For example, should liberals be taxed more than conservatives, and conservatives more than libertarians? Is it reasonable to expect people to literally put their money where their mouths are?
should liberals be taxed more than conservatives, and conservatives more than libertarians?
Yes. Definitely. Anyone who proposes a new federal program should demonstrate his or her willingness to pay for it. :-)
No...People should be taxed based upon the amount of income they receive.
Flat Tax... no deductions, no loopholes.
Political views are irrelevant.
It's time the deadbeats pay their share
Interesting concept. Of course, what you do not pay for you cannot benefit from...corporations included.
I would love to say yes to that because I would accept paying higher taxes in return for free education and medicine for everyone (excluding plastic surgery or extreme expenses,) as well as public infrastructure and social services.
And I'd bring back bureaucracy - because outsourcing costs more. When the government pays for private companies to do printing etc, the prices are ridiculious, because those companies must make profit. But a government can run all those services at cost, or maybe at 2% profit to allow for upgrading technology.
I would like to imagine that most liberals would choose the same and, given that they represent about half the population in Australia, that those taxes would be sufficient.
However, it would be unjust - because the conservatives would reap the benefits without paying their share. And that would mean less available for the liberals when they needed it most.
So, regrettably, I think the policy does need to be the same for all.
Don't you mean the money they EARN?
And what's up with this flat tax business? Where's the fun in that? How are you gonna engineer society unless you pit group A against group B by way of making group B pay for group A's healthcare?
But I agree about the deadbeats. Time to make all those welfare recipients pay their fair share. :-^)
Bingo! :All us deadbeats will have to pay user fees. -)
Now, see!? This is what I like! Honesty AND consistency!! Bravo!
...Oops! Looks like I 'spoke' too soon. What is a 'fair share'? Should we base taxes on how much a person benefits from the wealth of society--you know, like roads and other infrastructure? I personally like user fees myself, but beware: that last one's a trick question. :-)
Gee, this is a mighty tidy bit of political trivia...but it doesn't exactly answer the question. Hint: I didn't ask which presidential contender's tax plan you favored.
But hey! Thanks for playing. :-)
Edit: if you wouldn't mind, could you post the link to the actual page containing this information on thebalance.com?
Sure, let's have a soceity based upon the following principles:
A) If you are wealthy/powerful, or the progeny of someone wealthy/powerful...Great!
B) If you are poor/powerless, or born to the poor/powerless...F**K YOU!
Sounds good to me...;-D...
That's brilliant, Sapphic! :)
What more perfect proof could there be about the lies told as scare tactics?
Fair is always debatable depending on your values.
In the context (above,) I think the meaning of just (or fair) is logically clear. In a hypothetical society in which people can choose whether to pay tax when they can afford it, if those who can afford it don't pay, then they should not be entitled to those services.
The crux of the issue is affordability. There will always be some people who cannot work due to intellectual, psychiatric or physical disabilities. Some who are too young or too old. Some who need assistance to gain language or skills.
There would be more than enough work for everyone if we were not outsourcing overseas and importing goods manufactured at below living wages in their countries of origin, and if we were not replacing people with machines.
I regard fair as meaning that all people in a society have the right to have access to the basic needs of life, starting with the opportunity to work for a livable wage.
A flat rate is not such a bad idea providing it starts about 10% above the level of poverty.
But the main problem is not the taxation of individuals - it is the way in which corporations get away with paying only tiny proportions of their profit, and often nothing at all.
The single most beneficial reform would be for all governments around the world to simultaneously enact the same laws for taxation of corporations.
I would not object to paying 30% of my income from a wage -- have paid up to 56% at certain points in my life and did not resent it -- although currently I live on the interest of my inheritance from Mum, and that means below the taxable threshold. According to the government definition, I live at the halfway mark below the threshold of poverty. But I manage well through a variety of means, which includes things like growing my own food, buying 2nd hand and only when necessary etc - and I live comfortably. I could not do it in a city - it would be impossible.
Gee... To stay in your language. I think it very well shows which parties in general during modern time have increased the debt levels. Gee... Who are there to cover such debt at the end of the day?! Hint: tax payers!!
*like*
Thank you. :-)
I like your idea of a flat tax (coupled with an exemption for folks below the poverty line), and I'm ALL FOR you paying whatever, over that, which you think is appropriate. Did you know there's a way to donate money to the fed on each tax form you file? :-)
(FWIW, I actually favor a consumption tax with the same provision for those below the poverty line.)
As for corporations, that's a problem. Inasmuch as they pass on the tax as a cost of doing business to their customers, the customers get hit up TWICE. That doesn't seem terribly 'fair' no matter how you define it. (I'd actually prefer that corporations as we know them today DIDN'T EXIST.)
Agreed. I like her response, too! :-) Isn't it amazing what can happen when people are civil to each other? :-)
As a person who realizes he's being screwed no matter which flavor of socialism is in power (Marxian "versus" Mussolinian), I don't particularly care about the minutia. I'm interested in which type or system of taxation people would most prefer.
Now, what about that link?
Awww! Mutual admiration. That's SOOO cute! :-)
It would sound good to you. Especially inasmuch as nobody ever suggested that. Do you always imagine conversations which never took place?
Now, roll over, SKOS. If you beg like a good puppy I'll toss you a scoobie-snack. :-)
Any problem, Nimitz?! Or, are you simply trying to drag it down on a personal level... Again?!
You tell me... Isn't it?!
Only in a pretty fierce fever dream. The idea is unworkable.
BOTH
Receive and earn.
I AGREE! END WELFARE FOR THE RICH. Stop Corporate subsidies!
I personally find no delight in making people with lower income scape goats. Most people on Welfare are single parents (mostly woman), the disabled, and the elderly. Making the most vulnerable in our society seem as though they are the root cause is sickening.
Make Child Care affordalbel, Make College affordable then maybe people can dig themelves out of the ever ending cycle and get good paying jobs.
The only way for that to happen is to get the upper income to pay their share and stop the revolting practice of corporate subsidies which is nothing more than corporate welfare. Stop these people and corporations from leeching off the system.
If you're against welfare, you should be down with that.
Trickle down economics is a proven failure
