Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (91370)	10/22/2008 2:17:01 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541624

Better to not tax them, than to tax them and then give them more benefits to make up for it. Why do you say that, other than the obvious issue of inefficiency in going round the loop? I would much rather see tax extend all the way down to $1, and assistance come back, so that it is perfectly clear whether you are a net contributor, or net liability. As it is, far too many of the voters think the government is free and a source of income as well. Let them pay reasonable tax rates as well so they understand the governments bite out of their income, than make it clear that the assistance coming back to them is really welfare and it was taken from other people's pockets.

To: TimF who wrote (91370)	10/22/2008 2:40:32 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541624

If someone's actually poor or near poor, then I guess not having them pay income tax is a good thing. I've always thought that everyone should pay income tax, regardless of how poor. For a poor person, it would be only a token amount, but it seems to me that there's a psychological value in having everyone feeling like a contributor. There's a bond there, regardless of the dollar amount, a shared stake in how the money is spent. My practical side, OTOH, thinks it's terribly inefficient to put people through that effort so they can chip in ten bucks. And then there's the government effort to collect a token amount. But the more the percentage of people who don't pay taxes goes up, the more I return to my first instinct.

To: TimF who wrote (91370)	10/22/2008 5:27:11 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 541624

But when almost half (and depending on how you calculate it, or at least if the trend continues) possibly over half don't have to pay that seem rather problematic in the context of the existence of a large middle class (so its not like your not taxing people because they are poor), and more importantly in the context of high rates for the wealthy and massive government spending. It seems strange indeed, and a dangerous trend. I'm not necessarily trying to defend it, though, but I can think of two possible reasons (they certainly apply here in the UK, not so sure about the US): - a substantial shift to indirect taxes, principally sales taxes (here including VAT, fuel tax, 'sin' taxes such as alcohol & tobacco, etc). Largely though not entirely pushed by the RW, to cut headline tax. These taxes tend to be far less progressive - the rich earn more in greater proportion than they spend more, and are also far more prone to saving and to spending overseas - so would probably account for much of the 'missing' taxation on the poorer 50%. - increasing inequality in earnings meaning that the median moves further and further behind the mean wage. Hence taxation aimed at the mean will actually miss an increasing portion of the population. Again, such inequality is greatest in the UK and US (though I think Mexico topped a table posted somewhere today), with wealthy children most likely to have come from wealthy families, and the Nordic countries were the most egalitarian and the most likely to show successive generations bettering themselves.