Taxation II (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 16, 2024, 05:24:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Taxation II (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: which income tax would you prefer?
#1
progressive
 
#2
regressive
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 21

Author Topic: Taxation II  (Read 1816 times)
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« on: March 19, 2006, 09:40:13 AM »

Never said I support a regressive tax.  I think people who support progressive taxes are poor haters too, BTW.  Why keep the poor down by discouraging them to move to a higher bracket?

Wow, you're dumb.

You'd rather make $20,000 a year than $300,000 a year because of the tax bracket?  Of course not.  Nobody would, and no poor actually is 'discouraged' by moving to a higher income bracket just because their tax percentage will be higher.

The issue here, though, Boss Tweed, is that if incremental income is too highly taxed, people will not make the effort to reach that higher level of income, and potential economic production will have been lost.

Given Americans' obsession with work, that may not be such a bad thing.  But that is a larger question.

And since when have you started acting like Jfern, making personal attacks on people for no good reason?  Are you hung over this morning or something? Tongue
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2006, 10:58:39 AM »


Tax increments will never, ever reach a level in which who earn more money by earning less.

I hope that makes sense.

No, but the ADDITIONAL amount that they make over a lower earner, after taxes, may not be worth additional effort required to earn that additional money.

I hope that makes sense, though it may not to you since you're not terribly familiar with working.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2006, 11:07:04 AM »


Tax increments will never, ever reach a level in which who earn more money by earning less.

I hope that makes sense.

No, but the ADDITIONAL amount that they make over a lower earner, after taxes, may not be worth additional effort required to earn that additional money.

I hope that makes sense, though it may not to you since you're not terribly familiar with working.

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't see a progressive taxation system convincing people to make less money.

It's a matter of degree.  If it's mildly to moderately progressive, probably not.

But if it's steeply progressive -- such as a top marginal rate of 70% or more, as an example, then it very well might. 

Contrary to what people like opebo say, there is some relationship between earnings and how much effort you put into your career, and many people will ask why they should put that effort in with such a low return.

As I said earlier, in many cases, this would not be such a bad thing, since Americans are obsessed with work, and we think people should be ashamed if they're not busy or working every second.  That lifestyle is not for me.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2006, 12:54:21 PM »


I've never advocated a 70% top rate.  I think the highest bracker should be around 45%, 50% tops.

That makes you a Reagan conservative, at least in part.  Reagan and Congress took the top rate down initially from 70% to something like 50%.

Then, in the 1986 tax reform that eliminated a lot of deductions and tax shelters, he took the nominal marginal rate down to 28%.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 14 queries.