(10-20-2020, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm genuinely confused, here. It seriously seems like there is an argument for a plutocracy being made if we have a progressive tax structure.

One of the things not being said, here, is that an argument for a progressive tax structure is that those in higher income brackets often receive more in public benefits. I know, everyone likes to think of the "welfare queen" image, but there are studies that support the idea that higher earners tend to receive more in benefits from the government because of certain incentives, utilization of services, etc. Remember the "you didn't build that" comment that everyone took out of context? That was about this sort of thing. High earners often earn their wage with the help of public services, and taxes pay for that.

Anyway, we live in a democratic society, which means how much you pay in taxes is not supposed to impact your voice in government. I understand that our Gini coefficient is more like countries that are pay-to-play than it is like other western democracies, but that doesn't mean we should try to slip further in that direction.

(10-20-2020, 06:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, Matt, you lost ‘em at plutocracy.

(10-20-2020, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be fair I really cannot address what you said because of your "Semantics". It changes the whole meaning.

When you say person A should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes then you are placing a value on person A.

When you say person B should pay less of their income in taxes then you are placing a value on person B.

You judged neither.

(10-20-2020, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've honestly never understood the resistance to higher incomes paying a higher percentage.  IIRC you and I had a back and forth as I dislike a flat tax because 20% of 40k is far more significant to the person paying it than 20% of 2 million.  I think the back and forth here is one irrelevancy led to another and the discussion became the usual "I don't like you, you don't like me" back and forth.  I don't think a return to the high end tax rater of the past are an answer, there's just too many ways to funnel you money out of the country.  Closing up many of the loopholes, or limiting deductions for higher earners would go a long way towards amending that.

(10-20-2020, 06:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is ridiculous.

I can not have a serious conversation with anyone who claims that the ONLY definition of "to value" is assigning a monetary amount.

(10-20-2020, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bfine and I have gone head to head numerous times in the past, but I'd never accuse him of being stupid.

(10-20-2020, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've honestly never understood the resistance to higher incomes paying a higher percentage.  IIRC you and I had a back and forth as I dislike a flat tax because 20% of 40k is far more significant to the person paying it than 20% of 2 million.  I think the back and forth here is one irrelevancy led to another and the discussion became the usual "I don't like you, you don't like me" back and forth.  I don't think a return to the high end tax rater of the past are an answer, there's just too many ways to funnel you money out of the country.  Closing up many of the loopholes, or limiting deductions for higher earners would go a long way towards amending that.


Bfine and I have gone head to head numerous times in the past, but I'd never accuse him of being stupid.

(10-20-2020, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bfine and I have gone head to head numerous times in the past, but I'd never accuse him of being stupid.

(10-21-2020, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because it's not just 40k vs 2m... there's a lot of people in between those numbers and based off your local cost of living, $200k might actually not be much more of a lifestyle than $60k.

In San Fancisco, $200k will get you the same that $58,800 in Cincinnati does.
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/cincinnati-oh/200000

So if you charge the former much lower taxes than the latter, then the person making less is actually ending up with a better quality of living. A flat % is the best compromise to fairness and feasibility there is because it's also a matter of severely diminishing returns on services paid for. It's already iffy that 1 person should have to pitch in 10-20x more for the FBI or military than another if they're getting the same benefits from it. I only support a flat tax rate because I know that a flat tax amount is basically impossible to make functional.

That said, while I support a flat tax rate, I also support there being a certain amount you can make that is tax free before you even worry about a % and that being the ONLY deduction allowed in order to simplify federal tax laws. So say you make $50k/yr. The first $12k you make is ignored and then only the next $38k is taxed at the 10-15-20% (whatever works out as the reasonable flat amount). Which would protect the people 

It would help protect the people living near the poverty line while still making sure that everyone pitches in their fair share. The threshold of untaxed money would also be a pretty easy starting point for when (not if, but likely when) UBI starts becoming a needed thing. 

Also it would make it so average people can actually do their own federal taxes ($INCOMEk-$12k)x.2= Federal Taxes... no loopholes, no deductions, done. No need to hire people to do it for you, no need for the whole tax return system, no benefit for rich people with expensive accountants who know how to game the system. Pure simple simplicity.

Honestly the problem then would just be State taxes, which isn't exactly an easy thing to fix since you're going to end up with 50 different approaches. Maybe just encourage states to take the Florida approach of no state income taxes, just sales taxes?

(10-20-2020, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sorta like The Same and Exactly The Same

(10-21-2020, 11:31 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't know if I agree about UBI, but everything else I agree with. Like I said earlier, the arguments against a flat tax have not been enough to convince me. 

(10-21-2020, 11:45 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, I just think UBI will eventually become a thing that is needed. If we keep producing less and less in our country and automating more and more, it will soon become necessary to at least be able to boost lower tier jobs to at least poverty threshold levels and provide a low floor safety net for folks. They are even automating away grocery store and fast food jobs lately.

My support for future UBI is dependent upon two things. One, it not having open-ended increases for multiple children, so having more children for the money can't be a thing. Two, it replaces all the current support programs, taking dozens of various different government aid programs and consolidating it into just UBI.

Honestly I hadn't really given it a ton of thought before this election when I was listening to some stuff Yang said during the primaries.

(10-21-2020, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because it's not just 40k vs 2m... there's a lot of people in between those numbers and based off your local cost of living, $200k might actually not be much more of a lifestyle than $60k.

In San Fancisco, $200k will get you the same that $58,800 in Cincinnati does.
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/cincinnati-oh/200000

(10-21-2020, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because it's not just 40k vs 2m... there's a lot of people in between those numbers and based off your local cost of living, $200k might actually not be much more of a lifestyle than $60k.

In San Fancisco, $200k will get you the same that $58,800 in Cincinnati does.
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/cincinnati-oh/200000

So if you charge the former much lower taxes than the latter, then the person making less is actually ending up with a better quality of living. A flat % is the best compromise to fairness and feasibility there is because it's also a matter of severely diminishing returns on services paid for. It's already iffy that 1 person should have to pitch in 10-20x more for the FBI or military than another if they're getting the same benefits from it. I only support a flat tax rate because I know that a flat tax amount is basically impossible to make functional.

That said, while I support a flat tax rate, I also support there being a certain amount you can make that is tax free before you even worry about a % and that being the ONLY deduction allowed in order to simplify federal tax laws. So say you make $50k/yr. The first $12k you make is ignored and then only the next $38k is taxed at the 10-15-20% (whatever works out as the reasonable flat amount). Which would protect the people 

It would help protect the people living near the poverty line while still making sure that everyone pitches in their fair share. The threshold of untaxed money would also be a pretty easy starting point for when (not if, but likely when) UBI starts becoming a needed thing. 

Also it would make it so average people can actually do their own federal taxes ($INCOMEk-$12k)x.2= Federal Taxes... no loopholes, no deductions, done. No need to hire people to do it for you, no need for the whole tax return system, no benefit for rich people with expensive accountants who know how to game the system. Pure simple simplicity.

(10-21-2020, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly the problem then would just be State taxes, which isn't exactly an easy thing to fix since you're going to end up with 50 different approaches. Maybe just encourage states to take the Florida approach of no state income taxes, just sales taxes?

(10-21-2020, 11:49 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Shhhh, don't tell the others, but I think I'm starting to become in open to the idea of a national single-payer free healthcare system. They're taking almost $200 from my paycheck every 2 weeks for healthcare. If it wasn't for the child support. I wouldn't mind as much, but with child support, health care and taxes, my net pay is less than 50% of my gross pay (like 45% or something)!

(10-21-2020, 11:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My main problem with it? The government doesn't exactly have the best track record on running a medical system. Look at how they have handled the VA, and realize that's less than 10m people. Now imagine them trying to organize/run a health system for 330m people.

Everything gets more complicated as you add people and area.

I think the better route is to do a little crackdown on things like price gouging, overcharging the insurance, and medicine patent abuse.

(10-21-2020, 11:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My main problem with it? The government doesn't exactly have the best track record on running a medical system. Look at how they have handled the VA, and realize that's less than 10m people. Now imagine them trying to organize/run a health system for 330m people.

Everything gets more complicated as you add people and area.

I think the better route is to do a little crackdown on things like price gouging, overcharging the insurance, and medicine patent abuse.

(10-21-2020, 12:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're confusing single-payer with socialized medicine. Single-payer is Medicare for everyone, which Medicare is actually an efficiently run system. Socialized medicine is like the VA system or the NHS over in the UK. Two different ideas, and the latter isn't what is being advocated for.

(10-21-2020, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be fine with some form of universal health care, but would be vehemently opposed to such a system if it did not allow for private insurance.  I have excellent insurance, for life, and I'll be damned if I'm going to give that up so I can wait four months for a non-emergency surgery or doctor's visit.  I could call my physician and get an appointment today if needed.  You don't get that in a universal system.

(10-21-2020, 12:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a difference between "health insurance" and "health care providers".  I am guessing that if there was universal health care that covered most citizens there would be much fewer doctors that just dealt with private insurance companies.  Since your ability to get an appointment or a procedure would depend on the supply of doctors that only dealt with private insurance your waits may increase as fewer and fewer doctors only dealt with the small pool of private insurance clients.

Don't know for sure, but it seems like that is what would happen.  Fewer clients means fewer doctors which means longer waits.  But maybe there would still be the same doctor to client ratio if the number of doctors shrunk at the same rate as the number of clients.

An d if your excellent insurance is through your employer I am pretty sure you can kiss that goodbye if we have universal health care in the United Sates.  You would have to work for some high end private company to keep getting high-priced health insurance as a benefit.

(10-21-2020, 05:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of that makes sense, hence my general opposition to universal health care.  As to your last point, our health insurance is in our contract so you'd best believe it's not going anywhere without a major legal fight.

(10-21-2020, 08:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You damn unionized public employees!

I can say that because we can't have a union for our public employees, here.