Debates
29 Jul 10
30 Jul 10
1 edit
The so called rich are going to see a tax raise without even looking at their fed taxes.. That will come in the form of S.S. payments (taxes )
right now, a man making alot of money, will hit the top end of the required FICA tax before the end of the year, which results in an added amount of money in the take home.. the bar raises every year now anyway,, but it will have to go much higher with baby boomers retiring.
To solve the possible shortage in the S.S. system,, the government has to raise the bar, which will bring in more money to pay benefits to those on S.S.
so in the long run, they will be paying more for FICA,, as well as being taxed at a higher rate.... so they will hit a double edged sword. For those who have reached this hurdle at a young age,, it will amount to paying much more money to the government,, with the possibility that the SS will go down anyway, before they retire...if that money wasn't being spent by our government on other things, it would make sense. However, the government must reel in their spending, before there just are no rich left, and there is no place to turn.
So the rich will find places to stock pile money,, IE Tax free bonds, property in other places,, tax shelters as it were....
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Right" is a loaded word. Certainly, a group of economists sitting around a table could probably figure out the optimal level of taxation better than a group of elected officials pandering to their constituents. Bit, like everything else in a democratic system, you leave policy to elected officials to avoid tyranny. So, yes, the "right" level of taxation is the outcome of a democratic process, even though it may not be the most efficient.
So the "right" taxation, in your view, is the one which is the outcome of a democratic process?
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by Hugh GlassFICA is one of the most unrealistically treated taxes in the US. It's one of the few regressive taxes that remain. The theory behind capping FICA at 100k is that FICA is really just putting money away for yourself later on. Once this meaningless fiction is dismissed, the reasons for capping FICA at 100k disappear.
The so called rich are going to see a tax raise without even looking at their fed taxes.. That will come in the form of S.S. payments (taxes )
right now, a man making alot of money, will hit the top end of the required FICA tax before the end of the year, which results in an added amount of money in the take home.. the bar raises every year now anyway,, ...[text shortened]... to stock pile money,, IE Tax free bonds, property in other places,, tax shelters as it were....
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76FICA is not a meaningless regressive tax at all. The government refuses to pay benefits after a certain income level, so they should stop collecting taxes.
FICA is one of the most unrealistically treated taxes in the US. It's one of the few regressive taxes that remain. The theory behind capping FICA at 100k is that FICA is really just putting money away for yourself later on. Once this meaningless fiction is dismissed, the reasons for capping FICA at 100k disappear.
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76Which is the most efficient? The tax system supported by economists? Efficient at achieving what?
"Right" is a loaded word. Certainly, a group of economists sitting around a table could probably figure out the optimal level of taxation better than a group of elected officials pandering to their constituents. Bit, like everything else in a democratic system, you leave policy to elected officials to avoid tyranny. So, yes, the "right" level of taxation is the outcome of a democratic process, even though it may not be the most efficient.
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotOr, rather, your ability to earn whatever money you do is at least partially contingent upon there being a functioning state that provides an infrastructure, a judiciary with enforcement powers, a military, etc. You don't earn ex nihilo; as libertarians typically forget when they start blathering about the minimal state. If you endorse being able to work, then consistency demands you endorse the conditions necessary for that work.
you might have said: The income tax is a tradeoff vs. the right to keep the money you earn.
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by PalynkaThere are other ways to start. To say we have a right to property is (in this discussion) minimally to say we have a right against certain types of interference, and that this should be enforced. So, what are the general conditions needed to ensure against interference? Military power, police protection, a judiciary that enforces contracts, etc. How much do those cost? But suppose we mean more than this. Suppose we take the right to property to also include the right to a minimal standard of living. So it is not just that we have the right to keep whatever stuff we fairly acquire or purchase, but the right to have provided at least some of the basics. Then, of course, the costs associated with ensuring such a right go up. The point here is that we can't get clear on a 'reasonable' degree of taxation until we figure out just what we want the right to property to do.
And as usual the discussion ends in what is "reasonable" and therefore the principle is pointless as "reasonability" is a subjective concept.
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by bbarrI agree entirely, but I have the feeling I'm missing something. Were you just agreeing with me and adding some thoughts?
There are other ways to start. To say we have a right to property is (in this discussion) minimally to say we have a right against certain types of interference, and that this should be enforced. So, what are the general conditions needed to ensure against interference? Military power, police protection, a judiciary that enforces contracts, etc. How much d ...[text shortened]... onable' degree of taxation until we figure out just what we want the right to property to do.
30 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree that we don't have to start with some unanalyzed notion of 'reasonable' in order to determine the forms and rate of taxation. It seems to me that that discussion has to come after we get clear on what we think the function of the state is. If it is simply there to secure non-interference, and rights are accordingly conceived negatively (as the libertarians would have it), taxes will be lower than if we think the state should help to create fair conditions of competition and cooperation where everybody has a roughly equal or good enough shot at success (as the classical liberalists would have it). Shouting about theft and desert doesn't really do much but entrench unarticulated philosophical differences in debates like this. We can start with what is conceptually more fundamental.
I agree entirely, but I have the feeling I'm missing something. Were you just agreeing with me and adding some thoughts?
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76....in a society where each person has his or her own definition of "productivity" and "comfort" -- so even the best economists will never come up with THE most efficient tax system.
Efficient at achieving the maximum level of productivity and comfort of and for the maximum number of people.
on the other hand - the politicians are pretty much guaranteed to come up with THE most contorted tax system.
30 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrExactly my sentiment. Well put, bbarr.
I agree that we don't have to start with some unanalyzed notion of 'reasonable' in order to determine the forms and rate of taxation. It seems to me that that[i/] discussion has to come after we get clear on what we think the function of the state is. If it is simply there to secure non-interference, and rights are accordingly conceived negatively (as the ...[text shortened]... fferences in debates like this. We can start with what is conceptually more fundamental.