[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

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?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "equal in terms of the results obtained from one's efforts."

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.

Well it's obviously a function of what it costs to live and live reasonably well. It would lean more towards (2). There are studies that suggest, in the current environment in N.A., that $70K/year is all that is needed to live a comfortable life, afford decent things (clothes, computers, etc.), the odd vacation, etc.... I'm not saying that everyone should only be at this level, but that, if someone ISN'T at this level because the market doesn't deem their occupation worthy, that the adjustment needs to come from the people who are, yes, making way more money than anyone could ever possibly need, in some cases, doing so in just one year, or one month. So that needs to be adjusted back, yes by tax, to provide the ability to those who's occupations, while just as important (if not moreso), are not as lucrative.

So yes, people should be taxed to the point that they can still live their life as generally provided by their position/occupation, as if they weren't taxed at all. If you get to a point that you can afford multiple houses in multiple countries, provide education and livelihoods for your children, have a few top-end machines (cars, boats, etc..), good for you. If you could afford to do that multiple times over, those multiples should be put back into the social network of everyone else, providing basic things like healthcare and education for people who's occupation isn't deemed worthy of those things, for whatever reason.

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?

We do. Through government. It's what it's designed for. And, as I will always say during discussions like these, if you don't trust the government to do it properly, you have (or should have) the power to change it in a democracy. To have this view that government just takes your money and wastes it is yours and my and everyone's fault.



I'm not saying it's not complicated, and I certainly understand that my views on this are idealistic, require a significant cognitive change in how our society views excess, money and wealth overall, and borders on (BOOGIE MAN!!!) communism. I do think that parameters could be agreed upon that eliminate redundant excess. Things like houses with 25 rooms when you have a family of 4. Well maybe you buy a house with 10 rooms and the rest goes to the government to build a school, or twin a highway. Maybe you shave 20ft off your yacht and a whole class of kids gets to go to university who otherwise couldn't.

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.

See I think this is where we agree, but have different views on what it means to burden everyone equally. You seem to say it means everyone should pay the same rate. I think it means everyone should be able to afford (or be provided) basic things. And I don't just mean food, water, shelter. I mean healthcare, internet access, education, ability to play some sports, etc... It's mostly centered around giving everyone an equal launching pad from their youth, and less about helping people who have squandered their opportunities. But sometimes those people who have squandered their opportunities have had kids along the way. Do their parents mistakes mean they should be left in the dust too? I guess I should have been more clear that my perspective is more based on helping children get the same starting point as anyone else.

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?

Depends on if they feel those tax dollars provide them with the basics (things mentioned above: healthcare, internet, education, etc.. would still apply to them as members of the society), and the rest is basically pure spending cash. And if all of the above is already provided by society (obviously they're paying more for it than others), and you can still spend $500K in a year, you have a severe spending problem.

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

This is a joke, right? So because I don't pay as much tax, my life is better somehow? Paying the highest possible tax is the best possible problem to have. Say I pay 10% and am left with $50K, you pay 90% and are left with $100M, who is better off here? Who is still being rewarded very handsomely by society for their efforts?

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

This IMO is a problem. I firmly believe we would be much further ahead as an overall species if people were able to pursue their talents vs leaving them behind because they need money. Your talent might be physics, mine might be art, both fields would be improved by having us, and thus, people would be improved by having us in our most effective space.

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)?

What I said is exactly why. You don't work hard enough to earn that level of money above someone working just as hard at a lower paying field. It has to be offset somehow.


I don't have time to answer the rest now but I will a little later.