Fair / 63° F
May not be best time for tax plan [UPDATED]
Published 10:14am Monday, January 28, 2013 Updated 12:16pm Monday, January 28, 2013When Minnesota residents kicked out the Republican Legislature, it was clearly due to the fact that Republicans overreached on a wide variety of issues — from creating constitutional amendment votes on marriage and voter ID to refusing to approve tax increases of any kind to erase a $6 billion deficit to the point of shutting the government down.
With the release of Dayton’s budget, he’s probably going to be accused of overreaching the other way.
On Thursday, Dayton spoke to newspaper editors and publishers throughout Minnesota at the annual Minnesota Newspaper Association convention.
During their annual meetings, publishers and editors had heard about the most noticeable part of his budget: expansion of the sales tax. The expansion would include services, including advertising, printing and newspaper subscriptions.
For newspapers, of course, those are the three primary sources of revenue, in fact, about 98 percent of our revenue.
Thus, when the question-and-answer period came for Dayton, newspaper publishers from Little Falls to Andover to Hibbing came to ask why.
Why would you hurt our business, the ones which provide hyper-local news coverage and provides a valuable service to our residents? Why would you force us to cut jobs?
Dayton’s response was as expected. The governor’s idea is that expanding the base of products and services that can be taxed will allow the Legislature to reduce the overall sales tax percent from 6.875 to 5.5. In other words, more Minnesotans would pay the tax, but for those who have always been paying or charging the tax, it would be lower.
If he starts making exceptions, he isn’t likely to stop, and eventually, his plan won’t collect the needed revenues.
He also said he’s open to other plans, but that there isn’t a plan out there that will erase a $1 billion deficit and avoid pain. Tax increases and spending cuts, he said, will hurt, no matter what.
On Dayton’s budget, I am definitely torn.
As a newspaper publisher, clearly, I would be better off if I didn’t have to deal with a tax on advertising, printing and subscriptions.
Frankly, I’m more worried about the administrative end.
It’s complicated enough trying to accurately quote and bill our customers; tacking on a sales tax will only make it harder.
I also worry about our advertising customers. Should the tax come to be, it’s very likely that some will reduce the size of their ads, and a few may choose not to advertise.
On the other hand, the sales tax is one of the fairest taxes out there, because your tax is based on what you spend.
It’s certainly better than the property tax, where most Minnesotans have seen the glorious combination of watching the value of their home plummet, while at the same time, their annual property tax increase. This is because the Legislature chose to cut state aid to cities and counties, and cities and counties responded by increasing property taxes.
All of that said, I wonder whether Dayton’s “big plan” is really necessary.
Our deficit of $1.1 billion, in comparison to other years, just isn’t that large.
Clearly, the sweeping changes he wants to make aren’t necessary just to fill the deficit. But he also wants more spending on education, health care and other things, thus the need for more revenue.
But maybe it’s just not the right time for such a sweeping tax-and-spend proposal.
What if we just fix the deficit with small, temporary tax increases and small, temporary spending cuts?
If the economy improves and we get back into producing large state surpluses like the state had in the 1990s, then we can do a grand vision.
It could be that I’m just being a chicken about this. Then again, it’s easier to be a liberal when proposed tax increases don’t crash down on our backyard.
Joel Myhre is The Journal’s publisher. Email him at joel.myhre@fergusfallsjournal.com
I’m not sure about “chicken” but inconsistent, parochial, myopic, lacking in long-term vision and contemptuous of future generations seems to fit.
Typical libtard bilge. It’s OK to raise everybody else’s taxes, but leave my income untouched because I’m special
and so is my means of earning income.
And, typical duplicity of a socialist like Dayton that he would offer to lower some property taxes and sales taxes, but subject thousands of other types of previously untaxed forms of commerce and goods to new taxes-thus accomplishing a tax switcheroo and collecting billions more in taxes from an uninformed public.
Is “duplicity” on your word of the day calendar, or is that the current buzz word on Fox? You should pay more attention to your argument than your thesaurus.
“leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income” – now we’re getting somewhere. Isn’t that the argument for reduced taxes on capital gains and investment income? Those who actually have to work for a living are taxed at a much higher rate than those who live off capital gains and investment income (like the unemployed Mitt Romney’s millions in income while paying half the rate that I do). It seems to me that the “makers” are the people who actually make things and the “takers” are those living off the interest earned from lending money to others.
Other notables living off capital gains and investments taxed at lower rates: Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, the Hollywood radical lefties, Harry Reid, Rahm Immanuel, David Axelrod, Marx Dayton,Bill Gates, economic advisors to 0bama Warren Buffett and Jeff Imhelt, Ted Turner, 47 of the Senate Democrat millionaires and over 100 of the House Democrat millionaires, Al Gore, the Kennedys, etc., etc.
Not to mention the millions of retired State and Federal government employees whose monthly pension cheques are primarily derived from dividends and earnings from CAPITAL investments in stocks and bonds.
But in the case of state and federal pension checks it’s interest on capital that they put into the system (with, probably, matching funds from their employer) which isn’t any different than taking money out of an IRA. Taxes are deferred until you start to draw on the money, then it’s taxed as “normal income” with the corresponding rates. So, for example, if you’re drawing $3,000/month out of the account, you’d fall into the 25% bracket, not the 15% for capital gains. That’s the point, and I don’t particularly care if we’re talking about democrats, republicans, independents, green, libertarian, or whatever political party you care to become a part of. Thus, no matter what you’re “political strip” it seems to me that those who are able to sit at home and “let their money work” should be taxed on their income at the same rate as those who have to physically labor for their income.
Let’s use a simple example. Let’s say that I have $1million invested and I have a return of 10% so I have an INCOME (keeping in mind that the million I have isn’t taxed, just the income earned off of it – so being a millionaire doesn’t mean you have a million in income) of $100,000, but because it’s investment income I only pay 15%. Now, take a plumber, farmer, electrician, small business owner – whoever – and they’ll start paying more than 15% after $35,350 (25%) and 28% on the amount over $85,650. Doesn’t that situation scream, “leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income”?
Let’s use a simple example. Let’s say that I have $1million invested and I have a return of 10% so I have an INCOME (keeping in mind that the million I have isn’t taxed, just the income earned off of it – so being a millionaire doesn’t mean you have a million in income) of $100,000, but because it’s investment income I only pay 15%. Now, take a plumber, farmer, electrician, small business owner – whoever – and they’ll start paying more than 15% after $35,350 (25%) and 28% on the amount over $85,650. Doesn’t that situation scream, “leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income”?
But in the case of state and federal pension checks it’s interest on capital that they put into the system (with, probably, matching funds from their employer) which isn’t any different than taking money out of an IRA. Taxes are deferred until you start to draw on the money, then it’s taxed as “normal income” with the corresponding rates. So, for example, if you’re drawing $3,000/month out of the account, you’d fall into the 25% bracket, not the 15% for capital gains. That’s the point, and I don’t particularly care if we’re talking about democrats, republicans, independents, green, libertarian, or whatever political party you care to become a part of. Thus, no matter what you’re “political strip” it seems to me that those who are able to sit at home and “let their money work” should be taxed on their income at the same rate as those who have to physically labor for their income.
Couldn’t agree more with Jerome Mulins more! Geeee Joel, suppose it’so good you’d like to be exempt from it too? Our Federal politicians do. Can you say Obama Health Care?
Maybe we should start with a simple example. Let’s say that I have $1million invested and I have a return of 10% so I have an INCOME (keeping in mind that the million I have isn’t taxed, just the income earned off of it – so being a millionaire doesn’t mean you have a million in income) of $100,000, but because it’s investment income I only pay 15%. Now, take a plumber, farmer, electrician, small business owner – whoever – and they’ll start paying more than 15% after $35,350 (25%) and 28% on the amount over $85,650. Doesn’t that situation scream, “leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income”?
But in the case of state and federal pension checks it’s interest on capital that they put into the system (with, probably, matching funds from their employer) which isn’t any different than taking money out of an IRA. Taxes are deferred until you start to draw on the money, then it’s taxed as “normal income” with the corresponding rates. So, for example, if you’re drawing $3,000/month out of the account, you’d fall into the 25% bracket, not the 15% for capital gains. That’s the point, and I don’t particularly care if we’re talking about democrats, republicans, independents, green, libertarian, or whatever political party you care to become a part of. Thus, no matter what you’re “political strip” it seems to me that those who are able to sit at home and “let their money work” should be taxed on their income at the same rate as those who have to physically labor for their income.
Phad-man – the example that you use is very misleading – the numbers that you quote are the tax rates on the income above those dollar levels – you left out the part that the income UP to those levels is taxed at a rate much lower than 15%. Yes, the MARGINAL dollars earned after $35,350 are taxed at higher rates, but there is a crossover point where the ACTUAL tax rate is always less than 15%. If you look at the 2012 Federal tax tables, you will see that a married couple filing jointly can have taxable income of $79,450 and still pay a 15% rate – tax would be $11,916 (15% of $79,450 is $11,917). Any married couple with a taxable income under $79,450 pays 15% or less in Federal taxes, because $79,450 is the 15% crossover point. So your assertion that “Those who actually have to work for a living are taxed at a much higher rate than those who live off capital gains and investment income” is just not true, especially those who are drawing the $3,000/month pension that you used as an example (Tax on $36,000 – if all taxable – is $4,534 – a rate of 12.6%).
I’m going to assume that this is an innocent mistake and not an attempt to mislead, but clearly you’re comparing apples to oranges. This is because I was referring to Single Filers and you’re referring to Married couples filing JOINTLY. In other word, you’re talking about the income of TWO people. It doesn’t matter if one partner earned $70,700 and the other didn’t work, or if they both worked and made $35,350, or anywhere in between. Thus, it’s not surprising that you’ve roughly doubled the amount because you’ve double the number of people. And given the fact that all of the tax tables I’ve seen have the break at $70,700 (for married couples), you’ve obviously added the Standard Deduction to that amount, but strangely, you seem to have used the standard deduction for “Head of Household” to push the total higher. (Which might give one reason to think your were intentionally trying to deceive.)
Thus, my original post was correct, given the terms specified in the post. So, while marriage may “unite two as one” for the purposes of taxes, the census, etc. couples are counted as two (2).
I was not including any standard deduction – I was using taxable income, but I put examples down below using gross income and deductions. Using your example – a single wage-earner (not head of household, using the standard deduction of %5,950 and 1 personal exemption of $3,800) can earn $64,000 in gross income before their actual tax rate climbs above 15% of gross. $64,000 * 15% = $9,600. Getting to Taxable Income ($64,000 – $5,950 – $3,800 = $54,250) – and the tax on that $54,250 is $9,586 – just under 15%. So any single person making less than $64,000 using standard deduction and one personal exemption is paying less than 15%.
Married couples filing jointly can actually gross $128,000 before their actual tax rate exceeds 15% of gross ($128,000 – $11,900 Std Ded – $7,600 Pers onal Exemption) = 108,500. A 15% rate would come out to $19,200. According to the tax table, they would pay $19,185, just under 15% of gross income.
So your assertion that “Those who actually have to work for a living are taxed at a much higher rate than those who live off capital gains and investment income” is just not true for examples like this where you have a single person making less than $64,000, or a married couple making under $128,000. It’s like Walt/Larry says – facts and math matter.
Larry’s right, facts and math do matter, so the only question is, why do you claim to “Using your [my] example” when you don’t? And why do you continue to compare apples to Chevy’s (by changing from marginal to actual tax rates)?
Unmarried Individuals (other than Surviving Spouses and Heads of Households)
If Taxable Income Is:
Not over $8,700 The Tax Is: 10% of the taxable income
Over $8,700 but not over $35,350 The Tax Is: $870 plus 15% of the excess over $8,700
Over $35,350 but not over $85,650 The Tax Is: $4,867.50 plus 25% of the excess over $35,350
Over $85,650 but not over $178,650 The Tax Is: $17,442.50 plus 28% of the excess over $85,650
Over $178,650 but not over $388,350 The Tax Is: $43,482.50 plus 33% of the excess over $178,650
Over $388,350 The Tax Is: $112,683.50 plus 35% of the excess over $388,350
You will want to notice that the phrase is “taxable income” (so we’re talking about income after deductions). The original (my) example was for $100,000, so we’re talking about a tax of $17,442.50 plus 28% of the excess over $85,650 (100,000-85650=14350 x 28%= $4018) for a total tax liability of $21,460. That’s $6460 more in taxes for the person who actually works than the person who “lets their money work” (because they paid 15% on the whole thing for a tax liability of $15,000). We don’t have to do a comparison between “actual” and “marginal” tax rates for the person who “lets their money work” because there is no “averaging effect” from having income taxed at different rates in different brackets. That’s the math on my example and it’s still correct.
You can change the example all you want, but that doesn’t “prove” anything. So, if you question is, “does the person who physically labors and has a taxable income $8500 (if we use a standard deduction, single personal exemption [$5,950+$3,800, your numbers] that gives them – roughly – a gross income of $9750+8500=$18,250) pay less in taxes than a person who makes the exact same amount in investment income?” My answer is Yes, Yes he does! And I would say that’s as it should be. But living on $18,000 or so a year is “no frills” living, but the point is that by the time you get to “pretty comfortable living” you’re being taxed more on your income labor than you would be if you’re income was from “not labor”.
I guess that depends on what “pretty comfortable living” is. Your use of the “$18,000″ figure and marginal rates is misleading. Because a single taxpayer can earn $64,000 (over $30/hour) before his/her total tax percentage approaches 15%. And a married couple can both make $30/hour and gross $128,000. Those numbers would be even higher if they have a home loan and state taxes to deduct. Median gross income in the U.S. is around $60K, depending on your source. So you can make twice the median household income before your overall tax rate exceeds 15%.
You seem to be missing the point, the conversation started with the claim, “leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income”. Having different tax rates for different types of income (income generated from labor vs. income generated from investment) seems to represent that sentiment exactly. So the “miracle” of averaging $8700 @ 10%+ $26650 @ 15%+ (to use your figures – to get to $64000) 28650 @25% is irrelevant, because if income from labor were taxed at the same rate as investment income, they wouldn’t be paying 25% on the last 28650 and their tax liability would go down (even if it went up by 5% on the first $8700, since an extra 5% on $8700 =$435, but going down 10% on 28650 = $2650-$435=$2215 savings for the person who labors over the person who’s taxable income in from investments ).
Not understanding the example doesn’t mean it’s misleading, but it’s an undeniable fact that income from labor is taxed at the same rate after $8700 taxable income, up to $35350, and at a higher rate after that, regardless of averaging (and we’re still talking about taxable income – so deductions are irrelevant as well. It’s right there in the tax brackets for all to see, and denying it (or obfuscating it) is both silly and foolish. But the point is that it’s usually “republitards” not “libtards” (as Jerome would have it) that espouse the, “leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income.” Given the fact that he’s been silent, I’m assuming that he “gets it” and knows that the argument you’re putting forth is a loser (when we consider facts and math).
The FACT of the matter is that people can make $30/hour and still pay the same or less than an investor, who in most cases has already paid income tax on their investments, and in the case of dividend income, is paying tax on income that the corporation already paid tax on. Life isn’t fair – I can find lots of examples. Your argument using marginal rates to show perceived unfairness in our tax structure is a loser.
I have no interest in your straw men and tangents (married, hourly wage, etc. are all irrelevant). What are you doing for your next trick, producing and inverted albino skunk? If you want to continue to look foolish, far be it from me to stop you, but insisting that you’re right about irrelevancy isn’t good for your credibility. You can’t be that slow, but I’ll try it one more time.
If you have to labor to make money, then if your NET income is 8500 you’re paying 10%, at 35000 you’re paying about 13.7%, at $64,000 you’re paying 18.8% and at 85000 you’re paying 20.3% (so that you can compare, I’ll remind you again that we’re talking about NET income, since things seem to “slip your mind” regularly).
But wait, how is it possible that the percentages keep increasing? Obviously it’s because income is taxed at different rates in different brackets for people who labor for their income. No amount of obfuscation, hand-waving, straw men or red herrings are going to change that. So go ahead and stomp your feet and pout, then get over it. You’re position is analogous to saying, “Since everyone was a child once, they have to continue to act like children their whole life” and clearly that’s absurd.
No skunks, phad-man. No smoke and mirrors. No use of obfuscation like those who use marginal rates to try to prove some kind of point. Just FACTS. And the FACT of the matter is that people can make $30/hour and still pay the same or less than an investor, who in most cases has already paid income tax on their investments, and in the case of dividend income, is paying tax on income that the corporation already paid tax on.
And the REALLY LUCKY people can make $15000/year and pay only 10%, a full third less that those whose income comes from investments. The only thing your “fact” proves is that the claim “Everyone who labors for their wages pays more in taxes than those who live off investment income” is false. Fortunately, that’s not the claim that I made (or unfortunately for you). Arrogant ignorance can’t overcome the fact that the U.S. has tax brackets for income earned from labor that is treated differently that income coming from investment income (because one form of income is taxed at different rates that correspond to the brackets and the other form is taxed at a flat rate). That is, by definition, treating things unequally. The fact that people can earn UP TO a certain amount before their tax rate exceeds the rate paid by non-laborers doesn’t prove anything about the way the system is set up. Unlike you, I’m not unwilling to consider all those things that don’t “fit my ideology” (that is, I’m not willing to ignore all of those people who have a net income of more than $35000 – but you seem to be saying, “don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain”). Maybe you don’t know, but saying the same thing over and over isn’t enough to make it true.
And the whole corporate tax thing is equally silly. That’s like saying that the plumber who fixed my pipes shouldn’t have to pay income tax on the income he got for fixing my pipes because I paid income tax on the income when I earned it. The whole thing is absurd, and you’re obviously grasping at straws.
“Maybe you don’t know, but saying the same thing over and over isn’t enough to make it true.” I agree with that – you have been repeating your examples to support your OPINION that those who let their money work should be taxed on their income at the same rate as those who have to physically labor for their income. Just because it is your opinion does not make it true. But it is true that couples can each gross $30/hour – bringing home twice the median household income before their overall tax rate exceeds 15%. Your argument using marginal rates to show perceived unfairness in our tax structure is still a loser.
The reason that one compares net income rather than gross income is because you can then compare people to each other and THAT’S WHAT THEIR TAX IS BASED ON, not gross income. That’s not an “opinion” – go look at the tax forms (after exemptions and deductions, but before “credits” – which also reduce your tax liability). Another reason is that two people can have the same gross income but not have the same net income for the simple reason that one party has children and the other party doesn’t (so their tax burdens will be different), or they could have other deductions or credits that the other party doesn’t have (that’s an illustration of how things can be different, not an opinion).
Now here’s the part where I’ll repeat myself – because this isn’t an opinion either – the fact of the matter is that the U.S. has tax brackets for income earned from labor that is treated differently that income coming from investment income (because one form of income is taxed at different rates that correspond to the brackets and the other form is taxed at a flat rate). That is, by definition, treating different sources of income unequally (that’s not my opinion either, it’s a demonstrable fact – look up the definition). And since the published rates for income earned from labor are quoted above, I won’t relist them here. You can go to the IRS site and look this up yourself, Publication 550 – so this isn’t “my opinion” either (notice also, there are not “brackets” it’s either 0% or 15%.
“Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains
Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate. The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.
Zero percent rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the ten or fifteen percent tax brackets.
15% rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher.
Qualified dividends are taxed at a 15% percent rate. To be eligible as a qualified dividend, the dividends must be from a domestic corporation or a qualifying foreign corporation and you must hold the stock “for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date.” (Publication 550.)”
I don’t think that I can make it any more simple, and the fact of the matter is that you are unqualifiedly wrong – it’s been demonstrated repeatedly here. If you want to wallow in your maniacal ignorance, go ahead, particularly since you seem to have difficulty distinguishing facts from fiction and/or opinions.
I imagine your response will be something along the lines of “says you” or some other playground tactic, but that will just reinforce the notion that you don’t know the difference between facts and opinions.
Your quote “Thus, no matter what you’re “political strip” it seems to me that those who are able to sit at home and “let their money work” should be taxed on their income at the same rate as those who have to physically labor for their income.” That is OPINION (and you incessantly focus on marginal rates, which is very myopic and supports your obfuscation).
Using my example of a married couple with no kids, using the standard deduction – the FACT is that they can both earn $30/hour for a gross annual household income of $128,000 before their TOTAL tax rate approaches 15%. If they have kids, or more credits, they could gross EVEN MORE than $128,000, and they are already at twice the median income. I don’t see a particularly glaring problem here. You have an opinion and are trying to frame it with numbers, and it’s still a loser argument.
So you have to go back to my original conversation with Jerome to find an opinion? I thought you didn’t want to talk about “leave my income untouched because I’m special and so is my means of earning income”? In any event, that is my opinion, but I’m not sure it would apply to “just me” since the principle of equality is used to claim “unfairness” or discrimination. For example, prior to 1920 women were unable to vote. The (paraphrased) argument then was, “Hey – we’re citizens, we’re people, why are you treating us differently?” They were right – anytime you take two people and do violence to the notion of equality you’re acting unjustly.
But here’s the part that you “just don’t get” (or are too stubborn to admit). It doesn’t matter if the tax changes at 64000, 128000, 250000, or a million bucks (before or after taxes), the fact of the matter is that it changes and is lower for non-laborers than it is for those who have to labor. So, unless you’re in favor of giving an arbitrary group of people a huge tax advantage (in our case the people who “let their money work for them” – but it could just as easily be kings, dukes, earls and others of “noble blood”) over another group of people (those earning less than 64000, 128000, 250000, or a million bucks (before or after taxes) – or whatever arbitrary line you want to set for those who should receive this preferential treatment at the expense of their fellow citizens), you should just concede the point. On the other hand, maybe you’re in favor or returning to a medieval social order (as long as you get to pick the group who should have advantages)? Are you sure you know what myopic means?
Fall in line, comrade Myrhe! Great Leader Dayton is working hard for the collective!
Forward!
Yeah! What have those collectives done other than produce a rail, road, electrical, communications grid, hospitals, schools, satellites, airports, sea ports, canals, police and fire protection and court system, a safety net, a space program, armies, navies, nations and nationalism, states, counties and cities, etc. Oh wait, those are all useful/beneficial things.
Are you opposed to marriage and families as well, since they are forms of collectives? Are you opposed to co-ops (Park Region Telephone, Lake Region electric, Cenex)? What about boy/girl scouts, Elks, Shriners and Ducks Unlimited? Aren’t all political parties (particularly those that distinguish “true members” from those “in name only” as not only a collective, but an exercise in “group think”) a form of collectivism? Aren’t members of a church or congregation a collective? Are you familiar with the phrase, “It’s better to be silent and thought foolish than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”?
Perhaps you should grab hold of that insight and refrain from utterances which are inane and misleading and irrational when speaking of collectives.
You cite what are freely chosen COORDINATED efforts of people in a free market capitalist environment in constructing infrastructure with government cooperation and posit that these are COLLECTIVIST. Left unsaid in your COLLECTIVE efforts is that the word is emblematic of socialist dictatorships which decide which efforts and works serve the common PURPOSE of the rulers, not necessarily the common NEEDS or desires of the polis. The speech of apparatchiks in socialist dictatorships is rife with “collective” efforts when describing such activities as collective farms , gulags, forced grueling labor to perform questionably necessary projects. I prefer the freedom to achieve goals independent of collectivist groupthink of a socialist hegemony.
No doubt you will use my words here to extol the benefits of controlling the people to achieve “collective ” needs , such control exercised by elitist central planners in control of every aspect of the “collectivist”
proletariat.
“I prefer the freedom to achieve goals independent of collectivist groupthink of a socialist hegemony.” I find that very hard to believe given you’re usually an apologist and propagandist defense of the “group think” known as “true republican/conservative”. To be a “true republican/conservative” you can’t deviate from the “official line” because that means you’d be a “RINO” – right? Saying one thing and doing another is known as what children? That’s right, it’s hypocrisy.
I don’t need to extol the virtues of collectivist activities, they speak for themselves – groups of people can accomplish much more than individuals can – if someone helps me fence, then I can get it done much faster. I can do it on my own, but it’s slower and seems more like work than when I have company. The point of the post, which you obviously missed, is that if you’re going to paint with such a large brush, you’re going to be wrong much more often than you will ever be right.
And consider the definition, COLLECTIVISM 1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control 2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Your frenzied fascist brain has produced an oxymoron. If it advocates “collective control” then there is no place here for a dictator (by definition, since that wouldn’t be “collective control” – which also applies to “central planners” if they have to report to a single authority and not everyone). You should probably revisit the phrase and figure out what it means.
Please, Commissar Phaedrus, have mercy. I vass oil rig verker until Gulf Oil Crisis. Ve vere shutdown, den vait for Fearless Leader 0bama’s approval to resume. Evil capitalist pig make rig leave Gulf for Africa. He say he need to keep vorking to make payment for rig. I stay because vife has good job at Chevrolet dealer. Fearless Leader decide to close dealer for some reason, maybe because vife not educated enough to make dealer union shop?
Ve have many beet for our borscht, and ve are grateful to Fearless Leader. I try make comrade Myhre understand all must sacrifice so use great communist phrase “Forward” to encourage him follow Great Leader Dayton.
“**Yyaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn**!”
So equality in rates is what you want? Great! Make it a flat 15% for everyone – no deductions. That is equality. Oh wait, you say? That means that the nearly-half of our population that has no income tax liability would suddenly have to pay?
No, it is not equality in rates that you want. There will always be an “arbitrary line you want to set for those who should receive this preferential treatment at the expense of their fellow citizens”. It’s called redistribution of income, from those that have it to those that don’t. And you want to move the line from where it is further to the left. I don’t agree, and will not condede the point.
You two seem to suffer from a form of “selective reading” or you’re wearing your ideological goggles.
“So equality in rates is what you want?” NO! I’d much prefer equality of treatment, I don’t care if there is a flat-rate or staggered tax brackets (that’s a separate issue).
And “telling me what I think” is, at best, moronic (because I’m the only one who knows what I think/intend).
The line about “redistribution of wealth” is equally silly. The entire economic system is built around the redistribution of wealth. Whether you’re buying a pack of gum, a gun, a car or even farm equipment, you’re giving some of your wealth to another (so you have less and they have more). Maybe you should jump off the “common sense” wagon and go figure out how things actually work?
“**Yyaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn**!”
More evidence that you just parrot the thoughts of others (but at least it’s not off Fox or Limbaugh this time), have you ever tried original thought? Or should I be thinking that “imitation is the greatest form of flattery”?