I tell’s ya what. We’ll put you on a desert island, and drop your salary on you regularly via helicopter (helicopter drops of money. Hmm. I seem to recall some other right-winger going on about that.) as a public service, of course. The rest, including even the acquisition of fresh water, we’ll leave to you.
You realize you’ve reduced yourself, all by yourself, to a reductio ad absurdum?
No, you don’t. Strike that.
Aargh! These simulposts are going to kill me!
What’s so incredible about my assertion? I realize that you’re easily shocked - goes with your obvious undersocialization - but what, exactly, is so weird about saying that if some public service - not french fries, a fire truck - costs x, and the rich guy can pay up to m, while the poor one can only pay up to c, so therefore the rich guy should be charged up to m in order so that it can be afforded. And yes, if you want the fire protection, you’ll have to pay up to m, because it’s the only way for everyone to have that fire truck and the protection it affords. In other words, so that everyone can benefit from this social good, including you, you have to pay more, because you are able to pay more, and because - pay attention now, I know this part is tough for a solipsist like yourself - you can’t afford it on your own.
I used letters because numbers appear to be too challenging to you.
Bricker, are you advocating that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes, regardless of income? Do you believe that Joe Shmoe who makes $1,000,000 in a year should pay the same amount as Jane Doe who makes $20,000?
These are sincere questions. I am honestly seeking clarification.
Bricker, I know this is starting to seem a bit of a pile on, but just a few things.
If (I believed) the cuts weren’t political, and the statistics bore out that the majority of Americans didn’t want it, then I might be able to support these cuts. If this goddamn war weren’t sucking the coffers dry for what I believed from the beginning was a personal vendetta by a few men, I might be able to support this cut. If Halliburton were being charged with over a BILLION dollars in false billing to our government, I might be able to support these cuts. If this weren’t (in my opinion) the most corrupt government since Nixon, I might be able to support these cuts. But as it is, I just can’t.
Here’s the funny thing though. It seems like on some level we had similar childhoods, with similar results. Yet, I have come to the exact opposite conclusion than you. I have the “there for the grace of God go I” feeling. It wasn’t just drive and hard work that got me here, it was a very healthy dose of luck, good fortune, an the kindness of others, including tax payers, who almost entirely paid for my college education through grants and scholarships.
I pay a tremendous amount in property taxes, because TX doesn’t have income taxes, and yet, I think that’s the way it should be. Despite the fact that I have no children in the public schools, I feel that those who can afford it, should pay more. Why should someone have to worry about food, medication, or rent, to pay on a flat tax that I can easily afford. I know you have a very hard time understanding this, but, I believe that there is indeed such a thing as “the greater good”.
Why fund NASA, why fund the EPA, the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, etc, etc, etc… Because some things are just for the benefit of society as a whole.
Are you saying a flat tax – everyone pays the same percentage – would leave us unable to fund anything?
I don’t agree.
And while I am not an edcuated and trained economist, there are educated and trained economists that believe a flat tax would not causes us to gove up our fire trucks.
Not the same AMOUNT. The same PERCENTAGE.
The same amount is obviously unworkable – if the amount is $3,000 per year, what do we do to the guy who only makes $2,500 in that year? Take every penny and slap a lien for $500 on him? No, no… of course not the same dollar figure. But the same percentage.
I look at Bricker’s posts and think There but for the grace of God goes God..
Seriously, Bricker, you have no sense of noblesse oblige? If so, I am genuinely surprised.
Obviously he does. Just not noblesse oblige imposed by the government.
Well, we tried a relatively flat tax under Reagan, and the deficit was about to spiral up into infinity when everyone finally decided to start raising the upper rates to bring in more money and balance the budget.
Worked.
Now, we have someone whose tax cuts are headed in the same direction and worse: he actually repealed the inheritance tax, and the deficit is again headed in the direction it did the last time: up into the stratosphere and beyond.
So, to me, at least, the proposition that the fire trucks can be paid for under something that approaches a flat tax scenario has now been tried twice, and has now failed twice.
That there are economists who still believe that it can be done is not exactly surprising.
Marx was an economist, too. Didn’t make him right.
It does all go back to two plus two equalling four, rather than twenty-four.
Why shouldn’t that be the case? On what grounds are you advocating a flat percentage? It seems to me that the fairest system is a flat dollar amount.
Do you know what that phrase means? It refers to the personal obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank. It doesn’t refer to imposing such obligations upon others.
So, yes, I do. Correctly.
Fairest in what sense?
Demanding an equal dollar amount from every single person may indeed be the most even division of costs, but it is practically unworkable.
And there is some sense of fairness in the wealthier person paying a higher dollar. His house is bigger, and if it catches on fire, more resources are required to put the fire out.
The same percentage, on the other hand, is workable from a practical standpoint.
Then quit talking about the cost of public services as if they are comparable to groceries and popcorn at the movies. Last time I checked, the cashier charges everyone the same for these goods. Not even you believes the same concept should carry over to taxation, so maybe you shouldn’t act like you do.
Under a fixed percentage tax system, the rich will still pay more than the poor. This reality shows that the supposed fairness of a flat tax is mostly based on arbitary standards. So what if you’d pay the same percentage as Joe the Janitor? The bottom line is that you’ll still be investing more money into the military, the roads, the schools, etc. than Joe who chips in mere pennies. Oh no, the horror!!! THE THIEVES ARE TAKING MY MONEY AT GUNPOINT!!!
Have you considered that a flat tax will result in more people being unable to support themselves, therefore needing more public services? We already have an alarmingly high percentage of citizens without healthcare insurance. Do you think a flat tax will help reduce or increase this number? With a rise in the uninsured, how much do you think this will cost the government? Is it worth it to make things more “fair” for the rich, who otherwise wouldn’t know the difference if they weren’t so busy being concerned about what Joe the Janitor was getting away with?
Why should all those hard-working rich people who live in modest single-family homes subsidize the cost of Donald Trump’s mansion going ablaze in flames? That’s not fair!!! stamps feet petulantly
Perhaps its even more workable if a flat-tax is not implemented. A sliding scale tax structure may not be perfect, but it is rooted in as much pragmatism as you think a flat tax is.
Actually, each person does not enjoy societal benefits equally.
A rich person who lives in a rich neighborhood will enjoy the benefits of regular trash collection, well-maintained parks, street cleaning, good public schools, clean air and water, and swift police action.
A poor person who lives in poor neighborhood will have, comparatively speaking, crappier streets, fewer parks, crappier public schools, more polluted air and water (we can’t put a factory on the good side of town!), and more questionable law enforcement.
A poor person is also more likely to utilize food stamps, public housing, public school, mass transit, and publically-subsized health care.
So no, we can reap different benefits of society, depending on our socioeconomic class.
Reading the quote above, one would easily get the impression that you’re for everyone paying the same amount in taxes, regardless of income. If you meant that we should play the same proportion, you should have said so from the beginning.
(I don’t agree that we should all pay the same proportion, at least when we’re talking about really poor people and really rich people. To a billionare, the loss of a million might be cause for anger or sadness, but lifestyle changes will most likely not occur. To someone making $10,000 a year, the loss of a hundred dollars might mean eviction from an apartment, a month without nutritious food, or walking five miles to work instead of taking the bus. The hardship is not proportional, even though the fiscal proportion is the same.
Why NOT, Bricker? Do you claim that claim that everything you are occured in a vacuum? You owe nothing back, save for what you choose to recognize?
Here’s the hard reality, Bricker, that principled conservatism used to recognize: nobody’s guaranteed anything, but a healthy society fosters possibilites, just as measure of good sense. Pious trappings and justifications are optional.
You–and nobody else–sprang into full flower from nuthin’, just by the sweat of your hard work, fervent conviction or earnest prayer. Whatever you’ve achieved-- right now, is the sum of what other people–society, other people–allowed and recognized. That isn’t an indictment; it’s a gift. And it applies to everybody. Or should.
Exclude that at your peril.
And some historical bits to add: thanks to the “Taxes to beat the axis” from the last century we had enough money to beat Hitler and then contain Communism, many previous rich guys and common folk sacrificed so you would have now your chance at riches, the current system now consists of “beat the axis on credit” so much for thinking about the future.
Personally, It just doesn’t feel like a pile on, not without me here. 
However, here, as in the last few weeks, I am haning back and seeing how other people deal with this issue.
I own, therefore I am. The existential foundation of moral bankruptcy.
You think Ayn Rand went to Heaven?
But, that’s arbitrary. If you believe that, in principle, there is a sense of fairness in the wealthier person paying a higher dollar, the concept of a flat % is inherently meaningless. There are infinite possibilities for choosing a tax % for the poor, the middle and the rich class. Why do you think everyone paying 10% “sounds fairier” than paying different percentages? Ultimately, we need to reach the optimal tax % function to keep societal services going and everyone reasonable happy, right?
Actually, Antiques Roadshow isn’t the issue and you know it. It’s NPR, the only widely available broadcast programming that isn’t either a conservative mouthpiece or an “abused spouse” medium that will only say “he said she said” in dealing with controversy. The Pubbies are trying to shut it down in an attempt to make their grip on broadcast media into something like a stranglehold. In doing so, they’ll be doing a grave disservice to the American civitas. Clearly, you do not care about that.