The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity

Flat above a certain threshold would be fine with me.

The tax plan I favor the most is actually Rand Pauls, where its a flat tax on everything above 50k$ in earnings. People who make under 50k get taxed not at all. Someone who makes 60k gets taxed on 10k, etc

Eliminate all loopholes, and almost all deductions. So its actually a progressive flat tax, someone making a million a year will pay tax on almost all of it. Would free up a lot of overhead costs as well.

I don't want to type a book; so here is an easy tidbit of information:

A flat tax has been brought up nearly every year, for the past 35 years and even more so just before and after each election. In the end the flat-tax has always and will always be rejected by Congress because it will ultimately cost the US and all state governments a hefty portion of their income from taxation.

If ALL Federal and State spending was FIRST cut in half than a flat-tax could be considered as a possible alternative to current taxation. In addition, social security and medicare would need to be abolished, as anyone making under 50k a year, would not be paying enough into these funds, but would still expect their fair share, come retirement, leaving someone else to pick-up the bill.

How the hell do you get from here:



to here?



Derid said that most people object to inflicting pain in proportion to their worth and then you question how he can object to punishing people in proportion to their wealth.

Obviously you didn't read the link I gave you to Rand Paul's budget. His flat tax doesn't effect anyone making below $50,000, makes some cuts and still manages to fund social security. Which I personally think needs to see the sunset it was originally supposed to have 70 years ago.

I don't mind explaining.

By floating idea that only absolute value of contribution matters you have to accept that only absolute value of anything should be considered.

This way someone donating 1 million will always be considered more generous than someone donating 1$.

I don't necessary agree with this idea, but in order for anyone proposing such idea to stay consistent they have to extend it to other areas - such as taxation.

That is - if bottom 20% don't contribute in absolute numbers much to tax revenue, it doesn't matter (as in not related to notion of fairness) if they don't pay anything at all. So why do we even bother taxing them?

So catch was - if you say that % of your income contributed to charity does not enter "fairness" or "generosity" consideration, you also have to apply it to other areas of life - like tax system.

I did not read it or commented on it because it wasn't interesting to me. You didn't summarize it at all, or quoted any points of interest, and Rand Paul isn't important enough (yet, or maybe ever?) for it to matter. This budget isn't even being voted on. Last I heard Congress passed Paul Ryan's clown budget.

Let me turn this on you, would you read 50 pages of numbers if I were to link Pelosi's budget (I haven't checked, but I am sure she has one) ?

Absolute contribution in regards to its effectiveness is one thing. Absolute contribution in terms of subjective judgement of some other quality is something else.

But as noted, taxing the bottom economic% of the population is in fact something I do not see much point in.

But if someone builds a hospital, I think its cool that they built a hospital. I dont think its right to immediately assume that they are cheapskates because from where you sit you think they should have built 2.

Rand Pauls budget was voted on as amendment in Senate, it obviously did not pass. I think it got 18 votes. Paul Ryans budget got a vote as well, it got 40 votes.

I guess I assumed that someone as politically informed as you claim to be would already know some of the high spots and I just posted the actual text for reference. For someone who claims to want better politicians, you sure do ignore the good ones and seemingly support the horrible ones (Pelosi, what an amazing example of the rich feeding from the public trough to get richer).

Nope, because she has proven time and again that, not only would it not be her own work, but she wouldn't have even read it. Why should I bother if she doesn't?