President Trump’s tax plan keeps the socialist communist progressive income tax alive

[Swordsmyth]

I think it's the other way around. A net-taxpayer voting scheme would result in a flat tax. Suppose you started with a steeply progressive tax, where only the top 1% paid a 50% tax, for example. That 1% would be the only voters and they would vote for politicians who would spread the tax pain more evenly. The resulting tax scheme should logically be one that spreads the taxes as evenly as possible, since the voters are always going to be trying to reduce their taxes. Since everyone has to pay, there's an incentive for smaller government as it will make most of the voters tax burden go down. When only a minority has to fund government the incentive is for bigger government. When a majority has to fund government the incentive is for smaller government.

How are you going to get people to submit to a system that takes away their right to vote?
Unless you are planning a coup you have to change the tax system first so that most people are still qualified to vote after you restrict it to net-taxpayers.

My belief is that "trying to convince people that government spending should be restricted" is not going to work. It's going to take a fundamental change in the democratic process, not "talk". I think the fundamental flaw is unrestricted democracy and unless you fix that flaw somehow, no amount of talk is going to help because people are always going to act in their self interest.

You will never get people to give up their right to vote, you will need to get them to cut spending and flatten taxes first.

Look at you for example. You admitted you'd be in favor of reducing all but the top tax bracket, even though you know it's morally wrong to put more of the burden on the rich. That's because you're acting in your self interest.

I said I would consider it an improvement if those in power reduced taxes even if the reduction was uneven, I specifically said I wouldn't do things that way if I had power, to clarify I will state that I would vote for a tax flattener rather than an uneven tax reducer, there is a difference between what I will do and what I would consider an improvement if it happens beyond my control.

 

[Madison320]

You will never get people to give up their right to vote, you will need to get them to cut spending and flatten taxes first.

I agree. It's more of a theoretical argument that'll probably never happen. There's no chance people will give up their right to vote (not really a true right by the way). Then again the chances of us cutting spending are not much better.

I said I would consider it an improvement if those in power reduced taxes even if the reduction was uneven, I specifically said I wouldn't do things that way if I had power, to clarify I will state that I would vote for a tax flattener rather than an uneven tax reducer, there is a difference between what I will do and what I would consider an improvement if it happens beyond my control.

No not uneven, the example I gave was more progressive! That's a critical difference. I absolutely think it's NOT an improvement if you reduce taxes at the lower end but keep them high at the top end. That makes them even more progressive. If you don't agree with that, we're not on the same page at all.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I agree. It's more of a theoretical argument that'll probably never happen. There's no chance people will give up their right to vote (not really a true right by the way). Then again the chances of us cutting spending are not much better.



No not uneven, the example I gave was more progressive! That's a critical difference. I absolutely think it's NOT an improvement if you reduce taxes at the lower end but keep them high at the top end. That makes them even more progressive. If you don't agree with that, we're not on the same page at all.

I don't think it is right to make the tax system more progressive, but I also don't think it is right to keep taxes as high as they are, if either one is reduced I consider it an improvement, if I were in power I would reduce both and I will vote for someone who will reduce both before somebody who will only reduce one, I will also vote for the flattener before the person who reduces taxes in a way that makes the system more progressive but I will consider the tax reduction an improvement if it happens.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

if there were a deficiency, or an emergency should arise calling for additional revenue, I find the founders intended apportioned tax to meet such a deficiency an agreeable and principled approach to disburse the burden

I don't see anything in Federalist 30 that suggests that an apportioned tax would be the default rule to be used to meet a deficiency. Just the opposite: "Its [the country's] future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined…"

Hamilton's distrust of requisitions (which differ little as a practical matter from direct taxes upon the States) is pointed out in Federalist 30, but a more glaring flaw lies in the timing gap between the federal government's need for revenue and the time it would take for the States to come up with their shares. States with no income tax may find it necessary to enact one, and the resistance to such a proposal could easily cause a delay (or complete failure) in enacting it. Even those States with existing income tax systems could experience legislative deadlock in determining whether to raise income taxes or to seek another way to raise the needed revenue. The point is that there will inevitable be a gap between the time Congress passes a direct tax and the time the Treasury receives the money. In the interim, the federal government would either have to divert money from certain programs (as pointed out by Hamilton) or engage in borrowing, thereby increasing the interest on the national debt and compounding the deficiency.

Others have pointed out the mammoth increase in consumption taxes that would be necessary if the income tax were eliminated, and the squabbles in the state legislatures on how to meet a direct tax bill would pale in comparison with the fight in Congress on what articles or transactions would be subject to a consumption tax. Increase the gasoline tax? The oil and gas interests would scream. Impose a stock transfer tax? The capital markets would have a stroke. Impose a tax on the internet? No aye vote gets reelected.

Relying on consumption taxes has the inevitable result of increasing prices for the objects of the tax, thereby increasing the demand for foreign goods and putting domestic producers at a comparative disadvantage. Attempting to cure this via tariffs simply results in a trade war that does nothing to solve the problem.

As I mentioned before, there's no reason to think that a tax plan that might have worked for a nation with 3.6 million people would cut it for one with almost 100 times the population.

 

[Madison320]

I don't think it is right to make the tax system more progressive, but I also don't think it is right to keep taxes as high as they are, if either one is reduced I consider it an improvement, if I were in power I would reduce both and I will vote for someone who will reduce both before somebody who will only reduce one, I will also vote for the flattener before the person who reduces taxes in a way that makes the system more progressive but I will consider the tax reduction an improvement if it happens.

What if we reduced all the brackets to 0, but kept the upper bracket at 39? Would you consider that an improvement?

 

[Swordsmyth]

What if we reduced all the brackets to 0, but kept the upper bracket at 39? Would you consider that an improvement?

That would be beyond the threshold of where it would be an improvement, as the tax system becomes more progressive the benefit of reducing taxes becomes smaller and the negative of increasing the progressiveness increases.

 

[Madison320]

That would be beyond the threshold of where it would be an improvement, as the tax system becomes more progressive the benefit of reducing taxes becomes smaller and the negative of increasing the progressiveness increases.

So a 50% reduction to the lower brackets only is ok but not 100%?

I shouldn't be giving you such a hard time on this, I actually struggled with this myself a while age. I finally realized that the progressive part takes total precedence over any overall "decrease". Think about the other example I mentioned where you legalize drugs, but only for a certain group. That's a step in the wrong direction, even though overall less people are affected by the bad law. Equal application of the law is more important to liberty than granting immunity to certain groups.

 

[johnwk]

I don't see anything in Federalist 30 that suggests that an apportioned tax would be the default rule to be used to meet a deficiency.

And? What is your point?


JWK

 

[Swordsmyth]

So a 50% reduction to the lower brackets only is ok but not 100%?

The example you gave was:

I'll bet if Trump proposed a change to the income tax, where the only change was to drop the brackets by 5%(10% goes to 5%, 15% goes to 10%, etc) , except for the top bracket, leave that at 39%, 99% here would support it.

I'm not sure where the crossover point is where the increased progressiveness is worse the the tax reduction that is why I want both reduction and flattening and I prefer flattening to reduction, but so long as I am not in power I am forced to deal with whatever those in power do and try to decide whether it is an improvement or not.

I shouldn't be giving you such a hard time on this, I actually struggled with this myself a while age. I finally realized that the progressive part takes total precedence over any overall "decrease". Think about the other example I mentioned where you legalize drugs, but only for a certain group. That's a step in the wrong direction, even though overall less people are affected by the bad law. Equal application of the law is more important to liberty than granting immunity to certain groups.

Total exemptions are different from varying levels of obligation and laws are different from taxes so it is possible for the benefit of a tax reduction to outweigh the negative of increased progressiveness, however you are correct that there is some level of similar injustice which is why I agree that the tax system needs to flattened and why I prefer flattening to reduction.

 

[Madison320]

I'm not sure where the crossover point is where the increased progressiveness is worse the the tax reduction that is why I want both reduction and flattening and I prefer flattening to reduction, but so long as I am not in power I am forced to deal with whatever those in power do and try to decide whether it is an improvement or not.

Usually when there's a "crossover point" that's a sign that something is wrong with your logic. Not always, but usually.

Total exemptions are different from varying levels of obligation and laws are different from taxes so it is possible for the benefit of a tax reduction to outweigh the negative of increased progressiveness, however you are correct that there is some level of similar injustice which is why I agree that the tax system needs to flattened and why I prefer flattening to reduction.

I think we're close to agreeing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Usually when there's a "crossover point" that's a sign that something is wrong with your logic. Not always, but usually.

It certainly is a sign of a flaw in the approach to tax reduction that we are discussing which is why it is not how I would do things if were in charge.

I think we're close to agreeing.

I have said so all along, I have considered this a friendly discussion of a difficult subject rather than an argument.

I have nothing more to add to this topic for now since we have covered it pretty thoroughly, like I said at the beginning I think there are more people who agree with you at least as closely as I do than you know but we are not in charge so we have to deal with what happens and try to decide whether it is an improvement or not rather than whether it is the best thing to do.

 

[johnwk]

I think it's the other way around. A net-taxpayer voting scheme would result in a flat tax. Suppose you started with a steeply progressive tax, where only the top 1% paid a 50% tax,

A 50% tax on what?

JWK

 

[Madison320]

A 50% tax on what?

JWK

Income, although it could be other types.

 

[johnwk]

Income, although it could be other types.

What is the definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? And what is a "net-taxpayer voting scheme"?


JWK

 

[The Rebel Poet]

And why is it that we never get real tax reform?

Because people keep voting for "outsiders" like Trump and Obama who promise to shrink government. Even though they out of the same mouth promise to increase government, people keep delusionally pretending that they are anti-establishment. We will never get any economic, foreign-policy, or social reform until we stop electing people who only pretend to be different and only even pretend 10% of the time.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

ungrateful.

Ungrateful? This perfectly sums up what is wrong with the Trump religion. No one has to be grateful that we are plummetting into the abyss with the help of Trump. If anyone is on the fence about joining the Trump cult, look good and hard at what you are flirting with.

 

[euphemia]

Ungrateful? This perfectly sums up what is wrong with the Trump religion. No one has to be grateful that we are plummetting into the abyss with the help of Trump. If anyone is on the fence about joining the Trump cult, look good and hard at what you are flirting with.

At least you posted something. You can hang on to your bitterness all you want. Some of us just make a choice not to live like you do. It was a choice I made all through the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama years. I don't want to be someone who never sees the good in anything, so just get a grip. If you don't like what I post, don't read it.

 

[Madison320]

What is the definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? And what is a "net-taxpayer voting scheme"?


JWK

I've never really thought about a good working definition for income. If you're employed it would be your paycheck. If you own a business it'd be your profit. A net tax payer scheme is where only people who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits are allowed to vote.

 

[Madison320]

Because people keep voting for "outsiders" like Trump and Obama who promise to shrink government. Even though they out of the same mouth promise to increase government, people keep delusionally pretending that they are anti-establishment. We will never get any economic, foreign-policy, or social reform until we stop electing people who only pretend to be different and only even pretend 10% of the time.

I don't know what the answer is but I feel certain it's some kind of restricted voting plan. Unlimited voting will almost always make government bigger as people vote for free stuff.

 

[euphemia]

Run the numbers. Trump instituted a hiring freeze when first elected. While lifted to some degree, he has not replaced those who retired or moved on. There are fewer federal employees now than when he first took office.

I think it is entirely reasonable to let the first step have full effect before reducing or eliminating departments. It's not how I would do it, but there you go. EPA and Ed would have gone my second day.