Forbidden Donut

A fair tax policy doesn't work. Period. Try getting everyone paying 15% and see how that goes for you. The guy making 20k needs every penny he makes. And the guy making 20 million is willing to spend MORE money on an accountant to help him dodge that 15% than the 15% is actually worth.

The problem with examining the fairness of any persons tax plan is that we look at how taxes will change and not what taxes should be. Taxes are artificially low for the top 1% of earners in America, and most of their money isn't made as income anyway. I think Obama's capital gains tax is high, but the income tax part seems sort of rational.

Fair is a terrible word to use in the discussion of taxes. It's not fair that a guy who sits at a desk all day making calls to his subordinates makes hundreds of times more than the subordinates he's barking orders to is it? It's not fair that people who earn more money have an entirely different way of earning more money than over half of the country.

The median income is 32k per annum right now. That's not fair either. They can work as hard as they like, but they will never make 6 figures. They will never own stock. They will never get half the opportunities or resources at their disposal as the top 1%. Is that fair?

My point isn't that Obama's plan is fair. It isn't. My point is that fairness doesn't need to be part of our tax policy, because it's not part of our economic system.

/edit: I'd also like to say that tyranny of the majority is preferable to plutocracy IMO.
//Capitalist Representative Democracy can only dissolve to so much and it's well on it's way to Plutocracy.

This is just a rant about the misuse of the word "fair" in describing Obama's tax policy (or McCain's for that matter, but he's not the one calling his plan "fair"); I didn't really mean to discuss the benefits or drawbacks of his tax policy. But, since you brought it up:

About the only thing you said that I do agree with is that 15% affects living conditions far more at lower income brackets. Good! Since the vast majority of people will always exist in the bottom of the income curve, then the only reason taxes will ever be levied is to pay for stuff that is absolutely and utterly essential (which I would argue on a federal level is almost nothing). The end-result is a stable and fair society that actually works within the confines of the constitution. It's the society our founding fathers envisioned, and truly fair tax policies are really the only way to make it happen.

Yeah, if you want to keep out of control spending, rampant inflation, medicare, social security, money-hemorrhaging military, and the dozens of entirely unconstitutional departments that make up our federal government, then a truly "fair" tax would be awful. Since both Obama and McCain support all of the above, I understand why they have tax policies that suck ass and will continue to slowly destroy the fabric of this country, but to call them "fair" is manipulative and misleading.

I'm more upset about other nomenclatures: Patriot Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I think that policy would destroy our country in a matter of 25 years. Completely obliterate the working and middle class and see how our market works.

Which policy? McCain's or the idealistic one that I outlined?

Yours. Unless you plan on violently overthrowing the government, declaring a dictatorship and ushering in the age of rainbows and peace and non-competitive provision of services you'd just see a middle class taxed out of existence and an extremely wealthy upper crust benefiting from the taxes levied on the poor while dodging their 15% share by declaring income as capital and writing it off, shipping funds overseas, etc.

The WHOLE system needs to be revamped before a fair tax can do anything except lead to the fall of the already strained working class in this country.

The average income in this country is $32,500, about what I'm making now. It feels like chicken scratch. I am living with my mum still, not paying much for food, don't have insurance, am not sure whether my car will pass inspection and whether I'd have the dough to fix it if it didn't. I'm lucky that my mom's in a position to help me out or I would be well on my way to the poorhouse.

If you tax $32,500 at 15% the person is left with $27,625. That's ridiculous to expect.
If you tax $250,000 at 15% the person is left with $217,500. Assuming they are paying.

These two groups make use of the same roads, schools, military, firehouses, and police. In fact it can (and has) be argued that the wealthier you are the more you rely on these services because you have more to lose. If I get my wallet stolen tomorrow it will never be found by police. If you stole the identity of a guy making a quarter million you can bet you're going to jail. Fair?

This whole discussion of a "fair tax policy" is moot until the fundamental unfairness of our countries OTHER policies is rectified. If we don't close the gap between rich and poor then either the poor will revolt (unlikely) or they will simply end up so marginalized in a generation that there will simply be no money in the <99.9% of the system to pay for the service the top .1% is offering for profit.

I'm not trying to say your idea is stupid though. It's a beautiful concept but we're WAY too deep in it right now to even think about that. We've had a hundred years of policy that unfairly benefited the richest in this country. Maybe it's time to shift the balance for a few years and see how it goes?

I don't think Court was suggesting that we move to a flat tax. Just that it is wrong to call a bracketed tax system fair.

I do agree that closing the gap between the lower class and the upper class would be nice, but that is mostly a job for the lower class to work on. Currently, a big problem within our system is people living in more luxury than they can afford. People took out mortgages for HDTVs, vacations, that sports car that they always wanted, and the three bedroom house. If people didn't take out those mortgages, they'd be in the black rather than the red. Obviously, their "stuff" wouldn't be as nice, but luxuries aren't necessities.

Expecting the government to force the gap to close isn't right. Having them even out the pay slope (via income tax) is something I won't fight though. I have a hard time believing that the guys who set the wages make pay properly proportioned.

I don't really know what you're arguing. It sounds like you're pulling points in favor of my argument (we have tons of shit that is broken and as a result we must rely on an unfair tax system) and combining them with points that simply don't make any sense (rich people rely on government handouts).

The middle class is raped by taxes because the lower and middle class demand retarded shit from their government. We wanted social security, so we raise the taxes of the rich to support it. We wanted welfare, so we raise the taxes of the rich to support it. We wanted medicare, so we raise the taxes of the rich to support it. We wanted the department of education, so we raise the taxes of the rich to support it. We want all sorts of government programs, and the only way to fund them is to tax the rich. The problem is, we could never possibly tax the rich enough to pay for all of the stupid shit we demand of the government. The reason we tax at all is to provide for stupid shit!

If the tax system was truly fair -- if everyone was taxed by an equal percentage, the middle and lower class (the people that make the government spend insanely large amounts of money we don't have on retarded social programs) would have to carefully consider the shit they support:

If we want public education, we'll have to tax ourselves more. Since the rich will always send their kids to private school and even with an equal tax percentage they would account for the majority of taxes collected, we could afford the department of education. It might involve a 2% tax increase on everyone's wages though, so the lower and middle class really should be sure that the education is worth the investment.

If we want universal healthcare, we'll have to tax ourselves more. But your wages will be increased by 5%, so you better make sure it's something you really think is necessary. The rich don't care, 5% is far more than they will pay for their own healthcare, but it won't really hurt them at all. The worst they can do is raise a stink because they're paying taxes on shit they don't need, but they only make up 1%, so that doesn't really matter, does it?

Yes, a "fair" tax system would require a complete overhaul of the our federal government has operated for the past 200 years. That's why this tax system exists only as an ideal for many true conservatives around the country as opposed to current practice. But Obama's tax plan is certainly nothing remotely close to "fair" any way you cut it.

The solution to populism-induced financial burden (wait...populist policies are financially impossible to support? NO WAY!) is not to push more populist policies like you and Obama seem to think is OK. The solution to populism-induced financial burden isn't to push extremely fiscally irresponsible policies as a gimmick to swing conservative-wannabe votes like McCain seems to think is OK, either.

While I think you overemphasize the connection between the lower classes and government services, I agree with your fundamental point, which is that Obama's plan isn't fair either.

My point is simply that, though he shouldn't be parading it around as "fair" it is better for many many people who are struggling day to day and not a whole lot worse for people who are, frankly, fine.