How much is enough and progressive income taxes

All other Political discussion that does not affect our ability to enjoy the outdoors.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#31

Post by GregD » Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:25 am

sarge wrote:So, I'll ask.

What, exactly, was your point about the founders getting things wrong?
It was in response to this:
BillyBob66 wrote:Superb point. Plus, it was at an extremely low rate for a long time after 1913. None of the founders nor most folks for years after 1913 would have ever dreamed that the federal government would have taken such a staggering chunk of our earnings. Something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken.



User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2067
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#32

Post by sarge » Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:26 am

I know what it was in response to.

I want to know what your point was.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#33

Post by GregD » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:23 am

sarge wrote:I know what it was in response to.

I want to know what your point was.
Just that I disagree that it is "something to consider" that the founders did not imagine the federal government we have today.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#34

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:36 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:I know what it was in response to.

I want to know what your point was.
Just that I disagree that it is "something to consider" that the founders did not imagine the federal government we have today.
And I, of course, disagree that they got quite a few things wrong. So I naturally think it is something to consider that they never dreamed that we would be paying such a massive amount of our earnings to Washington, DC. Or that we would ever be in debt to the tune of each taxpayer owing $72,000 in 2004, a staggering # which would then more than double to $154,000 in 10 years. ( or $58,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA) They never envisioned a massive welfare state with working men supporting able bodied non-workers. Or the Feds using that money to pay for sex change operations for prisoners, or trying to force Christians to pay for abortions either through their insurance or taxes, and force girls to accept boys into their public showers. Indeed almost all of this was unthinkable not only to the founders, but also to most citizens until maybe 1970 or even later.

But if your point was that the country is quite different than it was at or near the founding, or really in the last 40 or even 10 years, I have to agree with you on that. It is just that we disagree on whether these changes are good or bad.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#35

Post by GregD » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:05 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: And I, of course, disagree that they got quite a few things wrong.
Uhm, slavery? No vote for women? Then there was the subsequent genocide against native Americans. I would say that was quite a bit that they got wrong. What they got right was considerable progress, but they indeed left lots of room for improvement in my view.

While you may have strong arguments that the federal government should be much smaller than it is today, arguing that it is different than what the founding fathers imagined is not very convincing. And that (appropriate size of federal government) would be a wonderful topic for another thread.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#36

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:52 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: And I, of course, disagree that they got quite a few things wrong.
Uhm, slavery? No vote for women? Then there was the subsequent genocide against native Americans. I would say that was quite a bit that they got wrong. What they got right was considerable progress, but they indeed left lots of room for improvement in my view.

While you may have strong arguments that the federal government should be much smaller than it is today, arguing that it is different than what the founding fathers imagined is not very convincing. And that (appropriate size of federal government) would be a wonderful topic for another thread.
Slavery existed in all states( or at least most) while it was governed by King George and much of the world before the founders sat down to come up with a constitution that all of the states would accept in order to come together. I suspect that they did did not consider it their pressing objective to end slavery as opposed to coming up with some kind of agreement that would bring the union together. Not unlike Abe Lincoln 80 years later. Though he personally hated slavery- for one reason among others because free slave labor competed with the working poor whites, lowering their wages, he still did not run for president vowing to end slavery, nor did he try to do so once in office. He knew he had no legal right to do so and stated he had no intention to try an do so. And when he ended slavery ONLY IN THE SOUTHERN STATES WHERE HE HAD NO CONTROL, he did not end slavery in the Union states, where slavery did not end until about a year after his death. But are you going to count that as a short coming for Lincoln, that he did not actually end slavery in the world that he lived in? And that he did not even consider it until the middle of the war, as an act to weaken the south?

I bet you also think the founders saying that black slaves only counted as 2/3 of a human being was part of the founders slave owners mindset also, don't you? It was a deal insisted on by the northern states so that the south could not count all of those slaves to determine their representation. I'm sure the southern slave owners would have liked to count them as 150% human being as far as representation of that state in congress.

You talk as though the founding fathers invented slavery, and if they did not end slavery that disqualified them from coming up with the best and most just system of government the world has ever seen. Good grief. And why would they give their women the vote, when women in general did not have a vote anywhere else in the world- or had not had it for very long- and women had little to say about anything in the their marriages, in society in general. And also, just as now, had no responsibility to give 6 years of their lives to Uncle Sam and maybe be forced against their will to die in combat? Why would the men that ran that society, just like the men who ran the world, giver their wives the vote? You seem to think their job was to end all of what you think is the worlds injustice, rather than come up with a constitution that allowed America and freedom to flourish as no where else on earth. Well, that was not their job.

And do you think the founding fathers are the ones who invented and carried out genocide against the native Americans, that this is what they wrote into the constitution? Give me a break. The Constitution was an agreement by which 13 colonies could come together as allies, and live together while giving up as little power as possible to the centralized government and the other states. It was written to protect the freedoms of the states and a newly free people from the federal government it was creating and giving some power to. It was not concerned with the things that you mention. I think in what they set out to do they got very little wrong, and because they did not America became the envy of the world, and sometimes even the "savior"of the world. There is a reason we have always had to try and limit the people from all over the world who are desperate to get here.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#37

Post by GregD » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:31 pm

I still don't see how that history is "something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken." It seems pretty irrelevant to me.
BillyBob66 wrote:None of the founders nor most folks for years after 1913 would have ever dreamed that the federal government would have taken such a staggering chunk of our earnings. Something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken.

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#38

Post by Scott » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:39 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: And that (appropriate size of federal government) would be a wonderful topic for another thread.
while the details of the govt can be debated in depth in a different thread, how much we should give (or have taken from us) in taxes is directly proportional to the size of the govt reach. Not necessarily the number of agencies and fed employees (though that is bloated as well), but how much they want to control. To a degree state and local govt is also a problem in that regard. For example the bag ban in California. Bags are not banned, you just have to pay 10 cents for each one. So my orders are increased by $.50 and the govt gets more of my money. It doesn't do much to remove bags from my cycle.

We could pass a law that says anything over $50k for an individual, or $100 for a couple, is confiscated. I think most families could survive on $100k post tax income per year. Then we would all be even, like nascar. Make a national min wage of $25 an hour.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2067
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#39

Post by sarge » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:08 am

The OP was basically a moral question that can be paraphrased:

"Is it moral for people to want to keep thier own money if they have a lot of it?"

The definition of a slave is a person who cannot control the fruits of his own labor. When taxes of all levels of government from the city to the national combined with the government fees and licenses approaches 51% of total compensation, you become a slave.

Current taxation can be illustrated by calculating on what day of the year all taxes have been paid, assuming that every dollar you make goes to taxes.

In 2016, that day was April 24th. The day that is at the middle of the year (the 182nd day in a 365 day year) is July 1---only 68 days later.

In that article about Tax Freedom day, we find these facts:
~Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.

~Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.

~If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 16 days later, on May 10.
We are becoming a Nation of Slaves. Slavery is immoral. It is, in fact, immoral NOT to complain about this level of taxation.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#40

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:37 am

sarge wrote:The OP was basically a moral question that can be paraphrased:

"Is it moral for people to want to keep thier own money if they have a lot of it?"

The definition of a slave is a person who cannot control the fruits of his own labor. When taxes of all levels of government from the city to the national combined with the government fees and licenses approaches 51% of total compensation, you become a slave.

Current taxation can be illustrated by calculating on what day of the year all taxes have been paid, assuming that every dollar you make goes to taxes.

In 2016, that day was April 24th. The day that is at the middle of the year (the 182nd day in a 365 day year) is July 1---only 68 days later.

In that article about Tax Freedom day, we find these facts:
~Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.

~Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.

~If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 16 days later, on May 10.
We are becoming a Nation of Slaves. Slavery is immoral. It is, in fact, immoral NOT to complain about this level of taxation.
I agree on the slavery point. All of your figures from above leave out one significant fact: not all adults, not even all able bodied adults, folks, pay taxes ( other than sales tax ). In fact, their is a significant portion of the population that not only pays no taxes, but collects money and benefits that come from the taxes that are paid. And the opposite of that group are the relatively higher income folks ( I don't mean the Warren Buffets, but anyone making over 50K or certainly 100K-200K) who pay almost all of the taxes. I'm not at all sure any of that will alter the calculation of the arrival of tax freedom day for an individual. But will that day will arrive later in the year for the group that is paying most of the taxes? Certainly it arrives on Jan 1 for the group that pays no taxes, but rather collects taxes. At least regarding income tax. But I suppose tax freedom day is calculated on the average for all, those who pay zero and/or are paid from taxes, and those who pay 30K to hundreds of K per year?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#41

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:00 am

GregD wrote:I still don't see how that history is "something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken." It seems pretty irrelevant to me.
BillyBob66 wrote:None of the founders nor most folks for years after 1913 would have ever dreamed that the federal government would have taken such a staggering chunk of our earnings. Something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken.
It is something to consider because the founders began a government that led to the greatest country in history, a country that untold millions around the world have wanted to escape to over it's existence, because it was the country that had the greatestfreedom from government oppression. Therefore, they must have been way more right than they were wrong, assuming a person values any of the above. ( some do not ) Therefore, any and all changes from the principles the founders put in the constitution- should not be allowed without serious consideration of the pros and cons and determining what they got wrong, if anything.

It is simple logic. What they thought about things led to what they came up with as principles of government. What they came up with, compared to all other governments that I know of, worked spectacularly well. So it should be something to consider, especially as we move more and more towards socialist ideas. The sorts of ideas that gave us the atheistic communist countries and hell holes such as (the former) USSR, China and Cuba, Cambodia, etc. As far as I know, these countries do not have a history of the oppressed masses from around the world trying to get into their countries. The system our founders came up with, IMO, worked much better for the people being governed by it. So what they might have thought about taxes and many other things seems relevant to me.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#42

Post by GregD » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:56 am

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:I still don't see how that history is "something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken." It seems pretty irrelevant to me.
BillyBob66 wrote:None of the founders nor most folks for years after 1913 would have ever dreamed that the federal government would have taken such a staggering chunk of our earnings. Something to consider when discussing how much do we really need and how much is fair to take and from whom it should be taken.
It is something to consider because the founders began a government that led to the greatest country in history, a country that untold millions around the world have wanted to escape to over it's existence, because it was the country that had the greatestfreedom from government oppression. Therefore, they must have been way more right than they were wrong, assuming a person values any of the above. ( some do not ) Therefore, any and all changes from the principles the founders put in the constitution- should not be allowed without serious consideration of the pros and cons and determining what they got wrong, if anything.

It is simple logic. What they thought about things led to what they came up with as principles of government. What they came up with, compared to all other governments that I know of, worked spectacularly well. So it should be something to consider, especially as we move more and more towards socialist ideas. The sorts of ideas that gave us the atheistic communist countries and hell holes such as (the former) USSR, China and Cuba, Cambodia, etc. As far as I know, these countries do not have a history of the oppressed masses from around the world trying to get into their countries. The system our founders came up with, IMO, worked much better for the people being governed by it. So what they might have thought about taxes and many other things seems relevant to me.
I'm all for serious consideration of pros and cons. My reactions to other statements are off topic here.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#43

Post by GregD » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:07 am

sarge wrote:The OP was basically a moral question that can be paraphrased:

"Is it moral for people to want to keep thier own money if they have a lot of it?"

The definition of a slave is a person who cannot control the fruits of his own labor. When taxes of all levels of government from the city to the national combined with the government fees and licenses approaches 51% of total compensation, you become a slave.

Current taxation can be illustrated by calculating on what day of the year all taxes have been paid, assuming that every dollar you make goes to taxes.

In 2016, that day was April 24th. The day that is at the middle of the year (the 182nd day in a 365 day year) is July 1---only 68 days later.

In that article about Tax Freedom day, we find these facts:
~Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.

~Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.

~If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 16 days later, on May 10.
We are becoming a Nation of Slaves. Slavery is immoral. It is, in fact, immoral NOT to complain about this level of taxation.
The OP was a practical question; what relative distribution of income taxes will have the least negative effect on our society.

What level of taxation is appropriate is interesting, but off topic here.

The form of slavery practiced by some Founding Fathers and accommodated by the others was overwhelmingly more cruel than the current level of taxation in the US. The comparison is a false equivalence.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2067
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#44

Post by sarge » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:53 pm

GregD wrote:
The OP was a practical question; what relative distribution of income taxes will have the least negative effect on our society.

What level of taxation is appropriate is interesting, but off topic here.

The form of slavery practiced by some Founding Fathers and accommodated by the others was overwhelmingly more cruel than the current level of taxation in the US. The comparison is a false equivalence.
The form of slavery practiced by our current crop of elitist finger waggers is no less immoral than any other kind. A rose by any other name would still smell as putrid.

The practicality of the OP pre-supposes that our money belongs first to the Government who allows us to keep an amount they deem will have the least negative effect on society.

I'm more concerned with the negative effect such a philosophy has on my family and society.

Given the living conditions in the cities run by those who think that taxation is the answer to creating positive effects on society, I'd say the evidence is heavily weighted on the side of lower taxation.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: How much is enough and progressive income taxes

#45

Post by Scott » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:21 pm

I re-read the OP. I missed the last line about starting a new thread for discussing the govt spends too much money. For me, I can't separate how much they spend to how much, or who, they should take it from.

I don't see any system that will be good for everyone. I truly don't think the government stepping in to try to 'fix' the day to day money issues of people is a good thing. I don't think it is their job to create jobs. I think limited unemployment or welfare help is not a bad thing. But not to the degree it is a lifestyle for many.

sticking to the topic of what will benefit society best leads me back to a discussion of how much should be collected in the first place.

Going to the topic of assuming we will be paying something, is it best (not fair) for the Rich to carry a bigger load because they don't 'need' their extra money so it is less of a burden on them? As a not rich guy my answer should be yes. that would be best for me. In principle, I say no. It is not 'right', whatever right means. I believe in individual right above society rights. With some concessions of course for living in a society. what those are is a gray line. Often what is good for society is bad for an individual.

I like the sales tax idea. The simple one that takes into account poorer people. Send everyone in the country, rich and poor, a predetermined amount to cover the sales tax on their first $25,000 (just a number) spent. This will effectively make poor people pay no tax. Then the rest of us pay whatever tax rate is agreed upon by congress for all the rest of our purchases. Business and personal both pay. There are a few problems with this idea. 1 - it will stifle growth and limit revenue because a 25%+ tax on every purchase will have people thinking more about what they spend. 2 - prices of goods will go up in addition to the tax going up because businesses have to recoup taxes paid. 3 - govt loses leverage on special interests and industries. This is why I would include businesses as being taxed. NO exceptions. Once they start, they go way too far.

I don't know if this plan would be good for society or not. But rich people would pay more in tax because they would spend more. How you make your money, or how much money you make, would not matter. Being taxed out of a house you lived in your whole life because your neighborhood got trendy and property tax went up beyond what you could pay would not happen any more. So it is an idealist notion that I don't expect to ever see come around.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

Post Reply

Return to “All the other Political Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest