http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3687991Oh my.
For some reason I was thinking the answer would be 100% in favor of more taxes and higher taxes, but I was wrong.
bertha katzenengel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 08:22 AM
Original message
Poll question: Federal Taxes. Your Opinion?
Poll result (35 votes)
Taxation within reason is necessary. We need to support many programs - and many people (25 votes, 71%)
Fewer taxes would be good. Some programs - including those helping the less fortunate among us - should be cut (0 votes, 0%)
Pass a flat tax - sales tax on every level, all the way down to 7-11. Use those revenues instead of income tax to support the same programs. (6 votes, 17%)
Federal taxes are out of control. Don't even worry about programs we [sic] (1 votes, 3%)
I am almost militantly against federal taxes. (2 votes, 6%)
Other. (Please explain.) (1 votes, 3%)
It's predictable, as the primitives usually are.
Demeter (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. How About "Taxes Are Imperative--We Need to Pay Our Bills!"
and that means the rich who ordered up this buffet of blood and tears are going to have to pay for it.
And what about those who ordered up this buffet of entitlement programs; are they going to pay for it?
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Another vote for THAT option.
Progressive taxation, the more progressive the better.
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Agree entirely. Flat tax is BAD for most people
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. For Nearly Everyone
If one looks at the FAIR tax proposal, it looks like it would benefit a pretty sizeable chunk of people. The problem is the math doesn't work out very well, and the consumption tax would have to be WAY(!) higher, in order to maintain revenue neutrality. So, then it turns out that it would only benefit those who are living off no more than 30% of gross income. (Make %100k in salary, live off only %2,500 per month. Make %45k per year, have to live off %1120 per month.)
So, the high income folks (make a million, live off %250k, or 20,833 per month) would benefit the most. This makes it a regressive tax, by definition.
melm00se (627 posts) Mon Jul-28-08 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. taxes are necessary.
the big issue is how to compute the amount and determining exactly what is "fair".
almost every group believes that they pay too much and everyone else pays too little.
Yeah. Especially the primitives believe that.
SteelPenguin (922 posts) Mon Jul-28-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Progressive Federal like we have
Flat taxes and VAT's are good in theory but they quickly become corrupted by reality with restrictions, changes, amendements, and soon it's not a Flat tax anymore, but a flat tax with exceptions for power boats, cars with good gas mileage, food, services in certain low tax development zones, and so on and so forth. It becomes more complicated than it is now, but the progressive aspect is removed for the most part, and replaced by exceptions for those wealthy enough to lobby for them.
Our system isn't perfect but it's better than that. The main complaint I hear from people isn't so much that they hate paying their taxes, but that they hate DOING their taxes. In that case we should work on making that part easier through technology, rather than changing the system entirely.
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Another reason for taxes:
As we have seen, there is a great danger in concentrating wealth in the hands of a few.
Yeah, especially in concentrating wealth in the hands of rich Republicans such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Bela Pelosi, Vast Teddy, the Bostonian Billionaire, Alphonse Capote Gore, Dianne Feinstein, Maria Cantwell, Jon Corzine, Rosa DeLauro, the Bostonian Drunkard's trust fund, the Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland the "flyarm" primitive, Bags Streisand, Warren Beatty, &c., &c., &c.
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's What Holds A Nation Together
Just because a Federal tax is eliminated doesn't mean taxes will...especially on the state level. Without a centralized system we would then have 50 separate taxing districts...all only caring about the immediate needs of their residents and soon you'd see tax breaks or tarrifs imposed on things coming across their borders. In essence, insterstate commerce would become a nightmare. You'd also see a constant flight of jobs and people from one state to another as each attempts to build up their tax bases at the benefit of the others.
MookieWilson (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
8. Wow! Some want to get rid of progressive income taxes in favor of REgrressive consumption taxes!
Conservatives haven't yet cornered the market on 'stupid'.
Nope.
The primitives cornered that market in late January 2001, and still have a monopoly on "stupid."
Nobody else has a chance to get in on it; the primitives got it all, have it all.
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. It's not the taxes as much as it is how they're spent less going to the Pentagon and its contractors and more going to solve real problems instead of creating new ones would be a good start, IMO.
oktoberain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. Our tax rates are never going to go down. It's not realistic.
Even if the Federal government somehow managed to get enough support for a flat tax to implement it, the states wouldn't be bound by it. They would adjust their own income tax rates accordingly, and all of the money that's stripped away from the federal government would end up simply being re-routed to state coffers instead. It's the same thing that would happen if we suddenly didn't have to pay import tariffs; corporate America wouldn't lower prices, they'd just re-adjust so that the money that previously went to the government is instead going into their own pockets.
The federal government is big enough to be a powerful bargainer at the table when negotiating for public services. The state governments of Rhode Island or Wyoming, when forced to compete with states like California? Not so much. And of course, the bigger states would benefit *enormously* from this, while the smaller states would suffer. Right now, much of our tax revenue is re-distributed from wealthier states to poorer states, this ensuring at least basic quality-of-life continuity between the states. That would disappear if states like California and New York were able to keep their own money, while states like Alabama and Idaho were forced to make due with the little bit that they can collect. Does it seem fair that big "blue states" end up paying to subsidize smaller "red states"? No. But there are a lot of innocent people who live in those red states--children especially--who don't deserve to suffer for their parents' stupid ideologies.
Progressive taxation by the federal government is the best way to ensure stability between the states. In fact, the tax rate on the wealthiest citizens needs to go back up to what it was before, and the salary cap on Social Security withholdings needs to be eliminated, or at least raised to $300,000 or so.
Yeah, like Joe Kennedy was paying 91% of his income in taxes back during the late 1950s, early 1960s.
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. On your FICA tax comment
I agree with the salary cap. Right now FICA tax is capped at the same level where maximum benefits are calculated. If we're going to raise the cap without raising the benefits, then there is no sense in simply raising it to $300,000, letting the really wealthy off. Might as well remove the cap altogether. Further, might as well tax unearned as well as earned income -- i.e., make it a truly flat tax to pay for social services. Everyone, and all income, taxed equally.
oktoberain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-28-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I have no beef about taxing unearned income, but I'm not sure what you mean by "make it a truly flat tax." Flat taxation is the last thing we want. The wealthy benefit from our government and our society FAR more than the poor do. They should pay taxes in proportion to that benefit.
I'm thinking at least 80-odd percent for the top 1% of earners seems fair.
I dunno.
The subway cat is supported 100% by the government.
I don't think anybody wealthy is supported 100% by the government.
