AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Taxes?

19 5243
CrossViper
offline
CrossViper
481 posts
Nomad

Now, I am young, so I have yet to pay taxes, but do they seriously need to be lowered anymore? Doesn't there come a point where the government needs money? I'm all for less pointless government spending, but judging from the articles of confederation no taxes didn't turn out so well.

  • 19 Replies
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Germany has the right amount of taxes, right amount of perks and pensions, and is the ideal socialist country. Their conservative is no where near the "right" that our country's conservatives are. Personally, if we raise taxes like they were during the FDR era, the government would be able to do anything and ACTUALLY have the funding.

Taxes are too low, they need to be raised. My dad only has the problem with the credit card companies, not the taxes. His taxes are pretty low compared to what he makes.

If the government froze the credit card companies for four years instead of freezing government workers' salaries, the economy MIGHT actually recover entirely. Too bad after the freeze, Americans' irresponsibility to use credit cards and let the money owed run up high.

If the government did not allow people to spend upwards of about $50 000 dollars in credit, then maybe it would help. Regulation and rules are what the free market craves. Free market cannot go unchecked because recessions are bound to happen if nothing is regulated.

EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

I just have to comment on this one:

With the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the Middle class will be paying 35% of their income to taxes while the rich will pay 25%, and the super rich will pay 18%. How is that fair?


Let's do some math here.

Let's say your middle class make $70,000 a year, and gets taxed 35%, like you say. That's about $26,250. Let's say your super rich make $1,000,000 a year, and are taxed 18%. They are now taxed $180,000; which, according to the number line, is a hell of a lot more than the middle class. In fact, the rich get taxed more than they even make in two years.

The top 1% hold up a significant portion of this countries money. Taxing them more will just make them hold up even more of the government, and they will just leave. No one deserves to have their money taken from them simply for having it.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

With the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the Middle class will be paying 35% of their income to taxes while the rich will pay 25%, and the super rich will pay 18%. How is that fair?


Wait wait wait. Your tax brackets are backwards, unless I am hugely mistaken (which happens). The American tax system has a marginal income tax that starts at 10% for those making less than $8,375 a year and goes to %35 for those making over $373,651 a year.

But those are marginal tax rates. It's mathematically impossible to actually have to pay a 35% income tax (unless you make infinite money, in which cases I doubt you're complaining about taxes).

The progressive marginal tax system makes the the most sense, assuming you want the government to have money (not all people do). Under this system, everyone pays the same tax on their first $8,000 (rounding here), they pay the same on their next $25,000, etc.

So yeah. Someone who makes a million dollars pays a higher percentage as those who earn ten thousand dollars. But the millionaire pays the same percentage as the poor person on his first $10,000.

You have 300 USD left. IF the Gov takes too much, say 200 dollars, than you're going to want to save the remaining 100, in case of rainy days. But, if the government takes only 125, and you still save that 100, than you've got 75 USD for anything


This is exactly why we have a progressive tax system. By taxing poor people less, they tend to spend a higher percentage of their money.

For future reference:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0e/US_income_tax_2008.svg/701px-US_income_tax_2008.svg.png
From Wikipedia. American income tax.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

ps: before you start arguing with me personally on these issues, I'm just pointing out holes in your argument, not stating my position on these issues.


I'm want to improve the argument. I'm glad that you are critiquing it, because I just wrote it out once, and so it needs to be refined a bit...

The jump from &quoteople will act in their best interest" to "government spending gets in the way of this action" is a leap of faith.


I agree that this needs to be expressed more clearly - the reason that government spending gets in the way of this action is that gov. spending requires coercion to be enacted, thus interfering with what would have occurred. If I can find a better way to express this idea...

Because, while it is logical that people want to act in their best interest, you never prove that people are capable of these actions.


This argument caught me off guard for a minute. However, this argument simply justifies government spending for that which benefits people as a whole, - bla...

I'm trying to explain this: Say the military or police actions as a whole are worth $100 (choosing a random number) to a person. But even if he were given the choice, he would not simply "donate" $100 to the military / police force, because the difference that money will make is negligible, and thus he will not benefit from his investment at all. Because of this, many people will not benefit from a potentially beneficial investment. This is an example where people are not capable of acting in their best interest alone - but as a whole, they would benefit.

However, with all other aspects of trade, these can arguably be solved by the private sector better than by the public sector. In addition, this argument is especially against that government spending which is designed to "stimulate the economy."

Furthermore, you never never prove that people are capable of knowing what they want.


This is postulated. If any people can think of a way to suggest / demonstrate / prove / refute this, then please do so.

You never prove that the government can't act in someone's self interest better than that person can.


If people know what they want, and if these people are capable of these actions, then the government cannot act in someone's self-interest better than that person can.

Ideally, these would be included in the proof itself, but I can append this as a responses (to the &quotroof&quot and defenses (of the &quotroof&quot.
Showing 16-19 of 19