View Full Version : What do you think is a reasonable effective tax rate?
ramairthree
03-18-19, 16:34
Take all your income. Taxable, non taxable, etc.
Your total gross income each year.
Then what you owe the feds each year.
What percent of your total gross income are you coughing up to the feds?
Not interested in AGI. Just gross income as individuals and taxes paid.
(Yeah, I know, you also have state income tax in many cases, tax on gas, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. but let’s just look at the basics.)
Doc Safari
03-18-19, 16:48
God Himself only requires 10%. I'd think anything above that is thievery. That's 10% of your income: No deductions, no property taxes, no gross receipts taxes, no weird Spanish American War reparations taxes, etc.
First, no more property or income taxes
2nd a Flat Tax across the board
3rd cut unnecessary spending
4 no more welfare
5 Crucify the owners of the Fed, abolish lend and spend, and tell Red China to FOAD
6 Closed borders/Undisturbed Isolation
7 All foreign interests PNGed/Crucified depending on my mood
8 Legalize all the guns drugs and whores and leave taxation thereof to the states
BoringGuy45
03-18-19, 16:54
God Himself only requires 10%. I'd think anything above that is thievery.
7% across the board sounds reasonable. No more penalizing people for doing better.
7% across the board sounds reasonable. No more penalizing people for doing better.
This too but more crucifixions
yeah %10 IF they could use it properly would do great BUT the problem is not the amount its how its used
seems we need to cut out so so so so so so much and get back to the basics and 0 special interest idiocy etc..
Take all your income. Taxable, non taxable, etc.
Your total gross income each year.
Then what you owe the feds each year.
What percent of your total gross income are you coughing up to the feds?
Not interested in AGI. Just gross income as individuals and taxes paid.
(Yeah, I know, you also have state income tax in many cases, tax on gas, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. but let’s just look at the basics.)
As little as possible and still perform duties required by constitution and some if the stuff added on.
No federal taxes. Make them ask the states for it. Then we pay to the state according to what we can legislate locally. I think income tax is immoral. Property tax is also as a rent check to the govt. Consumption tax is palpable.
States then negotiate with Fed what they want to pay for Fed services. No more Fed having direct coercive access to the pockets of every citizen.
In 2014 the average effective tax rate for:
The richest 1% of taxpayers paid an average 24.7% effective rate
A taxpayer making an average of $75,000.00 had an effective rate of 19.7%
Trying to answer your question as I understand it:
If you use everything we made (total income) and total taxes paid, our 2018 effective rate was 13.02%.
If you use the taxable income and total taxes paid, our 2018 effective rate was 15.29%.
Our marginal rate for 2018 was 24%.
The problem with just about any tax plan you come up with, absent a progressive rate such as we currently have, is disparate impact on the lower brackets.
Why a %? Why not a flat per person rate. The rich and the poor are equal, right? That would only be fair.
This too but more crucifixions
Too 1st Century A.D. Should be 10% tax with Leftists hanging from street lamps....:smile:
Too 1st Century A.D. Should be 10% tax with Leftists hanging from street lamps....:smile:
I would pay 15% just to see that. :)
The problem with just about any tax plan you come up with, absent a progressive rate such as we currently have, is disparate impact on the lower brackets. False. If the tax system was actually a flat rate (15%) with no deductions whatsoever, you would see bottom end wages rise to a accommodate the difference as employers would have to pay it in order to get people to work. Hell, the savings in accounting costs alone would probably cover the "raise." Would these people be pissed at the end of the year when they didn't have a fat refund check made up of other people's money (a-la the EIC and other refundable tax credits now)? Yep. They would be ready to riot! But guess what, they would bitch and moan and not do a damn thing.
I'm sending a check next month for more than I ever made when I considered myself poor, and that's after after paying in all year. Tax season sucks.
False. If the tax system was actually a flat rate (15%) with no deductions whatsoever, you would see bottom end wages rise to a accommodate the difference as employers would have to pay it in order to get people to work. Hell, the savings in accounting costs alone would probably cover the "raise." Would these people be pissed at the end of the year when they didn't have a fat refund check made up of other people's money (a-la the EIC and other refundable tax credits now)? Yep. They would be ready to riot! But guess what, they would bitch and moan and not do a damn thing.
I don't think a flat 15% would cover our nut.
Aside from that, I don't think you are getting what folks mean by disparate impact: Simply, if I take 15% from a guy making $200.000 it doesn't impact his lifestyle as much as 15% from a guy making $24,000. $3,600 from that guy's pocket means something doesn't get done/bought/fixed/repaired. $30,000 from the guy making $200,000 sounds like a lot more, but it generally doesn't hurt as much - his kids aren't going without braces.
Why a %? Why not a flat per person rate. The rich and the poor are equal, right? That would only be fair.
This is where I'm at. We should al pay the same amount into the system to get the same vote, rights, roads, etc out of the system. Equality is only heralded when people "get" something for it, not when they have to give!
and not only that, but it should all be due at the end of the year, no interest free loan to the .gov. Once people realized what they were paying and had to really be responsible for it- they would start holding the Politicians accountable for every damn dime spent.
That right there would FORCE a revolution of mind and people would absolutely reign in their government from being a hydra headed monster in a mere matter of years.
Its insane that everyone pays a different amount, yet everyone gets the same vote, roads, rights, etc...
I don't think a flat 15% would cover our nut.
Aside from that, I don't think you are getting what folks mean by disparate impact: Simply, if I take 15% from a guy making $200.000 it doesn't impact his lifestyle as much as 15% from a guy making $24,000. $3,600 from that guy's pocket means something doesn't get done/bought/fixed/repaired. $30,000 from the guy making $200,000 sounds like a lot more, but it generally doesn't hurt as much - his kids aren't going without braces.
Why exactly should any one man be forced to pay more than another when they get the same out of what they pay? It's wrong.
It's like we are all at a big dinner table and had the same meal and drinks, but everyone pays a different amount. It's nuts.
Divide the bill equally, or start giving the folks that pay more, more for what they pay.
Maybe I'm the exception here, but I don't mind a 25%-30% tax rate so long as it actually goes to where it needs to. I have no issues paying off our national debt, and giving the military more money for TRAINING, but it's the bureaucracy and politics that we have that kills me more than paying the taxes.
I don't think a flat 15% would cover our nut.
Aside from that, I don't think you are getting what folks mean by disparate impact: Simply, if I take 15% from a guy making $200.000 it doesn't impact his lifestyle as much as 15% from a guy making $24,000.
The false assumption here is “lifestyle.” It’s wrong to say what someone’s lifestyle is and should be nor how people take risk and leverage companies and opportunities. Our economy is sluggish because we can never have a guarantee of what taxes will be and long term investing, growth, tech, employment is dwarfed.
That said, everyday staples should never be taxed. Food, gas, cars, clothing, etc. Hence why I favor consumption taxes over income tax. I also favor people paying taxes for what they use, not for what they don’t.
All tax models should also include a required balanced budget based on actual govt revenue.
ramairthree
03-19-19, 01:12
I don't think a flat 15% would cover our nut.
Aside from that, I don't think you are getting what folks mean by disparate impact: Simply, if I take 15% from a guy making $200.000 it doesn't impact his lifestyle as much as 15% from a guy making $24,000. $3,600 from that guy's pocket means something doesn't get done/bought/fixed/repaired. $30,000 from the guy making $200,000 sounds like a lot more, but it generally doesn't hurt as much - his kids aren't going without braces.
Disparate is a two sided coin / double edged sword. Somebody is looking at you thinking you should give more so they get a bigger SSDI or welfare check.
Rich asshole number one inherited a 600 acre estate with a huge trust. He has never worked a day in his life. It is all under a foundation with 100 acres open to the public to view some rare hummingbirds or something. He pays himself a salary, with an AGI of 500k, pays about 110k a year in federal income tax alone. All the money he lives off of has been taxed numerous times when first made, in capital gains, in inheritance taxes, etc. for several decades before it became a trust/foundation. You may hate him, but he and his money have paid far more into the pie than the slice they get out of it.
Rich asshole number two spends between 70-90 hours a week juggling his portalet services, plumbing crews, well crews, septic crews, and equipment rentals. He also has an AGI of 500k with the same federal income taxes.
Rich asshole number 3 was a cop out of high school, knocked out college part time on the side, then law school on the side, works 60-80 hours a week and now has an AGI of 500k and say the same 110k federal income taxes.
Rich asshole number 4 spent a couple of decades working 120 hours a week, and now works zero hours a week with an AGI of 500k and 110k federal taxes living off the passive income of his self service car washes, storage rentals, and couple of gas stations/convenience stores with macdonalds.
Rich asshole number five was a medic in the 82nd out of high school. He went to college on the GI Bill, crushed all the hard courses, got into a US MD med school, worked even harder, worked 80 or more hours a week for more years on top of that, and now is an ER doctor at a trauma center working 36-48 hours a week with the same 500/110 income/tax pattern.
Rich asshole number six won the lottery or accidentally came up with some retarded app or came up with an idea for software or whatever of absolutely no productive, significant, or concrete worth that for whatever reason, they are getting 500k a year and coughing up those taxes.
People are conditioned to hate them, envy them, etc. despite the taxes they pay, let alone all the state income, property taxes, etc. they pay on top of that. Despite the fact these are also the guys pumping a shit ton of cash into the small business owners and skilled people locally. This is what this country is about. You can be born to nobody high school dropouts with no family reputation, status, land, or wealth and literally live the Amercian dream.
They use the exact same roads, ambulances, fire departments, etc. as everyone else even though they are funding over half of it. They are likely freebies on the public schools and paying extra for private schools. Yet they should pay more than their fair share because they have more money? They are paying far more to get the same or less than everyone else.
That is Fhole communist bullshit.
My opinion is,
Don’t worry about the guys paying more taxes than you, they are putting more into the pie than you are. But not getting a bigger piece.
Worry about the people paying less taxes than you. They are getting more than their fair share. I put them in two categories. Those that work, but whose intellectual, educational, skills, and abilities are of a lesser value. I am cool with that. Not everyone is going to be a Navy SEAL out of high school, get picked to go to the Naval Academy, Fly Tomcats, then go to medical school, be a Navy Flight Surgeon, then get elected for the Navy Atronaut program. The physical, mental, motivational, and resilience bell shaped curves are real.
I do not have the same respect, tolerance, and coolness with those that don’t. Worry about the BS SSDI, section 8, welfare, EBT types and non citizens disproportionately needing the fire department, the ambulance, the police, clogging up the ER, causing the accidents, making your insurance higher, making you spend money on security systems, etc., etc, etc,
For the record, my opinion is ten percent federal and five percent total for state should be the limit. And that we should not have local, county, state, or federal deficit spending budgets. That has significant implications. Like, if you receive government benefits because you can’t support yourself, you’re on birth control, male or female, if you are serving life in prison- you get comfort care, not dialysis and open heart surgery- if you are demented and don’t know who are wear you are in a nursing home, you get dignity and comfort care, not multiple trips to the ER and ICU for the next five or ten years, if you are off in a high risk area preaching and giving out bibles and get rolled up, we don’t spend s couple of hundred million on a hostage rescue- if you need a couple of hundred thousand a year in special education where typical student annual costs are 5k, you get five thousand allotted- and a ton of other harsh things, and a lot of other reasonable things like sticking with the M4 and M9, not giving staff people making slides on a FOB PEQs and Eotechs, pork spending, refugee spending, etc.
America is like that drama laden, woe is me, it’s everyone else’s fault, dumpster fire of a shit bag friend or relative that everyone knows who is using their newest credit card to pay off the minimum interest payments on their six other maxed out credit cards.
Aside from that, I don't think you are getting what folks mean by disparate impact
I'll be very upfront. I work in finance. Have for ten years. I understand the implications of what I am saying EXACTLY and with zero hesitation. I probably understand them more than most of my peers on the fiscal right. I do not care if that policy has a disparate impact. People complaining about a "disparate impact" on the poor are merely using a $20 word to say that they think it's unfair to the poor to expect them to pay, as a percentage of their income, the same as everyone else. It's not unfair. It's the very definition of fair. It is as fair as fair can be. The fact is that being poor is a disparate situation to being middle class or even wealthy and the three groups will never have the same view on tax policy. You could tax someone making half a million a year at 50% back to dollar number one and the "impact" on that person will be less than a 5% tax on a person making $20,000. If you want to have an equality of impact you can either eliminate taxes all together, or take everything from everyone. That's how you eliminate disparity. Neither of those things will happen.
Does a flat tax tighten the belt on the guy/gal making $40,000 who was only paying a net effective rate of 7%, at least a bit more than the guy making $80,000? $160,000? 320,000? You bet your ass it does. That's OK! This notion that we need to coddle everyone is nauseating. It's class warfare to think that you can not teach people to expect to contribute. When people contribute they might actually start caring where their money is going!
As I already said, the simplification in accounting costs alone would literally make "raises" for every working American possible and you would see take home pay rise. I didn't say that we would be getting rid of FICA (which is where most people claim the funding gap comes up). In fact I have always said that we need to eliminate the income cap on FICA payroll taxes while dropping the employer portion of the tax. That 7.65% that employers pay is a hidden tax on jobs that could/should be rolled right into the employees pay. Most people in America are unaware that they cost their employer 7.65% more than their salary in taxes. Just by having a job. The system would be better funded overnight and voila, another accounting function becomes easier for employers lowering costs.
It has been said in this thread already and I will reiterate it: The USA spends far too much money on BS and social engineering. Hiding taxes from employees and handing out phony "tax refunds" to people who paid little or even nothing into the system all year. It's time for transparency and honesty.
How about ZERO payroll deductions. You send a check every month to the US Treasury for your bill. Heck, I'll give you a progressive system even though it makes me want to vomit.
0-20K - 0%
20-60K - 10%
60-120K - 15%
120K-Bezos Money - 20%
But every person out there sends in their taxes themselves or they go straight to jail. You'd see things changing overnight. AT&T/Sprint/Verizon would be overwhelmed with the calls to DC about spending policies.
I may earn a very comfortable income, but I spent years studying (and was broke the whole time knowing that the ends justified the means) and I now keep that level by working my behind off. I'm typing this at 3:10 AM because I was up a hair earlier than my normal 4AM. I'll head to the gym in 15 minutes or so, run a 10K this morning because I like my pants fitting looser and hard work is how you keep doing that as you get closer to 40 than 30, then I will go to my office and work somewhere between ten and eleven hours. May not take a lunch. Lot going on today. The majority of people earning higher incomes work harder than I do most days. It's about damn time we stopped punishing success, or at least made sure that everyone had some skin in the game.
How about a Fair Tax? You can control your spending. No adjusted "rebates" for people making less, etc. Can't afford the tax on expensive hoop shoes, so sad. I see it as an advantage that everyone pays, the dope dealer, illegal, foreign visitor, etc.
No tax on core food items, meaning raw vegetables, milk, eggs, flour, etc. All other items whether it's chips to guns are taxed the same.
Other that, yeah, 10% flat.
How about a Fair Tax? You can control your spending. No adjusted "rebates" for people making less, etc. Can't afford the tax on expensive hoop shoes, so sad. I see it as an advantage that everyone pays, the dope dealer, illegal, foreign visitor, etc.
No tax on core food items, meaning raw vegetables, milk, eggs, flour, etc. All other items whether it's chips to guns are taxed the same.
Other that, yeah, 10% flat.
but thats what I said, I just think we need to bring back crucifixions just to get the point across.
College isnt what it used to be anyways. It is basically high school 2.0
I would like for someone to explain to me (meaning a liberal, etc.) why does one feel that they are entitled to other peoples money?
I would not support a flat tax over 10% with no deductions - on the other hand, if everyone paid 10% on all their income minus pre-tax IRAs, we would not need a higher rate.
Of course, I assume we get rid of child tax credits, earned income credit, etc.
People who argue against the fairness of a flat tax seem to like Social Security, which taxes both workers and employers a flat 6% before deductions, and has an income cap.
"Fair tax" is another name for European value added tax, which require even more government workers to implement.
Andy
horseman234
03-19-19, 06:58
If taxation is slavery when taxed at 100%, what is a fair tax?
Over thirty years ago, I was a tax manager in a Big 8 (at the time) accounting firm. I'm in favor of a flat consumption tax, and the elimination of other federal taxes. It would capture the huge underground economy that avoids taxes at the present time. Unfortunately, our "representatives" in Congress listen to the lobbyists which make change very difficult. Also, don't underestimate the shock to the economy as we transition to the consumption tax method. Investments are made taking the current income tax code into account. Just the change in the standard deduction, and cap on state income tax deductions passed under the Trump tax cut has had a serious effect on charitable deductions, as many of these deductions have no tax benefit. I know of some tax planners advising their clients to delay their annual charitable contributions for a few years and then make large contributions so that they will receive the tax benefit.
In my opinion, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but the temptation of our representatives to meddle in our daily lives, and to buy votes is just too great. A huge number of them have become multi-millionaires while serving. Our current tax code, with its complexity, is a huge area for the lobbyists and others to reward representatives who vote the "right" way.
Why exactly should any one man be forced to pay more than another when they get the same out of what they pay? It's wrong.
My belief is that we don't all get the same out of what we pay.
It's like we are all at a big dinner table and had the same meal and drinks, but everyone pays a different amount. It's nuts.
And yet that is what the healthcare industry does everyday.
Divide the bill equally, or start giving the folks that pay more, more for what they pay.
Speaking to your last sentence, we don't see things the same way.
For example, when I see employers paying wages that qualify employees for federal assistance, you might see the market setting wages for lower-skilled employees; I see that, also. But, I also see the government subsidizing those low wages.
So in that respect the employer is getting more bang for their tax dollars than I am, since I don't employ anyone.
We travel a little and make use of the National Parks, State Parks and Corps of Engineers facilities. In that respect I get more from my tax dollars than a lower-income person might.
I go to WalMart every once and a while. It is not unusual for me to see a police unit there, taking a shoplifting complaint or dealing with a shoplifter. Most of us have no dealings with the police, so WalMart is getting more bang for the buck than I am out of the police department, which my taxes help pay.
Although roads aren't totally paid for out of income taxes, fuel taxes making up most of that expense, we can ask ourselves the same thing: who gets more utility out of those taxes, a trucking company, or me as an individual traveler?
Now, an answer to all of that is, it's America, we are all free, to become WalMart, an independent business owner, or a manufacturer. But that isn't based in reality, we all cant do those things.
As a result, my view is that as people make more, they use more of what our tax dollars pay for - except for those at the bottom, they use more government than they pay for.
So, as good Americans we should want to do all we can to lift those folks on the bottom up to where they have reason to bitch about their taxes. :jester: (not really joking)
I don't think I'm going to change your worldview, but that is where I'm coming from.
I wouldn’t mind paying taxes if I had something to show for it.
Also crucifixions nor public hangings do kot violate the 8th Amendment
Speaking to your last sentence, we don't see things the same way.
For example, when I see employers paying wages that qualify employees for federal assistance, you might see the market setting wages for lower-skilled employees; I see that, also. But, I also see the government subsidizing those low wages.
So in that respect the employer is getting more bang for their tax dollars than I am, since I don't employ anyone.
We travel a little and make use of the National Parks, State Parks and Corps of Engineers facilities. In that respect I get more from my tax dollars than a lower-income person might.
I go to WalMart every once and a while. It is not unusual for me to see a police unit there, taking a shoplifting complaint or dealing with a shoplifter. Most of us have no dealings with the police, so WalMart is getting more bang for the buck than I am out of the police department, which my taxes help pay.
Although roads aren't totally paid for out of income taxes, fuel taxes making up most of that expense, we can ask ourselves the same thing: who gets more utility out of those taxes, a trucking company, or me as an individual traveler?
Now, an answer to all of that is, it's America, we are all free, to become WalMart, an independent business owner, or a manufacturer. But that isn't based in reality, we all cant do those things.
As a result, my view is that as people make more, they use more of what our tax dollars pay for - except for those at the bottom, they use more government than they pay for.
So, as good Americans we should want to do all we can to lift those folks on the bottom up to where they have reason to bitch about their taxes. :jester: (not really joking)
I don't think I'm going to change your worldview, but that is where I'm coming from.
I am not a fan of Government subsidizing anything really. Wages should be set based on what the business will pay and what the employee will accept as compensation for the work they are doing. Subsidizing it just mucks it all up and creates bigger and more long term problems to deal with.
We all get the same "Equality of opportunity" of the benefits of our paid taxes. Meaning some may technically get more than others due to specific circumstances, such as your Walmart scenario, but it doesn't mean that others CANNOT or should not have that same benefit if needed.
Same goes fr your National Parks example- you and everyone else has the same equal opportunity to utilize them, some can utilize them more than others, it doesn't change that anyone has the equal opportunity of use.
Just like employment, in this day and age we have equality of opportunity, and in some cases like affirmative action opportunity's are more prevalent for a group of folks that may be less qualified to earn that opportunity based on what in my opinion is a bullshit and incredibly racist law. But for the sake of argument we have essentially equality of opportunity; but that does not insure equality of outcome.
Take my job for instance- I am in sales. I am at the top 2% of my field in sales. The other sales guys at my company all have equality of opportunity to make sales, some work harder and smarter and make big $$$, some do the least amount of work and earn less. We all get the same opportunity, but some of us make more of it than others.
It's the same in life in general, here in the USA; except for taxes paid.
The other sales guys who sell 1/5 of what I do make less, pay fewer taxes, but still get the same vote, roads, national parks, etc as I do. I pay much more into the pot and don't get the opportunity to get anymore out of it than they do.
I do not agree with you when you say "we all do not get to do those things"; well of course we don't, but we all have the same opportunity to do those things if we wish and actually do them.
I came from an impoverished family. My mother worked 3 jobs to get out, and I worked jobs along side her when I was young to help out and also better myself and get further along; my children will have greater opportunity than I did and may do better or worse- it's their choice.
That's the magic, you make your own reality. Literally.
It's easier for some than others, absolutely- but we all have the same equality of opportunity to do good or evil and to be successful or be impoverished.
I believe in helping others, I have done so my entire life. I do it MYSELF, though. I hate the the government takes so much from me as I could do more for others. And what they take from me gets sliced and mismanaged and dwindled and does less than I could myself with it. It's infuriating to me.
I've successfully mentored folks out of poverty, and been unsuccessful as well. It wasn't me, it was the individual and their effort and willingness to change and put in the hard work to change that made the difference.
I could teach a lot more men to "fish" if I had the means to do so, the means that I EARNED and was compensated for my hard work. Instead they are just getting handed out shitty little fish to barely keep them alive and keep them in their place.
Our government makes it easier to remain impoverished and very little to motivate success. That's what's so egregious to me.
"Don't feed the animals- they may become dependent" but hand out free shit all day long to the humans and all will be hunky dory...
THCDDM$ - Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I believe I've alluded to my envy of your ability to frame a debate before, this is another example.
You make seemingly legitimate points, all of which hinge on the 'we are all given the same opportunity' platitudes.
That may be true, but lets be honest and admit that some folks are simply better equipped to take advantage of opportunity by things beyond their control, intellect, temperament, etc.
I think maybe we both look at these commands:
Deuteronomy 15:7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (kind of a cool coincidence - I recently read DT on my chronological journey through the Bible)
Mark12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
With agreement, but with different ideas on how they look in action.
The_War_Wagon
03-19-19, 20:12
If God can get by on 10%, the gummint shouldn't need more than 9%.
THCDDM$ - Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I believe I've alluded to my envy of your ability to frame a debate before, this is another example.
You make seemingly legitimate points, all of which hinge on the 'we are all given the same opportunity' platitudes.
That may be true, but lets be honest and admit that some folks are simply better equipped to take advantage of opportunity by things beyond their control, intellect, temperament, etc.
I think maybe we both look at these commands:
Deuteronomy 15:7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (kind of a cool coincidence - I recently read DT on my chronological journey through the Bible)
Mark12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
With agreement, but with different ideas on how they look in action.
You are mixing religion with government/economy.
Economy: you are rewarded naturally by what you provide society (cronyism needs to be stopped to realize thi natural progression). Smart AND hardworking people with GOOD, realized ideas and products/services will make the most money.
Government has limited duties, which some tax is needed to fullful.
Bible verses above describe charity. Its not charity when taken by force. The government is not, nor should be a charity org.
You are mixing religion with government/economy.
Economy: you are rewarded naturally by what you provide society (cronyism needs to be stopped to realize thi natural progression). Smart AND hardworking people with GOOD, realized ideas and products/services will make the most money.
Government has limited duties, which some tax is needed to fullful.
Bible verses above describe charity. Its not charity when taken by force. The government is not, nor should be a charity org.
I'm aware of the distinction, but Faith should carry over into everyday life and we were talking about fairness of differing tax rates.
Who said ' "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's?'
THCDDM$ - Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I believe I've alluded to my envy of your ability to frame a debate before, this is another example.
You make seemingly legitimate points, all of which hinge on the 'we are all given the same opportunity' platitudes.
That may be true, but lets be honest and admit that some folks are simply better equipped to take advantage of opportunity by things beyond their control, intellect, temperament, etc.
I think maybe we both look at these commands:
Deuteronomy 15:7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (kind of a cool coincidence - I recently read DT on my chronological journey through the Bible)
Mark12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
With agreement, but with different ideas on how they look in action.
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them. I always enjoy our interactions and learn from your point of view.
I follow and agree with the commandments you posted, but I do see the reality of them differently, perhaps.
Sometimes being "openhanded" to those in need is understanding when wrong is being done by giving them something, that in turn keeps them in perpetual need rather than doing something different that will make a greater impact- should they choose to accept and work for it.
That's the qualifier and distinction that I am positing. I don't believe the way the government takes from me and gives is the right way. I don't believe it is being done in a way that is going to affect greater change. Good will is for not if it perpetuates poverty and hardship.
The words in those commandments are powerful. People mostly agree with them regardless of faith. BUT, when they are forced to give and the meaning is taken away; it changes their perspective, changes their mindset.
Charity is most meaningful when done face to face from one to another. You gain greater perception and understanding, both sides do. When a governmental body takes from one and gives to another in any form, it waters this down and takes away the goodness and intimacy of it all. It is also always done with less efficiency and less intention.
Not everyone will give when it is needed, and that is their choice. Not everyone will accept what is given when it is needed. Those are choices we should all be able to make.
Ultimately we are all our brothers keepers, even if a blind eye is turned to this fact. I believe it is easier to turn a blind eye when someone else is taking from your nd doing the giving, making less of an impact and in some cases doing more harm than god.
I liken it to this- take away a Childs toy and give it to a needy child and no lesson is learned by the child you have taken from- but jealousy and resentment. Teach a child a giving and loving nature and allow them to be charitable of their own will and what is learned is sacred and beautiful and will have a lasting and more meaningful affect on both children and mankind.
I’m only here because two people started using the Bible...
On God only requiring 10%:
Kinda. There was nearly no government and constant war between cousins. Plus invading armies that had people huddling in the hills, with no way to defend themselves unless God directly intervened and told them to get off their butts and fight. 10% covered the minimum of government, but that would not cover the level of government required in a modern society in a globally connected world.
On progressive tax rates:
As much as I despise the idea, God saw fit to set different levels of sacrifice based on wealth. I figure if He felt it just to require more of less for the same result, based on the wealth of the individual, I don’t fight over the necessity and fairness of different tax rates. However... they should be low, and based on a budget that does not permit deficits.
On giving to the poor:
A) This was always at the volition of the giver. The wealthy who did not provide for the poor are decried throughout the Old and New Testaments. But they had the choice to give. In a selfish way, the overtaking of charity by taking possessions of those with to give to those without also removes the opportunity for me to show the love of Christ.
B) How much was to be given? How was it to be given? Did the laws regarding debt assist in fairness? Should we cap debt periods at the government level?
Some of the most basic provisions for caring for the poor involved leaving labor undone, so they could labor in the fields honorably, understanding that the owner of the field was obeying God and perhaps providing something for them because of his care for the poor above what God required. Beyond this, care for the poor involved protection and shelter, particularly for those who did not have, or have the right to, land.
Progressive tax rates are necessary. But the levels should be low. No one should pay nothing.
I believe property taxes are unjust. I like the idea of making payroll taxes illegal. So many people wouldn’t pay them, budgets would have to be re-examined st every governmental level. If everyone is in prison, no one’s earning a check.
No exemptions or credits...even for children. I like the idea of child tax credits, because it promotes something (progeny) necessary for society, but it is unbelievably abused in my anecdotal experience. It shouldn’t be possible to pay cash for a last generation, used Escalade with supersize spinners with a tax return. That’s an actual example.
I’m only here because two people started using the Bible...
On God only requiring 10%:
Kinda. There was nearly no government and constant war between cousins. Plus invading armies that had people huddling in the hills, with no way to defend themselves unless God directly intervened and told them to get off their butts and fight. 10% covered the minimum of government, but that would not cover the level of government required in a modern society in a globally connected world.
On progressive tax rates:
As much as I despise the idea, God saw fit to set different levels of sacrifice based on wealth. I figure if He felt it just to require more of less for the same result, based on the wealth of the individual, I don’t fight over the necessity and fairness of different tax rates. However... they should be low, and based on a budget that does not permit deficits.
Man, I feel dumb, I just read Leviticus. Great analogy.
On giving to the poor:
A) This was always at the volition of the giver. The wealthy who did not provide for the poor are decried throughout the Old and New Testaments. But they had the choice to give. In a selfish way, the overtaking of charity by taking possessions of those with to give to those without also removes the opportunity for me to show the love of Christ.
B) How much was to be given? How was it to be given? Did the laws regarding debt assist in fairness? Should we cap debt periods at the government level?
Some of the most basic provisions for caring for the poor involved leaving labor undone, so they could labor in the fields honorably, understanding that the owner of the field was obeying God and perhaps providing something for them because of his care for the poor above what God required. Beyond this, care for the poor involved protection and shelter, particularly for those who did not have, or have the right to, land.
Progressive tax rates are necessary. But the levels should be low. No one should pay nothing.
I believe property taxes are unjust. I like the idea of making payroll taxes illegal. So many people wouldn’t pay them, budgets would have to be re-examined st every governmental level. If everyone is in prison, no one’s earning a check.
No exemptions or credits...even for children. I like the idea of child tax credits, because it promotes something (progeny) necessary for society, but it is unbelievably abused in my anecdotal experience. It shouldn’t be possible to pay cash for a last generation, used Escalade with supersize spinners with a tax return. That’s an actual example.
I agree mostly, and, much to my chagrin, have never thought about: "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God'" also giving the poor the dignity of labor for their keep.
Dr. Bullseye
03-19-19, 23:33
Tax Rates? Individual tax rates?
Everyone between 21 and 65 should pay a flat rate tax of say $2000.00 per year. The government would have to live on that money. Young people and old people are exempt. This means everyone, welfare recipients, disabled, everyone. Failing this:
Entrance fees to America, at the border, should be $1000.00 per person. I certainly don't need more tourists. Did you wake up this morning wanting a tourist? Charge the hell out of them.
All money being wired out of the US or transferred via bank should have withholding as if the sender were a single person. He would be given a receipt keyed to his SS#. When he files a tax return, he could get the money back if he was due it like any other deduction. Of course, illegal aliens would lose their money and they need to lose it.
Hedge fund managers need to be taxed on profits as income, not capital gains. Investment income should be taxed as earned income no matter what.
I agree mostly, and, much to my chagrin, have never thought about: "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God'" also giving the poor the dignity of labor for their keep.
Yep. And, it also, in my opinion, does open the possibility of socialist/communist ideas like the Paris ...ah... I can’t remember the first government work programs circus 1848... but anyway, things like the Civilian Conservation Corps actually fit within the concepts of biblical history. However, they should always be incredibly unpleasant and subsistence wages so no one wants to keep working there, such as shucking corn. But we’ve strayed from taxes.
ramairthree
03-20-19, 01:16
Tax Rates? Individual tax rates?
Everyone between 21 and 65 should pay a flat rate tax of say $2000.00 per year. The government would have to live on that money. Young people and old people are exempt. This means everyone, welfare recipients, disabled, everyone. Failing this:
Entrance fees to America, at the border, should be $1000.00 per person. I certainly don't need more tourists. Did you wake up this morning wanting a tourist? Charge the hell out of them.
All money being wired out of the US or transferred via bank should have withholding as if the sender were a single person. He would be given a receipt keyed to his SS#. When he files a tax return, he could get the money back if he was due it like any other deduction. Of course, illegal aliens would lose their money and they need to lose it.
Hedge fund managers need to be taxed on profits as income, not capital gains. Investment income should be taxed as earned income no matter what.
They have already been taxed on the money they used and invested to make money, and you want to tax it again at the same rate?
I don’t think the federal government should be able to tax an individual on anything. People used to be citizens of the state not the fed.
Income tax is BS. Why should I be taxed on my labor? And why should I have to pay taxes on my house and land or a car I own?
I really don’t mind paying taxes for necessary government functions. We need some form of government even though it’s just a necessity evil. Putting a lien on my property or taking money from me for working is wrong.
I’m all for some sort of state tax. If the state gets too greedy, I’ll just move to a different state. It’s a little bit more difficult moving away from the federal government though.
I’m all for some sort of state tax. If the state gets too greedy, I’ll just move to a different state. It’s a little bit more difficult moving away from the federal government though.
Are you aware that one of the reasons for the Constitutional Convention was to correct the problems that the Government had with the states not paying their portion of the war debt? Under the Articles of Confederation the government had no power to make the states pay their portion.
Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Anger-Wicked-States-Constitution/dp/0521757525
Are you aware that one of the reasons for the Constitutional Convention was to correct the problems that the Government had with the states not paying their portion of the war debt? Under the Articles of Confederation the government had no power to make the states pay their portion.
Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Anger-Wicked-States-Constitution/dp/0521757525
I get it, the fed has its place and purpose. It wasn’t meant to become all powerful.
One that is low enough to force them to close unconstitutional agencies created under the executive branch. I don't know the number because that hasn't happened and probably never will with the education system broken and the general surplus of ignorant people.
Diamondback
03-20-19, 22:05
I'll agree to even a flat 20% under one condition...
That ALL legislative business, including aides and staffers, be conducted sitting in hybrid polygraph-electric chairs set for One-Lie Fry.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.