How about a flat tax?

[Blindfaith]

When I go shopping, I pay 8.8% sales tax.  The more people make, the more people spend, the more taxes they pay.

Or would that be considered naive and simplistic philosophy?

 

[datan]

sales taxes are a regressive form of taxation ie. the tax burden is heaviest on the poor. that's cause out of every dollar they earn, they spend the most, thus, they are taxed proportionately.

 

[cenimo]

Morat


The most common answer is that the wealty person is probably providing jobs or spending and investing enough to keep companies that provide jobs going, while the other person is merely spending what they make


Blindfaith

Correct to a point, but the working class doesn't have near the chances of getting theirs back.
For the working class, taxes are usually a payment to the government.
For the wealthy, taxes, if any, are a tomporary loan to the government. Quite a bit of difference.

 

[Clay]

this is the reason why ive supported steve forbes the last two primaries. its a shame he never got any further than that. he would have been an excellent president.

a flat tax would be the most efficient form of taxation not only for the government, but for the people.

 

[kern]

I don't know though, to me it makes sense that someone with 4 kids pays less tax than someone with no kids if they are making the same amount of money.

-Chris

 

[datan]

then there's a social policy you're trying to accomplish using taxation. why kids? Isn't that a lifestyle choice, like living in a condominium? Only when the state steps in and allows you to claim deductibles on your children are they trying to influence your choices on having kids.

 

[caley]

Originally posted by Morat
They could inherit. Of course, by that logic, why aren't you abolishing sales tax? Everytime I buy something, I pay a tax on it. And I've already been taxed for all my income!

And payroll taxes, and excise taxes, and well...every tax. Oops.

I want to abolish every tax.

 

[Clay]

this is why you live in the God Blessed state of New Hampshire where we neither have an income tax, nor a sales tax.
right now, our new governor is trying to get something across like a flat tax.

 

[cenimo]

caley


.. and along ith them, police stations, fire stations, etc... all get abolished too?

 

[kern]

Originally posted by caley
I want to abolish every tax.

How does the government get money for anything if there are no taxes at all? While I'll agree that the government wastes money, it doesn't seem that the government could function with a zero income.

-Chris

 

[IslandBreeze]

Originally posted by kern
I don't know though, to me it makes sense that someone with 4 kids pays less tax than someone with no kids if they are making the same amount of money.

-Chris

Why should I be punished for not having kids? That's ridiculous.

 

[Blindfaith]

I'm glad I four little deductions ~ every little bit helps

I think it was Morat who said he'd like to abolish every tax, and I was thinking, 'wouldn't that be nice.

Then I saw cenimo's post about if that were the case, we wouldn't have fire stations, police stations, etc.....and I thought, good point.

I don't mind paying taxes, but come one!  Let's keep it to a sane amount.

 

[Dewjunkie]

Originally posted by Cammie
Why should I be punished for not having kids? That's ridiculous.

You're not.  But the government knows that it takes much, much, much (did I say much?) more money to raise kids, and rightfully allows for more money to go back to people with children.   

 

[cenimo]

Dewjunkie

She's not? People without kids pay property tax, either directly to the county or indirectly via higher rents from the landlords who pay directly to the county...part of those property taxes go to public schools...so yeah, Cammie and every other childless adult does get "punished" for not having kids....


blindfaith

Exactly, keep it reasonable....fire, police, ambulance services, medical, city / county parks, etc...no problem...but everything from paying through the nose so the politicians can live high on the hog (Chicago, Louisiana, Arizona are just a few examples) to $1600.00 hammers for the Air Force is really a bit much.

 

[Dewjunkie]

By that logic, cenimo, anyone who doesn't take advantage of every single government program is punished for whatever reasons they don't use them. It's like saying that if you never have to call the police you're being punished for being a law-abiding citizen. No, you're paying to ensure that if you ever have to call them, they're there and ready. Just like she's paying to ensure if she does ever have children, the schools will be there and ready to educate her children.

 

[Blindfaith]

DEW!!  Where'd those blessings go?  Yikes!  You get rid of those faster than you can get 'em

 

Everyone has good points.  I can see where Cenimo & Cammie are coming from, but also agree with Dew.  ::shrug::  What to do.....

 

[cenimo]

Dewjunkie

Police provide protection (hopefully) and their services are needed by all...same with fire...their mere presence provides a service...

Libraries? no, all don't use them, but they could and are available for those who choose to patronize them....

Schools are a big part of property taxes, and the argument that if someone had a children they would be in school is not really valid...why not when they have children, then that tax kicks in? What about people who never had or never will have children? Should their property taxes keep rising so a municiplaity can build more scholls, improve schools, etc??? Teacher's salaries might make a valid point, but what about things like swimming pools in high schools?


Let's reverse this situation and say a community had some kind of center for childless people and proposed an increase or additional property tax on everybody, including parents of children to fund it. Think there wouldn't be an outcry? I can hear it already.

Everybody thinks their norm is the norm...

Try this, in Germany citiizens are hit with a National Historic place tax... you can let your tax go to a general fund, or name your favorite castle, you're still going to pay it. (Not too different than taxing the childless for grade schools, nucht var? - the castles are mainly for tourism)

As our preacher once said, the school principal and the janitor are both late coming back from vacation. Who do you think will be miseed first?

 

[Michael0701]

To me it boils down to this: Playing Fair. I mean, I know that taxes need to be collected to fund social services like the ones mentioned in previous posts, but why can't it be done fairly? Like if my total tax share is %28, why can't the multimillionaire be made to pay his %28. Both the current tax policy and the flat tax policy have their pros and cons. Not being an economics wizard I have no idea which one to root for. I just want us all to play fair. And if that means the poor end up paying less than they are today and the rich will have to kick in a little more, then that's ok to me.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Cammie
Why should I be punished for not having kids? That's ridiculous.

Not at all. The amount of money it costs to raise a child is much greater than the paltry tax break you get for it (and you end up paying more in sales tax because of all the baby/kid stuff you have to buy, the extra food, etc.)

So you're not being "punished" because you will still end up with more money than the parent making the same gross amount as you.

-Chris

 

[kern]

Originally posted by cenimo

Schools are a big part of property taxes, and the argument that if someone had a children they would be in school is not really valid...why not when they have children, then that tax kicks in? What about people who never had or never will have children? Should their property taxes keep rising so a municiplaity can build more scholls, improve schools, etc??? Teacher's salaries might make a valid point, but what about things like swimming pools in high schools?

Better schools can improve property values and quality of life, so it's not really valid to say that someone whose property tax goes to a school is completely wasting their money if they don't have any children.

-Chris