Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is a frugal person a bad citizen?

In another thread there is some discussion about property assessments and related taxes.

Then you consider how some developments rely on various covenants to try to encourage higher property values - which lead to higher taxes.

Which kind of begs the question, "If a person wishes to pursue a career which provides modest means, and live in decent housing of modest value - contributing less to the 'common good' through their tax contributions, does that in some way make them inferior citizens of the empire?"

Let's eliminate the possibility of the lower earners feeling like they are inferior by making everyone pay the same percentage of total income in taxes. So no more progressive income tax tables. We are all equal citizens and should pay the same percentages of income.

It beats working for a living

Thomas Jefferson was pretty clear regarding his feelings on the matter:

"Private charities as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to everyone's circumstances are certainly among the duties we owe to society." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Christian, 1812. ME 13:134

If I am content to live in a $50,000 house, why should I pay the same property taxes as someone who wants to live in a $100,000 house or a $1MM house ?

As a country, we could do with a whole lot more frugal people in general, and especially in elected/appointed positions. I'm tired of the jerks in D.C. always living high on the hog, and at the same time telling me that I need to contribute more money for this that and the other, all the while giving away tax dollars to the ner-do-wells on welfare to ensure their own re-election...

How does working just as hard, albeit for less, beat working for a living? Pray tell.

(And why should I live in a 3000 SF house with granite countertops, etc, if I neither need nor want that?)

But, that ain't the American way. Gotta keep those dollars rolling to make the economy work.

Remember when .gov used to encourage SAVING. Remember US gov savings bonds.

30338,

Great idea in principle, but it has disadvantages in practice.

Lets say a flat 15% rate (just as an example), for all workers who, I assume, we'd like to see stay employed, right?

On the lower end of the pay scale is where it gets problematic maybe?

Assuming 40 hr week, 52 weeks/year = 2080 hrs per year for work.

Now, lets look at someone with a $10/hr job, $20800/yr (if they can work every available hour of the 40 hr week).

$20800 x 0.85 (15% tax)= $17680/ 12 months = $1473.33 a month to live on.

A single person in some locations could do OK on that, depending on cost of living, lifestyle, diet, MEDICAL costs (mmm, how much is insurance per month?) car insurance and licensing, fuel to get to that job, maintenance of vehicle, and so on.

Doesn't leave much for contributing to the GDP as a consumer.

In other locations, it ain't going to work if all they're left with is $1470 a month after taxes. Places like many minor and major metro areas.

Maybe it might be OK to have a lower limit as to where our non-progressive tax rate works in general?

A person with a $20/ hour job would do much better with +/- $2940 a month left over after taxes.

I'd make the case that when you get to the $100K a year a flat 15% rate makes real sense............. to ME at least.

If one can't live on $85K a year net they have issues other than their tax rate. That $85,000 should leave enough left over to help the economy and us (the USA) in general.

I'm all for a flat rate, but I'm in favor of a progressive one for certain folks.

Geno

Recognize that? If a guy loves the small town life and wants to be a welder, he might well settle for a modest income in a small town shop rather than the higher wages in an urban union factory. He's pursuing happiness, just like the Dec. of Independence says. How can that be unAmerican?

Let's not forget the ne'er do well corporations they give tax dollars to in the way of tax write offs. "Incentives" to stay in the local area.

Geno

Would a higher tax on everything bought work? Big spenders pay more taxes??

Absolutely not. Live below your means and stop trying to keep up with the Joneses.

Thats why we have an entitlement society today because of vanity and haughty pride which feels the need to stick their hands in my pocket and give it away as they see fit.

Frugal is a smart person.

Klik,

your op reminds me of a local family where I grew up. Outside of house looked "horrible", inside was where they spent their money. Beautiful place, but the tax man couldn't enter without a warrant to see the improvements so their valuation never went up. Guy was a LEO sargeant also. (no CC&R's there)

That state now has Prop 13, if you don't sell your house, it's taxed at the rate you paid for it. Sell it and new buyers are taxed at the new valuation.

Geno

PS, nope, nothing wrong in my eyes with living a modest lifestyle. Better for the "Urth" all around if you ask me.

Lots of folks would prefer a "consumption" tax instead of the present system.

GEno

No.

Choices are part of being American.
Everything else is the agenda of media and marketing.

Cheap is cheap.

Frugal is frugal.

Ass hole is ass hole.

Retard is retard.

The four are often confused.

By the ignorant.



Dave

A simple money and banking course will teach that since the elimination of the gold standard the underlying value of the $ is the goods and services that the us citizenry produces.

Given that premise, is a frugal person the works generates value but consumes less than he generates saves his money pays his taxes a plus to society or is someone that any produce value but spends more than they produce.

What about someone that buys existing property such as a house to flip or a share of stock issued by ford motor company 50 years ago. They really create nothing that didn't already exist . Are they creating value and should they receive favorable tax treatment .

My big fear is that to save Social Security they will go to a "Means" system. In other words the guy who saved his money, invested in his 401K, bought mutual funds instead over spending the money on new cars, vacations, etc. The gov't will say you have saved enough for your retirement and deny your SS. This other guy is broke and will get SS.


That's me---I saved And invested. I drive 10 year cars, never went to Europe---saved the money.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Karl Marx

It's already means tested to a certain extent, just not as much as a real socialist would like. I think the only thing that keeps them from doing it fully is the democrats are afraid that there would be such a backlash that the whole system would implode. You'd be taking a pension system and turning it into a full on welfare system. God knows there's no shortage of other welfare programs out there now.