Granted. But my question is in what way is the size of a particular income segment relevant to determining what is or isn't a "fair" share? On the one hand, you could say ANY rate is fair, since anyone who earns up to that amount will be paying the same rate. That's "fair."
We don't pay taxes as a segment. We pay taxes as individuals (or corporations.) I am not sure what is fair for me has anything to do with how many others are in the same income segment. Anyone in my segment has to pay what I have to pay.
So then the question becomes....what makes tax rates "fair"? At this point, not only do I reject the arguments of the left, who look at tax cuts as giving federal money to rich people, but I am not convinced that the size of a segment of earners matters either. Thoughts?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship"
I am not convinced that the size of a segment of earners matters either. Thoughts?
Just to stir things up abit ;O)
One argument as regards size of segment is representation ought to be proportionate to tax paid.
Looking from that perspective, rates should decline with income, as long as we go by one man, one vote rules.
- The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands. ``For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State, ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States.
- As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, "
An interesting exchange in the Constitutional Convention concerning representation vs taxation and the compromises that were made regarding the subject in the Constitution.
James Madison's Notes; Thursday July 12, 1787
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the Representation according to the principles of wealth & number of inhabts. a "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."
Mr. BUTLER contended again that Representation Sd.. be according to the full number of inhabts. including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. Govr. Morris's motion.
Mr. MASON also admitted the justice of the principle, but was afraid embarrassments might be occasioned to the Legislature by it. It might drive the Legislature to the plan of Requisitions.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.
General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing Exports.
Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided by any major segment of the population there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
The only truly fair tax is for every person to pay exactly the same amount -- a head tax, so to speak. Anything beyond that gets a bit fuzzy. But some level of progressiveness is required for practical reasons.
Now, this is just crazy talk, but why shouldn't representation be proportional to the amount of taxes paid? One, person, one vote makes sense if each person has the same stake in the government, but the current system allows for those who take from what others put into the system control of that very system. What if your vote was multiplied by the amount of tax paid? Those who are most responsible for funding the system would have the greatest say in how the system is used. Isn't that fair?
On a smaller scale, anyone who receives money from the government except in exchange for a service (I'd find a way to exclude government employees, too, but that would be bad for the military, who should be allowed representation) should not be allowed to vote purely on a conflict of interest.