• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Baby boomers are what's wrong with America's economy

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sdifox said:
I want fair distribution of tax. I am taking away all exemptions. Basic income is on the table of course but that is on the expenditure side.

When you look at the numbers, it is ridiculous that your effective tax collection rate is only 13%.

I currently pay 1/3 in income tax...

Do you understand what I am proposing?
Click to expand...

You failed to address my point at all. Will your proposal cut taxes at the top, or not?
 
Jhhnn said:
You failed to address my point at all. Will your proposal cut taxes at the top, or not?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know the delta. Remember tier 1 will subsidices tier 20, tier 2 subsidices tier 19, and so on. But on the same token, zero deductions.

Increase granularity if you wish, say 50 tiers. But I think it is quite fair.

Again look at effective tax collected, doesn't go anywhere near what your marginal tax rate does it? It means deductions are hiding income.
 
sdifox said:
I wouldn't know the delta. Remember tier 1 will subsidices tier 20, tier 2 subsidices tier 19, and so on. But on the same token, zero deductions.

Increase granularity if you wish, say 50 tiers. But I think it is quite fair.

Again look at effective tax collected, doesn't go anywhere near what your marginal tax rate does it? It means deductions are hiding income.
Click to expand...

It's mathematically impossible for your proposal to not cut taxes at the top or raise them hugely for middle income people.

When we pair the top 5% & the bottom 5% they currently pay 58% of all federal income tax between them because the incomes of the bottom 5% aren't taxed. Under your proposal, they'd only pay 10% of the total.

Eliminating deductions sure as Hell won't eliminate that gulf.
 
Jhhnn said:
It's mathematically impossible for your proposal to not cut taxes at the top or raise them hugely for middle income people.

When we pair the top 5% & the bottom 5% they currently pay 58% of all federal income tax between them because the incomes of the bottom 5% aren't taxed. Under your proposal, they'd only pay 10% of the total.

Eliminating deductions sure as Hell won't eliminate that gulf.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it is not fair? I know I would be screwing myself on this, but I would rather go with this than exceptiona upon exceptions.

Say you need 1T, each group would be responsible for 100M. For the first four groups the top earners will shoulder basically all of their group's tax obligation. Eest will be more distributed. I'll seebif I can pull a year's decile numbers andbdo a crude mockup, when I am on the computer.

Ballmer getting 1B tax break for buying 2B Clippers is just crap.

Another possibility is strictly transactional tax. Analise previous year's money movement total, figure out tax rate necesary to collect enough tax for the year and that is the tax rate. Every single transaction is taxed.
 
Last edited:
imho, the steps to prevent total collapse.

1. Get rid of the economy. (No currency)
2. Move from an aristo-oligarch-based Republic to a omniarch-based Republic.
3. Shift culture from anarchist job selection to a more regulated job board system.
4. Utilize Law literature over Eng literature, adapt more militant ideals into P.E. (firearms, martial arts, poly-athlons).
5.
- Move the age of adulthood to Age 35.
- Mandatory work in janitorial/etc work starts at age 15. Mandatory service in military starts at age 25. Freedom occurs at age 35, hence adulthood at 35.
 
sdifox said:
Are you saying it is not fair? I know I would be screwing myself on this, but I would rather go with this than exceptiona upon exceptions.

Say you need 1T, each group would be responsible for 100M. For the first four groups the top earners will shoulder basically all of their group's tax obligation. Eest will be more distributed. I'll seebif I can pull a year's decile numbers andbdo a crude mockup, when I am on the computer.

Ballmer getting 1B tax break for buying 2B Clippers is just crap.

Another possibility is strictly transactional tax. Analise previous year's money movement total, figure out tax rate necesary to collect enough tax for the year and that is the tax rate. Every single transaction is taxed.
Click to expand...

You're dodging now. "Fair" is a value judgement & outside the scope of my original question. I suspect we'd disagree as to what it means. I've offered up the numbers twice. What you propose is a massive tax cut for America's wealthiest people. They currently pay 58% of the total & you'd have them paying 10%.
 
Jhhnn said:
You're dodging now. "Fair" is a value judgement & outside the scope of my original question. I suspect we'd disagree as to what it means. I've offered up the numbers twice. What you propose is a massive tax cut for America's wealthiest people. They currently pay 58% of the total & you'd have them paying 10%.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I prefer a fair tax system, you can call it a tax cut to the rich.

Or push it to the limit and tax based on individual income. If your income is x% of total population income, you are responaible for x% of total tax burden.
 
Last edited:
sdifox said:
Like I said, I prefer a fair tax system, you can call it a tax cut to the rich.

Or push it to the limit and tax based on individual income. If your income is x% of total population income, you are responaible for x% of total tax burden.
Click to expand...

A fair tax system is a progressive tax system. We have known this since FDR. Those who can afford to pay more should be taxed at a higher rate. The rich have been contributing at historically low rates for awhile now. The damage to the middle class is obvious to all.

image.jpg
 
sdifox said:
Like I said, I prefer a fair tax system, you can call it a tax cut to the rich.

Or push it to the limit and tax based on individual income. If your income is x% of total population income, you are responaible for x% of total tax burden.
Click to expand...

It's still a tax cut for people who don't need tax cuts. It also promotes runaway wealth acquisition at the tippy-top of the heap. Explosive growth in inequality has been our biggest economic problem since Reagan.
 
Jhhnn said:
It's still a tax cut for people who don't need tax cuts. It also promotes runaway wealth acquisition at the tippy-top of the heap. Explosive growth in inequality has been our biggest economic problem since Reagan.
Click to expand...

They made x% of total population income, their share of the tax revenue needed is x%. Why is that not good enough?
 
Puffnstuff said:
But older people reject technology....LOL It throws my boomer parents into a tizzy and my dad goes all ape sh!t when he can't figure out how to use it.
Click to expand...
Nothing worse than helping someone who can afford a device like an iphone, realizing that they can't operate something that simple....how the eff did they get enough money to buy one.

The picture I quoted is all sorts of stupid. Millennial peeps are not doing anything other than what they've been taught.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Nothing worse than helping someone who can afford a device like an iphone, realizing that they can't operate something that simple....how the eff did they get enough money to buy one.
Click to expand...
A cell phone to my parents is just a keeping up with the Jones device anyway. I had to convince them to stop paying for cell service each month that they didn't need to save money. I put them on FreedomPop which runs on the sprint 4g lte network so now they don't have a monthly cell phone bill anymore and have the peace of mind of having a cell phone. I've been on it for several years now and it suits me just fine. I have my large Samsung phablet and haven't paid a penny for service since buying the phone. Compared to what I was paying at Verizon each month for the same phone it paid for itself in 36 days.😀
 
ch33zw1z said:
Ironically, I've bumped into two people with a new iphone. Both boomers.
Click to expand...

Android phones are all the rage will the kids these days. In anycase, let's see if the millennials do any better when they get in power (and first they need to get the boomers and GenXers out of the way).
 
Jhhnn said:
It's mathematically impossible for your proposal to not cut taxes at the top or raise them hugely for middle income people.

When we pair the top 5% & the bottom 5% they currently pay 58% of all federal income tax between them because the incomes of the bottom 5% aren't taxed. Under your proposal, they'd only pay 10% of the total.

Eliminating deductions sure as Hell won't eliminate that gulf.
Click to expand...

When they pay no taxes the rates do not matter, do they?

I'm willing to pay a 100% tax rate if I can get away with paying none of it. The exemptions have been ensuring that the megacorps pay no taxes or even get money back from taxes never paid while anyone not that big will pay full rate to ensure that the megacorps can establish their monopolies and for this they pay billions in lobbying money which is nothing short of legal bribery.

End the exemptions and keep the rates as is and you'd have a fine system. It's not like you have low corporate rates or tax rates on a whole, it's just that those rich enough don't have to pay those rates.
 
Ajay said:
Android phones are all the rage will the kids these days. In anycase, let's see if the millennials do any better when they get in power (and first they need to get the boomers and GenXers out of the way).
Click to expand...
The fuck it attitude that's all the rage will likely just continue with the next gens.
 
J.Wilkins said:
When they pay no taxes the rates do not matter, do they?

I'm willing to pay a 100% tax rate if I can get away with paying none of it. The exemptions have been ensuring that the megacorps pay no taxes or even get money back from taxes never paid while anyone not that big will pay full rate to ensure that the megacorps can establish their monopolies and for this they pay billions in lobbying money which is nothing short of legal bribery.

End the exemptions and keep the rates as is and you'd have a fine system. It's not like you have low corporate rates or tax rates on a whole, it's just that those rich enough don't have to pay those rates.
Click to expand...
Well put. In fact, I wonder how progressive the tax rate would even need to be if, by some magic, everyone was forced to pay their share with no exceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top