I could be wrong but I think we already do this
I'm not talking so much about what is actually done (since I think the US+western europe already go further than what I proposed here, and typically do feature a tax-free amount of income initially), but more about what quite a few people here seem to have said they'd want to be done.
why are people so for taxes? Okay not taxes but raising them?
Not sure if that was directed at my post, but if it was, what I'm proposing isn't about raising taxes as I didn't specify any specific tax rates. You could impliment the framework I'm proposing and it could be with lower taxes than the status-quo, or higher taxes. Assuming it was a more general comment then I'd agree, I'd rather governments looked at cutting spending a bit rather than seeming to always look at the option of more taxes. I have to spend within my means, why can't they?
I will add that no one here is against taxes. Nor even progressive taxes within reason (progressive to 90% is ridiculous however). But the problem is taxing for redistribution. There is no basis for it, and it is wrong
Progressive taxes are redistribution though (that is, they will contain at least some element of redistribution in them). Hence if you are against redistribution, you're against progressive taxes:
Ignoring government inefficiency and other complications to simplify things initially, lets say the government is providing $10k of services to everyone. They can raise $5k from the poor and $20k from the rich to pay for this, or $10k from everyone. The first would likely be a progressive tax (although it's also possible it could be a regressive tax, since the rich could pay a lower %, yet still pay more overall), and would basically be taking $10k from each rich person to give $5k to each poor person. That is, $10k of the $20k paid by the rich goes towards the services they enjoy, the other $10k is paying for services that the poor enjoy. Meanwhile $5k of each poor person is going towards the $10k of services they enjoy, and they get the other $5k for free (the rich pay for them). Those services could be things such as a strong road infrastructure, they could be spending on street lamps, or they could be a $10k cash program that gives every person $10k each year.
forcing us to pay taxes to another for the simple reason they dont earn enough is communistic
Socialist more than 'communistic' I'd say. It also is the expected result in a democracy, since if the government is looking to maximise overall welfare/satisfaction/utility amongst the electorate they will want some form of redistribution (as $1 for someone poor is worth more than $1 for someone really rich, hence you could look to take $2 from someone rich, translate it into $1 for someone poor, with the remainder lost due to the negative impact such a policy would have, and gauge that you've made things better off for those two people combined). Similarly you may well have peoples morals coming into play - they might not like it if children are dying on the streets while the rich are dining in their fancy yaughts, and feel that a little bit of redistribution to take money from the rich and give it to those dying children is in order, to make sure those children will be cared for, rather than hoping that some charity will find enough money from those willing to donate to stop it. Yes it will likely decrease the total amount of income in the economy, but if that's the price for preventing it, many people may be happy with that. As a result they vote for the party proposing that, and don't vote for the party opposing it. Now most people would usually be ok with such a policy if asked about it directly, but that policy is redistribution (taking from the rich, giving to the poor), so if you're opposed to all redistribution you're similarly opposed to such programs, and not just the ones that seem more excessive and needless.
The rich already pay the lions share for the upkeep of society (the top 5% pay 53.62% of the taxes - way out of proportion to their benefits). The bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 2.9%! On top of that you would now force the rich not only to pay more - but to pay more for no benefit to themselves, only to some nameless "poor".
No, as I mentioned earlier in this reply I'm not talking specific taxation levels here, but rather a basic minimum+rough framework for taxation. The US tax system is already much more redistributive than what I proposed here (since I simply proposed a flat rate with a tax free annual sum and that same flat rate paid on the difference between the lump sum and a persons income if lower than that as benefits), so it would actually mean the rich paying less not more. I just found it shocking how people seemed opposed to any redistribution whatsoever.
How about we have a 100% tax rate where no matter what job you do or where your income comes from you have to sign it all over to the government...It must be [fair] because everyone would be making the same amount of money, that's fair right?
Well if it could be done without impacting on total income made then most governments would probably look to do just that - that is, there is a strive to reduce income inequality. The problem is that if you look to reduce income inequality it comes at the cost of total income, so there is a balance to be struck. Remove the downside (that is, no negative impact on total income) and you can reduce inequality for no cost. However that's more of a theoretical/abstract notion, since it'd be impossible in reality, due in part to human nature.
do you make 250k a year? if not then STHU because your not the one that has to pay it
And the same could be said to the rich: 'do you make less than 20k a year? If not then STHU because you're not the one that has to struggle to survive'. Your typical democracy doesn't weight votes by income, a poor person has 1 vote, the same as a rich person. Hence a person earning less than 250k a year does have a say, even if they're not the ones that have to pay the tax. Of course the government ought to consider whether such a tax wouldn't be worthwhile overall, and not in the interests of the country, but it doesn't remove the right of that non-250k person to have a say. Also just because you're not the one that has to pay for a tax, doesn't mean you're wrong in suggesting that tax - for example lets say a product x is developed that will seriously damage the health of all those around the person that is consuming them. Someone who doesn't use product x argues that it should be taxed in order for the price to accurately reflect the total cost to everyone caused by an individual consuming the product, and not just the cost to that individual. This results in the more efficient+optimal consumption levels for society as a whole, and would be the best thing to do. However that individual isn't having to pay the tax, only people using x are - should they have STHU and left things to be worse than they could otherwise have been?