Ted Cruz's Flat Tax Plan

[Nanker]

When you get on a train, plane, bus, or boat to get a ride somewhere do they ask you how much you earn and charge you accordingly? Because after all if you earn more you should pay more.

[Azalin]

I already have multiple times. You just don't accept it as an explanation. I'm ok with it, I encourage you to be ok with it, as well. Now go on and have freedom in discussing Cruz's tax plan with like minded individuals, and I will take it all in.

 

You're sharing your feelings, not discussing merits of taxation. It seems obvious to me that you're a genuinely caring person that holds high regard for others, and that's always a good thing. At the same time, you appear to be thinking with your heart and not your head - a mistake (in my opinion) that many people make.

 

You could always go with the argument that it's a person's civic duty to pay their taxes, but by the same token, you have to acknowledge that it's also a person's civic duty to earn enough money to contribute those taxes. If that tax rate was fixed at 10%, a person earning $20,000 would pay $2,000, while someone earning $200,000 would be paying $20,000 - much more than the person making only $20,000. As Tom and Tasker have both asked, what would the moral case be for bumping someone up to a tax rate of 52%?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I already have multiple times. You just don't accept it as an explanation. I'm ok with it, I encourage you to be ok with it, as well. Now go on and have freedom in discussing Cruz's tax plan with like minded individuals, and I will take it all in.

That's just it: you didn't discuss it. You discussed the morality of helping the underprivileged. I asked you to discuss the moral basis for taxes. These are two separate things.

 

I even went so far as to explain the flaws in utilitarian philosophy for you.

[Tiberius]

 

Why is it that any time our resident liberals are asked to justify one of their statements, they just fold? Grow some balls, man.

Oh brother! At least we don't own rabbit holes to drag any argument down. Tom, you seem to have a lot more time on your hands than most people and we can't just argue everything out to it's absurd unreal and illogical conclusions like you.

[Deranged Rhino]

[jjamie12]

 

Then how about discussion? I'm still waiting for you to establish a moral basis for taxation.

Well.. To be fair: He never was attempting to establish a moral basis for taxation. TYTT is actually the one who introduced the concept into this discussion, which (imo) really isn't a super fun thing to talk about, because there isn't such a thing. How can you establish a 'moral' basis for any taxation, let alone one for a very specific (read 52%) percentage? After all, aren't morals personal? My morals aren't the same as TYTT's or DC Tom's or Dorkington's. It's a silly point to get caught up on becuase it doesn't really matter if it's moral or not. It just 'is'.

 

It's almost as silly as trying to point out a minor detail on an message board debate between two anonymous people you don't know.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well.. To be fair: He never was attempting to establish a moral basis for taxation. TYTT is actually the one who introduced the concept into this discussion, which (imo) really isn't a super fun thing to talk about, because there isn't such a thing. How can you establish a 'moral' basis for any taxation, let alone one for a very specific (read 52%) percentage? After all, aren't morals personal? My morals aren't the same as TYTT's or DC Tom's or Dorkington's. It's a silly point to get caught up on becuase it doesn't really matter if it's moral or not. It just 'is'.

 

It's almost as silly as trying to point out a minor detail on an message board debate between two anonymous people you don't know.

Moral in the philosophical sense. If one believes that something is the right course of action, they should thusly have a moral backing for their "ought" statement. Given that a case has been presented for a specific rate of taxation, it's more than fair to ask the presenter what the moral underpinnings of their position are. That's more than relevant to the conversation: rather it's essential, and it certainly isn't boring.

 

As to the concept "personal morality", personal moralities should always be logically consistent in order to be valid, so I would still be asking the same questions.

Edited January 20, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

When you get on a train, plane, bus, or boat to get a ride somewhere do they ask you how much you earn and charge you accordingly? Because after all if you earn more you should pay more.

 

So you want to pay more tax?

[jjamie12]

Moral in the philosophical sense. If one believes that something is the right course of action, they should thusly have a moral backing for their "ought" statement. Given that a case has been presented for a specific rate of taxation, it's more than fair to ask the presenter what the moral underpinnings of their position are. That's more than relevant to the conversation: rather it's essential, and it certainly isn't boring.

 

As to the concept "personal morality", personal moralities should always be logically consistent in order to be valid, so I would still be asking the same questions.

So then why does Dorkington's : "People who earn that much money can afford it, and there are lots of people who could use that help." justification not work for you? I know that's not EXACTLY what he said, but it's pretty clear that this is what he means.

 

I don't agree with him, but this diversion from "What's the right tax rate?" to "Morally justify taxation" isn't really adding to the discussion, it's taking away from it. It was interesting to see a back and forth about flat taxes, progressive taxes, and then to look at a candidate's proposal. Discussion has now ceased, based on "Morally justify taxation!", which isn't helpful, particularly because he DID justify it in the philosophical sense, just not using the language you want, I think.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So then why does Dorkington's : "People who earn that much money can afford it, and there are lots of people who could use that help." justification not work for you? I know that's not EXACTLY what he said, but it's pretty clear that this is what he means.

That's not a moral justification. It's an attempt at pragmatic resolution using a special pleading fallacy.

 

 

 

I don't agree with him, but this diversion from "What's the right tax rate?" to "Morally justify taxation" isn't really adding to the discussion, it's taking away from it. It was interesting to see a back and forth about flat taxes, progressive taxes, and then to look at a candidate's proposal. Discussion has now ceased, based on "Morally justify taxation!", which isn't helpful, particularly because he DID justify it in the philosophical sense, just not using the language you want, I think.

I strenuously disagree.

 

The moral justification of policy and it's philosophical underpinning are the most important part of the discussion. The fact that the national conversation has regressed to the point where you're (and not just you, but most people) insisting that it's unimportant, and detracts from the conversation speaks deeply to the massive divides we have today, and the problems we face as a nation.

 

It's the politics that should not be important. We should not care about the sound bites, the pandering, the spotlight, and the clever spin. It's those things that detract from the conversation.

 

I'll say that again so it sinks in: The politics should not be important.

 

The moral justification for what we do is the only thing of importance.

Edited January 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[keepthefaith]

Well.. To be fair: He never was attempting to establish a moral basis for taxation. TYTT is actually the one who introduced the concept into this discussion, which (imo) really isn't a super fun thing to talk about, because there isn't such a thing. How can you establish a 'moral' basis for any taxation, let alone one for a very specific (read 52%) percentage? After all, aren't morals personal? My morals aren't the same as TYTT's or DC Tom's or Dorkington's. It's a silly point to get caught up on becuase it doesn't really matter if it's moral or not. It just 'is'.

 

It's almost as silly as trying to point out a minor detail on an message board debate between two anonymous people you don't know.

Aren't most of our laws based on Morality? It's against the law to kill, rape and steal. Someone with weak morals might think those things can be justified. Our laws and our society says no. Many people past and present (including the founders for sure) see a 50% income tax as a theft.

 

Personally I think it's a great question, knowing where different people stand on what is fair or too much taxation. I do know this, politicians when asked this question (especially Dems) dodge it.

[3rdnlng]

In theory a progressive income tax is morally wrong. It's necessary for practical reasons because the government is funded primarily by taxes on income. We have it wrong. Since the world has finite resources those who use more of those resources should pay more in taxes. Thus is the moral justification for The "Fair Tax". We all know that the government needs to be funded. While we conservatives feel that the government spends way too much money and should reduce its scope that is not the point here. A consumption tax is the way to go. Those that make more are going to spend more, but with "The Fair Tax" it becomes their decision on how much they will be taxed.

 

The "Fair Tax" is a federal sales tax that is in no way a value added tax. It is a tax on consumers, or a tax on what a person spends in the retail sense. The 1%ers are criticized here for their opulent ways, so let's just tax them for those ways while letting them enjoy it. Bring it, I've got more.

[keepthefaith]

In theory a progressive income tax is morally wrong. It's necessary for practical reasons because the government is funded primarily by taxes on income. We have it wrong. Since the world has finite resources those who use more of those resources should pay more in taxes. Thus is the moral justification for The "Fair Tax". We all know that the government needs to be funded. While we conservatives feel that the government spends way too much money and should reduce its scope that is not the point here. A consumption tax is the way to go. Those that make more are going to spend more, but with "The Fair Tax" it becomes their decision on how much they will be taxed.

 

The "Fair Tax" is a federal sales tax that is in no way a value added tax. It is a tax on consumers, or a tax on what a person spends in the retail sense. The 1%ers are criticized here for their opulent ways, so let's just tax them for those ways while letting them enjoy it. Bring it, I've got more.

I agree that a consumption tax can make sense. It's a very tough sell especially with a congress that can't even agree on simple obvious things like better securing the border and having any kind of fiscal discipline.

[Chef Jim]

I agree that a consumption tax can make sense. It's a very tough sell especially with a congress that can't even agree on simple obvious things like better securing the border and having any kind of fiscal discipline.

 

I think a consumption tax is a great idea. The way some people spend money it could be a boon to our deficit. Hell how many people out there spend more than they make.

[Tiberius]

 

I think a consumption tax is a great idea. The way some people spend money it could be a boon to our deficit. Hell how many people out there spend more than they make.

A national sales tax? Sounds like a business killer

[3rdnlng]

A national sales tax? Sounds like a business killer

Why?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why?

Taxes act as a discouragement, as they penalize select behaviors.

 

For instance, an income tax discourages work; as such, to some degree a sales tax does discourage spending. Conversely, however, it does encourage saving. It's also important to note that the suspension of the income tax would immediately put more money into the hands of Americans, which would likely drive spending, and offset much of the initial discouragement.

[3rdnlng]

Taxes act as a discouragement, as they penalize select behaviors.

 

For instance, an income tax discourages work; as such, to some degree a sales tax does discourage spending. Conversely, however, it does encourage saving. It's also important to note that the suspension of the income tax would immediately put more money into the hands of Americans, which would likely drive spending, and offset much of the initial discouragement.

I don't disagree with you, but I was looking for gator's response. I can much more readily morally justify a consumption tax than an income tax and would hope that my earlier comments re that would prompt that discussion.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't disagree with you, but I was looking for gator's response. I can much more readily morally justify a consumption tax than an income tax and would hope that my earlier comments re that would prompt that discussion.

I can as well.

[keepthefaith]

Any consumption tax would have to be progressive. Expensive items would have to have higher tax rates to preserve the concept of the rich paying more and even more than more.