With the elections coming soon for next year, and after reading an article over the issue it sparked a reminder of this debate. Plus this might be a relaxing turn of events from the cumbersome religion v. science debates that are constantly on this section of the forum.
The current minimum income level of the highest tax bracket is $250,000. The argument is that the Department of Treasury shall create five additional tax brackets with minimum income levels of $500,000; $1,000,000; $5,000,000; $10,000,000; and $25,000,000
First The system is antiquated. By relying on an antiquated tax system the administration is missing out on a chance to redefine the top tax brackets in order to distinguish the âso-called richâ from the really rich. By so-called rich I'm referring to the professional class: doctors, lawyers, accountants ect. But the plutocratic "executive suiteâ wealthy, are in a class of their own. Because someone making $375,000 a year is taxed at the same rate as someone making $375 million a year. It's like comparing Ochocinco to Ochocino's denist. If more tax brackets were created at the top end of the scale, more revenue could be collected from the plutocratic class, without putting an extra burden on the professional class. Thereâs a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates.
This system would not only be fairer but also create additional revenue to the economy. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue. We're looking at a reverse on trickledown economics. If the plutocratic class were to take more of the weight on taxation, the lower tax brackets are not going to have to take as much weight as before, puting more towards our defecit. This in turn will not alienate the constituents but influence them positively in support for a Bill such as this. Millionaires such as Donald Trump have voiced their opposition to proposals such as this. They claim they will state hop if this were implemented state wide rather than federal based. If a bill such as this were implemented by the Department of Treasury then there would be no way for top payers to opt out of the tax by simply switching states. Not only that but it would be wiser to alienate 3% of constituents compared to 97%. There would be political advantages, too: the reform could actually make tax hikes on top earners more popular. Critics like to describe tax hikes as hurting small business, because small-business owners make up a sizable percentage of people in the top two brackets. But because small-business owners, unlike Wall Street traders, are popular on Main Street. It would be harder to mount a defense of millionaires Which may be why last year a poll found overwhelming support, from both the right and the left, for a millionaire tax. Conclusion: A Bill such as this will reflect positively on the economic status we have now and will be supported by constituents on both sides.
I think that the Government should have a progressive tax rate on all businesses and incomes, etc. Non- profit organizations are not included in taxing, and the Government should be completely transparent and let the people see where their tax money is going. I think that the people, either by congress or directly, should approve the Government's budget. The executives of the treasury should approach the people and point out "This is how much money we're asking people/businesses to pay, and here's where it's going to go, and here's why.." And either the people or congress should vote on approval or denial of the budget.
No one cares about your "deductive determinations"
This is an unbacked assertion. And even if this statement is true, that doesn't says nothing about either whether you should or whether it is correct or not.
I'm posting my opinion on a certain matter.
This is a true statement, but with a fallacious underlying meaning.
You're trying to say that all opinions are equal - that your opinion is just as good and legitimate as mine. This is not necessarily true at all. A correct idea is more valuable than an incorrect one, and deductive reasoning determines that for certain. If my scenario is correct - if the reasoning is sound, then yours must be incorrect.
I can say what I want.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And it says absolutely nothing about the legitimacy of your argument.
You're trying to say that all opinions are equal - that your opinion is just as good and legitimate as mine. This is not necessarily true at all. A correct idea is more valuable than an incorrect one, and deductive reasoning determines that for certain. If my scenario is correct - if the reasoning is sound, then yours must be incorrect.
Opinions are all the same. Everyone has the same truth. There is no objective right or wrong. Yoy can't just go around pushing all of your opinions on people just because you think they're right, and downplaying everyone else's just because you think they're wrong. No one is right or wrong, in this case. There is no definitive answer to the tax problem, but we can share our opinions on how we think that it should be done without blasting everyone else out of the water just because of some faulty reasoning that we think is right. It's not moral, it's not right, and it's completely illogical.
This statement I quoted is both right and wrong and neither right and wrong.
Clearly, this view is incoherent.
You can't just go around pushing all of your opinions on people just because you think they're right, and downplaying everyone else's just because you think they're wrong.
Look - face it. There are truths. 2+2 DOES equal 4. You can't deny it. It is whether you think it or not. It exists independent of human thought. Just because someone believes it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make it false. We have an objective standard with which to judge ideas. This is called logic.
No one is right or wrong, in this case.
God is neither right and wrong? How can you be theist?!?!?!
There is no definitive answer to the tax problem, but we can share our opinions on how we think that it should be done without blasting everyone else out of the water just because of some faulty reasoning that we think is right
You're making this crazy assertion based off of an incoherent viewpoint and saying that you are immune to all criticism because no one is right or wrong - that all views are equal. And yet, if that's so, then how can you say that I'm wrong?
It's not moral, it's not right, and it's completely illogical.
You can imagine the irony I felt when I read this ending statement.
Yoy can't just go around pushing all of your opinions on people just because you think they're right, and downplaying everyone else's just because you think they're wrong.
Your post is pushing your opinion on someone because you think it's right and downplaying theirs because you think they're wrong. Get an argument that doesn't commit suicide, please.
This statement I quoted is both right and wrong and neither right and wrong.
Clearly, this view is incoherent.
I'm sorry, but how stupid are you? He clearly meant in a moralistic sense, and in that sense he is correct. What is right to you is wrong to me, quite literally.
At any rate, my opinion on the matter still stands. Flat tax rate is both fair and honest. Why?
A) Everyone pays the same, regardless of stature or wealth. While you may not think that paying one million out of ten million is comparable to one thousand out of ten thousand, it is. They force you to live a certain way, until you have less or more. "Live within your means," I believe it is. If you have the money, why would you let someone steal it? Some must be stolen to help pay for order, but it's fair if everyone has the same amount proportionate to their income stolen. You don't suffocate anyone and you don't let anyone free.
B) This is for all you government lovers, and for you government haters too: If everyone pays the same rate, do you know who else benefits? The single largest corporation in America: The American government. They know how much their income will be, and can plan accordingly. If they go outside of their projected range, they are at fault. No one else. No false predictions, no incorrect values. It's easy.
C) When one reaches success, if they reach it, they know that they will still spend the same and never more. I personally love this idea. I know that the more I make, the more I pay. I am comforted by the fact I know how much I'll pay, and how much my boss pays, how much his boss pays, and so on. We all pay the same proportion. 8/10 is the same as 80/100, the same way it's the same as 4/5. The values just go up.
I'm sorry, but how stupid are you? He clearly meant in a moralistic sense, and in that sense he is correct. What is right to you is wrong to me, quite literally.
I'm sorry, but do you know what the thread is about?
I had a post concerning deductive reasoning, and he starts saying that no one is wrong or right about this. And this is an unbacked assertion he was making. You should read the bottom of page 5 and the rest, and you'll understand my frustration, and the incoherent reasoning.
You have made many fallacious statements in the above post.
I think you're all a bunch of narcissists who think you're right, when you aren't.
That's beside the point. And it doesn't make us right or wrong at all. So when you make the assertion that we are wrong, tell us why instead of calling us narcissists.
There are many ways to make a corporation work, and they all end at the same problem: How many people will I piss off to achieve what is necessary?
This is an unbacked assertion - you have given no such examples or anything.
The government is a corporation, as rich as any other and then some.
There is a vital difference between the government and a corporation - we don't consent to the government. Most people only pay taxes on the threat of imprisonment.
Learn to live with the fact you are being stolen from, and try to fight against the thievery.
This idea that the reality "is" this says nothing about what "ought" to be. Thus, the statement says nothing about what should be done.
Everyone should be stolen from the same, no one is special.
Another unbacked assertion - this one has no basis whatsoever - only fighting for some weird idea that everyone should be stolen from the same because no one is special. I don't see any correlation between the two.
Do you know what it means to agree to something? It means you voluntarily do it. You do it because you think that it is the most conducive to your happiness. On the previous page, if you read it, you will find that it is the premise with which I base my entire argument for capitalism.
So what if you're poor? I'm poor. Do I look like I care?
If I saw you, I'd be able to tell. I don't see how these sentences are supposed to support each other at all - it seems you have a disorganize array of assertions and emotional interjections.
Am I crazy for believing in equality, or what?
If what you say is true, it is clearly not for these reasons stated.
Einfach I like you try to use logic but there is a division between being really annoying by segregating and pigeonholing (not the theorem the concept) everything into logical cases. People do no communicate with each other like that. 1/4 of all your sentences consists of jargon, unfounded logic statements and excess wordiness.
Most people only pay taxes on the threat of imprisonment.
No, what evidence do you based that assertion on? Most people pay because it's an accepted social standard.
Individuals should pay the amount they make/have. That's what I call equal, of course there should be some upper and lower limits but as an individual in this society you should do what you can to make the world you live in a better place.
@Einfach. All you're doing is making yourself look like more and more of a tyrant. You really have no idea what you even say. You're making all of these ridiculous and if anyone says something different, you have to downplay it as much as possible. There is no right answer to fix the taxes, and it's really dumb if you think that you, having no government or treasury experience at all think that you can fix the problem because you have some faulty logic that says so. Grow up, man! You're being arrogant and emotional. All that is coming out of you is that you think you're God. Hate to break it to you, but you're not
There is no right answer to fix the taxes, and it's really dumb if you think that you, having no government or treasury experience at all think that you can fix the problem because you have some faulty logic that says so.
Logic is not faulty when applied correctly. Any individual can observer a complex system and find flaws. It's just most don't have a voice to point it out. Right answer to taxes doesn't exist but we can find a system that suits the majority and still helps whatever minorities that feel left out.
No, what evidence do you based that assertion on? Most people pay because it's an accepted social standard.
Well, you can disregard that particular sentence then. You are right, though, I should have said something more like, "The government uses force in order to get people to pay taxes in the first place."
1/4 of all your sentences consists of jargon, unfounded logic statements and excess wordiness.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to reword it so it sounds more like English.
The rich can only become rich through mutually beneficial transactions. A. A mutually beneficial transaction is defined as any action that benefits both parties. B. All agreed-upon interactions are mutually beneficial transactions. i. How is this? What does it mean to agree to something? It means that you believe this action surpasses every other action by providing happiness (defined as that which people pursue). ii. This is tautological. Basically - agreed-upon interactions surpass all other actions in the efficiency by which the create happiness - it gives people the most "bang for their buck" with happiness. C. Thus, mutually beneficial interactions, by creating happiness, are good in themselves. D. Mutually beneficial interactions, by definition create a certain amount of positive happiness to both parties. E. Thus, aside from benefitting the "rich person," the people who are involved in mutually beneficial interactions with the person are also benefitted, at least by a small amount. F. A capitalistic economy involves no regulations (or redistribution of resources). i. Regulations can only function by restricting mutually beneficial reactions, since they are the only actions that can occur spontaneously in a free market (think Gibbs free energy :P). If they do not - they're not effective, and thus unnecessary, and if they do, they create negative happiness.
Revised version:
In capitalism, the rich achieve wealth by engaging in agreed transactions with others. A. What does it mean that an action is agreed upon? It means that both parties (both the wealthy guy and another person who agrees with him) consent - they both want to undergo the transaction. They want it because it is conducive to their happiness. B. Thus, these actions benefit both parties - and by benefit I mean that the fact they want to do it implies that they value it over all other actions. C. Aside from benefitting the rich person, the interactions also benefit the person who has taken the agreement. Employment is an example of this. Another example is buying an item. i. Regulations can only function by restricting agreements between people. If they do not, they don't have any use. ii. For example, the minimum wage can only be effective when there are people being paid below that. Making it illegal to pay them below a certain amount doesn't guarantee them employment; in fact, the fact that they agreed to the job implies that they found it most beneficial to their happiness.
Therefore, any regulations that restrict informed trade are sub-ideal in any economy.
"The government uses force in order to get people to pay taxes in the first place."
Yeah, that makes more sense. But there are a lot of other rules in our society that the government forces on people, some make even less sentence and reflect only a minorities choices.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to reword it so it sounds more like English.
Yes, keep in mind the audience, this is just a flash gaming website so you want to write for that some no one is left out. Also it feels like your only a few steps away from just listing propositions and then proving them logically :P.
rich achieve wealth by engaging in agreed transactions with others.
If only if the world worked liked that. People = Government (supposedly) But Government also = minority, with self interests So then a minority makes agreed transactions and leaves the people behind. Also agreed upon transactions =/= fair transactions. Just because they want to doesn't mean that's it's equivalent in proportions.
