POLL: How would you rather be taxed?

[Rob9874]

Tax rates These rates will decrease by 0.5% next year, except for the 15% which stays the same.

You need to look at the married rates, since the majority of us usually marry sometime in our adult lives. You get screwed when you marry (no pun intended). A single person can make up to $136,750 and still be in the 30% rate. But if you marry, each person can only make $83,250 to stay at 30%. For those of you not in the working world yet, it's not unlikely for married professionals to make $83,251 each sometime in their working years. And you have to give 35% of that to the govt. Not to mention state taxes, social security, etc. So the high tax rates are not for the "elite" only.

I vote for the flat sales tax. Why not give tax payers some control over how much they pay? True, most people spend 100%+ of their income, so it's about the same as an income tax. But I'd like to know that if I wanted to save 15% of my income, it's not taxed! Well, it will be eventually when you spend it. I wonder if it would deter spending, and hurt the economy? Did you know that the Consitution was written with the idea that citizens would be taxed on the property they owned? Somewhere along the line, someone realized that there was alot of wealth out there not being taxed, and the govt thought they had a right to that. Sounds like the reason why we came over here from England. At least change it to a flat income tax. 20% of $1mil is more than 20% of $25K, so the rich would still pay more. Why does this country give you the right to pursue success, yet penalizes you when you realize it?

 

[CPA]

<< current tax stats.

120k a year gets you in the top 5%. This group pays 55% of all income taxes.
100k gets you in the top 10%
26k gets you in the top 50% this groups pays 96% of all taxes.
the bottom 50% pay 4% with over 13Million getting back more than they paid in(upto $3500) via EITC.


The lower 50% can easily outvote the upper 50% on how to spend the tax dollars. The lower 1/2 pays almost nothing in taxes. >>



Charrison, Thanks for the update of the stats. Like I said, what I heard was several years ago.

Now as far as the Property Tax in Texas, coming from Ohio, which had property tax, local tax and state tax, I would say that I definitely prefer Texas' tax structure. At least I have a say in how much property tax I pay by the value of the house I purchase. I can also fight my property valuation to reduce my tax base. And even with a 3.2% rate I get a hell of a lot of house compared to most states that have a much lower property rate, but have income tax instead.

 

[CPA]

<< I think we need to curb back the federal portion of taxes and shift most of it off to the states. It's easier to control and influence on a local level than a national level.

As far as:

Then who would pay for roads, police, street lights, etc?

It could go back to the way it used to be. If you used these items, you paid for them. Roads used to be "toll roads" for many years in the US. They were private enterprises. It seems that since the government has got involved in alot of things, they haven't made much of a difference. Amtrak was a complete bust. Most roads and bridges are collapsing and in need of repair. Education is in shambles and it seems like the only thing we have to show for most of this stuff is alot of dead weight.

We need to go back to the way it used to be where people dealt with matters on a community level and most had no contact with the federal government outside of the post office. >>




All good points. The one thing the FIT did was change the dependency that the Constitution outlined. Now instead of a Federal Gov't supported by the States, we have the States supported by the Federal Gov't. That is not how the Republic was designed through the Constitution and vision of our forefathers.

 

[wyvrn]

Flat tax with NO LOOPHOLES OR DEDUCTIONS of any kind, or a flat sales tax. That way if you want to save money, you can easily without worry about paying tax on what you want to save first. And no deductions/loopholes ensures the rich will pay their fair share like everyone else.

 

[charrison]

wyvrn,

The rich already pay more than their fair share.

 

[MustPost]

<<Get rid of the income tax and switch to a national sales tax.
It's less intrusive, requires less paperwork and tax code (so it's simpler), and is absolutely fair. >>

That is really stupid. You're basicallly encoraging people not to spend money within the United States. This is exactly the opposite of what the government wants to do.

 

[charrison]

MustPost,
Actually quite the opposite. You would get all of your paycheck. Companies as well as people would not be charged income taxes, so they would be able to have lower prices. The retail prices you see now already have their taxes built in. Corperate taxes always get passed down to the consumer. The consumer always pays.

 

[Cyberian]

<< . I would put emphasis, however, on reeling back government spending because the less the government needs, the less it has to tax and the easier it would be to gain support for a new tax system. >>

Now there's a radical thought!

Charrison - Mind telling me where you found those figures? I'd like to look around there for some other stats I want.

 

[SerraYX]

Our progressive tax system is one of those automatic economic stabilizers that keeps our country running. I suggest everyone who voted for the flat tax take an economics course or two and learn the real effects. I don't have the time to go into it..get a book

Plus, the current system charges you less than the system proposed by the flat tax advocates. Significantly less.

 

[charrison]

Who pays taxes

This link?

 

[charrison]

SerraYX,

What book do you recommend, I sure I can find as many for a flat tax as against it. But you might want to take a look at what is happening in russian right now since they have 13% flat tax. 2 things, large economic growth and record tax receipts.




<< lus, the current system charges you less than the system proposed by the flat tax advocates. Significantly less. >>



And there is where the problem lies. 51% of the population pays almost nothing in taxes or gets a refund on taxes not paid, but yet they have the ability to vote to raise the taxes on the other 49%. Everyone has to carry the weight of govt equally and flat tax or a sales tax would provide this.

 

[wyvrn]

<< wyvrn,

The rich already pay more than their fair share. >>



Actually I think they pay more than their fair share now, a flat tax would reduce their burden. I was responding to some people's worries that the rich could get more out of loopholes than other classes if loopholes existed.

 

[Platinum]

Ok, maybe I'm opening myself up for flaming but I want to put in
some numbers here. Let's take an "average" single person making
lets say $50,000 taxable income. Let's assume no deductions.
That means he pays $10368.75 in tax. A person making $500,000
will pay $172,610.15 in tax.

50,000 - 10368.75 = $39,631.25 left
500,000 - 172610.15 = $327,389.85 left

Let's say we make it a flat rate of 25% to match tax revenue.

50,000 - 25%(12500) = $37,500.00 left
500,000 - 25%(125000) = $375,000.00 left

This matches to the saying the rich just gets richer and the poor
gets poorer. I remember reading in economic books that a healthy
society is one with a large middle class and a slightly smaller
upper class people with a small lower class. A flat tax will
just make more middle class people drop to lower class.

I can understand how some of you are saying that you make the money,
you deserve to get it all. But speaking on an economic point of
view, a flat rate would only make small businesses go out of
business while big companies reap in all the profit. Sooner or
later, you're gonna have monopolies and only the rich(5%) will be
able to afford to buy things.

 

[skace]

I'd rather be making 10 mil and being taxed 9 mil than be making sh!t and being taxed nothing. Think about it.

 

[wyvrn]

The last two posts ignore what it takes to make that kind of money. So few people ever do it because they don't want to put in the work it requires. I think many people view wealthy people as some kind of social leper, they are different from the 'rest' of us so we make them outcasts. When in reality, they are just like us but worked harder to get where they are. Also, I might mention that many millionaires are people that saved and invested instead of spending everything they have and as much as they can get lent to them, and didn't inherit their money from a rich parent or run a "polluting, corrupt" corporation. Many wealthy people just learned how to make their money work for them, born in the same middle of the road circumstances as the rest of America. And you don't see them whining when they get laid off and can't afford the CC and house payments (all money loaned to them because they chose not to save it themselves) becaue they couldn't save a measly 6 mos. of salary to cover their butts. The people that are the biggest drain on the govt. aren't the wealthy, but guess who gets called on to bail out the rest of us when the economy takes a periodic, expected downturn?

 

[Tanner]

<< A national sales tax, only pay when you buy something >>



can't BEAT THAT! Just TRADE OUT for everything that U need w/ your COMPUTER SKILLS! FIX PEOPLEs CRAP and get the stuff U want for FREE of TAX!

hehe, it's doesn't matter WHAT the gov't does, we can STILL do it now! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[vi edit]

<< Ok, maybe I'm opening myself up for flaming but I want to put in
some numbers here. Let's take an "average" single person making
lets say $50,000 taxable income. Let's assume no deductions.
That means he pays $10368.75 in tax. A person making $500,000
will pay $172,610.15 in tax.

50,000 - 10368.75 = $39,631.25 left
500,000 - 172610.15 = $327,389.85 left

Let's say we make it a flat rate of 25% to match tax revenue.

50,000 - 25%(12500) = $37,500.00 left
500,000 - 25%(125000) = $375,000.00 left

This matches to the saying the rich just gets richer and the poor
gets poorer. I remember reading in economic books that a healthy
society is one with a large middle class and a slightly smaller
upper class people with a small lower class. A flat tax will
just make more middle class people drop to lower class.

I can understand how some of you are saying that you make the money,
you deserve to get it all. But speaking on an economic point of
view, a flat rate would only make small businesses go out of
business while big companies reap in all the profit. Sooner or
later, you're gonna have monopolies and only the rich(5%) will be
able to afford to buy things. >>



That was the reason for the $20,000 deduction in my earlier post. The person making $50,000 would only be taxed on $30,000, leaving them only paying $7500.

 

[Lucky]

<< Platinum,

That almost sounds resonable until you realize that texas has heavy property tax(almost 3% in county I live). I welcome out of staters to come buy a 300k house here in Texas and live somewhere else >>




haha, you must like my dad then. Just bought a house in dallas for ~700K, but he will be working on the road for weeks at a time.

 

[Platinum]

wyvrn,

I can see where you're coming from, but you can't really say all
wealthy people work hard for their money. Some might just be lucky
or inherited from their parents. I remember the place where I used
to work at the boss doesn't know crap but just hire people to manage
the company. On the other hand, some hard working individual might never be promoted in their life.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are penalties and rewards
in the road of life. If you're rich, you can buy anything you want
but you just have to pay more tax than everyone else. Vice versa
if you're poor. A flat rate would just destroy this balance.

 

[Lucky]

If you're rich, you can buy anything you want
but you just have to pay more tax than everyone else. Vice versa
if you're poor. A flat rate would just destroy this balance.



No it wouldnt, the rich would still tax more taxes. I dont see how you figure otherwise.

Making 1 million, taxed 20%=200K in taxes
Making 50K, taxed 20%=10K in taxes.

Either way, the rich guys still paying as much as 20 people making 50K.

 

[Platinum]

That was the reason for the $20,000 deduction in my earlier post. The person making $50,000 would only be taxed on $30,000, leaving them only paying $7500.

Well, I already include the deduction in the 50,000. Notice I said
"taxable income"

 

[Lucky]

if you are including that deduction and the 50K is "taxable", then that person isnt "average". Average income is ~26K total.

 

[Platinum]

if you are including that deduction and the 50K is "taxable", then that person isnt "average". Average income is ~26K total.

Well, I chose that number out of random...but never mind that.
This proves my point even more. If the average income is 26k, and
let's just say the high for middle class is 50k...basically with a
flat rate tax, the whole middle class will pay more while the rich
pays much less.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< I'd rather be making 10 mil and being taxed 9 mil than be making sh!t and being taxed nothing. Think about it. >>


Taken by itself, this statement makes sense. HOWEVER...

A person who makes 10 mil most likely isn't somebody who earns that by chance. You simply cannot make that kind of money without taking big chances and big risks. Sure some get lucky, some are born rich, but precious few people earn that kind of money without making some big waves in the economy. Joe Cubicle doesn't get 10 mil because he doesn't have to take a lot of risks: show up to work, perform work, collect check, go home.

A person who makes sh!t most likely isn't somebody who works "hard" to better themselves. Hard work and effort are no guarantee of success, but anyone who provides skills and knowledge that the economy values will find a level of compensation that at least keeps them out of the lowest rungs of the income scale. When people demand "living wages", I wonder: why are you working such low-paying, menial jobs if that's your only source of income and you have a lot of expenses? No, not everybody gets a fair shot at life, but it's a two-way street. Unfortunately, our ecoomically liberal politicians have bred an underclass who blames their plight on the rich rather than considering that they don't have much to offer, something that could be remedied with education and skill acquisition.

Like George Harrison penned: I'm the Taxman. Here's 1 for you, 19 for me. At the time, Britian's highest marginal tax rate was a crushing, morally repulsive 95%.

If a person making 10 mil has to forfeit 9 mil of it to the Taxman, where's the incentive to take risks? For every person who makes 10 mil because they took risks, there's probably a few dozen who failed and are bankrupt.

 

[Platinum]

No it wouldnt, the rich would still tax more taxes. I dont see how you figure otherwise.

Making 1 million, taxed 20%=200K in taxes
Making 50K, taxed 20%=10K in taxes.

Either way, the rich guys still paying as much as 20 people making 50K.

I'm not saying the rich guys aren't paying more taxes than everyone
else. I'm saying that if you want the luxury in life, you have to
pay for it. And part of that is in tax.