Well I haven't studied economics or the tax systems in any way, shape or form. So maybe it's naive of me. It seems to me though that if you don't tax businesses then you're only giving the higher ups a loophole around taxes, and those are perhaps the last people we want escaping taxation^[1]...

I can't even imagine the resources it would take for everybody to prove which services they did use, and settling disputes on the matter. Charging for services offered to everybody collectively is much more feasible and cheap to manage. A simplified tax system would cost less to manage and would simplify the act of paying and auditing taxes, costing the government less in order to collect the taxes and costing citizens less for businesses to pay them.

I'd like to hear what such a system is. The tax system as it is now is ridiculously complex and difficult for the citizens and the government alike to deal with. If a flat tax rate for all is the simplest tax system that is possible, going with a bracket of tax rates is a running leap from there toward complexity.

Taxes are not fines at all. I don't see how your example goes beyond trying to demonstrate that since rich people have more money, it doesn't hurt for them to pay more taxes. I still disagree with your point completely. It is a fact that government is less efficient than a successful private business, so when a higher amount of taxes are extracted from people, it's up to the government to be useful in spending it back toward the country. Instead, some of it goes to worthwhile means, some of it goes to questionable special interests and some of it's wasted in the inefficiency of government. Case in point, USPS is drowning in red ink while UPS and Fedex are doing well enough that they could replace it. However, USPS probably will never get canned and I guess it will eventually just be another subsidy of the Federal government (a drain on the economy).

That is a wild guess. The rich person may use few services, or I may use few myself. It is a matter of fact that a proportional (same rate for all) tax would mean that people with more money would pay a higher absolute amount of taxes, that's how math works. You seem to be trying to liken that to making people pay a disproportional (different rates based on amount of income) tax. As I've maintained thus far, a proportional tax doesn't equate to wealth redistribution in my book, and it doesn't seem to match any common description of wealth redistribution as far as I can tell.

Of course it's redistribution of wealth - people pay different amounts depending on their income. Just less so than a disproportional tax. Whether or not this is "fair", or in what ways it's fair, is a different question.

A truly economically "fair" tax would be an absolute fixed amount, but that would probably not be feasible, since it would have to be fairly high - poor people could not afford to live.

I know that is what you are saying. My point is that you are holding a contradictory view. Whether you use flat rate or tax brackets, the rich person is paying more for the same services that a poorer person pays. That is a redistribution of wealth. There's no way to intelligently argue otherwise.

Want an example of a "fair" tax? The federal gas tax. The more you drive, the more gas you buy, the more you pay for road construction. A rich person pays the same per mile that a poor person would, given that they drive cars with similar efficiency. A person who does not drive at all does not (directly) pay any tax toward road construction.

Are you sure it had to do with income tax brackets? It sounds like BS reasoning to me. The jump between $379,150 and greater is 2%. If he makes less than $174,400, then the jump would be 5%. Neither of those are "considerable," especially since the increase only applies to the amount greater than the threshold. Also, you only pay Social Security tax on the first $106,800, so he's actually paying less "income" tax on higher amounts than lower amounts.

However, I completely agree with his mentality to not work more than he needs to. I only work enough to make about $35,000 a year, even though I could make four times that if I worked full time.

raynebc: It is my understanding that the sole reason the USPS is in the red is because it was made to pre-fund all its commitments for the next 70 years(something no other government agency has to do). Prior to that it was in the black.

When somebody pays more out in taxes than they get in return, or they pay more for the same service than someone else, then that is a redistribution of wealth. Their tax money is being used to support other people. Income tax does that. If you think otherwise, you simply don't understand math.

Tax brackets make that redistribution more noticeable, but they are not the cause of redistribution. They only increase the factor. They only make an "unfair" system more unfair.

This is my point: if you want to say that tax brackets are not fair, then you need to come up with a better argument than "wealth redistribution" because that applies to income tax as a whole.

I'm not taking sides. I'm just pointing out that your argument is not well thought out.

Uhm... Tax brackets add mathematical complexity.

First $8500 taxed at 10%. Next $26000 taxed at 15%, etc.

With modern computers, it would be less taxing to do what I said and just make an equation.

Get it? Less taxing?

Nobody's laughing; I'll shut up now.

And now China will piss on the US telling them what to do next!

Ironically this is coming from a nation where human rights are junk status and the US corporate world has sold the working class of the nation for the same values china has.

America is shit now. good bye!

I never thought about it like that. US corporations invested in countries without human rights (of course because they were cheap.)

HAHAHAH!!!! Totally deserve this. I wonder how deep this will go.

The funny thing is, China has been completely off the American radar from a mainstream news/political/discussion standpoint. It'll be neat when we get a flood of demands from our debt overlord lenders.

I wonder how Fox will react. I guarantee they will take side with the power, which means they'll have to finagle around their image of strong American patriotism.

Seriously - cut military spending.

Lucky. Canada has a GST of 5% (was 7%) and some provinces have a PST of 5-10% on top of that. Some also have what is called a HST or "Harmonized Sales Tax" where it bundles up the PST and GST. Alberta is the only province without an obvious provincial sales tax of some kind. That's on top of our Income Tax (this is for 2011):

• 15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, +

• 22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), +

• 26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), +

• 29% of taxable income over $128,800.

The first $10,527 isn't considered taxable income (as of 2011).

So you get it from both ends.