Would you vote for a 3% tax hike on your income?

[dps]

Don't understand the logic of only applying the tax to those >125% of poverty.  We already have a progressive tax structure, exemptions and standard deductions, and the EITC to lessen the tax burden on the poor and transfer them money.

It's more an appeal to emotions, or to values, than a matter of logic.  I'd think you could understand that, even if the values or emotions it appeals to aren't ones you share.

[merithyn]

Don't understand the logic of only applying the tax to those >125% of poverty.  We already have a progressive tax structure, exemptions and standard deductions, and the EITC to lessen the tax burden on the poor and transfer them money.

It's a compromise to those who feel that taxing the really poor is unfair, just as taxing everyone the same amount is a compromise to those who feel that taxing just the rich is unfair.

[viper37]

Assume that the state of your country is on par with the US.

I should have read before voting...  Anyway, it doesn't change my vote.

The very rich ( 1 000 000 000$) and the middle rich (1 000 000$ and more) should get a litte more tax, as well as reinstationg that infamous "death tax" on properties above a certain amount (was it 1 billion$ or more assets?).

A sales tax should be introduced and the deductibility of mortgage interests should be abandonned.  Ah, also, make it no more fiscal deduction for companies paying their employees with stock options.  Well, basically, remove all the fiscal measures GW Bush put in place.  Reducing taxes is great, but only if you can balance the budget.  And I don't believe it is possible to balance the Federal budget without touching the military and intelligence agencies budgets.  Eventually, both of these sectors will have to be streamlined, merged, for greater efficiency in their operations.

Eliminating fiscal paradises is wishful thinking, but it should nonetheless be worked on, as a simple matter of justice.

[Ed Anger]

For whore pills? No.

[Admiral Yi]

I dont think logic has anything to do with it.  Its pure politics.

  Meri's proposing it on a discussion forum. How is that politics?

dps:  I get all that.  What i was trying to point out is that our tax system already has several built-in mechanisms for the working poor.  A big chunk of their income is exempt, plus there's the EITC.  It doesn't seem very fair to me exempt them from this tax increase as well.

Though it's a hell of a lot fairer than only taxing Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet.

[viper37]

Though it's a hell of a lot fairer than only taxing Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet.

Actually, that's 412 people in the US for 2012, that's 13.2 per 10 million of pop, wich puts you in 2nd place right after Hong-Kong were everyone is billionaire except public service workers

Full list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_billionaires

I don't think they'll be endangered by paying 3% more in income tax, even counting double taxation.

[crazy canuck]

I dont think logic has anything to do with it.  Its pure politics.

  Meri's proposing it on a discussion forum. How is that politics?

The proposal mirrors what is happening in the US.  Surely a man of your intellect can undertand what I am saying if you had even an ounce of will to do so.

[derspiess]

For whore pills? No.

You owe me royalties

[Admiral Yi]

The proposal mirrors what is happening in the US.  Surely a man of your intellect can undertand what I am saying if you had even an ounce of will to do so.

My massive intellect leads me to think that your comment didn't make much sense.  A real world politician might make this sort of proposal to curry favor with hard-working lower middle class Americans and with others who are sympathetic to the plight of the underdog.  Presumably Meri raised the question without those goals in mind.  In a pure discussion forum such as this, the aquisition and the maintenance of power are issues to be raised in the course of the discussion, not as the starting point.

[crazy canuck]

The proposal mirrors what is happening in the US.  Surely a man of your intellect can undertand what I am saying if you had even an ounce of will to do so.

My massive intellect leads me to think that your comment didn't make much sense.  A real world politician might make this sort of proposal to curry favor with hard-working lower middle class Americans and with others who are sympathetic to the plight of the underdog. 

I see you did understand what I was saying but choose to be a dick.

[Admiral Yi]

I see you did understand what I was saying but choose to be a dick.

Or possibly anyone who points out a flaw in your argument is automatically rendered a dick.

[crazy canuck]

I see you did understand what I was saying but choose to be a dick.

Or possibly anyone who points out a flaw in your argument is automatically rendered a dick.

Being wilfully blind to the others meaning is dickish behaviour no matter what you are trying to do.

But lets assume you are over that.

There are lots of reasons someone would support this measure for political and not economic reasons.

First, you might adopt conflict theory view of the world which suggests that if the economic system is not percieved to be fair then you might be stuck with even more onerous taxation system.

Second, you might take a more generous political view and decide that for the good of society you are willing to take an economic hit in order to create a more harmonious society (which is I think what was underlying Meri's question)

Third, you might take a utilitarian view that all taxes need to be increased but at the moment it is not politically feasable to do that but if taxes are raised on this segment of society now it might be easier to raise them generally later.

Or you could simply take the straight forward approach that Oex used to take (and I think Josephus from time to time) that everything is politics.

[garbon]

Sexual politics.

[crazy canuck]

Sexual politics.

Correct.  I had omitted that.  But it probably can be included in the everything is politics categorie.

[Admiral Yi]

Being wilfully blind to the others meaning

Your assumption is incorrect.