument. In other words what evidence do you present to support your argument

And to be fair, is there any evidence you could present that is at odds with your argument?

It would surely be time prohibitive for me to research all the government-provided services that are used by the citizenry of this country, just to satisfy your skepticism. It's likely that no useful analysis has even been done by any reputable entity that breaks down usage by economic demographic groups, but I haven't invested the time to prove or disprove that.
It sounds like a copout, sure, but nobody (besides you, GT) says I have to justify my opinion with hard data. It's simply my own perception of what goes on, based on my own observations over 40 years, and common horse sense.

Do poor or middle-class people use the roads, bridges, dams, or public transportation systems infrastructure any less than the rich? Do they generate fewer house fires, calls for emergency medical/rescue service, or calls for police? Do not both the rich and the poor pay for their public utilities based on consumption, rather than wealth? Do the rich show up down at the welfare office looking for subsistence? How many of the wealthy apply for Social Security payments at age 65? Do most of the rich apply for government-subsidized medical benefits like Medicare/Medicaid/prescription drug subsidies? Do the poor cost less to defend from harm by our enemies, and do they benefit any less from having a military to defend them than the rich?
Is the national debt any more owed by the rich than the poor, since some of our taxes goes to that? Are public schools any less available to the poor/middle class than the rich?

The list goes on and on. My point is that the OPPORTUNITY to benefit/use all these things is provided to ALL of us equally via our tax dollars. Only our economic status (too rich) excludes us from getting some of them (like welfare). Some use some of the services more than others, but it cannot be so skewed in favor of the rich that they should ante up at fifty or more times the price the middle class pays (the poor pay essentially zero) to get that same long list of services availed to them.

With that logic, if a wealthy man and a lower middle-class man were to walk into a market to by a loaf of bread, the wealthy man should be expected to pay $50 for the same loaf of bread the other man is charged $2 for. After all, he MAKES more, so why shouldn't he pay more?

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Sounds like Socialism to me.

Common sense. I don't need a graph or pie chart to validate that logic. Sorry, but I'm not going to bite on your demand for a wild goose chase of Internet research, while you sit and chuckle, all to "prove" an opinion. Especially when I don't have to. It's common sense. Lack of pie charts doesn't negate the logic in it.

You may either believe my opinion or not. Matters not to me either way.

Rick