Income Taxation - Just or Unjust? (Alternatives?)

Is a personal increase tax a just form of funding for the government?

  • Yes

  • No: Explain in thread post.

  • I don't know

  • Other: Explain in thread post.


Results are only viewable after voting.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Moving this to a separate thread:

I disagree that income tax is a just form of taxation.

Ok, how do you propose the government funds itself that does not harm its citizens nor the citizens of other countries?

The government has no business with knowledge of personal income.

In an (or at least my) ideal world, considering the proposed Constitution's method of paying the king, which states that the king may compensate himself annually with 1000 times the income of America's average taxpayer, how do you propose that he does so if he has no knowledge of the average citizen's amount of personal increase?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
I forget how Bob's definition of a personal increase tax differed from a personal income tax.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Moving this to a separate thread:
Thanks.
Ok, how do you propose the government funds itself that does not harm its citizens nor the citizens of other countries?
Consumption taxes.
In an (or at least my) ideal world, considering the proposed Constitution's method of paying the king, which states that the king may compensate himself annually with 1000 times the income of America's average taxpayer, how do you propose that he does so if he has no knowledge of the average citizen's amount of personal increase?
Somethings based on consumption taxes.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I forget how Bob's definition of a personal increase tax differed from a personal income tax.

Pretty sure it only included persons, and not corporate entities or companies or businesses, etc..
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Pretty sure it only included persons, and not corporate entities or companies or businesses, etc..
I was aware of that but I'm unsure about the word "increase." If someone made 1 million dollars would they not have to pay any income tax if the previous year they made more than 1 million since that would show a decrease in income and not an "increase?"
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
All taxes are income taxes. But it is either direct or indirectly based on personal income. Either that or a government does not base taxes in any way on personal income and destroys the country in such a short time that one could say it can't happen.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I was aware of that but I'm unsure about the word "increase." If someone made 1 million dollars would they not have to pay any income tax if the previous year they made more than 1 million since that would show a decrease in income and not an "increase?"

Personal increase, not personal income rate increase. You're describing the latter. Also, according to the proposed Constitution, taxes would be remitted monthly, not yearly.

Personal increase (at least in my mind) is whatever money goes into your "bank account" (or piggy bank, or safe, etc.). Any money that you earn as an individual is personal increase.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Personal increase, not personal income rate increase. You're describing the latter. Also, according to the proposed Constitution, taxes would be remitted monthly, not yearly.

Personal increase (at least in my mind) is whatever money goes into your "bank account" (or piggy bank, or safe, etc.). Any money that you earn as an individual is personal increase.
So personal "increase" simply means personal "income?" They’re synonyms?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Agreed. The tax that the poor pay at a grocery store literally takes food off their table.
All sales tax or consumption tax or value added tax is regressive, with the exception of taxing things that poor people never buy anyway.

This means gas tax, cigarette and tobacco tax, candy tax, alcohol tax (along with inflation) are all regressive, and should be things the progressive ideologues don't support, but instead they don't really care about the poor and instead want to be paternalists and shake their fingers at the poor. "You ba-a-a-ad boy, you should stop smoking /eating candy /driving fossil fuel cars /etc."
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Consumption taxes.

Somethings based on consumption taxes.

Yes, with exceptions.

I would say no tax on medicine or food, as an example.

Ok, here's the problem I see with this.

Take lumber, for example. A company purchases logging equipment, and is taxed on each purchase. They then buy a plot of land for their business to operate out of, and a patch of forest to do their work in. They are taxed for each purchase. For each load of logs each truck brings in, various expenses are incurred, such as fuel, vehicle and equipment maintenance, and wages which the employees use to provide for themselves and their families, and are taxed. Eventually, the lumber is sold (and taxes collected) to a furniture company, where they employ workers (who have various living expenses, all of which are taxed), and some furniture is made, and then sold (and taxed) to someone.

Do you see the problem yet?

You made the claim:

The government has no business with knowledge of personal income.

I would argue that the government has no business taking a tax on literally everything purchased, because almost everything we purchase would incur a tax multiple times, double, triple, even quadruple or more dipping into the same thing being purchased only drives the cost up on the product to cover the expenses of making it.

God told Israel that a 10% tax is tyrannical. Most of the tax we have today is similar to what you're proposing, and we have a very high tax rate, definitely higher than 10%, perhaps as high as 50%.

A simple income tax would prevent the government from taxing the same thing multiple times, and could easily be limited to 5%, as proposed. This lessens the burden on the people, and can be applied equally to all.

And that's just lumber, and certainly not a full comprehensive breakdown of it.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Ok, here's the problem I see with this.

Take lumber, for example. A company purchases logging equipment, and is taxed on each purchase. They then buy a plot of land for their business to operate out of, and a patch of forest to do their work in. They are taxed for each purchase. For each load of logs each truck brings in, various expenses are incurred, such as fuel, vehicle and equipment maintenance, and wages which the employees use to provide for themselves and their families, and are taxed. Eventually, the lumber is sold (and taxes collected) to a furniture company, where they employ workers (who have various living expenses, all of which are taxed), and some furniture is made, and then sold (and taxed) to someone.

Do you see the problem yet?
If the tax is reasonable so that the layers do not overwhelm the system.
I would argue that the government has no business taking a tax on literally everything purchased, because almost everything we purchase would incur a tax multiple times, double, triple, even quadruple or more dipping into the same thing being purchased only drives the cost up on the product to cover the expenses of making it.
I don't disagree. Honestly, I've not spent a ton of time thinking about the perfect system.
God told Israel that a 10% tax is tyrannical. Most of the tax we have today is similar to what you're proposing, and we have a very high tax rate, definitely higher than 10%, perhaps as high as 50%.
No argument there.
A simple income tax would prevent the government from taxing the same thing multiple times, and could easily be limited to 5%, as proposed. This lessens the burden on the people, and can be applied equally to all.
Even with current income tax we get taxed multiple times.
And that's just lumber, and certainly not a full comprehensive breakdown of it.
I get it.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If the tax is reasonable so that the layers do not overwhelm the system.

The government doesn't have the right to force men to become tax collectors. Sales tax (or consumption tax) does so, because it requires people to keep track of every purchase in order to make sure they're paying the required tax, and on top of that, transacting and accounting for millions of daily taxations creates a huge implementation cost.

Even with current income tax we get taxed multiple times.

Because of all the other kinds of taxes we have.

If it were only on personal increase, and submitted regularly directly from the person being taxed, no records are needed for tax purposes, meaning people are not burdened by the tax system, and in addition to that, the economy flourishes.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The government doesn't have the right to force men to become tax collectors. Sales tax (or consumption tax) does so, because it requires people to keep track of every purchase in order to make sure they're paying the required tax, and on top of that, transacting and accounting for millions of daily taxations creates a huge implementation cost.
I agree. That's a problem.
Because of all the other kinds of taxes we have.
Agree.
If it were only on personal increase, and submitted regularly directly from the person being taxed, no records are needed for tax purposes, meaning people are not burdened by the tax system, and in addition to that, the economy flourishes.
The problem is that our current "personal increase" rate is far too high.
 
Top