The problem is not that the nebulous "poor" aren't paying enough taxes. Clearly there is a gaping discrepancy of taxes paid by "the rich" and "the poor". Those distinctions are exploited for the sole purpose of promoting class warfare and the subsequent creation of voting blocs that favour one political class over another. I'm sure you're well enough aware the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all tax revenue, while the bottom 50% pay less than 3%, while millions of others pay nothing, ad nauseum. What does it matter? The problem is that taxes are levied on personal income in the first place.
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
I'm not at all surprised that you wouldn't favour these tax cuts for the poor. The families who have the least money would of course get a major tax increase in a right wing government that you'd favour and the super rich would of course get the tax relief instead.
You are prone to gratuitous assertions Hands. I do not want "the poor" to pay more. I do not want "the rich" to pay more. I do not aspire to confiscate
anyone's earnings. It's wrong. That moral standard means I cannot endorse another's ability to do so either, whether it's one man or a mob doing the confiscating. I have nothing to gain by having government confiscate legally acquired income or accumulated wealth, and - again, contrary to your assertion that I seek a "right wing government" to accomplish that - I cannot condone theft. Furthermore, as I've repeatedly stated the EITC is not a tax cut for anyone.
It is an income redistribution plan. Not that it matters - call it wealth confiscation or redistribution, any government that does that is evil.No one
should be compelled to pay income taxes. I want everyone
to succeed, to a degree limited only by their imagination and amount of effort they devote to achieving that success. The best way to accomplish that is to tear down the obstacles to success, of which we have built plenty in the US. Imposing limits on success ensures everyone has less ability to achieve it.
Wealth redistribution via the tax code will never transform "the poor" into "the rich" no matter what amount each pays or fails to pay. The progressive income tax is a fundamentally flawed concept that cannot be fixed, no matter how many tens of thousands of pages of tax code are enacted, printed, tweaked or rescinded. Income exemptions, credits, deductions, exclusions, deferrals... they're all symptoms of an inherently bad design. Wealth redistribution via the income tax can achieve one and only one certain result - wealth destruction
. This ought to be morally repugnant to any thinking being.
How much should each income class pay? Is half your income enough? How about two-thirds? All of it? You said it's "pretty clear who needs the money" but is it really? Who decides who gets what, how much, and from whom? No matter how rich you are there's always someone richer. Should he pay you? No matter how poor you are, there's always someone poorer. Should you pay him? The only logical conclusion to the argument that stays true to the principle of income distribution by force
leads to the concept that income itself
is at fault, therefore no one should be entitled to retain any. Taken to its eventual resolution, that logical fallacy quickly becomes evident.
Would it not be better for everyone if the Federal government stopped wasting so much tax revenue on ill-conceived programs that seek to treat everyone "fairly"? What's fair about punishing a person's success, and rewarding failure? Yet this is exactly the result of a progressive income tax.
...it gets a bit repetitive but for me it's pretty clear who really needs the money.
It gets repetitive for me too Hands
I surmise you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the utter absurdity and moral vacancy of the income tax, but at least we've have a civil discussion about it. I would appreciate your quitting the gratuitous assertions though, and concentrating on the "factually informed" requirement for the PO forum instead