[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What I would say is that, taxing someone to the point that they can be left with an identical lifestyle as if they weren't taxed at all, seems pretty logical to me. How that can be determined is pretty difficult and very abstract because not everyone making the same money lives identical lifestyles.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but are you suggesting that, from a tax perspective, everyone should be treated as being equal in terms of the results obtained from one's efforts?

Originally Posted by MattyC

As far as flat tax, looking at who benefits from what, it's just not a feasible solution. To agree with that, you also have to agree that there is a point where people just don't need that much money and should be returning a significant portion to the society.

But isn't this exactly what you are arguing for when you stated that government should tax someone "to the point that they can be left with an identical lifestyle as if they weren't taxed at all"?

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that implicit in your statement is either:

1) People simply don't need all of the money that they earn, regardless of how much they earn; or

2) Only the high-earning people don't need all of the money that they earn.

In any event, I am particularly leery of suggesting what any person may "need," and I think that thinking of tax policy in terms of what someone may or may not "need" conflicts, to some extent, with your discussion regarding the market setting one's income. Apparently, the market believes that someone doing X is worth Y, and maybe that person went into X simply to earn Y because X believes that it needs Y. Why should the government believe that it knows better than either X or the market and say "oh, no, you don't really need Y, you only need Y-[tax amount "T"]"?

Of course, I suppose this gets into a deeper issue of whether society should be allowed to say that X doesn't need T, but that other people (including the government) should be allowed to use T for their own benefit. Who really determines what the government and the rest of society needs?

Originally Posted by MattyC

A 10% tax on everyone does not capture this. Someone making $50K who is now at $45K net because of a flat tax, is actually hindered by that. Tax shouldn't be a burden in that way.

If you are saying that income tax shouldn't burden anyone, them I'm in reasonable agreement with you.

If, however, you are saying that income tax shouldn't burden certain selected people in society, and that one method of selecting the chosen unburdened ones is based on the amount of wages that they earn, then I disagree.

I simply believe that taxes should burden everyone equally. Either everyone in society benefits from government, or they don't. And if they do, then everyone should share in the costs of government; and if they don't, then those who don't benefit shouldn't have to pay anything.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is your life different because of that tax? No. It could be argued you could bring that person down to $400-$500K and they still wouldn't feel any ill-effects on their lively hood.

Of course they would. Why would they work in a job that pays, say, $1M a year if they are only going to see--and be able to spend as they see fit---half of it? At what point do you think they would say "gee, I seem to be working for the government now...." and adjust their worklife accordingly?

Originally Posted by MattyC

. . . but because their interest isn't in something lucrative, our society is punishing them by not valuing their field.

Or, perhaps, they are being rewarded---through paying less income tax---for going into a field that is lower paying.

That said, plenty of people go into certain career fields for the money, not because they have any burning passion for the work.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Your salary is not necessarily a measure of how hard you work/worked.

True, but then why should it be used as a measure of what I owe someone else (indirectly through the government's imposition of income taxes)?

Originally Posted by MattyC

Onto the janitor, our society does not provide much in the means of allowing that person to escape that cycle. made some mistakes while younger? Most likely. But now a few years later, they can't just cut and run and go to law school, even if they have the intellectual capacity and the work ethic to do so, they don't have the financial means to put themselves through that type of program. Even worse so if they have a family to support.

I simply disagree. Student loans are essentially guaranteed (up to a point) by the federal government and are available to anyone who (in the eyes of the government) truly needs them. The possibility to improve one's education and escape the cycle of poverty is open to just about anyone who is reasonably intelligent and who is willing to put forth the effort to do so.

Originally Posted by MattyC

How come we force this person (or anyone) to go into extreme debt to try and better themselves?

I don't think the debt that would be undertaken would need to be "extreme," but I'll play along with the hypothetical and respond by noting that an intelligent person who is in a low-paying job and who has a family to support likely would receive scholarships that would result in a free (or nearly free) college education.

Originally Posted by MattyC

What if your education was free?

Honestly, if I would have been given a free college education, I probably wouldn't have applied myself as hard as I did and would have likely wasted the opportunity. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by MattyC

And I also think it's important to acknowledge that a lot of the problems with government exist because of the incredibly wealthy's influence on policies.

I don't necessarily dispute this.

But, at the same time, some of government's problems exist because politicians want to get re-elected, and promising "free" things to people who won't have to pay for them generally helps achieve that goal.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

1) Have you ever done these jobs? Do you have any idea the incredible amount of hard work that those jobs involve? Do you grasp how people such as yourself make life miserable for people who are working those jobs?

I have never been a janitor or a fast food worker. The first few jobs that I had, however, were very low paying, involved a good deal of hard work, and would generally be considered menial.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

2) Do you like to have clean buildings and public places to go?

Yes, I guess.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Do you like to eat in restaurants and go to movies?

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

If those people with "no desire to improve their lot in life" suddenly got high-paying executive jobs, you would have no one to clean up after you, you would have no one to serve your food or wash the dishes afterward. You would have no one to drive your Uber or taxi.

No, those jobs would still exist, but the wages paid for the jobs would ostensibly increase (given supply and demand and all of that), and the pool of interested workers would expand in a corresponding fashion.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

3) Do you support raising the minimum wage? Limiting how high CEO/Executive compensation can be placed? Limiting how much bonus money executives can earn?

No, no, and no (at least not through government directive or intervention).

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Don't they deserve the dignity of the ability to own a home, feed their children?

No, not every one "deserves" to own a home, and not everyone "deserves" to have children.

Owning a home and having children are personal choices, and they should--in my view--only be undertaken when the adult has enough resources to fully handle and support the undertaking for the life of the item being undertaken.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

. . . and until you're willing to cook all your own meals and clean all of your own buildings, grow your own food, work on your own car--those jobs are essential to the North American way of life, and people need to start respecting others as human beings.

So how much more in federal income taxes should I pay to sufficiently evidence that I respect others as human beings?