If yuo made a six figure salery...
- Thread starter Waist Product
- Start date
- Status
Or here is a radical idea - total cost of government divided by the number of people -- i.e., per capita. Why should a successful person have to pay for more government than a less successful one -- its not like they consume more, probably less. I bet one outcome of that is that we would have far less government.
I think it is reasonable for the tax system to take account of the nonlinear value of money, the fact that, say, a hundred dollars is worth more to a person whose total wealth is $1000 thant to one who is worth $10 million. However, if not quite willing to buy PJ's per capita plan, I think you can make a good case for a flat rate...for everyone paying the same fraction of their income.
-Ww
PS - jl has been wrong twice on this topic; surely THIS subthread is the end of the "High End Room" as a viable forum.
-Ww
PS - jl has been wrong twice on this topic; surely THIS subthread is the end of the "High End Room" as a viable forum.
A review of the High-end room board reveals that I ended three threads already. My goal is to end them all. Considering I have only made like 18 posts, ratio of posts to "thread ends" may be highest on the baord and should qualify me for some special status. Maybe the "terminator." Help me achieve my goals do not fucking reply to this message.
Not exactly. I purposely went overboard to make the point that too many people have no financial input to government. They just take out. Thus it is too easy for pols to buy votes with someone else's money. Actually, my preference would be for those minimum wage folks to get so pissed off that they demand that the spending be cut.
p.s. also, I doubt it would be 80% of their income even divided equally.
p.s. also, I doubt it would be 80% of their income even divided equally.
Fair taxes (an oxymoron?)
If my recollection that Feberal revenues are about $2 trillion is correct, then the per capita cost is a bit under $7,000 (but that counts everyone, children, diabled, retired elderly and so forth). It also is only the Federal govt, so state and local govt adds considerably to that cost. It is pretty hard to see how someone earning minimum wage in a full time job (2000 hrs per yr) could afford that, even if single; if he/she had to pay taxes for anyone else in the household (or other dependents), the tax would exceed their income.
It would be interesting to know what the tax rate would be if it were a flat rate (percentage) levied on anyone with an income.
-Ww
If my recollection that Feberal revenues are about $2 trillion is correct, then the per capita cost is a bit under $7,000 (but that counts everyone, children, diabled, retired elderly and so forth). It also is only the Federal govt, so state and local govt adds considerably to that cost. It is pretty hard to see how someone earning minimum wage in a full time job (2000 hrs per yr) could afford that, even if single; if he/she had to pay taxes for anyone else in the household (or other dependents), the tax would exceed their income.
It would be interesting to know what the tax rate would be if it were a flat rate (percentage) levied on anyone with an income.
-Ww
Re: Fair taxes (an oxymoron?)
As I noted in my original post, we have way to fricken much government. For example, I personally don't give a flying fuck about snail darters or other dwindling species, and don't understand why we have whole bureaucracies to protect them. I also think that its a good bet that if everyone was paying an equal share, we wouldn't have crap like this -- or investigations like TBD last year.
BTW, to answer your questions, the handy tax distribution tables shows total federal income taxes paid for 2001 of $892 billion by 130 million returns. Thus your estimate of $7 grand per family is about right. Total Adjusted Gross Income was $6.2 trillion so the flat % would be about 14%. Of course, Social Security would be in addition, but there is a benefit earned from those contributions. (Yeah, right Social Security! The world's largest Ponzi scheme.)
As I noted in my original post, we have way to fricken much government. For example, I personally don't give a flying fuck about snail darters or other dwindling species, and don't understand why we have whole bureaucracies to protect them. I also think that its a good bet that if everyone was paying an equal share, we wouldn't have crap like this -- or investigations like TBD last year.
BTW, to answer your questions, the handy tax distribution tables shows total federal income taxes paid for 2001 of $892 billion by 130 million returns. Thus your estimate of $7 grand per family is about right. Total Adjusted Gross Income was $6.2 trillion so the flat % would be about 14%. Of course, Social Security would be in addition, but there is a benefit earned from those contributions. (Yeah, right Social Security! The world's largest Ponzi scheme.)
I don't understand how you can complain about the TBD investigation. People were breaking the law. If you don't like the law, try to get it changed. But you can't whine about "too much government" because laws are being enforced. (And don't say it's easier to starve the government out of enforcing the laws than it is to get laws changed. That approach would only lead to anti-democratic chaos, where the laws would be enforced selectively on bases that would have no reason to be fair.)
I understand jl. We have been down that road before and I agree with you*. However, my point was that if the public at large was forced to pay for shit like enforcing morality laws, they would probably choose to lose the laws.
Very few government functions would stand up to a broad based cost-benefit analysis.
* I note you didn't defend the snail darter
Very few government functions would stand up to a broad based cost-benefit analysis.
* I note you didn't defend the snail darter
I didn't defend the snail darter because I know there would be no talking to you about that. We obviously have vastly different views of the appropriate role of government, and I don't think whoreboards are productive places to discuss things like that (unlike such obviously on-topic subjects as food and audio equipment).
- Status