Why do people care so much about how they are taxed?

[silverhandorder]

Shouldn't the top concern be how much and to reduce it, no matter what the tax is? Let's say the tax is changed to the type you like most but how much you pay does not change what would you have achieved by that?

I am looking mainly towards the consumption tax and tariff supporters.

Plus I don't ever see a tariff or consumption tax being as high as income tax. This means that you would have to convince your potential targets first to lower taxes. Which means that why are we at all arguing about what type of tax when we first need to achieve lower taxes.

[Anti Federalist]

Shouldn't the top concern be how much and to reduce it, no matter what the tax is? Let's say the tax is changed to the type you like most but how much you pay does not change what would you have achieved by that?

I am looking mainly towards the consumption tax and tariff supporters.

Plus I don't ever see a tariff or consumption tax being as high as income tax. This means that you would have to convince your potential targets first to lower taxes. Which means that why are we at all arguing about what type of tax when we first need to achieve lower taxes.

Tariffs do two things, from a purely revenue perspective.

They are less intrusive than other options.

They are by their very nature, smaller in raw dollars and percentages.

Certainly there should be an effort to lower as well as change the form of taxation.

Here's another option:

Eliminate income tax withholding, a purely socialist wage and price control temporarily enacted during WWII. Make every person cut a monthly check to Uncle Sucker.

[Sola_Fide]

This is Walter Williams argument and I disagree with it. The form of taxation is important because it signifies the intent of the taxation.

[silverhandorder]

Tariffs do two things, from a purely revenue perspective.

They are less intrusive than other options.

They are by their very nature, smaller in raw dollars and percentages.

Certainly there should be an effort to lower as well as change the form of taxation.

Here's another option:

Eliminate income tax withholding, a purely socialist wage and price control temporarily enacted during WWII. Make every person cut a monthly check to Uncle Sucker.

I don't see the point of putting effort into changing the form when lowering of taxation has to come first in order to achieve the change in form.

This is Walter Williams argument and I disagree with it. The form of taxation is important because it signifies the intent of the taxation.

Again you would have to convince people to change their intent in the first place which would make the form of taxation moot at that point.


Let me put it this way what is better a 2% progressive tax on the rich or a 5% sales tax on everything?

I would hope the answer is the lower 2% tax.

[osan]

This is Walter Williams argument and I disagree with it. The form of taxation is important because it signifies the intent of the taxation.

That may be true on another planet, but in the USA it is certainly not so. This government raids our wallets and parses the booty out for war, police, social security. When too much is spent on war, for example, and they want more but cannot readily tax more, they raid a pension fund. Stated intent means NOTHING anymore. In politics, words mean nothing when it is convenient.

"Government" in the USA is the very definition of lawlessness.

I propose we eliminate all taxation. Let the "government" beg for its sustenance. That is the highest station they merit, and even that may be too kind.

[realtonygoodwin]

An income tax punishes people for being productive. A consumption tax is your choice. You can decide if you want to buy something, or you can save your money.

[Sola_Fide]

An income tax punishes people for being productive. A consumption tax is your choice. You can decide if you want to buy something, or you can save your money.

Yes.^^^ Not that I agree with taxation or the fair tax, but this is an example of how the intent of taxation is relevant.

[LibForestPaul]

Because mundanes like $#@!ing each other in the ass. They want free stuff that someone else paid for because they are entitled to it. Who cares if some mundane sacraficed eight or twelve years of his life, his property, his time, and his effort to become a high payed doctor; I sweep floors at Walmart and demand free health care because I am special and should be provided for, I am a teacher and my union says I should be paid just like everyone else even though I have 3x as much vacation, I am a police officer and deserve my tax payer provided pension...damn rich bastards need to open their wallets and give me their fair share.

[realtonygoodwin]

Some people like the idea of someone that will build roads or put out house fires, etc

[osan]

An income tax punishes people for being productive. A consumption tax is your choice. You can decide if you want to buy something, or you can save your money.

Excuse me, but this is grandly mistaken. Consumption tax is every bit the evil of an income tax. Sure, I can CHOOSE not to eat, but that alternative does not come across as very attractive to me at all. Saying we can choose not to consume is to present us with the choice to be robbed or to leave one's wealth sitting statically in the mattress. There are several problems with this. Firstly, nobody holds righteous authority to force this choice upon us. Secondly, by restricting our choices to either pay the tax or not spend money in order not to pay the associated taxes, one is also advocating economic stagnation. NOT consuming is every bit the tax that consuming is in this case. Either way, wealth is stripped from the economy, just from different directions. This is readily demonstrated with a standard supply/demand graph. If you take a peek into a text on macroeconomics you can find the representation of the effect of taxation on an economy. It is NEVER good. It ALWAYS destroys efficiency and causes innumerable problems. Government is never anything better than a parasitic drag on freedom, happiness, and prosperity.

Why, pray tell, should ANYONE be punished (through state sponsored robbery) for not only earning their wealth, but for disposing of it as they see fit? What is the MORAL basis for this? Please do not evade the question. Let us get to the real bottom of things here - to the fundamentals.

I will repeat the question: what is the morally legitimate basis upon which the justly acquired property of one man is forcibly stripped from him at the end of a gun? And just to preempt you, please do not offer up the typical lameness we hear so often such as "government has to be funded" and "it is the only fair way to fund government". If you do, I will be morally obliged to slap some sense into you. 1/2

Please present a cogent and true argument that justifies theft as specified above.

[osan]

Yes.^^^ Not that I agree with taxation or the fair tax, but this is an example of how the intent of taxation is relevant.

D00d, I am SO surprised at you. You are usually WAY better than this.

But to be on point: if this is what you really believe, then I would be very interested in the reasoned basis. What is your logically sound and truthful argument in support of this belief?

EDIT: Your assertion on intent, then, would legitimize my performing eye surgery on someone, even though I have no qualification, talent, nor the least experience in such endeavors. My "intent" to save Johnny's vision makes it all OK when my butchering of his eyes leaves him maimed and blind? "I only meant to help, your honor," is not likely to cut the mustard. How is the question at hand different?