Is the tax code fair?

Quote: Doc

One of the "practical" problems that would arise immediately would involve the truly poor -- those who are unable to generate sufficient income to provide for their own subsistence. If the "senate" tax is irreducible, what do you do about those who are unable to pay it? Fine them? Or maybe reinstate the debtors' prisons? Would these and others who are incarcerated still be responsible for paying the "senate" tax? No, I think there has to be a tax exemption for a portion of income.

If the concept of exemptions sounds reasonable, then a tiered tax structure is just a system for gradual transition from "untaxed" income to "fully-taxed" income.

At least as a starting point, I would be okay with taking out the "truly poor" from this equation. But the same questions still stand, and what "truly poor" means is at risk of changing until it gets all the way to 40% of the population who don't pay taxes. 40% of this nation is NOT "truly poor."

There's no doubt that there are political realities to this that don't make it easy. And, if I had to put a percentage of the (taxable) population that is "truly poor," I would put it in the 0.1% - 0.5% level. But there are a helluva lot of $30,000/yr people with roofs over their heads, electricity, and color television who would also call themselves "truly poor."

So, while your thinking is not wrong, it also doesn't (IMHO) remove any practicalities of implementation. I didn't mean to explore any specifics, but just see if anyone shared my view that a "house" and "senate" tax is the beginnings of an answer ...

Quote: INkyatari

I'd love to get out of paying taxes, as, not being a democrat or republican, I have absolutely no representation for my views in Springfield, and very limited in DC.

So why can you not vote to get yoru views represented? As long as you are over 18 and no felonies you should be able to vote and thus have your views represented. If you mean in primaries, well, if you do not register in a party you have no business and should not be allowed to vote in a primary (current trend towards the oppisite not withstanding.)

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

At least as a starting point, I would be okay with taking out the "truly poor" from this equation. But the same questions still stand, and what "truly poor" means is at risk of changing until it gets all the way to 40% of the population who don't pay taxes. 40% of this nation is NOT "truly poor."

There's no doubt that there are political realities to this that don't make it easy. And, if I had to put a percentage of the (taxable) population that is "truly poor," I would put it in the 0.1% - 0.5% level. But there are a helluva lot of $30,000/yr people with roofs over their heads, electricity, and color television who would also call themselves "truly poor."

So, while your thinking is not wrong, it also doesn't (IMHO) remove any practicalities of implementation. I didn't mean to explore any specifics, but just see if anyone shared my view that a "house" and "senate" tax is the beginnings of an answer ...

You really think that somewhere between 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 Americans are poor? Come to Buffalo because we must have all of them. About your point, I like your 'house and senate' concept.

You might be able to extract a tax from low or non-paying public with a rebatable luxury tax.

We have connectivity, we have tax records from previous years (maybe) and we have encryption.

This is based on the assumption that poor or very low income people buy non-essentials too.

Here's how it works: One person buys a 6 pack of beer, swipes a driver's license or suitable ID, and the system finds that this person paid taxes above a certain cut-off level (without revealing specifics, just a yes or no confirmation). They get an instant federal luxury rebate. It will be something small, like 2 or 3 cents.

Second person buys a 6-pack and they either choose not to swipe (it's completely optional), or they get a no confirmation. Their purchase now remains at 2 to 3 cents more and goes to taxes.

If either of these persons buys a tomato (essential item) no effect at all to either of them.

BUT WAIT, you say, how do you avoid fraud - say one person gives their ID to 3 good friends or family. You do that by capping the annual amount: $200 per year, let's say. So if they give out their ID, they'll just end up dividing up their limited share.

(some would say beer is essential, but leaving that argument aside for the moment)

Of course, would the public let something like this or similar be implemented is another question.

Quote: MathExtremist

Having thus determined that being fair would be stupid, what's more important? Being fair, or being smart? I vote for being smart.

It is not mutually exclusive. I vote for being both smart and fair.

Quote:

Well, for starters that is by definition not fair (if fair is as defined above, receiving the same dollar amount from everyone).

I don't think there is exactly one thing that is fair, everything else being by definition unfair. I think, there are various options, some are fair, some are not, some are smart, some are stupid, etc.

Quote:

But once we eschew fair for smart, is it smart to use a fixed percentage of everyone's income as the basis for tax? I'd say no, for at least the fundamental reason that a fixed percentage of income has a dramatically different impact on quality of life based on that income.

I don't think quality of life needs to be factored into this decision at all. People with different income levels have different quality of life as it is. If we thought it was unfair (I don't), we should just equalize everybody's income.

The way I look at it is that everybody is expected to spend some of their time working for the good of the society as a whole, as opposed to his and his family's own benefit. I think, it is exactly fair to expect, that portion of time to be the same for everyone. If I work 13% of my time for Uncle Sam, than so should you. That is the idea behind flat tax.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be smarter (and even potentially fairer, reconsidering that notion) to minimize the differences in pain each taxpayer feels from their tax amounts?

No, I don't think so. You can call it "good", or "altruistic" or "noble", but not "fair". There are other ways to help minimize other people's pain. Charities and social programs are set up for that.
Taxation is not it. It is just a simple idea, that everybody needs to contribute to the well being of society. You work a little bit for the communal good, and beyond that point everything you make is yours. And if it is too painful, perhaps, you can qualify for a low interest business loan to help you make more money, or an education grant to acquire a more marketable set of skills, or free housing and hot meals if nothing else helps, or maybe the minimum wage needs to be increased.

Quote:

Why wouldn't that lead to better tax policy than a blatantly-unfair and inflexible fixed percentage regardless of income, cost of living, or any other factors?

Because a good tax policy is the one that encourages people to make more money, not helps them to get by making less.

Quote: weaselman

Quote: MathExtremist

Wouldn't it be smarter (and even potentially fairer, reconsidering that notion) to minimize the differences in pain each taxpayer feels from their tax amounts?

No, I don't think so. You can call it "good", or "altruistic" or "noble", but not "fair". There are other ways to help minimize other people's pain. Charities and social programs are set up for that.

No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't suggesting that taxation should minimize pain generally. I was suggesting that there is an imposition of pain on each taxpayer that is due to taxes specifically. I was further suggesting that equalizing that pain would be fairer than having that taxation pain be grossly out of balance. For example, at 15% flat tax, the pain of giving up $7500 felt by a $50,000 earner is far greater than the pain of giving up $75,000 felt by a $500,000 earner. That is due to the marginal utility of the dollars. Someone going between $40,000 and $50,000 in gross income has a significantly larger bump in quality of life than someone going between $400,000 and $500,000, even though the increase (25%) was the same. Similarly, even though the 15% flat tax rate would be applied to both people, it hurts the lower-income person far more than the wealthy earner.

If the lost utility of the tax payments is greater for a lower income taxpayer, it is effectively a regressive tax. And nobody thinks regressive taxes are fair, right?

Quote: MathExtremist

No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't suggesting that taxation should minimize pain generally. I was suggesting that there is an imposition of pain on each taxpayer that is due to taxes specifically.

Yes, but that's not how I view it.
The tax itself does not cause pain. It is just a simple fact, that you have to spend some of your time working for the society. It is not painful or otherwise in and of itself. There are 365 days in a year, but only 317 of them you are actually working for yourself. Claiming that taxes cause you pain is equivalent to complaining that there are not 450 days in a year for you to make money.

Quote:

Similarly, even though the 15% flat tax rate would be applied to both people, it hurts the lower-income person far more than the wealthy earner.

Consequently, it is not the tax that hurts the lower-income person, it is his low income that hurts him. Letting him pay 5% less tax is equivalent to allowing him make 5.88% more income, but less fair, useful and constructive.

Having read all the posters, it seems that there will never be consensus. Different people look at 'fair' differently.
Fair is low earners paying nothing because they cannot afford anything.
Fair is everyone paying an equal proportion of their income.
Fair is everyone above a certain threshold paying an equal proportion of their income.
Fair is the graduated system we have in place.
Fair is everyone paying a certain percentage of your net worth.
Fair is no tax for anyone under $1million per year, but 90% on all above.
Fair is no tax on any work you do after 40 hours per week.
Etc.
You could make cogent arguments for all of the above.

Heres my little addition to this argument:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks
for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the six th man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


This has been an interesting thread to read. And I have my thoughts about it.

SFB

Quote: SOOPOO

Having read all the posters, it seems that there will never be consensus. Different people look at 'fair' differently.
Fair is low earners paying nothing because they cannot afford anything.
Fair is everyone paying an equal proportion of their income.
Fair is everyone above a certain threshold paying an equal proportion of their income.
Fair is the graduated system we have in place.
Fair is everyone paying a certain percentage of your net worth.
Fair is no tax for anyone under $1million per year, but 90% on all above.
Fair is no tax on any work you do after 40 hours per week.
Etc.
You could make cogent arguments for all of the above.

Everything you say is true, but let's have a little fun and stick our necks out ...

What do *you* think "fair" means, in this context?
What do you think the political will of our current congress is capable of doing re: defining "fair"?
What do you think the current political will and momentum of the electorate is in defining "fair"?

SFB- that was a GREAT post. In New York State, Tom Golisano is a billionaire who made an ill fated run for governor. He adamantly was opposed to our 'soak the rich' tax levies here. I forgot the exact numbers, but he said he pays about $15k per day in New York State taxes. He said something like if they raise taxes again he will leave the state. A family of 4 making 60k a year probably pays about $1 per day in taxes. His point was that losing him, and others like him by raising the top tax from say, 7% to 9%, will require 15,000 more regular working class families when he leaves. Let alone his wealthier allies. I believe he is now a legal resident of Florida.
To answer it'scalled soccer's question, my answer to fair is this-
First 'x' amount of income is free of tax.
All subsequent income is taxed at 'y'%
As in a previous post, the only deductions would be for children, and 'z' for the first, .75z for the second, .5z for the third, .25z for the 4th
The political will and abilities of our congress will result in minor changes to the tax codes, add a % here, eliminate a deduction there, but no 'sea change'.

Here’s why taxes are fair.

Income isn’t fair; it just functions on supply and demand. If you own a coffee place and live in an area that can get away with charging 8 bucks for a cup of coffee, you charge 8 bucks for a cup of coffee. If a plastic surgeon works out in Hollywood, he doesn’t charge what’s fair, he charges what the market will bear. If the same plastic surgeon works in Mississippi repairing cleft lips on children, same as before, but he doesn't have to be in a high tax bracket because he doesn't make as much. If a coal mine owner pays his workers a wage. You could say he pays them what’s fair, but it’s likely he really pays them as little as he can reasonably get away with and that they won‘t strike. When the coal miners vote, they decide the politician that is saying the coal mine owner deserves to pay a higher percentage of tax seems fair to them when they think about their wages.

So, it’s all fair. See? Ha.

Okay, nevermind.

SOOPOO:

This line:

Quote: SP

He said something like if they raise taxes again he will leave the state.

California is in such bad shape because THAT has been happening.
AZ and NZ have been the prime beneficiaries of this, but other states as wel.
Plus, much of the filming has been moved out of SoCal to other places.

Is the tax code "Fair"? Only to the extent that it applies to all the same way. It is written, it is law, and it is yours to decipher.

It is "fair" to all.

If you are making $60k a year, then you are entitled to whatever tax breaks, deductions, and redits that are available to you.

If you are making $600k, there are others that are may be available to you, but many that are available to someone making $60k, are not.

If it was up to me, since I am a CPA, I would exempt all CPA's from tax. But thats me. It fair to me, and screw the rest.

That is the system we have. It ain't perfect. It never will be, and it is BY FAR, one of the best in the world. Why do you think our economy is so strong?

This is a personal rant, but there are a number of folks who have made alot of money in this country, and becasue they do not like taxes, have decided to renounce thier citizenship, so that they no longer pay US income taxes. They move to the Caribbean islands, and pay no or little tax. (except for the armed guards, and others to protect them...) The creator and maker of AMWAY has done this. I will NEVER buy an AMWAY product, becasue it is lining the packets of a thief.

This is greeat country. You have to pay taxes. (Death and Taxes, anyone?) Determining the fair amount is an exceedingly difficult thing to do.

When 50% of the population pays no income taxes, and 20% pays 80%, then that seems exceedingly unfair.

That population that doesn't pay INCOME TAXES, may pay 7.65% in Social Security and Medicare taxes, and 4-10% of thier total income in sales taxes, depending on the state and local jurisdiction. So, they do NOT get a totally free ride. And someone making serious dollars may pay a smaller % in sales taxes and S/S and Medicare tax to thier total income.

JMVHO.

SFB

Quote: SFB

If you are making $600k, there are others that are may be available to you, but many that are available to someone making $60k, are not.

I hear this a lot, people who make more money get more tax breaks. Please give me some examples in which having an income above a certain level qualifies you for a specific tax break or credit.

Quote: SOOPOO

SFB- that was a GREAT post. In New York State, Tom Golisano is a billionaire who made an ill fated run for governor. He adamantly was opposed to our 'soak the rich' tax levies here. I forgot the exact numbers, but he said he pays about $15k per day in New York State taxes. He said something like if they raise taxes again he will leave the state. A family of 4 making 60k a year probably pays about $1 per day in taxes. His point was that losing him, and others like him by raising the top tax from say, 7% to 9%, will require 15,000 more regular working class families when he leaves. Let alone his wealthier allies. I believe he is now a legal resident of Florida.

I heard he moved as well, and he will need to stay away as NY will try to tax him if he visits Paychex HQ in Rochester for a day for meetings, or even to get a world-famous Garbage Plate at Nick Tahou's. Rush Limbaugh had the same problem and left only to be told by the govenor he should have raised taxes sooner to get rid of him.

As for Gollisano, all he has done is start and build the only real large and still growing in employees company in Rochester. So instead of trying to get more people like him, NY raises taxes and drives them away.

On the topic of fairness, I wrote the following in a paper I presented at UNLV in the fall of 2009. Its larger context is price discrimination in hospitality marketing (e.g., why hotels are more expensive on New Year's Eve than on, oh, July 24), but the last part of the paper commented on the "fairness" of it. Sorry for the length, but it seemed to hit on this and a few other topics in various threads across this forum, and I offer it up for comment:

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer'sUNLVPresentation

My opinion of the fairness of price discrimination may be best expressed as a corollary to the opinion I offered earlier regarding the market’s setting of prices. Any price the market will bear when subject to normal, healthy, competitive economic dynamics is eminently fair.

Discrimination in this context means only differences based on price elasticity characteristics among market segments. The term should not be taken in the criminal sense: gender or race. But Joule and Sheraton do not charge different rates based on those factors. Rather, they charge different rates to women weekenders versus women New Year’s Eve revelers; or Hispanic business travelers versus Hispanic Christmastime guests.

Cultural practices and norms cloud the issue. Women are frequently offered queuing preferences, free admission, or other benefits to nightclubs that men are not offered solely on the basis of their gender. At face value, this would appear to be unlawful. But cultural norms are more powerful than law, even if law can’t or shouldn’t legislate a distinction. Men often extend common courtesy to women in forms such as opening doors and paying for meals. Nightclub privileges are, in some ways, merely an extension of these things. Some, like the plaintiff in the California lawsuit mentioned above, may perceive injustice. But in my opinion, cultural norms drive this dynamic and most people don’t take issue, even though it might be technically illegal.

But it’s not always this clear. Rightly or wrongly, sexual preference is not perceived as immutable in the same way as gender and race. With 31 states passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in 31 attempts, cultural practices and norms regarding sexual preference do not appear to be close to changing. The cultural forces making the extension of special rights, protections, or privileges to this demographic are much more conflicted than in doing so with women.

Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn’t. I do not wish to debate the morality of the issue. As a business matter, though, it makes no sense to employ price discrimination unless price inelasticity drives it. While it may not be illegal to charge higher rates to homosexuals just because they’re homosexual, finding a viable elasticity characteristic and subsequent fencing without creating controversy seems nearly impossible – and controversy of this type is never good business. A hotelier’s sense of morality may make it impossible for her to sell rooms to homosexuals, but that’s not a business consideration. Morality drives economic decisions all the time: some pharmacists would rather quit their job than dispense a morning-after pill. If cultural norms are more powerful than law, they are certainly more powerful than economics.

Lastly, I think a discussion of what fair means is needed to answer the question. A fair price is not a price that enables everyone to buy a product. Not to over-parse the issue, but even the term everyone is confusing – does it mean truly everyone or just everyone above a certain income? If it does mean truly everyone, the only fair price is zero. As a practical matter, therefore, everyone can’t mean everyone.

What makes discriminatory pricing fair is not that everyone can buy a particular product – or more accurately, that everyone above some arbitrary income can buy it. What makes it fair is that normal, healthy, competitive economic dynamics drives the price. The economic reality is that not everybody will be able to afford everything. We have to make spending decisions, and sometimes our decision has to be “no.”

I'll tell you about the questions and reactions I got when I was done at some other time!

Quote: rxwine

Income isn’t fair; it just functions on supply and demand. If you own a coffee place and live in an area that can get away with charging 8 bucks for a cup of coffee, you charge 8 bucks for a cup of coffee. If a plastic surgeon works out in Hollywood, he doesn’t charge what’s fair, he charges what the market will bear. If the same plastic surgeon works in Mississippi repairing cleft lips on children, same as before, but he doesn't have to be in a high tax bracket because he doesn't make as much.

To have any income to discuss, someone has to be working. Most of the people who do not pay a red cent in income taxes do not work.

Try to figure out what happens with the $8 cup of coffee when some bright entrepreneur comes along and figures that he can charge $6 for that same cup that costs (including overhead, etc.) $1 to produce. That is the essence of the free market and capitalism. And the beauty of it for most people is that if they don't like their situation they can change it by finding a new job, acquiring new skills and education, moving to a more fruitful area and so on.

Hey, anyone know the last year the U.S. had a fair tax rate?

Quote: rxwine

Hey, anyone know the last year the U.S. had a fair tax rate?

yes--1775

Quote: AZDuffman

As for Gollisano, all he has done is start and build the only real large and still growing in employees company in Rochester. So instead of trying to get more people like him, NY raises taxes and drives them away.

NY in a nutshell, AZ.

I'm not even going to pretend I know anything about tax code, or that I have a thought out or witty solution. Trying to understand it was frustrating, and actually starting to understand it was infuriating, so I just stopped.

I pretty much have everything I've ever wanted. Steady job, 2 bedroom house, a pick'em up truck to haul my wheeler around, life ain't bad. Sure, if taxes weren't so brutal I could buy that Viper I got my eye on, but as long as I got enough cash to get me out fishing I'm a happy camper. The thing that really gripes my ass though is not that we NY'ers have possibly the worst tax situation in the country, but that we get SO LITTLE for it. Many of my commutes to work were through 8"+ of snow on the road because of DOT cuts. The road conditions now are disgusting; the old dirt logging roads are less damaging than the pot hole filled messes out there currently. Schools are being stripped to the bone of music, arts and sports. Parks and Rec, from green space to take the family to State supported natural areas are either neglected or outright closed. All the while taxes continue to rise, every road continues to be tolled, and anything that can be taxed from gas to smokes are being pushed to the absolute max.

Taxes will always suck, and will always be more than I'd really want to pay, but usually I wouldn't think twice about the how or why, I'd just pay them. It'd just be nice to get something for my money besides what we currently get, which can only be described as a financial boot to the nuts.

Quote: AZDuffman

yes--1775

I was going to guess at around 1860, before income tax was first levied as a temporary measure for fighting the Civil War.... (it was x% on all earning about $400, as I recall from reading a few hours ago)

Quote: thecesspit

I was going to guess at around 1860, before income tax was first levied as a temporary measure for fighting the Civil War.... (it was x% on all earning about $400, as I recall from reading a few hours ago)

I think my humor might be too dry/sarcastic?

Quote: AZDuffman

I think my humor might be too dry/sarcastic?

Nope, the recipient is being too literal.. Yanks are not known for their dry sarcastic wit. It warps my poor little British mind when it`s used on me from the colonies :)

Quote: thecesspit

Nope, the recipient is being too literal.. Yanks are not known for their dry sarcastic wit. It warps my poor little British mind when it`s used on me from the colonies :)

Thanks, I have had a few things like that fly by people on this board lately. Surpising as this is a fairly sharp group. Maybe I was born on the wrong side of the pond? We are a people divided by only a common language.

Quote: clarkacal

I hear this a lot, people who make more money get more tax breaks. Please give me some examples in which having an income above a certain level qualifies you for a specific tax break or credit.

IF you are making $600k, a year, and getting a W-2, you are dead meat. You just write the check for taxes. Now, if you OWN a business, you have other things that may be deductible for you, that you wouldn't get otherwise. The compnay may pick up your cell phone, your car, your vacations (for training ;0) etc. You can take the income out of the company as dividends, or payroll, or Capital gains, or some combination of the above.

However, at $60k, many types of deductions, credits and adjustments are available to you. They all start to phase-out as your inccome starts to rise, however.

SFB

Of course it is NOT fair. Congress sets the rules and for them the take code is how they reward their friends and punish their enemies !!