You're Wrong, We Need A Progressive Tax System

MayCaesar

From a mathematical standpoint, the best way to fund the government immediately is to introduce a 100% flat income and full property tax. Only it is not going to work well.

You are also wrong about burdens being put on people "disproportionally" in a non-progressive tax system. It is exactly the opposite: by definition, flat tax is the only proportionate system, since everyone pays the same proportion with regards to their income. 
Even fairer would be a constant tax: everyone pays the same amount every month, say, $500, regardless of their income.

There are also other ways to fund the government, not relying on personal income taxation. Why not use the flat sales tax to fund everything, for example?

In conclusion, your statement is wrong: not only is a progressive tax system not the only logical one, but even more so, it is not logical at all when based on your reasoning.

Thomasius

@MayCaesar

Re: The definition of proportional is the adjective of corresponding in size or amount to something else. By definition, a flat tax can’t be proportional because the rate doesn’t correspond with the size of individuals’ wealth.

The problem with concepts like what your propose with the constant tax is that government institutions and apparatuses may not be funded appropriately by everyone supplying a same, minimal amount, and the problem with a sales tax is that it obviously only  encompasses taxation on sales, and so the amount of taxes provided will be reflected by economic transaction, which is not naturally consistent,  along with that the amount people spend on goods and services may very well be undermined in comparison by the amount of wealth they have to offer to fund more robust systems.

MayCaesar

@Thomasius

It does correspond to the size of individuals' wealth. Flat tax means equal tax rate for everyone, which results in richer people paying proportionally higher tax amounts. If everyone pays a flat 20% tax, then the person who makes $200,000 a year pays $40,000 tax, while the person who makes $20,000 a year pays $4,000 tax.

Constant tax is not something I advocate for, but I do believe that it would be the most fair system, barring no-tax systems. As for the sales tax, money in itself means nothing and is only useful when it is used to purchase something - hence it makes more sense to tax individual purchases (with proper tax exemptions when it comes to trade-ins and such), than it does individual income. If I have earned $100,000 dollars in a year and put it all on my bank account, I have not actually benefited from it just yet as I have not used it, hence it is not clear by what reasoning the government should collect the tax from me. Taxes can be seen as payment for using governmental services, and I do not use those services if I do not do anything with the money I earn.

I have long advocated for "crowdfunded government", a system in which nobody pays any taxes, but anyone is free to donate money to the government, and those who systematically donate sizeable fractions of their incomes gain various minor privileges. It is not the only system involving government but not involving taxes. Taxes involve a lot of moral and logistic issues, and are fundamentally coercive. I do not think that we should limit ourselves to considering only tax-funded government systems.

Thomasius

@MayCaesar

Re: You’re not understanding the issue. Yes, people will pay differing amounts in a flat rate, but for a tax system to be proportional, the tax itself, which is what any system of taxation is founded upon, must correspond to the degree of wealth in which it relates to.

We need revenue to the government to fund its institutions and apparatuses, meaning that there must be sufficient funding and I’m reticent to believe that a constant tax system which imposes a minimal, baseline amount of money will provide the funds necessary to achieve the goal, especially when there is more money possessed by individuals to better ensure this.

The utilization of money is more complex than simply its purchasing value. Money can be used in all sorts of other dynamics, like with providing assistance and welfare, funding public institutions, so on and so forth. So, no, your point about the sales tax does not hold up from that perspective. The reasoning by which the government should collect taxes from your unused money is that, whether or not you need to use that money at that moment, the government necessarily does in order to maintain itself. In order for a society to be functional in regard for the wellbeing of others, certain liberties necessarily must be hindered to allow for other liberties to thrive. This is true with the economy, so that in order for us to have the most coordinated and stabilized society, we need to relinquish certain financial liberties via taxation to ensure that all are protected and served and that the means to address these things also maintain.

With your point on this crowdfunded government, donations are not a guarantee, as far as guaranteeing can occur within flawed humans, versus taxation to bring about appropriate funding to governance. If those who donate more acquire privileges, how about those not able to financially buy in to these privileges? Are they just left for dead or do we have a system that is funded to help them as well?

What are these moral and logistic issues involved with taxation? I don’t see a problem with coercion as it relates to maintaining a society, as I see no alternative but use of force to ensure that people aren’t free to engage in destructive and/or counterproductive ways that come to ultimately bring downfall to the system. Also, what morality do you use to arrive to the conclusion that taxation is morally flawed? Is this morality based around objectivity or is it just some random thought process and/or emotions you’ve cultivated?

CYDdharta

What's your point?  We already have a progressive tax system.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: In the context of the United States, this is simply empirically inaccurate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/ Perhaps certain aspects maintain progressive structurally, but your assertion is ultimately debunked in light of this.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Do you happen to have a philosophical disagreement with the progressive tax? 

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: In the context of the United States, this is simply empirically inaccurate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/ Perhaps certain aspects maintain progressive structurally, but your assertion is ultimately debunked in light of this.

Using a debunked study doesn't prove your point.

https://bongino.com/bogus-viral-study-claims-billionaires-are-paying-less-tax-than-the-poor-under-trump/

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Do you happen to have a philosophical disagreement with the progressive tax? 

Yes, but not enough to want to change the current system.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Dan Bongino is a conservative commentator, as indicated by Wikipedia, so this is not a slam dunk until you find a reputable source that backs up your claim. Now, if that study is flawed, there's plenty more data to arrive to the conclusion that the progressive tax system in this country is hindered. In the current system in the United States, to fortify my position, CBS News reports that the ultra-rich can avoid taxes by investing them in stocks, artwork, houses, boats, things which can generate value over time or, in the case of stocks, be sold if value begins to drop. CBS also reports other methods like grantor-retained annuity trusts and appraisal games. See here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-tax-avoidance-by-the-ultra-wealthy-is-perfectly-legal/. Huge amounts of wealth are stored on offshore banks (in this source- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-offshore-wealth/super-rich-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-havens-idUSBRE86L03U20120722). These are some example loopholes which show that things are not fine the way they are for the U.S. to have a progressive tax system that not only is functional but also to provide sufficient funds toward governmental sectors. As another problem, the working class are having to pay higher taxes in this period of financial inequality, according to the source https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2019/10/11/how-to-make-billionaires-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: To your ideological position, when you state that you do have disagreement but are okay with things as is, what is it that you're exactly with? What is the distinction between a progressive tax system that is ethical in your eyes versus one that you're outright opposed to? Also, since you do have some disagreement at all, what is that exact disagreement about? Give me some detail into how you view these things from your own values and thought processes.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Dan Bongino is a conservative commentator, as indicated by Wikipedia, so this is not a slam dunk until you find a reputable source that backs up your claim.

So what?  Once again, what's your point?  Debate the information in the article,not the source.  Otherwise our debates are going to look like...

Now, if that study is flawed, there's plenty more data to arrive to the conclusion that the progressive tax system in this country is hindered. In the current system in the United States, to fortify my position, CBS News reports that the ultra-rich can avoid taxes by investing them in stocks, artwork, houses, boats, things which can generate value over time or, in the case of stocks, be sold if value begins to drop. CBS also reports other methods like grantor-retained annuity trusts and appraisal games. See here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-tax-avoidance-by-the-ultra-wealthy-is-perfectly-legal/.

CBS News is a liberal source, find a reputable source that backs up your claim.

Huge amounts of wealth are stored on offshore banks (in this source- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-offshore-wealth/super-rich-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-havens-idUSBRE86L03U20120722). These are some example loopholes which show that things are not fine the way they are for the U.S. to have a progressive tax system that not only is functional but also to provide sufficient funds toward governmental sectors.

Your OP is about your desire for a progressive INCOME tax.  This article isn't about income, it's about wealth.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion.

As another problem, the working class are having to pay higher taxes in this period of financial inequality, according to the source https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2019/10/11/how-to-make-billionaires-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/.

As I've already pointed out, this is a failed source.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: To your ideological position, when you state that you do have disagreement but are okay with things as is, what is it that you're exactly with? What is the distinction between a progressive tax system that is ethical in your eyes versus one that you're outright opposed to? Also, since you do have some disagreement at all, what is that exact disagreement about? Give me some detail into how you view these things from your own values and thought processes.

Do you think it's fair to have 20% of people carrying 87% of the tax burden?  Apparently you do, as you seem to want to increase that tax burden even more.  At what point do you believe you would be overburdening that minority?

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: So what about Bongino being a conservative source? That's very important in whether or not I can trust the information being brought forth to me. And, please cite how CBS News is a liberal source. What do you mean offshore banks have nothing to do with the discussion, isn't storing income in offshore banks a way for them to avoid income taxes? Additionally, the source you claim is failed has only been backed by a conservative source. 

To your point on your philosophy... Do I think that 20% of the population should carry 87% of the tax burden? These percentages and tax rates depend on the amount of wealth that these individuals hold. If capitalism is to exist by the incentive of profit seeking that drives it, there does have to be some degree of inequality financially to maintain it, but we can narrow the gap by having the wealthy pay more and those with less wealth pay less. I can't give personal quotes on what I think people should pay at each bracket to the exact amount because I'm not an economist who knows all the ins and outs of what constitutes sufficient funding for society.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: So what about Bongino being a conservative source? That's very important in whether or not I can trust the information being brought forth to me. And, please cite how CBS News is a liberal source.

I already have.  But once again;

;

What do you mean offshore banks have nothing to do with the discussion, isn't storing income in offshore banks a way for them to avoid income taxes? Additionally, the source you claim is failed has only been backed by a conservative source.

To your point on your philosophy... Do I think that 20% of the population should carry 87% of the tax burden? These percentages and tax rates depend on the amount of wealth that these individuals hold. If capitalism is to exist by the incentive of profit seeking that drives it, there does have to be some degree of inequality financially to maintain it, but we can narrow the gap by having the wealthy pay more and those with less wealth pay less. I can't give personal quotes on what I think people should pay at each bracket to the exact amount because I'm not an economist who knows all the ins and outs of what constitutes sufficient funding for society.

It seems like what you're really after is a wealth tax, rather than some sort of modification to the income tax system.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: You really don't seem to understand proper citation. Showing me some picture is not going to work. I need an actual reputable source of some kind to so both that I can see how these things are analyzed and concluded as well as trust the information that is being given to me. As for your second claim, I already told you that income taxes can be avoided by storing income on offshore banks. That's the issue. If wealthy people can store the money they make, such as involved with the prospects of taxable income, on offshore banks, then, they are avoiding the income tax. This alone has nothing to do with the idea of a broader wealth tax.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: To be sure I was being charitable to your argument, I checked to verify whether or not Sharyl Attkisson was a source of reputable claim. She is not. According to sourced Wikipedia accounts, she has attempted to link vaccines to autism, which contradicts the findings of the scientific community. Also, as for the chart itself, Politifact also found that the chart is flawed, sourced here https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/29/donald-trump/no-96-google-news-stories-trump-arent-left-wing-ou/, as it overtly labels anything not conservative as left-wing, it is not neutral evidence, and it has been, according to an expert, deemed it "a 'study' to come up with the outcome it came up with'. This is not the best way to reinforce your perception of media bias.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: You really don't seem to understand proper citation. Showing me some picture is not going to work. I need an actual reputable source of some kind to so both that I can see how these things are analyzed and concluded as well as trust the information that is being given to me.

Nope, that's all you need.  Don't like it?  Tough.  If you debate for any length of time, you're going to see a lot of sources you don't like.  You'll have to come up with a better answer for why you don't like the than because "Wiki says they're conservative".

As for your second claim, I already told you that income taxes can be avoided by storing income on offshore banks. That's the issue. If wealthy people can store the money they make, such as involved with the prospects of taxable income, on offshore banks, then, they are avoiding the income tax. This alone has nothing to do with the idea of a broader wealth tax.

That's not what your source says.  "Super rich HOLD $32 trillion in offshore havens"  It doesn't say anything about income in general, or more specifically, income that is used inside the US.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: There's a clear difference between sources that are inconvenient to my points as opposed to sources that are biased and/or unqualified and are thus not reliable to tell me the truth. If you want information on something, do you go to a source that has a clear agenda? No, because it is likely to leave out or skew information in its favor. If you want information on something, do you go to a source that is unqualified? No, because the source is not of related expertise to provide a valid analysis on such matters. So, of course there is far more to proper citation than slapping on some random internet bit to support you, in fact, that is very blind and you're engaging in intellectual malpractice.
As for my source, wrong. Here's the first paragraph from Reuters: LONDON (Reuters) - Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: There's a clear difference between sources that are inconvenient to my points as opposed to sources that are biased and/or unqualified and are thus not reliable to tell me the truth. If you want information on something, do you go to a source that has a clear agenda? No, because it is likely to leave out or skew information in its favor. If you want information on something, do you go to a source that is unqualified? No, because the source is not of related expertise to provide a valid analysis on such matters. So, of course there is far more to proper citation than slapping on some random internet bit to support you, in fact, that is very blind and you're engaging in intellectual malpractice.

No there's not.  Every source has a bias and an agenda.  Exceedingly few have as their agenda, to present a balanced presentation of an issue.

As for my source, wrong. Here's the first paragraph from Reuters: LONDON (Reuters) - Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between an asset and income.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: That's simply not true. They don't sell political views, just analyses. Now, individuals who write on behalf of these entities may have their own biases, but this has to be proven that this caused flaw in the article, and this does not equate to the entity itself being biased and promoting an agenda. There are editorial boards and processes through which articles at journalistic entities need to go through in order to be successfully printed, and this is a safeguard for non-agenda-based sources. So, you're dead wrong.
As for the assets, the assets themselves may not be cash, no, but they can easily be turned into cash as is their nature as assets and so having these offshore assets is a way for them to artificially maintain the money that would otherwise be revenue as taxed income while having it seem cleared on paper. It's a clear income tax loophole. 

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: That's simply not true. They don't sell political views, just analyses.

Prove it.  Most Americans don't trust the mainstream media.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

As for the assets, the assets themselves may not be cash, no, but they can easily be turned into cash as is their nature as assets and so having these offshore assets is a way for them to artificially maintain the money that would otherwise be revenue as taxed income while having it seem cleared on paper. It's a clear income tax loophole.

If those assets are turned into cash in the US, they are taxed appropriately at that time.

MayCaesar

Thomasius said:

@MayCaesar

Re: You’re not understanding the issue. Yes, people will pay differing amounts in a flat rate, but for a tax system to be proportional, the tax itself, which is what any system of taxation is founded upon, must correspond to the degree of wealth in which it relates to.

We need revenue to the government to fund its institutions and apparatuses, meaning that there must be sufficient funding and I’m reticent to believe that a constant tax system which imposes a minimal, baseline amount of money will provide the funds necessary to achieve the goal, especially when there is more money possessed by individuals to better ensure this.

The utilization of money is more complex than simply its purchasing value. Money can be used in all sorts of other dynamics, like with providing assistance and welfare, funding public institutions, so on and so forth. So, no, your point about the sales tax does not hold up from that perspective. The reasoning by which the government should collect taxes from your unused money is that, whether or not you need to use that money at that moment, the government necessarily does in order to maintain itself. In order for a society to be functional in regard for the wellbeing of others, certain liberties necessarily must be hindered to allow for other liberties to thrive. This is true with the economy, so that in order for us to have the most coordinated and stabilized society, we need to relinquish certain financial liberties via taxation to ensure that all are protected and served and that the means to address these things also maintain.

With your point on this crowdfunded government, donations are not a guarantee, as far as guaranteeing can occur within flawed humans, versus taxation to bring about appropriate funding to governance. If those who donate more acquire privileges, how about those not able to financially buy in to these privileges? Are they just left for dead or do we have a system that is funded to help them as well?

What are these moral and logistic issues involved with taxation? I don’t see a problem with coercion as it relates to maintaining a society, as I see no alternative but use of force to ensure that people aren’t free to engage in destructive and/or counterproductive ways that come to ultimately bring downfall to the system. Also, what morality do you use to arrive to the conclusion that taxation is morally flawed? Is this morality based around objectivity or is it just some random thought process and/or emotions you’ve cultivated?

I am sorry, but what you are saying mathematically makes no sense. The system of taxation directly takes into account people's degree of wealth, by taxing a fraction of the absolute growth of this wealth, as opposed to a flat amount. With a given tax rate, those who earn more money pay proportionally higher taxes.

I do not buy arguments based on the needs of the government. Just because the government needs some money right now does not suddenly give it the right to take it away from people by force, just like because someone needs a car right now to get to their office in time does not give them the right to break into someone's car and drive it.
Taxes, both originally by the Founding Fathers and today predominantly by taxation advocates, are justified by the allegation that people use governmental services when acting on the free market, hence they have to fund those services. But you are not acting on the free market if you are just putting the money you have earned in your pocket, hence taxing it from this point of view is unreasonable.
On the other hand, when you purchase something at a store, you use the roads the government has built to get to that store, and you use the legal system the government has developed to make your purchase safe from any fraud. I personally do not buy this argument either, as I never asked for those services in the first place, and I have never been given an option to refuse them, hence charging me for them is wrong - but nonetheless this reasoning makes more sense, than just plain "The government needs the money, so hand it over".

There are no guarantees in life in principle, but if the crowdfunded government performs well, then it will secure more donations, than if it performs poorly. Hence there is a strong incentive for it to serve people the best way, while in the current system the incentives are perverse and urge the government to instead take away from people as much as possible.

If you do not see problem with coercion just because you see no better alternative, then perhaps there is something wrong with how you approach these things. You seem to focus on the outcome, while means are no less, and often even more, important. There are many ways to achieve a favorable outcome, that in between now and then will cause an untold amount of suffering. History has demonstrated that this approach does not work, but even if it could work, I still fail to see why anyone would genuinely want to go through this process.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Just because the American people believe something doesn't mean it's true. That's not proof of anything.
Furthermore, onto your asset point, the problem is that they can keep holding on to their assets by not turning them into cash. Also, is it true that if it's turned into cash in the U.S., it'll be taxed appropriately at that time? And, what if they turn it into currency in other nations?
Lastly, to ensure we aren't too focused on loopholes, not as to say they aren't a problem, but even if these loopholes were fixed and the wealthy necessarily paid their income taxes, they still pay drastically less in comparison to what they could be paying more to better fund society. Those at the top of the tax bracket only pay 37% in income taxes, as cited here by Bloomberg https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/how-to-find-out-what-tax-bracket-youre-in-under-the-new-tax-law.html. Let's also not forget about what big businesses in the United States could be contributing, as market giants like Amazon will pay $0 in federal income taxes for a second year in a row, according to https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-not-paying-taxes-trump-bezos-2018-4.

Thomasius

@MayCaesar

Re: I understand that the taxable amount increases due to the degree of wealth being bigger, but they do not pay proportionately higher taxes because the tax itself has not increased to be higher. You’re just factually wrong.

The argument is not that the government can freely confiscate money from people on a whim, but that people have to contribute funds to society via taxation to ensure that it is able to maintain and, therefore, ideally, provide in turn the institutions and apparatuses that help benefit society at large for a stable and cohesive society. If one chooses not to contribute to governance, then they must be met with force because they are not participating in maintaining the system they live under. Additionally, just because the founders of the United States or others said something does not inherently give the claim itself validity. To your point about not having an alternative, what would this alternative be?

To your crowdfunded government response, couldn’t those who are wealthy potentially buyout this government in a sense by swaying it in its favor with hefty donations? Couldn’t corruption and ill secrecy arise in this system easily? And you still haven’t told me what would become of those who are too poor to buy into these systems, whether in part or in whole.

By what other means can society be ensured and maintained than by force? If you want society to function in a certain manner, then there has to be something that prevents deviation, and what else outside of force truly prevents deviation?

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Just because the American people believe something doesn't mean it's true. That's not proof of anything.

Likewise, just because you don't think certain sources are biased isn't proof of anything.

Furthermore, onto your asset point, the problem is that they can keep holding on to their assets by not turning them into cash. Also, is it true that if it's turned into cash in the U.S., it'll be taxed appropriately at that time? And, what if they turn it into currency in other nations?

Um, so what?  If they turn their foreign assets legally into foreign cash, they'll pay the applicable foreign taxes and spend that cash in foreign nations.  You want them to be taxed twice on the same transaction.

Lastly, to ensure we aren't too focused on loopholes, not as to say they aren't a problem, but even if these loopholes were fixed and the wealthy necessarily paid their income taxes, they still pay drastically less in comparison to what they could be paying more to better fund society. Those at the top of the tax bracket only pay 37% in income taxes, as cited here by Bloomberg https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/how-to-find-out-what-tax-bracket-youre-in-under-the-new-tax-law.html.

So .3% of American tax-payers pay 35% or more while 44.4% of American tax-payers pay nothing, and you say they only pay 37%???  Once again, what do you think is an appropriate tax burden for this minority?

Let's also not forget about what big businesses in the United States could be contributing, as market giants like Amazon will pay $0 in federal income taxes for a second year in a row, according to https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-not-paying-taxes-trump-bezos-2018-4.

Corporate taxes are an entirely separate issue.  Income taxes won't have any effect on them regardless of how progressive you make them.  As for Amazon in particular;

Amazon has paid billions of dollars in corporate income tax in recent years, though in some years it has paid no tax on profits because — don’t let the accounting terminology scare you off here — it lost money. Amazon has a very large footprint in the culture and in online commerce, but it is not a wildly profitable company; in fact, the usual complaint about Amazon is that it is forgoing profits in the here and now as part of a long-term world-domination scheme.

Companies do not usually pay any tax on profits when they do not have any profits.

But sometimes companies have no tax liability in years when they do show profits. That was the case with Amazon in 2018. There are three main reasons for that worth understanding:

First, the U.S. tax code realizes that businesses have both profitable and unprofitable years, and so it allows businesses to average out their income by carrying losses forward. For example, if Company X lost $25 million this year but makes $100 million next year, it can deduct some or all of that $25 million in losses from that $100 million in income. If the company lost more money in earlier years than it makes this year, then those losses may be enough to offset its income entirely. Some businesses, such as energy, are highly cyclical; others, such as real estate, can take a long time to become profitable. Evening out income between profitable and unprofitable years is one way that the tax code helps to mitigate the effects of the flux. That doesn’t automatically make it a good policy, but it is not obviously a poor policy, either, or a nefarious one. New businesses and expansions requiring large capital investments drive a lot of economic growth and employment, and our tax code encourages them.

Second, our tax code encourages other things, too, including spending on research and development. Companies such as Amazon spend tremendous amounts of money on R&D, and there are tax benefits for doing so. This is not a “loophole” — this is an intentionally designed feature of our tax policy. Government is always eager to encourage R&D spending, manufacturing, investments in physical capacity and equipment, etc., and it has long been the policy of Democrats and Republicans alike to use the tax code to encourage that. Again, not an inarguably good policy, but not an obviously wicked one, either.

Third, stock-based compensation can reduce tax liabilities. (If you want to get into the accounting nerdery of this, start here.) The simplified version: Companies sometimes pay executives (and lowly newspaper editors!) in stock options. A stock option is a contract entitling the holder of the option to purchase a certain number of shares of stock at a certain price; the idea is to align the incentives of the shareholders and their employees by giving both parties a personal interest in the share price, and hence (in theory) the overall health and performance of the business. If a company gives its employees the option of buying 1 million shares at $10, then those employees will make $1 million if they exercise the options when the stock is at $11. The company can then deduct that $1 million from its income as employee compensation. This looks like trickery to some people, because that $1 million didn’t come from ordinary business income but from an increase in the value of company shares, but there is a pretty compelling case that the shareholders are bearing the $1 million expense and therefore entitled to treat it as an expense. Once more, this may not be the right policy, but it’s not obviously the wrong one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/amazon-pays-billions-corporate-taxes/

Thomasius

@CYDdharta

Re: I didn’t claim ever that a source was biased “because I think so,” I instead demonstrated its classification as a source with a political bias.

To your point on asset selling, perhaps these things may be subject to proper taxing, but these assets don’t have to be sold. Also, couldn’t it be possible for these wealthy individuals to have their assets garner extra value over time and then resell them and store this new, bigger income revenue in one or more new assets before it can be taxed?

If your information is true in terms of the tax brackets, this still ignores that the rich could and should be paying vastly more than 35% or more. Wouldn’t you agree? I can’t exactly pinpoint where we should start and stop taxing the wealthy because I’m not an economist, but I can infer from common sense that the wealthy should pay more so that more revenue can be delivered for society.

The National Review labels itself conservative, therefore it is biased. I’m not going to keep going over this basic citation problem if you aren’t willing to learn.

TKDB

@Thomasius

A Flat Tax is the answer.

Every state in the United States, should pay their equal, and fair shares of taxation.

Thomasius

@TKDB
Re: Why is a flat tax the answer? What do states have to do with individuals paying income taxes? Isn't a fair share one in which one with more financial resources pays more on the societal tab in this regard?

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta

Re: I didn’t claim ever that a source was biased “because I think so,” I instead demonstrated its classification as a source with a political bias.

You're attacking the source instead of the information.  Clearly Ad hominem.

 STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

To your point on asset selling, perhaps these things may be subject to proper taxing, but these assets don’t have to be sold. Also, couldn’t it be possible for these wealthy individuals to have their assets garner extra value over time and then resell them and store this new, bigger income revenue in one or more new assets before it can be taxed?

If someone buys something in another country, keeps it in another country, sells it in another country, and spends the proceeds in another country, why should it be of any concern to the US government?

If your information is true in terms of the tax brackets, this still ignores that the rich could and should be paying vastly more than 35% or more. Wouldn’t you agree? I can’t exactly pinpoint where we should start and stop taxing the wealthy because I’m not an economist, but I can infer from common sense that the wealthy should pay more so that more revenue can be delivered for society.

No, the government should be spending less.

The National Review labels itself conservative, therefore it is biased. I’m not going to keep going over this basic citation problem if you aren’t willing to learn.

Apparently you're going to continue to rely on Ad hominems, I guess when you have nothing else...

Note - If you continue to rely on fallacies, I'm going to continue to make your replies respectively.

TKDB

@Thomasius

Re: Why is a flat tax the answer?

"What do states have to do with individuals paying income taxes?

Isn't a fair share one in which one with more financial resources pays more on the societal tab in this regard?"

No, we should ALL be paying taxes.

Including ALL of the States that aren't paying taxation?

Why should they get to be treated differently, when it comes to taxation?

I think that those states, should be integrated back into the state taxation fold, along with the rest of the state's that have been, and are already paying taxation?

22 Trillion Dollars and growing, according to the National Debt Clock.

The National Debt, is a Nationwide problem, and it should be addressed in a Nationwide manner, meaning every state in the United States, should be paying its fair, and equal share via taxation?

Everyone, and not the 1 percenter's by themselves?

In a country of 325 million people, your argument from a Nationwide point of view is slightly unsound. 

MayCaesar

Thomasius said:

@MayCaesar

Re: I understand that the taxable amount increases due to the degree of wealth being bigger, but they do not pay proportionately higher taxes because the tax itself has not increased to be higher. You’re just factually wrong.

The argument is not that the government can freely confiscate money from people on a whim, but that people have to contribute funds to society via taxation to ensure that it is able to maintain and, therefore, ideally, provide in turn the institutions and apparatuses that help benefit society at large for a stable and cohesive society. If one chooses not to contribute to governance, then they must be met with force because they are not participating in maintaining the system they live under. Additionally, just because the founders of the United States or others said something does not inherently give the claim itself validity. To your point about not having an alternative, what would this alternative be?

To your crowdfunded government response, couldn’t those who are wealthy potentially buyout this government in a sense by swaying it in its favor with hefty donations? Couldn’t corruption and ill secrecy arise in this system easily? And you still haven’t told me what would become of those who are too poor to buy into these systems, whether in part or in whole.

By what other means can society be ensured and maintained than by force? If you want society to function in a certain manner, then there has to be something that prevents deviation, and what else outside of force truly prevents deviation?

The first paragraph contradicts itself. Mathematically, function f(x) increasing proportionally to x means that the change in f(x), divided by the change in x, is a positive constant. This corresponds to a flat tax rate. A progressive tax rate would result in disproportionally higher taxes on the rich compared to the poor.

What you described in the second paragraph is a description of slavery: "You never chose me as your master, but I am providing you with services, so either pay me with your labor, or I will meet you with force". I never asked for those services; in fact, as an immigrant, the government places far more limitations on what I can do, than it offers me services. So no, I do not owe the government anything, and I want it out of my life.

The wealthy could buy out the government, of course. But then it would be the government for the wealthy and not for anyone else, hence essentially a private organisation, a small club of loyal customers. Other people could just crowdfund a different government, less concerned with profit and more concerned with its positive image.
That is the magic of voluntarism: everyone has a choice, and nobody is forced into anything against their will.

Is your family maintained by force? Or, perhaps, instead by mutual love and common values and goals? I fail to see why the society should be maintained by force, when virtually no other entity is.
There is no need to prevent deviation: let people be as wacky as they want to be. Now, there is a need to prevent violence and coercion, and that is where private courts and security forces come in. Government is by its nature a violent and coercive organisation, hence using it to defend people from violence and coercion is a bit illogical, don't you think?

Thomasius

[My debating on all current debates, including this one, is going to cease because I’ve decided to embark upon new debates with opening statements and formats that are more sufficient for my endeavors. However, despite my absence, others are free to continue on and all are free to judge for themselves who was triumphant in these dialogues.]

TKDB

@Thomasius

Re: Why is a flat tax the answer?

"What do states have to do with individuals paying income taxes?

Isn't a fair share one in which one with more financial resources pays more on the societal tab in this regard?"

No, we should ALL be paying taxes.

Including ALL of the States that aren't paying taxation?

Why should they get to be treated differently, when it comes to taxation?

I think that those states, should be integrated back into the state taxation fold, along with the rest of the state's that have been, and are already paying taxation?

22 Trillion Dollars and growing, according to the National Debt Clock.

The National Debt, is a Nationwide problem, and it should be addressed in a Nationwide manner, meaning every state in the United States, should be paying its fair, and equal share via taxation?

Everyone, and not the 1 percenter's by themselves?

In a country of 325 million people, your argument from a Nationwide point of view is slightly unsound.  

@Thomasius
You don't have a response to the above?