Master of Ossus rants about American IncomeTax

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry. You are an idiot. Next time, back up your fucking assumptions.

I make roughly $35,000 in gross income per year.

According to my W-2 from last year, I paid ~7,000 in income taxes that were withheld from my paycheck. Of those, I received only $1,500 back in refunds. That makes my total taxes approximately $5,500. The State haul from that was only about 10%, meaning that my federal taxes were about 5,000.

Therefore, my federal income tax percentage is a lovely 14.5%.

Don't even dare to say that we aren't paying our fair share, you smug asshole. It's hard enough for us to live on what we get paid. Any additional tax hikes would, frankly, be crippling.

But you, nonetheless, expect other Americans to suffer a 10% reduction in their post-tax income as if it's nothing? And, moreover, if you think your taxes are so high, then why not blame the 39+% of Americans who pay nothing at all? Those are the ones that I don't think are paying their share. Three guesses what part of the income structure they fall under.

When you say "paying their share", that is an appeal to some kind of standard of fairness. But how would you determine what is a "fair" share to pay?

We're both adults; I think we both know that it's much easier for someone who is already middle or upper middle class to make money than it is for someone who is poor. That's the thing about our economic system: it takes money to make money, thus making an almost exponential curve. Let's stop pretending otherwise, shall we? So as long as we admit this, why don't we concede that flattening the tax code would actually be unfair, in the sense that a poor person has to work much harder for each dollar than you or I? Or the fact that a 10% drop to your income or mine would result in less luxury, not a significant increase in our offspring's infant mortality rate?

The reason communism failed was its attempt to completely eliminate monetary incentive for work. But that incentive does not have to be a straight y=x linear curve either; it just needs to maintain a slope greater than zero.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think you see "their share" the same way as the rest of us, Ossus. Are they paying the same percent of their income? No. Can the fairness and justice of the entire tax structure be boiled down to a constant percent of income? Most of us would again answer no.

You seem to believe that the answer to that question is yes. I'm glad you're in the minority.

Look, I'm sorry, but if someone's not paying any income tax WHATSOEVER and is making 5 figures, they're not paying their fair share. We can debate whether they should be paying $5, $100, $1000, etc., but the argument that their fair share is ZERO is ridiculous.

[Edi]

Right. Thread HoSed.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think you see "their share" the same way as the rest of us, Ossus. Are they paying the same percent of their income? No. Can the fairness and justice of the entire tax structure be boiled down to a constant percent of income? Most of us would again answer no.

You seem to believe that the answer to that question is yes. I'm glad you're in the minority.

Look, I'm sorry, but if someone's not paying any income tax WHATSOEVER and is making 5 figures, they're not paying their fair share. We can debate whether they should be paying $5, $100, $1000, etc., but the argument that their fair share is ZERO is ridiculous.

Can you explain why it's clearly "unfair" and "ridiculous" with some kind of reasoned argument, rather than simply throwing more perjorative adjectives at it? Kindly explain the premises you're using here, and the reasoning you're using to arrive at your conclusions. I think Erik nailed your premises on the head: you seem to be assuming that fairness is a flat tax rate, and then using the deviation from that standard as proof of unfairness. Why should anyone else adopt that premise?

[Edi]

Locked pending split and merge to get the tax discussion into one place. Post any replies into the already split thread.

[Darth Wong]

Lcoked pending split and merge to get the tax discussion into one place.

I moved it back to N&P. I thought we had agreed that we were overusing the HOS.

[Master of Ossus]

When you say "paying their share", that is an appeal to some kind of standard of fairness. But how would you determine what is a "fair" share to pay?

We're both adults; I think we both know that it's much easier for someone who is already middle or upper middle class to make money than it is for someone who is poor. That's the thing about our economic system: it takes money to make money, thus making an almost exponential curve. Let's stop pretending otherwise, shall we? So as long as we admit this, why don't we concede that flattening the tax code would actually be unfair, in the sense that a poor person has to work much harder for each dollar than you or I? Or the fact that a 10% drop to your income or mine would result in less luxury, not a significant increase in our offspring's infant mortality rate?

The reason communism failed was its attempt to completely eliminate monetary incentive for work. But that incentive does not have to be a straight linear curve either; it just needs to maintain a slope greater than zero.

I have no problem with some progressivity built into an income tax structure--I think that in aggregate the current system that we have is about right, but I can understand that other people could think it should be more or less progressive. I have a problem, though, with people making 5 figure salaries paying ZERO--whatever you think is their fair share, I don't think it's reasonable to argue it's zero for someone in that boat.

[Darth Wong]

In meager defense of Ossus, I would go back to a true pre-Reagan income tax system, because yes, making 200,000 means you're relatively well-off, but what if you have 4 kids and live in many parts of California or New York?

Don't have 4 kids. Having large families is not a right. If you can't afford it don't do it.

That's a fair enough argument except that if it's applied to the current situation, some might conclude that only the wealthy should have any kids at all.

[Darth Wong]

I have no problem with some progressivity built into an income tax structure--I think that in aggregate the current system that we have is about right, but I can understand that other people could think it should be more or less progressive. I have a problem, though, with people making 5 figure salaries paying ZERO--whatever you think is their fair share, I don't think it's reasonable to argue it's zero for someone in that boat.

"Five figure salary" ranges from $10000 to $99999; that's a pretty huge range of lifestyles.

[Edi]

Sorry. Meant to move it back. Should have posted that.

[Master of Ossus]

Can you explain why it's clearly "unfair" and "ridiculous" with some kind of reasoned argument, rather than simply throwing more perjorative adjectives at it? Kindly explain the premises you're using here, and the reasoning you're using to arrive at your conclusions. I think Erik nailed your premises on the head: you seem to be assuming that fairness is a flat tax rate, and then using the deviation from that standard as proof of unfairness. Why should anyone else adopt that premise?

I think the premise is that we can observe people who are making 5 figure salaries, and can observe that if and when they lose relatively small amounts of money (say, $5) accidentally, their lives are not significantly impaired, nor do they feel as if their lives have been degraded by the loss of such token amounts of money. Therefore, we know that they can afford to lose such sums without feeling any significant burden, and can therefore be reasonably expected to give up such sums of money in taxes.

This is particularly true given that the government requires some level of taxes to support its services, and in aggregate there are people who are paying such high amounts of money in taxes that it does materially affect their standard of living and does create a noticeable burden.

If we believe that the tax code should involve some level of "spreading the pain" (since the government needs tax revenues), we should therefore place marginal taxes on people who currently feel no burden whatsoever and who we can, through observation, reasonably expect their lives to remain materially equivalent even if they paid some additional paltry amount.

[Master of Ossus]

"Five figure salary" ranges from $10000 to $99999; that's a pretty huge range of lifestyles.

Take the original $30,000, then. I have difficulty conceiving of someone with such a high income who would be so materially affected by a $5 increase in their tax burden that their lifestyle would be altered because it. Given that many, many Americans DO face altered lifestyles because of their current tax burdens, we should distribute taxes such that they affect people who currently have no burden and who would not likely be affected by such a small increase.

[erik_t]

I have no problem with some progressivity built into an income tax structure--I think that in aggregate the current system that we have is about right, but I can understand that other people could think it should be more or less progressive. I have a problem, though, with people making 5 figure salaries paying ZERO--whatever you think is their fair share, I don't think it's reasonable to argue it's zero for someone in that boat.

"Five figure salary" ranges from $10000 to $99999; that's a pretty huge range of lifestyles.

Quite right. For a single adult, a monthly salary of <=$1100 is qualification for food stamps in the state of Minnesota.

I think it's very difficult to rationally argue that people receiving government assistance should pay any income taxes - you'll just have to give them the money back in another form, at the cost of additional bureaucracy. Whether that assistance should be given is another argument.

[Broomstick]

They aren't excluded from the tax base. Even the poorest American pays tax every time they buy something, every time they put gas in the car, and so on. Even if I don't make enough this year to pay Federal income I still have to pay social security tax. There are state taxes I have to worry about, too. So no, poor people are NOT excluded from the tax base. Nor do all government services comes from the Federal government - for example, the subsidy that helps me pay for my health insurance is funded by my STATE, not the Feds, so state taxes contribute to that, not the Federal income tax.

You haven't got a leg to stand on, MoO.

So... why does this mean that it's okay for you to not have to pay Federal income tax? If anything, this just damages your cause even further--you're obviously paying other taxes, so what makes paying income tax so objectionable that we can't POSSIBLY increase (or even keep the same) the federal income tax for those who are making more than you are with the same deductions?

I do pay Federal taxes on my income - just not as many as you do. For that matter, I have other tax breaks on the state level as well.

Why? Because it takes a higher percentage of a poor person's income to pay for basic necessities, and society has decided that poor people should pay less of some taxes than rich people should. Also, because it is in the interest of society that children be raised in a healthy manner and educated ALL of us are asked to subsidize children to some extent. For example, some of my tax money (both direct and indirect, as the property taxes I pay are indirect, through my rent via my landlord) goes to support the public school system although I have no children at all. I could bitch about the unfairness of it all, or realize that it is in my interest that ALL children receive a certain minimum of education and I pay for some of it.

If someone took 50% of the income of someone making, say, $100,000 a year in taxes that would leave them with $50,000, which they most certainly could live on. I could understand they wouldn't be happy about it, but they would NOT be left destitute. If, however, you take 50% of the income of someone making $10,000 a year they would be homeless and starving, unable to pay for even basic adequate food, shelter and clothing. THAT's why it's morally bankrupt to tax the very poor as much as the very rich. I'm sorry you don't understand that - you never struck me as being a moron before.

[Edi]

Sorry about the scizophrenic thread management there. Still a bit of learning on managing active topics. Split the infra and tax discussions and merged them so that things are or should be in the appropriate threads now and they're all in N&P since it's not just a flamewar.

[Vehrec]

Don't have 4 kids. Having large families is not a right. If you can't afford it don't do it.

Well, that certainly cuts both ways.

That's a bit vague, don't you think? I mean that could be interpreted as 'life is expensive, if you can't afford to live it and pay up to everyone who comes a knocking, die.'

There are lots of activities that are favored under the tax code, but frankly I have a difficult time conceiving of why someone (kids or not) who's making $20k can't possibly afford to pay .025% of their annual income to run government services seems absurd. Yeah, they're getting deductions that were put into the Code because Congress presumably wanted to recognize certain expenses, but in aggregate it's ridiculous to totally exclude these people from the tax base.

Maybe, just maybe, .025% of 20k isn't enough to justify grabbing it? I mean, maybe the reason that people with almost nothing don't get taxed as heavily and can manage to occasionally get away with paying nothing at all is because they make so little in the first place that one or two deductions cancel their entire income tax?

Take the original $30,000, then. I have difficulty conceiving of someone with such a high income who would be so materially affected by a $5 increase in their tax burden that their lifestyle would be altered because it. Given that many, many Americans DO face altered lifestyles because of their current tax burdens, we should distribute taxes such that they affect people who currently have no burden and who would not likely be affected by such a small increase.

So while you agree that $5 is not much to someone with 30,000 dollars income, it should somehow be significant to the US government? Even in aggregate, even if we have 10 million people paying $1000 more, that's a meager 10 Billion, a drop in the national bucket.

[erik_t]

"Five figure salary" ranges from $10000 to $99999; that's a pretty huge range of lifestyles.

Take the original $30,000, then. I have difficulty conceiving of someone with such a high income who would be so materially affected by a $5 increase in their tax burden that their lifestyle would be altered because it. Given that many, many Americans DO face altered lifestyles because of their current tax burdens, we should distribute taxes such that they affect people who currently have no burden and who would not likely be affected by such a small increase.

Would a five-dollar increase for all folks in that 30k bracket offset the loss of income from your many, many Americans who won't be additionally affected in your scheme? Otherwise it's a pretty worthless topic of discussion. A one cent increase won't affect people's way of life either.

[aerius]

That's a fair enough argument except that if it's applied to the current situation, some might conclude that only the wealthy should have any kids at all.

True enough. But there's enough people I know who are struggling to raise the kids they already have, and they plan to have more kids even though they can't afford it. My wife's parents had the income to raise 3 kids which they did, mine didn't, and if they tried our lives would've been shit. That's part of why I'm an only child, the other part being raising me was enough of a pain in the ass.

[Master of Ossus]

Quite right. For a single adult, a monthly salary of <=$1100 is qualification for food stamps in the state of Minnesota.

I think it's very difficult to rationally argue that people receiving government assistance should pay any income taxes - you'll just have to give them the money back in another form, at the cost of additional bureaucracy. Whether that assistance should be given is another argument.

Virtually everyone qualifies for some form of government assistance, though, at this same cost of additional bureaucracy, because society and the government have decided that certain expenditures should be highly favored. For example, a government grant program for higher education and research can be given to professional researchers and can reasonably include a stipend, even though that person may have other income and may be paying taxes. While your system has some intuitive appeal, in practice it would be extremely difficult to draw such a line.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In meager defense of Ossus, I would go back to a true pre-Reagan income tax system, because yes, making 200,000 means you're relatively well-off, but what if you have 4 kids and live in many parts of California or New York?

Don't have 4 kids. Having large families is not a right. If you can't afford it don't do it.

Well yeah. I would prefer that everyone have 2 kids or less, except for smart/responsible people, who I'd prefer started breeding out the stupid and generationally fucked up, who I wish would have 0 kids. The trick is having children be successfully raised and become productive citizens while not subsidizing people having extra ones.

[Darth Wong]

That's a fair enough argument except that if it's applied to the current situation, some might conclude that only the wealthy should have any kids at all.

True enough. But there's enough people I know who are struggling to raise the kids they already have, and they plan to have more kids even though they can't afford it. My wife's parents had the income to raise 3 kids which they did, mine didn't, and if they tried our lives would've been shit. That's part of why I'm an only child, the other part being raising me was enough of a pain in the ass.

True. It is one of the great dilemmas of social policy and ethics: how to discourage socially harmful behaviour such as trailer-park rapid-fire baby-spawning while also being compassionate to the innocent, such as children who are born to families who can't afford to raise them?

[Master of Ossus]

If someone took 50% of the income of someone making, say, $100,000 a year in taxes that would leave them with $50,000, which they most certainly could live on. I could understand they wouldn't be happy about it, but they would NOT be left destitute. If, however, you take 50% of the income of someone making $10,000 a year they would be homeless and starving, unable to pay for even basic adequate food, shelter and clothing. THAT's why it's morally bankrupt to tax the very poor as much as the very rich. I'm sorry you don't understand that - you never struck me as being a moron before.

So are you actually going to stop strawmanning and answer the real question: why are people making $20k or $30k paying nothing, and is that consistent with your model of taxation and shared tax burden for educating children and making sure people are healthy?

[Surlethe]

Quite right. For a single adult, a monthly salary of <=$1100 is qualification for food stamps in the state of Minnesota.

I think it's very difficult to rationally argue that people receiving government assistance should pay any income taxes - you'll just have to give them the money back in another form, at the cost of additional bureaucracy. Whether that assistance should be given is another argument.

Virtually everyone qualifies for some form of government assistance, though, at this same cost of additional bureaucracy, because society and the government have decided that certain expenditures should be highly favored. For example, a government grant program for higher education and research can be given to professional researchers and can reasonably include a stipend, even though that person may have other income and may be paying taxes. While your system has some intuitive appeal, in practice it would be extremely difficult to draw such a line.

Just because it's difficult in practice to draw a line doesn't mean we should avoid his system entirely; dismissing it on the basis that it's not black and white enough seems to be a sort of black-and-white fallacy.

[erik_t]

Quite right. For a single adult, a monthly salary of <=$1100 is qualification for food stamps in the state of Minnesota.

I think it's very difficult to rationally argue that people receiving government assistance should pay any income taxes - you'll just have to give them the money back in another form, at the cost of additional bureaucracy. Whether that assistance should be given is another argument.

Virtually everyone qualifies for some form of government assistance, though, at this same cost of additional bureaucracy, because society and the government have decided that certain expenditures should be highly favored. For example, a government grant program for higher education and research can be given to professional researchers and can reasonably include a stipend, even though that person may have other income and may be paying taxes. While your system has some intuitive appeal, in practice it would be extremely difficult to draw such a line.

That's a good point. To clarify, I'm not saying that the current system in that tax bracket range should necessarily be changed; I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic. It was mostly a frustration with your too-vague "five figure" comment, which means this sub-topic of discussion can die.

[Master of Ossus]

Would a five-dollar increase for all folks in that 30k bracket offset the loss of income from your many, many Americans who won't be additionally affected in your scheme? Otherwise it's a pretty worthless topic of discussion. A one cent increase won't affect people's way of life either.

When we're talking about 50+ million people who are paying nothing, I think it's reasonable to claim that even very small increases will have at least some impact. Concededly, it's pretty small if we're just talking about $5, but again the $5 fee is merely meant to illustrate. Personally, I think it would be reasonable to charge them $100, but would be unreasonable to hit people with a $2000 tax burden from out of the blue.

If the goal is just to remain revenue-neutral with the current system, then of course there will be an impact even if it's still a relatively small one.