For kicks and giggles

Please respond with an answer as I am not trying to debate; I only want an answer to this question:

I watched an interview on the youtube with Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders. The most interesting aspect is that they agree on a few issues. It should be noted, however, that they both have different ideas on how to address these issues.

The question of income disparity came up. Sanders’ belief is that the wealthy should be taxed as high as 90%, with the middle and lower classes to be taxed at a far lower percentage rate, and loopholes removed. Carson believes in a Fair Tax, wherein everyone be taxed at 10% of their overall income with no other taxes.

My husband says neither will ever happen as it would put too many govt. employees out of work. But if the US were to repurpose the IRS insofar as the employees merely sorted an individual’s income into say, 3% local, 3% state, 4% Ceasar, er, federal, and eliminate all other taxes and loopholes; this could work.

The Question: Imagine that you won a $1-million lottery. Now you are very wealthy, but that is not fair, so you must give 90% of your earnings to the govt. because they know how best to handle your newfound wealth. You should be very happy because the $100,000 you’re left with is just as good as $1million, right?

Now, pretend your neighbor makes $100,000 a year, so he must pay only 1% as that is what is fair. Now he has $99,000 and he is happy because this is fair.

On the other hand, if you both paid 10% of your earnings, you are left with $900,000, and your neighbor is left with $90,000.

Which of these in your mind is fair?

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “For kicks and giggles

  1. ‘Fair’ is a subjective notion. What is ‘fair’ to you will not be ‘fair’ to everyone else. Thus, this is a questiuon designed to fail from the get-go.

    The real question is (or should be):

    WHAT IS JUST?

    In that case, ONLY that which applies equally to ALL is just. If you tax a millionaire differently than the homeless, that is NOT equal treatment. Therefore, the ‘Progressive’ tax rate is UNJUST!

    There are only 2 just systems of taxation: flat rate based on all forms of income (which will include the many ways the wealthy shield themselves from ‘income’ taxes) OR a pure consumption tax, which is totally voluntary. Anything other than these two systems is — by definition — UNJUST.

  2. When a third party (government, composed of not-exactly-disinterested people) collects and spends the tax money, and can use it to prolong their positions of power, ‘fair’ is not a useful concept. Plucking the goose so as to obtain the maximum amount of down with a minimum of flapping and hissing is the useful concept. For your example, Sanders will do greater damage to the economy and the free-enterprise system which requires rewards as a stimulus for effort. Punishing those who can hire people and create new jobs and better products is a guaranteed loser. What you punish, you will get less of.

  3. I would favor a consumption tax instead of an income tax. If nearly everything that was purchased was taxed at the same rate for all buyers, I feel we could all pay our fair share. Certain items that we all need to purchase like food could be exempt. As an example of the fairness using 10% as the rate: If a rich person buys a $75,000 automobile and paid $7,500 in tax and a much poorer person bought a $7,500 auto and paid $750 , both have contributed but the rich obviously paid much more. And if a really rich person bought a $500,000 vehicle and paid $50,000 in taxes or a really poor person spent $1000 on a car and paid only $100 in taxes it would strike me as fair. If this was set up where it didn’t require more than a meager amount of the Gov. employees working for the IRS, it would be even better. However, Kells’ husband is correct, anything that reduces the number of Gov. workers has about the same chance of happening as the Senate and House lowering their incomes and perks.

    • Dusty,

      Just keep in mind that the danger in both systems is that they will just keep increasing the income tax/sales tax rate. Europe already has a 20%+ VAT. Add 20% to costs in this country and we will kill the economy as surely as Sanders would.

      • I agree and understand your point, but I still feel it would be far better and fairer than what we have now. I would rather pay 20% extra on all my PURCHASES than a way higher percentage on all my INCOME.

        • Agreed, but the bankers and corporations — which are founded on a consumer/debt-driven economy — will NEVER allow such a thing, and neither will the politicians who depend on bribing the mouchers so they can stay in office.

  4. To answer : The second is fair…. equality under the law. 10 % for everyone.
    As everyone has the chance to earn more or become “lucky” in the lottery.

    What we have now is a progressive income tax. A Progressive income tax is one of the Classic planks of Marxism/Leninism….for the purpose of attacking and dividing via class.

    And Constitutionally there is not supposed to be ANY capitation tax…. that is No tax on your labor. So the income tax is unConstitutional. Which is why they had to fraudulently pass ithe 16th Amendment in the Night during Christmas in 1913.

  5. This is a conservative site, so I expected the answers, but also respected the logic behind them. Now then, believe it or not, some folks on the FB were perfectly happy having the govt. take away 90% of their earnings. Interesting……and disturbing……

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s