Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 106

Thread: Is it wrong to lower taxes on only lower income earners?

  1. #1

    Is it wrong to lower taxes on only lower income earners?

    First off we all know that spending is the real problem, but just for fun let's look at taxes. Suppose we had a flat tax of 10%. Then suppose we reduce taxes to 5% for everyone who earns under a million. Is this moral? I would say no because I think if you are going to impose a government burden it should be applied equally.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

    If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by KingNothing View Post
    Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

    If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.
    That is how Ron Paul analyzes it. He figures the fact that we have only half the nation paying taxes means we are half way there. Less taxes is good.

    The problem with the current situation is they aren't 'raising' taxes so you can just kill a bill, they are PREVENTING taxes from AUTOMATICALLY going up. In that case the most taxes you can reduce is best, I should think. The will was there to extend them last time across the board. That would by far be best. But if that vote isn't even going to be brought up by leadership, passing what you can do might be best. I don't know all the negotiation factors in play though. I would expect some Senator to propose an amendment to extend all the cuts, but I would also, given the make up of the Senate, expect that amendment to fail.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 12-27-2012 at 11:36 AM.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by KingNothing View Post
    Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

    If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.
    What if we started with a flat tax rate of 10% and we only lowered it to 5% for black people? Still OK?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    That is how Ron Paul analyzes it. He figures the fact that we have only half the nation paying taxes means we are half way there. Less taxes is good.
    The problem is the half not paying will only benefit from government spending, and therefore more easily convinced to vote for more and more of it. This creates a vicious cycle with only one logical end, government control of all wealth and government providing everything people want or need.
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    What if we started with a flat tax rate of 10% and we only lowered it to 5% for black people? Still OK?
    Yes. Any lessening of the burden is a good thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Yes. Any lessening of the burden is a good thing.
    How about we lower tax rates for white people only? Still good?
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    How about we lower tax rates for white people only? Still good?
    I don't think anyone would suggest that, but you said it. Same principle applies. I am persecuted, thus everyone should be persecuted.? No.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by staerker View Post
    I don't think anyone would suggest that,
    No $#@!, but they will suggest it for blacks.

    but you said it. Same principle applies. I am persecuted, thus everyone should be persecuted.? No.
    Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

    Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    No $#@!, but they will suggest it for blacks.



    Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

    Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.
    I see. Good luck getting the government to protect your rights.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by staerker View Post
    I see. Good luck getting the government to protect your rights.
    So thats your answer? You see no danger in some people paying huge taxes, some people paying little, and some none at all? You dont see how that feeds the beast?
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  14. #12
    At this point I really hope congress passes something that prevents my taxes from going up, even if it means a new top bracket is created with a higher rate. Lets be real... taxing rich people more certainly ain't gonna help the economy, but it's not gonna put anyone out on the street either. On the other hand, raising taxes on someone making 50k and supporting a family can have some seriously crappy consequences.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    No $#@!, but they will suggest it for blacks.



    Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

    Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.
    I do not fancy myself an anarchist (perhaps I am to weak for that) either, but taxes must be looked at in their proper light: If you don't pay them, you can be sent to jail. Sounds like taxation is synonymous with conditional slavery to me (You dont met the condition- that is paying taxes, then your freedom is taken by force). Does a government need superfluous funds to function? Or is government, in its proper scope, able to function through voluntary contributions and service?
    Last edited by bolil; 12-27-2012 at 06:00 PM.
    Best of luck in life.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    I do not fancy myself an anarchist (perhaps I am to weak for that) either, but taxes must be looked at in their proper light: If you don't pay them, you can be sent to jail. Sounds like taxation is synonymous with conditional slavery to me
    OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    In a nutshell Im OK with lower taxes for some and higher for others, provided the group is relatively small (for reasons Ive given above) or if the "non-payers" get less or no benefits.
    Last edited by JustinTime; 12-27-2012 at 06:13 PM.
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?
    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. But, as you say, I would call that the current state of affairs.
    Last edited by bolil; 12-27-2012 at 06:16 PM.
    Best of luck in life.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. But, as you say, I would call that the current state of affairs.
    Uhh, no, the current state of affairs is nowhere even close to voluntary contributions (if I understand you correctly). If we get "payers" and "non-payers" even more out of balance it will flat out slavery, with "payers" having no real say in how much they pay, or what their confiscated wealth is used for.
    Last edited by JustinTime; 12-27-2012 at 06:18 PM.
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    In a nutshell Im OK with lower taxes for some and higher for others, provided the group is relatively small (for reasons Ive given above) or if the "non-payers" get less or no benefits.
    This is as you say. When one says as you say, they mean what you said. As opposed to what I said.

    You are operating under the idea that the current scope of government is proper. No $#@! the current state is not voluntary... errrmmm duh? The ideal state would be a voluntary, and government could function on voluntary contributions by: A. Restricting their activities to a proper, I would say constitutional scope. B. By operating fairly, and without regard to income or class, the gov. would likely see the contributions recvd not only increase but originate in more and more diverse sections on the population. I guess I am saying that our government, because of a long history of $#@!tery, needs to prove itself worthy of the material and emotional support of the people once more.

    Now, could you describe to me exactly what are benefits? The bill of rights, the law of the land, applies to all citizens of the USA. I would like to see that scope expanded... of course it could only be expanded with consent.
    Last edited by bolil; 12-27-2012 at 06:30 PM.
    Best of luck in life.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    This is as you say. When one says as you say, they mean what you said. As opposed to what I said.

    You are operating under the idea that the current scope of government is proper.
    No, Im not.

    No $#@! the current state is not voluntary... errrmmm duh?
    Well you brought it up first, and repeated it two or three times.

    Now, could you describe to me exactly what are benefits? The bill of rights, the law of the land, applies to all citizens of the USA.
    The government doesnt have to tax a cent for you to own property, speak your mind, practice your religion, etc. Im talking about entitlements, having other peoples money spent on you.

    Doesnt it make sense, if a minority is taxed to pay for the majority's maintainence, the majority will never vote to decrease taxes or the spending burden. Its simple common sense, so taxes should be as equal and "across the board" as possible.

    Now yeah, I guess we could dream big and say "Why not abolish all taxes and stuff altogether", but one doesnt prevent the other.
    Last edited by JustinTime; 12-27-2012 at 07:24 PM.
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  22. #19
    Whats fundamentally immoral is the idea that taxation is something other than theft. Until mankind tackles slavery by another name, we will spin in circles defining right and wrong when it suits.

    Everytime you use the word 'tax', replace it with the correct term 'steal'. You can then see the morals of the situation clearly.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    No, Im not.



    Well you brought it up first, and repeated it two or three times.



    The government doesnt have to tax a cent for you to own property, speak your mind, practice your religion, etc. Im talking about entitlements, having other peoples money spent on you.

    Doesnt it make sense, if a minority is taxed to pay for the majority's maintainence, the majority will never vote to decrease taxes or the spending burden. Its simple common sense, so taxes should be as equal and "across the board" as possible.

    Now yeah, I guess we could dream big and say "Why not abolish all taxes and stuff altogether", but one doesnt prevent the other.
    Voluntary contributions are not a tax. Being a republic the majority has no right to demand anything of minorities or vice versa as we are each of use ONE, constituting neither majority of minority. Those terms belong in the collectivist sewer. Simply common sense is it? No, simple common sense would be to say: Taxes wouldn't be taxes if they were not coerced. Coercion is wrong. Taxes, therefore, are wrong. Blather about minorities and majorities all you like, makes no difference to me.

    One doesn't prevent what? You have lost me.
    Best of luck in life.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    No, Im not.



    Well you brought it up first, and repeated it two or three times.



    The government doesnt have to tax a cent for you to own property, speak your mind, practice your religion, etc. Im talking about entitlements, having other peoples money spent on you.

    Doesnt it make sense, if a minority is taxed to pay for the majority's maintainence, the majority will never vote to decrease taxes or the spending burden. Its simple common sense, so taxes should be as equal and "across the board" as possible.

    Now yeah, I guess we could dream big and say "Why not abolish all taxes and stuff altogether", but one doesnt prevent the other.
    Then why is it more realistic to believe that the majority agrees to apply taxes evenly on all people?

    If, like you state it, the majority profits (or at least believes it profits) from a minority paying a large amount of all taxes, why would they support support a position like a flat tax? I mean, after all, you would need to convince this majority in order to change the current tax scheme.

    It actually seems like a more practical approach to show him why every form of taxation is unjust, than to tell the "median voter" why he should have a higher tax rate in order to be fair to all millionaires and billionaires.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by JustinTime View Post
    OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    In a nutshell Im OK with lower taxes for some and higher for others, provided the group is relatively small (for reasons Ive given above) or if the "non-payers" get less or no benefits.
    just how big would this group be? have an number in mind?

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  26. #23
    It's never wrong to lower anyone's taxes, and never right to raise anyone's taxes.

  27. #24
    How about no "income" tax at all?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    Voluntary contributions are not a tax.
    No $#@!, the current state isnt voluntary though. Bwhahahahaha!!!!!
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    just how big would this group be? have an number in mind?
    50%. Its the ol' "2 Wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner".

    And yeah, I know it would be better if we had no taxes at all, blah blah. It would be better if money grew on trees too, but knowing that doesnt mean I wont give up my business and quit working.
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Danan View Post
    Then why is it more realistic to believe that the majority agrees to apply taxes evenly on all people?

    If, like you state it, the majority profits (or at least believes it profits) from a minority paying a large amount of all taxes, why would they support support a position like a flat tax? I mean, after all, you would need to convince this majority in order to change the current tax scheme.

    It actually seems like a more practical approach to show him why every form of taxation is unjust, than to tell the "median voter" why he should have a higher tax rate in order to be fair to all millionaires and billionaires.
    Im not arguing against that. Im saying it could be dangerous to lower taxes for some and raise them for others. You would be giving the majority an incentive to vote for more and more taxes, why the hell not? They aint paying anyway!
    Summum Jus, Summa Iniuria - More Law, Less Justice

  32. #28
    The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty–– Benjamin Franklin.

    (I quote this as someone who was working for $8/hr at a part time job last year.)
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 12-28-2012 at 10:30 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty–– Benjamin Franklin.

    (I quote this as someone who was working for $8/hr at a part time job last year.)
    Free housing, free medical care, EBT card. Ben is rolling in his grave.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  34. #30
    My point is that if the government is going to impose a burden on it's citizens, it should be done evenly. Whether it SHOULD impose a burden is another argument. I'm surprised at how few agree with me. It looks like JustinTime is the only one. Class envy maybe?

    I would argue that a truly even tax would be the same amount for each citizen. Why should a rich guy pay more for a government service than a poor guy? They're both receiving the same service, at least for proper government which would be the protection of rights. I view a flat tax as a realistic compromise. But a progressive tax? The 2nd plank of the communist manifesto? That's just wrong.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Senator Cruz: keep income tax, lower top rates.
    By johnwk in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 09:26 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 03:51 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 08:43 PM
  4. Can you lower income taxes to 0 and still run a budget surplus?
    By silverlinkx2 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 03:11 PM
  5. Want Lower Taxes?
    By Bluedevil in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 03:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •