Michigan Votes Forum

 You have to be kidding. Vote for more taxes without knowing what they will be. How stupid does the government reps. think the voters are?

It was proposed by a Democrat.  Democrats think we're all fools--we voted for them, didn't we?

Surely this isn't a serious proposal!!

Of course, I still remember when the governor of Indiana got the sales tax instituted way back when I was just a young 'un.  He promised it would never be higher than 2%.  (Was he wrong or did he lie?)  The point is, even if they told us what the rates would be, it would just be to get the thing passed; later they could stick it to us at will.

A graduated income tax is the fairest tax possible. Only fools would oppose this bill.

 Yeah, it figures libs would love this :"Once the Constitution is changed the legislature could set rates without the approval of the voters. " Leave the legislators decide how much you are allowed to keep! LOL

Someone said a graduated tax is fair. Why should those who are successful and productive and provide jobs be charged more to support those who won't work etc.?  The D behind the sponsors name is no surprise.

A graduated tax is the most regressive tax of all because it penalizes those who are most successful.  Is it immoral to be successful?

Only an underachiever could think that "A graduated income tax is the fairest tax possible."

As though it's only fair that some people could enjoy--at no cost to themselves--the roads, schools, etc. that government provides.  Or as the national Democrats say, "The fortunate should pay more."  Yep, the fortunate ones who are lucky enough to work 7-day weeks, 18-hour days, come home bushed at night, worry about meeting their payroll (they quite often hire other people with all that extra money they make, you know), and try to find a time when they can take a week of vacation some year.

The unfortunate ones, the ones who slept through school until they were old enough to drop out, maybe have a baby or two, complain if they have to work at all, or at least more than 5 days a week or much more than 7 hours a day, yeah, they deserve some of the cash of the fortunate ones.  Why?  'Cause they were born in America, that's why!

Loser.

Oops, looks like I've just admitted I'm a fool!

Geez, Indy, if you haven't figured out yet that it IS immoral to be successful... then you must be a Republican or a Libertarian.

Not only a fool, but a bigot. You think that the wealthy all earned their money? Please. You think that the unfortunate are all lazy bums? Yea, bigot alright.

Income taxes are taxes on human productivity.  If you want less of something, charge more for it.  If you charge more for higher income you will get less productivity. 

Progressive income taxes are the product of envy which I believe is the root of much evil.

 Why the name calling?  Are progressives/liberals so devoid of intelligence that they can not carry a discussion concerning taxes?  Sales taxes and graduated income taxes are devices of progressives/liberal democrats to fund their programs.  These programs have created a "nanny" state where the people are dependent upon government; when such occurs the civilization is destroyed.  Well done Democrats of Michigan you are leading the people down the road to socialism.

I calls em as I sees em. A person who considers all "unfortunates" to be lazy bums is a bigot, period. Taxes, of all stripes, are the price we pay for the government we want. A graduated income tax is a fair way to tax. If you don't want to pay taxes, then you don't want a government, and the security it provides. I think that would be described as anarchy. Good luck with that.

 Gpysy aren't you the guy who does'nt want to pay State income tax on your pension ?

I am. And I paid state income tax on my earnings since 1967, when Gov. Romney, a Republican I believe, enacted the flat rate income tax law. I would be much more agreeable to paying a grauated income tax on my pension than having to pay the same rate on my little pension and SS as a millionaire pays on his income.

And aren't you the guy who doesn't want to pay state income tax on his IRA?

Actually, taxes are the price we pay for the government politicians want.

It's likely that not ALL "unfortunates" are lazy bums.  But in America, almost anyone who is NOT a lazy bum can get along quite nicely without government, except for that government that the U.S. Constitution mandates, which is mainly a government that provides a military to protect its citizens.

Yes, I'm happy that government protects me from foreign invaders who seek to kill me.  Now if it could only protect me from government.

I don't think rebelling against the ever-growing welfare state and victim mentality makes me a bigot or an anarchist.  More like a realist.

Try to imagine, just for a moment, a federal government that was so limited that thousands of lobbyists saw no reason whatsoever to seek favors.  Unemployment among the lobbyists is not a thing to fear; perhaps they might find productive jobs if they weren't kissing governments' behinds, promising campaign contributions for favors.  Hard to imagine, huh?

Just a little fact you may not be aware of, since you think most almost anyone who is not a lazy bum in America can get along without government.

 An astonishing one in four American children - close to 17 million - live in food-insecure homes. A kid who is hungry cannot learn. A kid who can't learn drops out of school. A kid without an education can't get a job and help America compete in a global economy. A kid without a job may turn to crime, get arrested and cost taxpayers $40,000 a year to sit in prison.

America needs protection from more than foreign invaders.

And lastly, we choose our politicians, just in case you've forgotten that important fact.

 gypsy I will be happy to pay income tax on my IRA if you pay it on your pension, all things being equal.

 President William Howard Taft said it best.  " We live in a stage of politics, were Legislators seem to regard the passage of laws as much more important than the results of their enforcement." 

I will be happy, and I believe you would too, if neither one of us paid state income tax on our pensions and IRA's. And the income tax applied to present workers should be at a graduated rate, so those able to pay more do, and those low income workers hard pressed pay less.

 I am with you on not paying taxes on retierment income, but you lost me on redistribution of wealth.

 Go to Part time Legislator for the state and Federal.

Poor people won't get wealthy by paying income tax at a lower rate than wealthy people, and visa versa. It's simple ecomomics that 4% of a $200 paycheck is a greater loss in buying power than 4% of $2000, when both examples are paying the same prices for their needs.

 Minnie you are right on spot ! Gypsy always seems to be left on everything that is right (correct ).

 Looks like redistrubution of wealth to me . 

Left is right.

A graduated tax is basically everyone paying according to their ability. That's fair.

 Actually, it's not fair.  We all pay for the same government and (for the most part) the same services, regardless of how much money we make.  Since we get the same (or mostly the same) benefits, why should those who make more money have to pay more - they're not getting anymore services than those who make less money.  As a matter of fact, those who make more money receive LESS in services because they aren't eligible for the welfare type services (Medicaid, food stamps, etc).l

Why should those who make more pay more when they receive the same or less?

If your only concern is the return on taxes, not the burden it imposes on people and our economy, you have a point. But Adam Smith, often referred to as the father of capitalism, had another point of view. He wrote: "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

 Not only do you pay more because you EARN more, Gypys thinks you should pay a higher percentage on those earnings. It is his Socalist view of redistribution of wealth. Underachievers with their hands out.

 Gypsy , you use Adam Smith qoutes alot , Karl Marx said he got his economic insperation from Adam Smith also. I might just be reading too much into that .

Yes, myself and Adam Smith think that one should pay in proportion to ones ability to pay. Call me a socialist if you like, but calling Adam Smith one is a stretch.

Yes, you might.

Economic historians regard Smith as a strong advocate of free markets and limited government. I doubt they view Karl Marx in the same light. Maybe you're not reading enough into that.

 From each according to his ability, to each according to his need , Slogan of Karl Marx

 Adam Smith is not that well regarded as you say. Mostly because of the exact quote you used. Many progressives use Adam Smith for their advantage when it suits them.

A graduated tax is a progressive tax and is a unfair socialist tax,if you support it ,you are what you are.

Adam Smith may not be well regarded by yourself, but he is well regarded by economist. As a matter of fact, he is considered the father of modern economic thought and capitalism. Allan Greenspan called Smith's book, "The Wealth of Nations" one of the great acheivments in human intellectual history. That's pretty well regarded I'd say. Of course, you may not regard Alan Greenspan very highly either. I know I don't. 

I use Adam Smith not when it suits me, but when it fits the discussion, like now. You try to make a progressive tax a "socialistic" tax, since using the term socialism is all the rage nowdays with the Tea Party crew, as they use it to describe any person or idea that doesn't conform to their sound bite intellects.

A graduated tax is a fair tax, whatever political label you try to pin on it.

gypsy:

Yes, myself and Adam Smith think that one should pay in proportion to ones ability to pay. Call me a socialist if you like, but calling Adam Smith one is a stretch.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Adam Smith

Gotta call foul on this.  It's my understanding that scholars are still debating whether Smith meant by "in proportion".  Did he mean equal percentage and thus advocate for a flat tax? Or does "in proportion" mean graduated.  Certainly most flat taxers have adopted the guy and believe he meant flat tax.

I think it's important to remember that "in proportion" to one's ability should mean the wealthier shoulder more of the total tax burden which they do under a flat tax -- of all taxes paid, the largest percentage is paid by the rich under a flat tax.  Now, if one is looking to use taxes to punish the wealthy for their wealth (as all socialists would like) then a graduated tax demands not only that they carry more of the overall tax burden but are taxed punatively -- the more you make the greater percentage of wealth you surrender.  

 In the Communist Manifesto , Karl Marx wrote, " In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: a heavy progressive or graduated income tax ".

Redistrubuting wealth is the main objective of the progessive income tax,which Marx would endorse and Adam Smith would reject.

A progressive tax is socialist,a graduated tax is a progressive tax,and there so socialist.

Redistributing the wealth is not the main objective of a progressive tax. The main objective is those benefiting most from our economy should pay the most.

Adam Smith would agree with that, since he said so.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith

Please note the last part, which Barbara Brown conveniently omitted.

 Just like you said Gypsy, Redistribute the wealth through a proggressive tax !

Here's the rub -- Adam Smith wasn't talking about income tax because the notion of income tax had not yet even been conceived at the time.  He was generally opposed to taxation of wages of any kind preferring what would now be considered real estate and sales taxes to generate public revenue.  

Here's a larger piece of the quote:

“The principal objection to [window taxes on houses] is their inequality, and inequality of the worst kind, as they must frequently fall much heavier upon the poor than upon the rich. A house of ten pounds rent in a country town may sometimes have more windows than a house of five hundred pounds rent in London; and though the inhabitant of the former is likely to be a much poorer man than that of the latter.  A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion.”

 Gypsy would prefer to only use the part of the quote that suits his union view.

OldVet2:

 Gypsy would prefer to only use the part of the quote that suits his union view.

What's hilarious is that we are drawn into arguments over Adam Smith and window taxes while our own 21st century economy is going to hell. 

I'm so tired of the demonization of business and those more financially fortunate.  I certainly see the need to care for the truly disadvantaged with limited means to help themselves but recognize that bigger government certainly didn't cure poverty in the past!  And I'll never understand why unionists are forever attacking businesses and business people when it takes "greedy" venture capitalists, investors, entrepeneurs and inventors to create jobs in the first place.  (oh wait.  I forgot government!) 

To me there's something uniquely abhorent about the notion that if you work, strive, sacrifice, study and risk what you have to make a better life for yourself and your loved ones when you finally realize your dream there's a crowd at the finish line with their hands out expecting their "fair share" and ready to spit on you (but not your money of course!) and call you "greedy".