We like having you there.
We like having you there.
I'm not arguing a flat tax.. but tax reform, sure.
As a self-described novice in economics... where are you coming from, btw?
So which part entails the injustice, wealthy people being able to have things they want above and beyond their needs or poor people not being able to have much beyond what they need to live?
If wealthy people having things they want is not an injustice in and of itself then they don't deserve to be penalized for it. Also, if that's an injustice then there is no problem with the poor, they're living exactly the way a person ought to live.
If the problem is that poor people don't have things they want, the solution is not to take it away from someone else and give it to them.
If wealthy people having things they want is not an injustice in and of itself then they don't deserve to be penalized for it. Also, if that's an injustice then there is no problem with the poor, they're living exactly the way a person ought to live.
If the problem is that poor people don't have things they want, the solution is not to take it away from someone else and give it to them.
Feel free to make your case against it. I look forward to your insight.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Nevertheless, he raises a valid point.
It is hard to stomach especially by someone like yourself that has come so far from so little. But there ARE people that are poor because they make bad decisions, have misaligned priorities, etc. Again, sad to say, but no amount of throwing money, welfare, goods, services, or otherwise at them is going to help them.
The key here is education. Can we teach them to make better decisions, to think objectively and have logical priorities, etc.? Yes.
But yet another key here is their desire to be educated.
They have to want to learn... they have to want to better themselves... and a significant portion of those that are poor do not want to go to the effort. They just want what they want.
I think that's the biggest threshold to be determined here.
At what point is it just to take from one to give to another who is in need?
And at what point is it unjust to take from one to give to another who will waste it and/or not use it wisely?
The differences in opinion arise from varying viewpoints on where those thresholds are, and which has priority.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
I think many (including me) are simply arguing the merits of the flat tax from the perspective that it is the best way to close tax loopholes and exceptions. Even though I understand why they feel that way, I find it a little ironic that there are those that rail against the current tax code because it's so unjust, and yet when you put forward a system that will not allow anyone to exploit anything, it's entirely too strict for them.
EDIT: Arguing the merits of something does not necessarily mean agreement with said principles. My mind is still not made up. But it takes an educated mind to consider the merits of an argument they don't agree with in principle.
Colton, what should be changed, then? What is the "fair" amount that should be taxed for different levels? Why exactly is it harder for the $10k earner to pay 10% and how do you quantify that? Is it easier for the $100k earner to pay $30k in taxes than for the $70k earner to pay $1k?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Let's use his bloody logic against him:
*Heterosexuals with children need/value marriage more so no equality under the law for you homosexuals.
*Also he says "separate is inherently unequal" then we can't have separate tax brackets for anyone.
Suck it, lib!
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I agree. My simplistic idea to make it more "fair" (I guess) is to make the first $20 to $30k for everyone tax free, and then have a flat tax on the amount made after that.
I'm sure there are hundreds of economists who have some sort of problem with that idea, but to me it seems pretty fair.