Your View on Graduated Income Taxes

[illinialex24]

What is your view on income taxes.

There are a few main views on this subject.

1. An equal tax level for all citizens on income tax. This means that anyone gives up the same percentage of their income to the government, and if the government needs to make money and they raise income taxes, the percentage of your income that you pay increase.

So someone making 100,000 at a 20% income tax (completely hypothetical) pays 20,000 while someone making 50,000 pays 10,000.

The argument here is that everyone is treated equally in a way.

2. A graduated income tax, where people in higher income brackets pay a higher percentage of their income than those in a lower income bracket.

For example, someone making 10,000 to 25,000 would have to pay an income tax of 10% of their income (once again, completely hypothetical) whole someone making 100,000 to 250,000 would have to pay 30% of their income.

The argument here is that the rich can afford more and that way they still keep a fair amount of money but we also get money for the government from those who can afford it. Critics say that it reduces incentives for innovation because people have less incentive to become rich, so it causes a worse overall economic system.

3. A decreasing income tax, where people who make more money pay a smaller percentage of their income because they are still paying more than those making less money, but this way they have to pay less overall money.

The argument here is the rich should not have to pay much more money than the poor. Critics say it causes the poor to pay money they don't have.

4. Equal overall income taxes, where everyone pays the same amount regardless of income. Has almost no practicality, because people with no income pay as much money as those making no money and those making large sums.

Your views? I personally support a moderate graduated income tax.

 

[Crimson King]

I support the abolishing of income taxes, ESPECIALLY a graduated income tax.

It's ridiculous that the government can tax people MORE because they happen to be more successful.

 

[illinialex24]

I support the abolishing of income taxes, ESPECIALLY a graduated income tax.

It's ridiculous that the government can tax people MORE because they happen to be more successful.

Why? The government needs money to function. Taxes need to exist. The income tax is just a very convenient way of taxing people.

And why would you especially oppose a graduated one, its not a punishment. Its not like we are taking that much more than someone above below you by percentage. Remember, its a lot harder for someone who has almost nothing to pay anything than someone who's rich to pay a moderate sum.

 

[Amide]

I really do think we need this thread.

Option 4 isn't really an income tax because it's not based on income. I agree with CK though, the successful shouldn't be punished for it. Income tax is a terrible idea, but in the times when it's required, option 1 is the fairest.

 

[pockyD]

Why? The government needs money to function. Taxes need to exist. The income tax is just a very convenient way of taxing people.

you could just put up a huge sales tax

And why would you especially oppose a graduated one, its not a punishment. Its not like we are taking that much more than someone above below you by percentage. Remember, its a lot harder for someone who has almost nothing to pay anything than someone who's rich to pay a moderate sum.

that's stupid though; people with large incomes (theoretically) EARNED their wealth, whereas people with meager ones (also theoretically) EARNED that as well. The basis of capitalism, etc.

If the wealthy are getting paid too much for doing too little, that is NOT a problem that should be addressed by arbitrarily deciding they are too rich and taking some of their money away. Instead, we should merely re-evaluate the mechanics of their incomes. If society decides that being a CEO is worth hundreds of millions annually, that's a stupid decision that should be abated by directly cutting that hundred million dollar salary and reinvesting it elsewhere, not by taking the money away from the recipient AFTER they have, for all intents and purposes due to their contract with the company, "earned" it because we randomly decide they "already have enough"

what about the person on the border of two tax brackets? if he makes an extra buck income-wise, he loses a few hundred net-income-wise. How does that make sense?

 

[illinialex24]

that's stupid though; people with large incomes (theoretically) EARNED their wealth, whereas people with meager ones (also theoretically) EARNED that as well. The basis of capitalism, etc.

If the wealthy are getting paid too much for doing too little, that is NOT a problem that should be addressed by arbitrarily deciding they are too rich and taking some of their money away. Instead, we should merely re-evaluate the mechanics of their incomes. If society decides that being a CEO is worth hundreds of millions annually, that's a stupid decision that should be abated by directly cutting that hundred million dollar salary and reinvesting it elsewhere, not by taking the money away from the recipient AFTER they have, for all intents and purposes due to their contract with the company, "earned" it because we randomly decide they "already have enough"

what about the person on the border of two tax brackets? if he makes an extra buck income-wise, he loses a few hundred net-income-wise. How does that make sense?

Look, I come from the top 5% of American households or higher. So I am in the pretty much elite circle, I can afford to go to a good college and I have had a good upbringing in a fairly wealthy suburban neighborhood. But I support a graduated income tax. Do you know why?

Because education in the inner city is a lot worse, and it is a lot harder for someone in inner city Chicago to make as much money as someone in the suburbs, who has a much better education. This isn't to say that its impossible, only that many more people will have to have very bad jobs in Chicago than in the suburbs. However, if they had lived in the suburbs, they would be making a lot, a lot more money. How much you work doesn't have a good enough correlation with income to say that we are punishing people by requiring higher taxes for larger income families.

These people, who with better opportunities would have been successful, do not deserve to pay the same rate as higher income families. Its not like we are punishing the rich, because there are still huge incentives for making more money (the taxes don't come close to neutralizing the amount of work people will do to make money and so it shouldn't slow innovation).

Arguing that you can't beat the "system" is crap. Arguing that its harder to break free, that is pretty much fact. My school has a graduation rate of 99.9% and over 98% go to college (I think over 99%). In inner city Chicago, because of worse teachers and tough social issues, has a 70.7% graduation rate but a much lower percentage of students who go to college. I don't have facts for those who go to college, but the graduation rate alone is much lower. And that alone has major career implications.

 

[manhunter098]

what about the person on the border of two tax brackets? if he makes an extra buck income-wise, he loses a few hundred net-income-wise. How does that make sense?

It doesnt work like that. He is taxed normally for every dollar of his income that is under one bracket and any income that exceeds that tax bracket is taxed at the rate of the next one. So he makes LESS than he would on a previous dollar on his next one, but he doesnt loose the money being taxed in the lower bracket.

 

[SuperBowser]

Just wanted to provide a source that's related to illnialex's point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

Socioeconomic group migration has reduced even further since this study was done.

 

[illinialex24]

Just wanted to provide a source that's related to illnialex's point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

Socioeconomic group migration has reduced even further since this study was done.

Wow, I hadn't read these articles when basing my view and it really shows how it is hard with inferior education to be successful. Thanks .

 

[Darxmarth23]

I support getting rid of all income tax. Especially this one.

The government will abuse every cent they get. It was in our history, and ppl are just getting greedier.

 

[illinialex24]

I support getting rid of all income tax. Especially this one.

The government will abuse every cent they get. It was in our history, and ppl are just getting greedier.

Why? Although there is a lot of pork in the federal government, they also have much more efficient methods of implementing projects. Like how we could never afford to hire a garbage man unless we get one company with a contract to a local government to pay for it. Like the military. We need taxes and the debate is how much service is the best for us, and how much should we choose to pay for. Because obviously, if they took all of our money and gave us discounted food and everything, we wouldn't like it because we get no choice. But if we had to pay for everything with us and companies, like garbage, water and other stuff without contracts with the government to minimize prices, we would go bankrupt.

The income tax should stay definitely. The question is what form of an income tax and what should the percentages be.

 

[Crimson King]

Why? The government needs money to function. Taxes need to exist. The income tax is just a very convenient way of taxing people.

And why would you especially oppose a graduated one, its not a punishment. Its not like we are taking that much more than someone above below you by percentage. Remember, its a lot harder for someone who has almost nothing to pay anything than someone who's rich to pay a moderate sum.

Aww... you actually believe the income tax goes to funding things. Adorable.


The income tax, largely, goes to paying off the interest on the inflated dollar that the government inflates. A study was done that if the government was reduced to the budget it had 10 years ago, ALL social programs would function at the same efficiency. The key is NOT raising taxes and building bigger government; the key is minimizing government to bare necessities.

As for people who can't be successful - why should I care? It sounds cold, but why should I give a **** if they can't go to college? Concern for others is based on the notion that by helping them, they'll give back to the system and help you, which is illogical, stupid, delusional, and unrealistic. If I was broke-*** poor my whole life, got a break and got into a college (which DOES happen), then I would enjoy my wealth, invest in the community that I came from, and not even worry about the other wealthy people. If I came from a rural area, I'd be conditioned to try to move up, but not worry about those lesser fortunate than me.

Social concern is idealistic, but unrealistic. It's a nice thought, and plenty philanthropists do it, but it should not be the one determining factor as to whether to keep taxes or not.

Next: the rich have no reason to be taxes. What that says to anyone who is even remotely poor is to make as much as you can up to a certain limit, then donate the rest to avoid hefty taxes. What you just did was stifle the economy.

 

[Jam Stunna]

As someone who does qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, I can still see why the graduated income tax is a serious problem for some people. It is strange to tax someone more for making more money.

At the same time, I literally cannot afford a flat tax. Alot of people have this idea of the "welfare king/queen". Let me take a moment to combat that.

My gross annual income for last year was approximately $8000.

My furniture consists of:
1) A dresser my wife has had for 17 years.
2) A bookshelf my boss gave me.
3) A couch, two chairs and two tables that we bought from a local thrift store for < $200.
4) A used washer machine that cost $180.
5) Two TVs: one my father gave me, one my wife had when I met her.
6) Every piece of furniture my son has, including his crib, was given to us.
7) My bed was free; a hotel in the area was giving them away because they got new ones.
8) The computer desk I'm sitting at was a gift for my wife when she was 16.

Almost all of my clothes are either gifts, things my father gave me or things I wore in high school.

I don't own a car; my wife and I ride the bus to/from school.

I don't pay for child care; my wife's mother watches our son.

My wife and I receive food stamps, free medical care, and live in subsidized housing.

With my EITC from last year, I bought a new computer, which I had built for me because it was cheaper that way (my laptop crashed), some clothes, and a Wii.

I work 34 hours a week now, so I hope that my income will increase this year.

I have my associate's degree, and will be starting at a 4-year school in two weeks. My wife will receive her associate's degree this semester, and start a 4-year in the fall.

I don't list this to start a pity party; I quite enjoy my life (all things considered), although I go to school now so that I can make a better life for my family. I'm illustrating two points here:

A) Contrary to what the right wing will have you believe, I'm not gaming the system in order to support my lavish lifestyle. I need the help that I get.

B) Contrary to what the left wing will have you believe, I'm not some helpless dope who needs state assistance for the rest of my life. I just need it now, to help get on my feet.

Do I really like the idea of a graduated income tax? Not really. Do I need it? You bet. People seem to be unwilling to accept that there is a difference between how we want the world to be and how it is.

 

[pockyD]

Look, I come from the top 5% of American households or higher. So I am in the pretty much elite circle, I can afford to go to a good college and I have had a good upbringing in a fairly wealthy suburban neighborhood. But I support a graduated income tax. Do you know why?

Because education in the inner city is a lot worse, and it is a lot harder for someone in inner city Chicago to make as much money as someone in the suburbs, who has a much better education. This isn't to say that its impossible, only that many more people will have to have very bad jobs in Chicago than in the suburbs. However, if they had lived in the suburbs, they would be making a lot, a lot more money. How much you work doesn't have a good enough correlation with income to say that we are punishing people by requiring higher taxes for larger income families.

Wages, minimum wage aside, are dictated by supply/demand, so "income" IS dictated by a combination of how much you work and how "important your work is". Sure, it sucks to work 40 hours a week at McDonald's, but given that anyone over the age of 12 in America is probably perfectly capable of doing that job, there's no reason to "reward" someone who does it, or "punish" someone who does not

These people, who with better opportunities would have been successful, do not deserve to pay the same rate as higher income families.

First off, how do you KNOW that they would have been successful? There are plenty of tools for the motivated to drive their own success. Public libraries and schooling, academic scholarships/loans/grants, etc. MAYBE if they had been pushed through a high-cost private school system, they would have had more "success", but the fact that you did NOT go through such a process is not an excuse for mediocrity.

Its not like we are punishing the rich, because there are still huge incentives for making more money (the taxes don't come close to neutralizing the amount of work people will do to make money and so it shouldn't slow innovation).

...but we ARE punishing the rich. Your argument is that the punishment isn't sufficient to kill the drive for success, but it is a punishment nonetheless.

Given that, it's kind of unfair to have an arbitrary boundary as far as HOW MUCH success should be "punishable", isn't it?

Arguing that you can't beat the "system" is crap. Arguing that its harder to break free, that is pretty much fact. My school has a graduation rate of 99.9% and over 98% go to college (I think over 99%). In inner city Chicago, because of worse teachers and tough social issues, has a 70.7% graduation rate but a much lower percentage of students who go to college. I don't have facts for those who go to college, but the graduation rate alone is much lower. And that alone has major career implications.

All that's really happening is that people who already weren't "deserving" to succeed are in fact succeeding by virtue of the system... people who were destined (or whatever) to succeed don't suddenly fail (unless they're shot or something, but then you aren't taxing them anyway).

I'd say 70% is MUCH closer to the accurate number of {functional, good, whatever you want to call it} American adults than 99% is.

If you REALLY believe the problem is imbalance in the education system, then the solution is to find a way to increase that 70% number, not find a way to drop the 99%

Contrary to what you seem to believe, a lot of what parents work for is not only for themselves, but the future of them and their children. People don't just "happen" to be born into good situations; their families WORKED to put them where they are.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Aww... you actually believe the income tax goes to funding things. Adorable.


The income tax, largely, goes to paying off the interest on the inflated dollar that the government inflates. A study was done that if the government was reduced to the budget it had 10 years ago, ALL social programs would function at the same efficiency. The key is NOT raising taxes and building bigger government; the key is minimizing government to bare necessities.
.

I would really like to see that study. It would be very useful for me. I'm considering making a debate case that runs on the idea of reduced government influence increasing economic incentives. This would kick butt at the tournaments I go to.

I think that graduated income tax is punishment for success and it approaches socialism, which leads to the death of individual dreams and goals and will throw us all into apathy. I also think that a business should never be taxed.

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, a business is not some evil organization that makes "obscene" profits. A business is a group of people united by the goal of making a living. Anytime you tax a business, it will do one of three things:
A. Lay off workers or reduce their salaries
B. Not pay dividends to their investors
C. Raise the price of their product.

All of which make it MORE difficult for the common man to live his life.

 

[manhunter098]

I agree on the not taxing businesses, but graduated income tax isnt all that bad, certainly it reduces incentives a little bit, but because of the way it is set up, its not really going to make people not want to make a lot of money.

Really though if the government didnt push out the private sector on so many things we might be able to get along without income tax at all.

 

[Aesir]

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, a business is not some evil organization that makes "obscene" profits. A business is a group of people united by the goal of making a living.

Actually they do make obscene profits, corporations have one sole purpose to make money. When corporations were given legal human rights (which should be over turned asap) they were told that their sole purpose was to generate money for their share holders. Thus the only real obligation they have is to make money. While still given human rights, aside form the power to vote.

Before the economic melt down the health insurance companies and oil companies (the two that first come to mind) Were making record profits this was documented all through out the news, regardless of political position it was obvious they were making obscene amounts of money.

I just felt I needed to correct you on that because you seem to think corporations are some how a victim.

Anytime you tax a business, it will do one of three things:
A. Lay off workers or reduce their salaries
B. Not pay dividends to their investors
C. Raise the price of their product.

All of which make it MORE difficult for the common man to live his life.

While this may be true it certainly wouldn't be the case for America. Corporations hardly ever pay their share in taxes, they either abuse loopholes or just down right don't pay it. There's an interesting correlation, we've seen their profits sky rocket and their payments plummet, I think there might be a correlation with that.

Anyway I would argue you tax them based of their wealth, capital gains and dividends. Because the way most corporations deal with taxes is they treat it like an expense. So instead of taxing their income we just tax what I just mentioned.

I'm willing to bet if we gave them a modest tax they would still make profits well over the amount they need to keep their business running.