69

Since forever.

This happens all the time at the state and local level and has happened for many years.

70

Like all socialists, his arguments are based in the flawed belief that man can achieve some level of perfection, and then sustain it. In reality it is just a plan that leads to a return to feudal society.

71

FB_IMG_1697585147618
FB_IMG_1697585147618945×2048 72.1 KB

6 Likes
72

Good one! Sowell is very intelligent. :+1:

1 Like
73

The problem with that view is when you’re born into money you get to let your money make you money while the guy who has to actually work for his money pays more in taxes than you do.

1 Like
74

Coveting is an ugly trait.

4 Likes
75

Nothing to do with coveting. Unearned income should be taxed more than earned income. That’s just fairness.

1 Like
76

No that is punishment. Not the persons fault they came into money.

4 Likes
77

That’s a great bumper sticker, but certainly not true.

3 Likes
78

Inherited money has already been taxed. What’s fair about taxing it again just because the person who earned it died?

4 Likes
79

About as clear cut a case of coveting as one will find. And your disdain for “unearned” income seems to forget that someone had to earn the original wealth to create that eventual passive income.
Retirement income is unearned income. According to you , senior citizens should have their retirement accounts taxed at a higher level simply because those funds are not earned income.

8 Likes
80

Not on income.

81

Nothing fair about it. Flat tax is fair.

1 Like
82

So what?? :man_shrugging:

Not true either. The wealthy pay the bulk of the income taxes.

83

NO TAX IS FAIR.

NO TAX CAN EVER BE FAIR.

Taxation is violent taking by its very nature.

Pragmatically necessary, but violent taking nonetheless.

If I am a robber and go to person A and rob them of all their money, then go to person B and rob them of only a quarter of their money because they are poor, I don’t think either person would consider me to have been fair. :smile:

The government is not being fair and cannot be fair.

Rather it is the government’s task to equitably distribute the tax burden in a way that allows them to raise their desired revenue stream, while at the same time trying not to disrupt the economy more than necessary.

Obviously, in over 220 years, the Federal Government has not mastered this and the States and localities even less so.

Unearned income is a big and overinclusive term and different types of unearned income can and should be treated differently.

Long term capital gains are rightfully taxed lower, to encourage future consumption “savings” over current consumption. This is a tried and true concept and should not change.

We do graduate income tax rates and provide a generous standard deduction to protect low income earners.

I am well into the 37% tax bracket and have to write four quarterly checks of five figures each to the IRS every year, plus a smaller check with my return.

But I recognize that I and others similarly situated have the ability to absorb this tax burden while those below me do not.

That is why we have 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37% brackets that form a curve at the bottom of the income ladder and are supplemented by a generous standard deduction.

This system is not at all inequitable to the poor.

Needs work of course.

But not the worst system.

2 Likes
84

Without some tax, you have no country.

Flat tax is fair. 10% is always 10%.

1 Like
85

A flat tax would have to be 25% at a minimum, which would be crushing on poorer families.

86

And that would trigger the reintroduction of deductions so that income to cover bare necessities would not get taxed. A new standard deduction. And after that, other targeted deductions, which some would call special interest deductions. And after that, credits…

Before you know it, we’ll have re-engineered the flat tax into something that very much resembles our current system. (Looking back, our current tax system started out as a flat tax!)

87

Nope. A flat tax without deductions on all income over a standard individual exemption (of say $40-50,000) would only need to be in the 10-12% range to match the revenue of the current system. Remember, nearly half of the adult population currently pay no Federal Income tax at all.

2 Likes
88

Nope. That is called an individual exemption not a deduction. It would be part of any flat-tax, no deductions plan. The fair amount for that exemption would obviously be debatable, but once worked out would apply to everyone regardless of how much income they have and everything above that line would be taxed the same for everyone.