Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What $1 will cost you

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.
Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:35:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

1. That is not enough to support society.

2. Romney is obtaining a greater percentage of society's resources for his personal gain, so he should return a greater percentage. You are advocating for a completely one-sided system.
Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.

You're dodging the question. When do arbitrary distinctions become meaningful?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:41:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Royal, I know you would never do this purposefully, but it very much sounds like you are conflating society and government. Even if one did take more from society, it would not follow that they owe the government more.

Furthermore, in a simple trade transaction, even if it takes place within this nebulous concept called a "society" no other parties are owed. Two parties trade something they believe is worth less than the good or service they are receiving. They are not using "society" any more than anyone else in doing so even if they make far more of these transactions than anyone else.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:44:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:41:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Royal, I know you would never do this purposefully, but it very much sounds like you are conflating society and government. Even if one did take more from society, it would not follow that they owe the government more.

The government is the embodiment of society. It acts as the representative.
Furthermore, in a simple trade transaction, even if it takes place within this nebulous concept called a "society" no other parties are owed. Two parties trade something they believe is worth less than the good or service they are receiving. They are not using "society" any more than anyone else in doing so even if they make far more of these transactions than anyone else.

I'm talking about the extra protections and resources that they obtain.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:48:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:44:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:41:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Royal, I know you would never do this purposefully, but it very much sounds like you are conflating society and government. Even if one did take more from society, it would not follow that they owe the government more.

The government is the embodiment of society. It acts as the representative.

We are both anarchists. We both know this is utterly false. It does not represent anyone legitimately except the politicians.

Furthermore, in a simple trade transaction, even if it takes place within this nebulous concept called a "society" no other parties are owed. Two parties trade something they believe is worth less than the good or service they are receiving. They are not using "society" any more than anyone else in doing so even if they make far more of these transactions than anyone else.

I'm talking about the extra protections and resources that they obtain.

Which are? It costs more to police a poor area than a rich area. (note that I do not believe either should be paying anything unless they freely choose to, but your assertion lacks warrant)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:53:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

In the UK, and most European systems (France, Germany & Italy, and I'm almost certain spain) the tax system works (assuming your tax brackets) so that you'd pay 28% on all your income up until 178,650, and at the extra, you then pay the 33%. So you'd have a taxation increase of 33p, not eight grand.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:53:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And we still use progressive taxation.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:14:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:35:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

1. That is not enough to support society.

The US Gross national income in 2010 = $14.64 Trillion
10% of $14.64 Trillion = $1,464 billion
http://www.worldbank.org...

Gross Individual income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,164 billion
Gross Corporate income tax receipts for 2010 = $278 billion
Total Gross income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,442 billion
http://www.irs.gov...

$1,464 billion from 10% flat tax > $1,442 billion from progressive tax

2. Romney is obtaining a greater percentage of society's resources for his personal gain, so he should return a greater percentage. You are advocating for a completely one-sided system.

Say Joe makes $75,000, and Bill makes $25,000. Joe would make 75% of the revenue between them.

Say Joe and Bill decided to pull their money together for rent, as roommates, and decided to do so based on their income.
Say rent was $62,500 a year

If Joe paid 75% of his income towards rent he would be paying $56,250
If Bill paid 25% of his income towards rent he would be paying $6,250

Joe would thus be paying 90% of the rent, while Bill only pays 10%.

If each paid 62.5% of their income towards rent;
Joe would be paying $46,875 towards rent
and
Bill would be paying $15,625 towards rent

$62,500 * 75% = $46,875
$62,500 * 25% = $15,625

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.

You're dodging the question. When do arbitrary distinctions become meaningful?

I'm not dodging anything, the example you gave does not match the subject.
The circumstances determine whether or not it is fair.

Just because the difference is based on the discretion of the creator, does not mean it's meaningless.

The age limit for example, is based on what is considered to be an age where the voter had reached enough maturity to vote wisely.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:48:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:48:34 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:44:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:41:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Royal, I know you would never do this purposefully, but it very much sounds like you are conflating society and government. Even if one did take more from society, it would not follow that they owe the government more.

The government is the embodiment of society. It acts as the representative.

We are both anarchists. We both know this is utterly false. It does not represent anyone legitimately except the politicians.

Fair enough, but when we have a government, it is supposed to act as society's representative (even though it does not have any moral legitimacy).
Furthermore, in a simple trade transaction, even if it takes place within this nebulous concept called a "society" no other parties are owed. Two parties trade something they believe is worth less than the good or service they are receiving. They are not using "society" any more than anyone else in doing so even if they make far more of these transactions than anyone else.

I'm talking about the extra protections and resources that they obtain.

Which are? It costs more to police a poor area than a rich area.
This is only because crime in "poor areas" appears to be more prevalent since it occurs in the open.

The wealthy have more legal protections and a larger share of political powers. Corporate leaders can lobby Congressmen in order to garner extra favors. Those are privileges that others do not possess.
(note that I do not believe either should be paying anything unless they freely choose to, but your assertion lacks warrant)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:51:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 10:14:35 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:35:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

1. That is not enough to support society.

The US Gross national income in 2010 = $14.64 Trillion
10% of $14.64 Trillion = $1,464 billion
http://www.worldbank.org...

Gross Individual income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,164 billion
Gross Corporate income tax receipts for 2010 = $278 billion
Total Gross income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,442 billion
http://www.irs.gov...

$1,464 billion from 10% flat tax > $1,442 billion from progressive tax

Your figures are not accounting for tax dodging and the fact that many coporations pay no taxes and that some even pay negative taxes (and thus obtain wealth from the system). Can I have a source that proves that the revenue from the flat tax would be more than a properly instituted progressive tax? That is completely counterintuitive.



2. Romney is obtaining a greater percentage of society's resources for his personal gain, so he should return a greater percentage. You are advocating for a completely one-sided system.

Say Joe makes $75,000, and Bill makes $25,000. Joe would make 75% of the revenue between them.

Say Joe and Bill decided to pull their money together for rent, as roommates, and decided to do so based on their income.
Say rent was $62,500 a year

If Joe paid 75% of his income towards rent he would be paying $56,250
If Bill paid 25% of his income towards rent he would be paying $6,250

Joe would thus be paying 90% of the rent, while Bill only pays 10%.

If each paid 62.5% of their income towards rent;
Joe would be paying $46,875 towards rent
and
Bill would be paying $15,625 towards rent

$62,500 * 75% = $46,875
$62,500 * 25% = $15,625


That situation is unfair because they have the same stake. That is not the case in society.
Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.

You're dodging the question. When do arbitrary distinctions become meaningful?

I'm not dodging anything, the example you gave does not match the subject.
The circumstances determine whether or not it is fair.

Just because the difference is based on the discretion of the creator, does not mean it's meaningless.

The age limit for example, is based on what is considered to be an age where the voter had reached enough maturity to vote wisely.

Oh, yes, there is a great difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old. LOL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:32:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 10:51:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:14:35 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:35:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

1. That is not enough to support society.

The US Gross national income in 2010 = $14.64 Trillion
10% of $14.64 Trillion = $1,464 billion
http://www.worldbank.org...

Gross Individual income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,164 billion
Gross Corporate income tax receipts for 2010 = $278 billion
Total Gross income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,442 billion
http://www.irs.gov...

$1,464 billion from 10% flat tax > $1,442 billion from progressive tax

Your figures are not accounting for tax dodging and the fact that many coporations pay no taxes and that some even pay negative taxes (and thus obtain wealth from the system).

Flat taxes don't have tax breaks; it defeats the purpose.

Can I have a source that proves that the revenue from the flat tax would be more than a properly instituted progressive tax?

I already did the fricken math; just check my math.

I did a essay on the flat tax for my college math course, and got a 100%. The Math professor even said that she was in favor of a flat tax because it would produce more revenue at a lower rate. Personally I would be more in favor of a 9% flat sales tax to replace the income tax.

That is completely counterintuitive.
explain?



2. Romney is obtaining a greater percentage of society's resources for his personal gain, so he should return a greater percentage. You are advocating for a completely one-sided system.

Say Joe makes $75,000, and Bill makes $25,000. Joe would make 75% of the revenue between them.

Say Joe and Bill decided to pull their money together for rent, as roommates, and decided to do so based on their income.
Say rent was $62,500 a year

If Joe paid 75% of his income towards rent he would be paying $56,250
If Bill paid 25% of his income towards rent he would be paying $6,250

Joe would thus be paying 90% of the rent, while Bill only pays 10%.

If each paid 62.5% of their income towards rent;
Joe would be paying $46,875 towards rent
and
Bill would be paying $15,625 towards rent

$62,500 * 75% = $46,875
$62,500 * 25% = $15,625


That situation is unfair because they have the same stake. That is not the case in society.

WTF are you taking about? I still don't understand what you mean about "society"; how are you defining "society"?

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.

You're dodging the question. When do arbitrary distinctions become meaningful?

I'm not dodging anything, the example you gave does not match the subject.
The circumstances determine whether or not it is fair.

Just because the difference is based on the discretion of the creator, does not mean it's meaningless.

The age limit for example, is based on what is considered to be an age where the voter had reached enough maturity to vote wisely.

Oh, yes, there is a great difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old. LOL

Actually one can mature and grow allot over a year's time. Also the age of 18 was not chosen because of maturing between 17 and 18, but rather because 18 is considered an adult. It is assumed most of the voters would have matured by that allotted time. In fact many states originally set the voting age higher than 18, because they believed 18 is not mature enough (at least in their community). Than the issue arose about being mature enough to enlist, so the constitution was amended to allow for all 18 year olds to vote.

Again the there are no similarities between age limits and tax brackets.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:46:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 11:32:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:51:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:14:35 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:35:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

1. That is not enough to support society.

The US Gross national income in 2010 = $14.64 Trillion
10% of $14.64 Trillion = $1,464 billion
http://www.worldbank.org...

Gross Individual income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,164 billion
Gross Corporate income tax receipts for 2010 = $278 billion
Total Gross income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,442 billion
http://www.irs.gov...

$1,464 billion from 10% flat tax > $1,442 billion from progressive tax

Your figures are not accounting for tax dodging and the fact that many coporations pay no taxes and that some even pay negative taxes (and thus obtain wealth from the system).

Flat taxes don't have tax breaks; it defeats the purpose.

Can I have a source that proves that the revenue from the flat tax would be more than a properly instituted progressive tax?

I already did the fricken math; just check my math.

I don't see where you did the Math. Send me a link.
I did a essay on the flat tax for my college math course, and got a 100%. The Math professor even said that she was in favor of a flat tax because it would produce more revenue at a lower rate. Personally I would be more in favor of a 9% flat sales tax to replace the income tax.

Anecdotal evidence does not help your case.
That is completely counterintuitive.
explain?
Your complaint is that the rich pay more under a progressive scheme. If that is the case, and they pay less when there is a flat tax, then the gov. obtains more funds in the progressive tax process. Now, I understand you can raise the tax rate for the others, but that income is not going to be able to exceed the income the government takes in from the progressive system.



2. Romney is obtaining a greater percentage of society's resources for his personal gain, so he should return a greater percentage. You are advocating for a completely one-sided system.

Say Joe makes $75,000, and Bill makes $25,000. Joe would make 75% of the revenue between them.

Say Joe and Bill decided to pull their money together for rent, as roommates, and decided to do so based on their income.
Say rent was $62,500 a year

If Joe paid 75% of his income towards rent he would be paying $56,250
If Bill paid 25% of his income towards rent he would be paying $6,250

Joe would thus be paying 90% of the rent, while Bill only pays 10%.

If each paid 62.5% of their income towards rent;
Joe would be paying $46,875 towards rent
and
Bill would be paying $15,625 towards rent

$62,500 * 75% = $46,875
$62,500 * 25% = $15,625


That situation is unfair because they have the same stake. That is not the case in society.

WTF are you taking about? I still don't understand what you mean about "society"; how are you defining "society"?

Society would mean the people under a nation who are forced to obey the laws of the government.
Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.

You're dodging the question. When do arbitrary distinctions become meaningful?

I'm not dodging anything, the example you gave does not match the subject.
The circumstances determine whether or not it is fair.

Just because the difference is based on the discretion of the creator, does not mean it's meaningless.

The age limit for example, is based on what is considered to be an age where the voter had reached enough maturity to vote wisely.

Oh, yes, there is a great difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old. LOL

Actually one can mature and grow allot over a year's time. Also the age of 18 was not chosen because of maturing between 17 and 18, but rather because 18 is considered an adult.
That itself is an arbitrary decision. There are plenty of teens who are more mature than "adults".
It is assumed most of the voters would have matured by that allotted time. In fact many states originally set the voting age higher than 18, because they believed 18 is not mature enough (at least in their community).
Another arbitrary decision.
Than the issue arose about being mature enough to enlist, so the constitution was amended to allow for all 18 year olds to vote.

That doesn't change the fact that it was a completely arbitrary decision.
Again the there are no similarities between age limits and tax brackets.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 11:50:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It'd be interesting to see how many people make money that range, that is who stands to make more money through reducing their salary.
I would think they would work it out so that wouldn't end up happening.
But we are never going to get an honest politician in office so there will never be any changing of our tax code.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:00:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 11:46:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 11:32:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:51:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:14:35 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:35:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:33:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:18:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

People who obtain more from society have a greater stake in society and ought to pay more in order to protect it. Homeless men ought not pay the same amount as such thieves as Romney.

Well Romney would still pay more with a flat tax and the homeless guy would pay nothing.

10% of $0 = $0
10% of $35,350 = $3,535
10% of $85,650 = $8,565
10% of $178,650 = $17,865
10% of $388,350 = $38,835

1. That is not enough to support society.

The US Gross national income in 2010 = $14.64 Trillion
10% of $14.64 Trillion = $1,464 billion
http://www.worldbank.org...

Gross Individual income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,164 billion
Gross Corporate income tax receipts for 2010 = $278 billion
Total Gross income tax receipts for 2010 = $1,442 billion
http://www.irs.gov...

$1,464 billion from 10% flat tax > $1,442 billion from progressive tax

Your figures are not accounting for tax dodging and the fact that many coporations pay no taxes and that some even pay negative taxes (and thus obtain wealth from the system).

Flat taxes don't have tax breaks; it defeats the purpose.

Can I have a source that proves that the revenue from the flat tax would be more than a properly instituted progressive tax?

I already did the fricken math; just check my math.

I don't see where you did the Math. Send me a link.
That explains it; you are illiterate.
I did a essay on the flat tax for my college math course, and got a 100%. The Math professor even said that she was in favor of a flat tax because it would produce more revenue at a lower rate. Personally I would be more in favor of a 9% flat sales tax to replace the income tax.

Anecdotal evidence does not help your case.
Assertion
That is completely counterintuitive.
explain?
Your complaint is that the rich pay more under a progressive scheme. If that is the case, and they pay less when there is a flat tax, then the gov. obtains more funds in the progressive tax process.
Not my complaint. Stop straw manning.

Now, I understand you can raise the tax rate for the others, but that income is not going to be able to exceed the income the government takes in from the progressive system.

Are you an idiot? I already proved it can.



2. Romney is obtaining a greater percentage of society's resources for his personal gain, so he should return a greater percentage. You are advocating for a completely one-sided system.

Say Joe makes $75,000, and Bill makes $25,000. Joe would make 75% of the revenue between them.

Say Joe and Bill decided to pull their money together for rent, as roommates, and decided to do so based on their income.
Say rent was $62,500 a year

If Joe paid 75% of his income towards rent he would be paying $56,250
If Bill paid 25% of his income towards rent he would be paying $6,250

Joe would thus be paying 90% of the rent, while Bill only pays 10%.

If each paid 62.5% of their income towards rent;
Joe would be paying $46,875 towards rent
and
Bill would be paying $15,625 towards rent

$62,500 * 75% = $46,875
$62,500 * 25% = $15,625


That situation is unfair because they have the same stake. That is not the case in society.

WTF are you taking about? I still don't understand what you mean about "society"; how are you defining "society"?

Society would mean the people under a nation who are forced to obey the laws of the government.

So he makes more use of citizens? Your definition doesn't fit your usage.
Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

I mean, the distinction is aribitrary, and you could say this for any boundary. Is it fair to not let a 17 year old vote simply because they are one year younger than the requirement? At what point do distinctions become meaningful?

There is a difference between having your taxes increased more than your pay's increase, and having to wait a year to vote.

You're dodging the question. When do arbitrary distinctions become meaningful?

I'm not dodging anything, the example you gave does not match the subject.
The circumstances determine whether or not it is fair.

Just because the difference is based on the discretion of the creator, does not mean it's meaningless.

The age limit for example, is based on what is considered to be an age where the voter had reached enough maturity to vote wisely.

Oh, yes, there is a great difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old. LOL

Actually one can mature and grow allot over a year's time. Also the age of 18 was not chosen because of maturing between 17 and 18, but rather because 18 is considered an adult.
That itself is an arbitrary decision. There are plenty of teens who are more mature than "adults".
You are talking in circles. Once again arbitrary =\= meaningless.
Most people under 18 are immature
It is assumed most of the voters would have matured by that allotted time. In fact many states originally set the voting age higher than 18, because they believed 18 is not mature enough (at least in their community).
Another arbitrary decision.
Talking in circles again
Than the issue arose about being mature enough to enlist, so the constitution was amended to allow for all 18 year olds to vote.

That doesn't change the fact that it was a completely arbitrary decision.
You really like that word don't you?
Again the there are no similarities between age limits and tax brackets.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:11:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
i would add to danT's analysis that it doesn't take into consideration multipliers that occur through changing the tax policy.

Your assumption is that behavior will not change, based on changes in taxes but it will.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:39:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 10:48:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:48:34 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:44:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/16/2012 9:41:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Royal, I know you would never do this purposefully, but it very much sounds like you are conflating society and government. Even if one did take more from society, it would not follow that they owe the government more.

The government is the embodiment of society. It acts as the representative.

We are both anarchists. We both know this is utterly false. It does not represent anyone legitimately except the politicians.

Fair enough, but when we have a government, it is supposed to act as society's representative (even though it does not have any moral legitimacy).

If it is illegitimate, and does not act in society's interest, why should it even be considered society's representative for a moment?

Furthermore, in a simple trade transaction, even if it takes place within this nebulous concept called a "society" no other parties are owed. Two parties trade something they believe is worth less than the good or service they are receiving. They are not using "society" any more than anyone else in doing so even if they make far more of these transactions than anyone else.

I'm talking about the extra protections and resources that they obtain.

Which are? It costs more to police a poor area than a rich area.
This is only because crime in "poor areas" appears to be more prevalent since it occurs in the open.

The wealthy have more legal protections and a larger share of political powers. Corporate leaders can lobby Congressmen in order to garner extra favors. Those are privileges that others do not possess.

Whilst these certainly exist, surely the saner option is to declare that these benefits should removed, rather than give them the pretence of legitimacy by saying they should be paid for.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:49:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That extra $1 in income cost the tax payer $8,933.22 in taxes
This means, if not for that extra $1, the tax payer would be $8,932.22 richer.

Is it fair to tax someone $8,933.22 more, simply because they earned an extra buck?

He should donate two dollars to charity.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:58:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:07:21 AM, DanT wrote:
The progressive tax system is a highly unjust and unfair system of taxation. Not only does it tax people differently based on their success in their careers, but it also makes it so just $1 could drastically increase the amount of taxes owed.

Someone who makes $178,649 is in the 28% tax bracket, and pays $50,021.72 in taxes
Someone who makes $178,650 is in the 33% tax bracket, and pays $58,954.50 in taxes

That's not how it works.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:33:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But it is fair that someone who is 6573 doesn't get to vote, but someone who is 6574 days old does?!

Quit your bitchin'
Sapere Aude!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 6:33:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
But it is fair that someone who is 6573 doesn't get to vote, but someone who is 6574 days old does?!

Quit your bitchin'

once again it's not about going from 6573 days to 6574 days, it's about going from 0 days to 6574 days.

You must have 6574 days of life experience to vote.

Age limits are not the same thing as tax brackets. Tax brackets are series of brackets, whereas age limits are a minimum requirement.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:05:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.

The idea of a progressive income tax raising income has no basis in reality:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:07:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:05:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.

The idea of a progressive income tax raising income has no basis in reality:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...

If you believe in the Laffer Curve, it shows that the Bill Clinton tax rates raise more revenue than the current tax rates.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:13:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:07:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:05:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.

The idea of a progressive income tax raising income has no basis in reality:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...

If you believe in the Laffer Curve, it shows that the Bill Clinton tax rates raise more revenue than the current tax rates.

Wow, you do realize that my chart covered the years when Bill Clinton was in office.

As a percentage of GDP, tax rates did not increase. Tax revenues only increased because GDP increased under Bill Clinton.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:15:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:13:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:07:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:05:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.

The idea of a progressive income tax raising income has no basis in reality:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...

If you believe in the Laffer Curve, it shows that the Bill Clinton tax rates raise more revenue than the current tax rates.

Wow, you do realize that my chart covered the years when Bill Clinton was in office.

Yes

As a percentage of GDP, tax rates did not increase. Tax revenues only increased because GDP increased under Bill Clinton.

I know, but the top tax rate is useless when there are numerous tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions. GDP growth with a progressive income tax should raise tax revenue.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:22:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:15:47 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:13:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:07:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:05:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.

The idea of a progressive income tax raising income has no basis in reality:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...

If you believe in the Laffer Curve, it shows that the Bill Clinton tax rates raise more revenue than the current tax rates.

Wow, you do realize that my chart covered the years when Bill Clinton was in office.

Yes

As a percentage of GDP, tax rates did not increase. Tax revenues only increased because GDP increased under Bill Clinton.

I know, but the top tax rate is useless when there are numerous tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions. GDP growth with a progressive income tax should raise tax revenue.

This ignores the fact that people will have less an incentive to work, or more likely to leave the country if they're being taxed at higher marginal revenues.

People respond to financial incentives. Increasing the tax on the rich, even with loopholes, does not mean the rich will spend their time working to get that money just to have it be given to the government.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 7:29:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 7:22:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:15:47 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:13:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:07:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:05:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/16/2012 7:01:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:46:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
Royal, you justify taxing the rich at a higher percentage mostly because you think some of them, like Romney, are "thieves," and because you have a problem with their corrupt lobbying practices. The solution is not to punish all the rich people for the immoral acitons of the few, but to instead enforce more anti-theft, anti-corruption laws.

A fair, efficient, and transparent progressive income tax system is justified because it charges those who uses more of the resources of a nation. The person with a larger amount of resources can help society have a more equal playing field, and enhance opportunity to have a more dynamic economy with greater entrepreneurship. These taxes that pay for our infrastructure, judicial system, education resources, medical system, defense, scientific establishment, and safety net, which itself improves productivity, consumerism, and entrepreneurship, leading to a dynamic economy.

Besides, the progressive income tax is a marginal income tax system. Your numbers about the "loss" are incorrect.

The idea of a progressive income tax raising income has no basis in reality:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com...

If you believe in the Laffer Curve, it shows that the Bill Clinton tax rates raise more revenue than the current tax rates.

Wow, you do realize that my chart covered the years when Bill Clinton was in office.

Yes

As a percentage of GDP, tax rates did not increase. Tax revenues only increased because GDP increased under Bill Clinton.

I know, but the top tax rate is useless when there are numerous tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions. GDP growth with a progressive income tax should raise tax revenue.

This ignores the fact that people will have less an incentive to work, or more likely to leave the country if they're being taxed at higher marginal revenues.

Our top rate is pretty low in comparison to Europe. If you look at other nations, their top rates are the in the 60 percent range. We could expire the tax cuts.

People respond to financial incentives. Increasing the tax on the rich, even with loopholes, does not mean the rich will spend their time working to get that money just to have it be given to the government.

It still improves revenue collection. Most people I believe aren't also thinking "What can I do to get the government's hands off my money? I know, I'll work less!"
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan