johnny_vegas: gar1013: johnny_vegas: Please it's only ~3.5%.  Don't cry for me.

Donate 1.5% of ALL your wealth and then get back to us.

That includes the value of your home equity, as well as any retirement accounts.

This just in....taxation is not a donation.  It's a cost of living in a society.

Okay, then flat taxes for all, like we do with most state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, and excise taxes. 

Either you believe taxation is the cost of living in a society and we should all pay the same rate, or you believe it's a donation whereby you request some people pay a higher rate than others.

The good thing about a flat tax, is nobody can say it's unfair. 10% of your income is 10% of your income - regardless if you make $1 or $1 million or $100 million.

StatelyGreekAutomaton: Given all the flat this and that you're advocating, what's next, flat income for all, comrade?

Why would I do that? I simply ask that the rich and the poor share equally in the burden of paying for society - if that is the reason why taxes exist. A rich man who pays $100,000 a year in taxes doesn't have 10x the benefits of someone who pays $10,000 a year in taxes. The police don't show up to his house 10x faster. The fire department doesn't respond 10x better. The garbage isn't picked up 10x more often, and the schools aren't 10x better.

If taxes are the cost of society, then we should pay for it on fair terms. A flat tax has proven time and time again to be fair for state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, Medicare taxes, and Social Security taxes. Why would it be such a horror show to have them be flat for federal income taxes? It's not like flat taxes aren't uncommon nor unprecedented in this country.

This is the problem with leftist ideology ... your platitudes breakdown at the fringes. 

If taxes are the price we pay for society, then everyone should pay an equal amount. If some people are asked to pay more, it only seems fair that they get a larger share of the benefits as well.

johnny_vegas: I don't see how that's relevant at all to the conversation.  I guess the Weeners would be 'why didn't they pay taxes?'

There is nothing wrong with asking why the poor shouldn't be paying taxes if taxes are the cost of society. Seems to me if they are using services, they should be paying for them.

Flat taxes work in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK just fine. If their healthcare systems are so great for everyone, why not their taxation systems?

Seems like you want all the things Europe has without the methods they use to pay for them.

StatelyGreekAutomaton: gar1013: Nonpo: Now all we need is a global alliance between governments to agree to tax the wealthy at a certain level so they can't just take their money elsewhere when a country tries this.

Why would they do that?

A country will benefit tremendously by NOT doing that and allowing capital to flow in, which is good for businesses and lowers the cost of goods and credit for consumers.

See also:  California's voters and politicians helping the Texan economy grow.

Why would a country institute prison labor laws?

A country will benefit tremendously by NOT doing that and allowing capital to flow in, which is good for businesses and lowers the cost of goods and credit for consumers.

Except the prisoners, I guess. But they can be replaced quickly enough.

--------

Your appeal to absurdity is only rebutted by the absurdity itself. The answer to your questions is because many countries have agreed to not use child labor - but certainly not all.

Many countries who are more agrarian and less modern, including the Amish here in the US, use child labor extensively without any great consternation.

trialpha: Wanderlusting: Either you believe taxation is the cost of living in a society and we should all pay the same rate, or you believe it's a donation whereby you request some people pay a higher rate than others.

The good thing about a flat tax, is nobody can say it's unfair. 10% of your income is 10% of your income - regardless if you make $1 or $1 million or $100 million.

Progressive taxes are perfectly fair. You pay the same taxes on the first 50k of your income as someone who only makes 50k.

And the reason progressive taxes exist is this: what percentage of your income goes towards necessities (food, housing, healthcare, etc.?) Now, what percentage of a poor person's income goes towards necessities?

The utility of money argument fails because our economic system doesn't determine the price of a roll of toilet paper or a hair cut or a Big Mac based on how much you earn.

Money is money. If someone poor wants to spend less of it on those things, they can eat Ramen noodles and live in Youngstown, Ohio if they don't want to spend all their money on rent.

iron de havilland: RTOGUY: Permanent Solutions For Permanent Problems: Wanderlusting: This is the problem with leftist ideology ... your platitudes breakdown at the fringes.
If taxes are the price we pay for society, then everyone should pay an equal amount. If some people are asked to pay more, it only seems fair that they get a larger share of the benefits as well.

Having substantially more than most others means you already have a larger share of the benefits.

I have a little business and according to the stats I'm making more than the average person. I'm also working 7 days a week so am I not entitled to more for my efforts or should I just work less to keep pace with everyone else?

I'd question your sanity. You don't want to take time off for family, or leisure?

You want to work yourself into the grave with no joy in your life?

I don't have any great advantages I don't think I'm particularly brilliant and didn't come from wealth but just through busting my ass I've managed to get just little bit further ahead and apparently that is now unfair. Anybody could duplicate what I've done but not everybody seems to want to try. There is however no shortage of people ready to tell me I don't deserve what I've built for myself.

Jesus, it sounds like you deserve better than what you have.

For some of us, amassing wealth is more important than leisure and gives us joy. It's horrifying to then have people stick their hands into my pockets saying I should pay for their failure to work by the same standards that have earned me the life I live.

To some of us, earning enough to live on passive investments is the end goal. Maybe you have different goals, but my goals are to retire before my children graduate from high school. I'm nearly there. These last few years has been a boon for my investments in real estate as working myself to the bone gave me the cash to buy in at the bottom of the recession in 2009 and buy in again in March of this year. While everyone else was pissing their pants, I quadrupled my money by being shrewd in my past. 

Remember - recessions are good for those who are prepared and terrible for those who aren't. I'd rather be the one prepared than the one in a panic.

Permanent Solutions For Permanent Problems: No, a flat tax treats everyone equally, which is unfair.

Why shouldn't tax treat everyone equally? Do you think our justice system should treat everyone equally? Do you think our educational system should treat everyone equally? Do you think our banking and lending system should treat everyone equally? 

How can you possibly make the argument that we should treat anyone unequally?

Permanent Solutions For Permanent Problems: Exemptions that mostly benefit the rich.

Except for the child tax credit, education tax credits, EITC, mortgage interest deductions, alternative fuel automotive tax credits, etc. 

Stop with the "woe is me" spiel because it's arguably false. Last time I checked, I've never gotten more from the government than I've paid in, like most low-income earners claiming the EITC get. Almost 27 million households get money back from the government ... for what ... a handout paid for by the rest of us?

StatelyGreekAutomaton: I disagree with your examples. Rich people generally do get much better treatment than poor, even if in theory they are offered the same protections. That said you're going to have a hard time telling me that someone who's made a fortune off of shipping hasn't benefited more from infrastructure investment than the average person.

I'm willing to bet someone who does a lot of shipping pays more in fuel taxes than you. Which is the point. If you use the roads more, you use more fuel, so you need to contribute more. Incidentally, this is why leftists get all pissy when states pass laws to increase the taxes on electric cars because they aren't contributing ANYTHING to the roadways on which they drive.

gar1013: Nonpo: Now all we need is a global alliance between governments to agree to tax the wealthy at a certain level so they can't just take their money elsewhere when a country tries this.

Why would they do that?

A country will benefit tremendously by NOT doing that and allowing capital to flow in, which is good for businesses and lowers the cost of goods and credit for consumers.

See also:  California's voters and politicians helping the Texan economy grow.

See also: California passing Prop 13 in order to artificially cap property tax rates and attract people to live in their leftist hell hole. I wonder how many people would flee the state if they paid property taxes more commensurate to the rest of the country?

KungFuJunkie: What would that buy in the US?

According to the latest Fed data, the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion

The problem is, almost ALL of that is contained in illiquid assets - most of which only have value to other people who are ultra rich.

I've used this example before, but take Bill Gates' home in Medina, Washington. On paper, it's worth about $200 million. To anyone else, it's just a bunch of worthless sticks, bricks, glass, and drywall which requires thousands of hours of maintenance and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of upkeep.

Similar to what happened when banks started foreclosing on homes in 2008, it doesn't take much to become obscenely illiquid when it comes to assets. Yachts, high end cars, expensive homes, luxurious appliances, and stocks are all worthless in the context of converting them to a liquid instrument and doing work with them. Nobody is going to thank the government for giving them a $250,000 buffet from Bill Gates. It doesn't keep the lights on, it doesn't heat your home, it doesn't keep you fed, and it certainly doesn't help pay medical bills.

When people say, hey, let's just take some of the trillions of dollars that the rich have ignore that most of that is utterly worthless to anyone BUT the super rich. 

Tell me, if you're hungry, how is a piece of paper saying you own what used to be $1 million worth of Amazon (and is now worthless due to the process of seizing it) going to fill your belly?