Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

[monolith94]

David Floyd, you've got a heart of gold. My your bed always be too hot for sex and your chicken too cold to be tasty, may your children need braces and your house always leak.

[Al B. Sure!]

i dont know obi-wan... there's a billion muslims who would disagree and say that jesus never claimed to be God but that was added in by paul and others...

[David Floyd]

David Floyd, you've got a heart of gold. My your bed always be too hot for sex and your chicken too cold to be tasty, may your children need braces and your house always leak.

We aren't talking about whether or not I would voluntarily give, but whether or not I should be forced to give. If you don't think I would help out others in need, then you should probably ask those who have met me what they think - I'm inclined to think that those people would believe that I would.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

And you have a medical degree? Do you understand what the word "hypothetical" means? A "hypothetical" tax rate doesn't need to be the actual tax rate, just hypothetical. Besides, this was what Al Sharpton was advocating - a %50 tax rate for rich people, so the "hypothetical" is relevant once he defines "rich" to include people making $100,000. Furthermore, you obviously missed the symbol ~ which means "about" or "roughly". And you're wrong anyway, Federal, state, and local taxes are ~ %50 on most "rich" people now if not more.

edit: And Sharpton wants that %50 tax rate to be the federal income tax rate, so that doesn't even include state and local taxes, federal sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc...

Where in your first post do you actually say that Al Sharpton proposed this particular tax rate?

The current maximum Federal tax rate is 37.5%. The state tax rate is 5%. Localities don't tax income. This doesn't add up to 50%.

Oh, and did you see the comma in between the words "bogus" and "hypothetical"?

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by reds4ever


Not to a socialist

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

$0 - $5000 - you pay no tax
5,000 -15000 - you pay 15% tax
$15000 - $30000 - you pay 20%
$30000 - $60000 - you pay 35%
$60000 + you pay 50%

totally arbritary figures, but you get the gist?

Welcome to Europe!

[DanS]

The current maximum Federal tax rate is 37.5%. The state tax rate is 5%. Localities don't tax income. This doesn't add up to 50%.

Some localities do tax income. Maryland and DC do it, for instance. For DC, it's about 50% of the federal income tax, IIRC.

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

Where in your first post do you actually say that Al Sharpton proposed this particular tax rate?

I didn't, the point of the thread was to call attention to the hypocrisy of liberals who say the "rich" need to pay even more in taxes to match their "share" while everyone else pays lower rates and far less in taxes (i.e., why is everyone else's "share" so much less?). But my following comment about paying $50,000 out of an income of $100,000 does reflect the rate Sharpton advocates.

The current maximum Federal tax rate is 37.5%. The state tax rate is 5%. Localities don't tax income. This doesn't add up to 50%.

That's nice, but you're ignoring payroll, sales, property, and umpteen other taxes we already have. Sharpton wants the federal income tax bumped to %50 for "rich" people, and we know when a liberal democrat starts defining "rich", it'll include a bunch of middle class people because there aren't enough rich people to pay for what they want.

Oh, and did you see the comma in between the words "bogus" and "hypothetical"?

Yes, "bogus" describes your perception of this "hypothetical situation" you claim I offered. So what's your point? How can a "hypothetical" situation qualify as "bogus", especially when the "hypothetical" reflects reality now? Even your numbers add up to %50 when you throw in the payroll tax, and above %50 for the self-employed. Throw in all the other taxes if you don't consider the payroll tax an actual tax and the "rich" are already paying ~%50 if not more.

[Felch]

You need to calm down your libertarian extremism with a recognition of the destabilizing impact this sort of tax structure would cause.

Remember, first and foremost, that people are only willing to pay what they think is fair. Someone who derives little or no real benefit from the government (poor schools, worse policing, etc.) is not willing to pay 10% of their income to the state. People who derive a great deal of benefit, insured bank accounts, regulated stock market, polce protection of property, government contracts for their business, et cetera, are willing to pay whatever it takes to reasonably provide these services.

The problem arises because people who are poor and feel that their lot in life is bad are more willing to take extreme actions to change their position. Progressive taxes and a minimal welfare state provide the outlet for anger and resentment that prevents it from festering into Marxism.

The trick is to keep taxation at a local level, where people can be better sure that the money they pay is being used properly, and is not merely financing a new horde of government paper-pushers. If you really want to reform the federal tax code force the national government to derive its money from the states. Then the states will realize that the feds are just a sow that all the little porkers suck at for nickels and dimes, and they, the states, will enforce a limited national government.

Localizing government is the best way to limit it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

Yes, "bogus" describes your perception of this "hypothetical situation" you claim I offered. So what's your point? How can a "hypothetical" situation qualify as "bogus", especially when the "hypothetical" reflects reality now? Even your numbers add up to %50 when you throw in the payroll tax, and above %50 for the self-employed. Throw in all the other taxes if you don't consider the payroll tax an actual tax and the "rich" are already paying ~%50 if not more.

The payroll tax has a maximum, so the more you make, the proportionally less you pay.

Anyway, I'm in no danger of making it to the $100,000/year bracket, because the bulk of the people I see are Sharpton's folks. You see, Medicaid and Medicare have this nasty habit of balancing their budget by taking five-fingered discounts from the people who provide services to them. They can even retroactively change the fees they pay for services and exact a refund from their providers. So let me tell you buddy, if you think you're going to get any sympathy from me, you're sadly mistaken.

[Berzerker]

Progressive taxes and a minimal welfare state provide the outlet for anger and resentment that prevents it from festering into Marxism.

In other words, let them steal some so they won't steal it all.

Strangelove -

The payroll tax has a maximum, so the more you make, the proportionally less you pay.

That max is ~$65,000, so someone making $100,000 will still get nailed with most of the tax.

Anyway, I'm in no danger of making it to the $100,000/year bracket, because the bulk of the people I see are Sharpton's folks.

And you plan on making less than that for the rest of your life?
I don't base my ideas about taxes on what I or you make, but on what is moral. You apparently base your ideas on not being one of the people getting screwed.

You see, Medicaid and Medicare have this nasty habit of balancing their budget by taking five-fingered discounts from the people who provide services to them. They can even retroactively change the fees they pay for services and exact a refund from their providers.

And then the medical profession tries to make up for that loss by over-charging the people who do pay; I do see, I understand what socialised medicine in one sector of the economy does to the marketplace.

So let me tell you buddy, if you think you're going to get any sympathy from me, you're sadly mistaken.

That's a weird comment, you complain about what Medicare and Medicaid are doing to your profession and think I'm asking for your sympathy? Btw, why do you keep avoiding questions?

[Adam Smith]

I don't think much of Sharpton's argument that rich people have benefitted more from government services and therefore need to pay their "fair" share. The government provides public goods which everyone has access to - national defense, clean air, court system, etc. . But differences in outcomes have to depend on differences in inputs. That leaves things like amount of work, education, and luck. If luck had a big effect, there would be little or no relation between work, education, and earnings. If the amount of work matters it is hard to see how anyone could object to the result. If the complaint is about access to education, then Sharpton should have talked about that, not about the "fair" share of taxes.

All that said, I think you can make a pretty good economic case for a progressive income tax. People tend to work less as their income rises because leisure becomes increasingly valuable. This results in an inelastic or even backward bending supply of labor. By taxing higher earners at higher rates a progressive income tax causes less loss in the amount of time people are willing to work. The converse of this is that we should adopt a negative income tax for low income workers to encourage them to work.

There are several long run considerations. If taxes are high enough people are less likely to enter high income professions or take additional risks. Why give up years of income to go through medical school if you won't earn anything more? Why launch a new product if you could spend the time sitting on the beach? In the long run skilled workers might also emigrate. (England's famously confiscatory tax rates caused the Beatles to flee the country. "Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me...") Despite Arthur Laffer's unsupported claims, it does not appear that we are at this point in the US. Progressive taxes might also be seen as a remedy for economically harmful wealth transfers such as gains from insider trading. But in this case the best approach is to fix the root problem, rather than rely on the tax system to help even accounts.

edit: typos

[Berzerker]

Adam -

I think you can make a pretty good economic case for a progressive income tax. People tend to work less as their income rises because leisure becomes increasingly valuable.

Do you think the role of government is to coercively reduce leisure time and increase labor?

This results in an inelastic or even backward bending supply of labor. By taxing higher earners at higher rates a progressive income tax causes less loss in the amount of time people are willing to work.

Not when that "progressive" tax system exists to create a welfare state (and that is why we have progressive taxes). We see generational welfare for a number of reasons, but it exists primarily because people are paid to sit back and not work. Besides, if I make millions and go off to Tahiti, the loss of my labor is meaningless since my money stays behind in the economy producing jobs, etc.

The converse of this is that we should adopt a negative income tax for low income workers to encourage them to work.

Stop paying them to have babies and watch Oprah and that'll encourage them to work.

Progressive taxes might also be seen as a remedy for economically harmful wealth transfers such as gains from insider trading. But in this case the best approach is to fix the root problem, rather than rely on the tax system to help even accounts.

Yes, why punish the innocent because of the guilty?

[Verto]

It seems that the 'liberals' have these basic views.

1.) They know what the rich can and should pay in taxes.

2.) The wealthy should be punished for having succeeded in a free economy.

3.) It is not about the government existing on the amount of funds the American people feel it deserves. It is about the American people paying enough taxes to keep government afloat.

I give a to the idea of a flat tax.

[Berzerker]

It is not about the government existing on the amount of funds the American people feel it deserves. It is about the American people paying enough taxes to keep government afloat.

Yes, 2 ways of looking at government:

1) People deserve the government they are willing to pay for.
2) People "deserve" the government they can force others to pay for.

To me, 1) is right wing and 2) is left wing.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


In other words, let them steal some so they won't steal it all.

Strangelove -

That max is ~$65,000, so someone making $100,000 will still get nailed with most of the tax.

Yes, but if you make 5 million the payroll tax is peanuts.

And you plan on making less than that for the rest of your life?
I don't base my ideas about taxes on what I or you make, but on what is moral. You apparently base your ideas on not being one of the people getting screwed.

Medical ethics dictates that I can't abandon people just because they change from private insurance to public. In some instances that would be virtually manslaughter. Even if that weren't the case I would not refuse to treat a person based on the type of insurance they have. Can you understand that?

And then the medical profession tries to make up for that loss by over-charging the people who do pay; I do see, I understand what socialised medicine in one sector of the economy does to the marketplace.

Well, I can't ask my office staff to work for free, can I? Anyway I don't think I overcharge, particularly when you consider what lawyers ask for an hour's work.

That's a weird comment, you complain about what Medicare and Medicaid are doing to your profession and think I'm asking for your sympathy?

No, you complain about the progressive tax rate, then I inform you of the burden the government places on one particular group that provides services to them. The progressive tax is at least distributed and legally mandated. The retroactive fee adjustments enforced by Medicare are focused on one small group, and probably have no legal precident.

Btw, why do you keep avoiding questions?

I have a life.