CADsortaGUY
Lifer
1 - No, those are the complete facts for Income tax. Is the income tax structure "fair"? "fairness" also deals with who gains from taxes paid - sort of a ROI - I don't even think you want to go there.
2- No, EIC is only fair if it brings things to a "net $0" is "fair" which means that you can only get a refund of whatever you paid in that year. Credits can't take your tax liability below $0. The way it is now - people get "free" money - my sister does, so I know quite a bit about how that little loophole works.
3- fine.
See the whole point here is that the leftists are saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and want to tax them more, but they don't define "fair" and don't even attempt to present an argument on their behalf - they just keep saying it, hoping that it'll stick.
Edit- I made a comment earlier about "feelings" and arguments.
That is another reason why the "fair share" BS spouted by the left isn't a REAL argument - it's only a "feeling" with no substance.CkG
"See the whole point here is that the leftists are saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and want to tax them more, but they don't define "fair" and don't even attempt to present an argument on their behalf - they just keep saying it, hoping that it'll stick."
Well, ok, if your point is the "leftists" shouldn't ask the rich to pay more on the basis of fairness, I can see that point. (I posted a rambling concept about this once, but I don't want to do it again.)
So how about we just raise taxes on the wealthy because we need the money and we thought they wouldn't mind ? We promise to speak highly of their sacrifice too.
Well, ok, if your point is the "leftists" shouldn't ask the rich to pay more on the basis of fairness, I can see that point. (I posted a rambling concept about this once, but I don't want to do it again.
)So how about we just raise taxes on the wealthy because we need the money and we thought they wouldn't mind ? We promise to speak highly of their sacrifice too.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
The rich shouldn't have to pay a higher perventage of their income than the Middle Class or the Poor. That's why I think we should have a flat tax.Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"See the whole point here is that the leftists are saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and want to tax them more, but they don't define "fair" and don't even attempt to present an argument on their behalf - they just keep saying it, hoping that it'll stick."
Well, ok, if your point is the "leftists" shouldn't ask the rich to pay more on the basis of fairness, I can see that point. (I posted a rambling concept about this once, but I don't want to do it again.
So how about we just raise taxes on the wealthy because we need the money and we thought they wouldn't mind ? We promise to speak highly of their sacrifice too.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
problem with the flat tax is that you'd have to make every jurisdiction in the US a flat tax based on income in order for it not to be regressive (regressive tax structures are a bad thing, hitting people harder during a recession)
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"See the whole point here is that the leftists are saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and want to tax them more, but they don't define "fair" and don't even attempt to present an argument on their behalf - they just keep saying it, hoping that it'll stick."
Well, ok, if your point is the "leftists" shouldn't ask the rich to pay more on the basis of fairness, I can see that point. (I posted a rambling concept about this once, but I don't want to do it again.
So how about we just raise taxes on the wealthy because we need the money and we thought they wouldn't mind ? We promise to speak highly of their sacrifice too.
The problem with that is - we shouldn't need "more money"
We (gov't) should spend less of it. The gov't wasn't set up to be involved with everyday life, it was set up for structured commerce and the like.I find it interesting at all these Democrat town hall type meetings that individuals keep asking what the candidates will "do for them since they are ___." To me that is the root of the problem - trying to please and appease too many special groups of people. Remember...a famous politician once said - Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country. Or something to that effect.
Mainly I just wish people would take some responsibility for thier own well being and stop whining about those that are "better off" than they are. That sort of class envy really torques me off.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
The only real problem I see with the flat tax is in the details. What is the "bottom", as in does EVERYONE pay it or do the poor get a break.(I think that poverty level incomes should be exempt
)Also do we get rid of tax breaks accross the board? Or do we keep incentives for home purchases, schooling, small business startups, and etc?
There are other considerations too, but I think the concept of a flat tax would work but almost all other taxes would need to go. I don't have my notes handy of my flat tax ideas/problems - maybe I'll find them later and post them.
CkG
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
well ok here goes
Well, first off, sales taxes are regressive. In general wealthy people save a higher percentage of their income (they are wealthy, after all). So, in percentage terms, people who spend 100% of their income are taxed at whatever the sales tax rate is, while people who don't, don't. This is modified somewhat by not taxing certain staples, like food. But the overall sales tax rate is still regressive. Certain other taxes are indeterminate on the face, like property taxes. Some of those have exemptions built in for the first X amount of property, and are flat after that. But the property tax you pay, while a decent indicator of general income, isn't anywhere near exact. Some people are frugal, have small houses and large incomes, others have a large house they can barely afford. There are some other taxes, but the overall tax structure of the US is barely progressive. The largest progressive tax in the US is the federal income tax. If you make it flat, the whole becomes regressive.
So now why regressive is bad. During an expansion people's incomes generally rise. During a recession people's incomes generally fall. With a progressive tax structure during an expansion the overall income rises, the overall tax burden rises, but not by so much that people don't have more money in their pockets. During a recession incomes would fall, but people move down the tax chart so they don't pay as much in taxes in percentage terms. For a completely flat tax structure all changes happen in lock step. Your income rises 20%, well, so do your taxes. You still have more money in your pocket than you did (and more than in a progressive tax). In a recession your income falls 20%, you have 20% less taxes. But you have less money in your pocket than under a progressive tax scheme. With a regressive tax structure, during a recession as you move down the tax chart you pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes. You're getting hit extra when you're already hardest-up. That is why it is bad. From a politician's perspective they wouldn't want to do this because it would mean more complaining in a recession.
Beats me, I was just asking a fscking question. Stop being so defensive for the Rich. I would think that if they have less than 96% of the wealth then it might be a good argument for them not paying more taxes than they do![/quote]
I don't see why savings should be the basis for taxation rates. First, we'll tax earning. Then we'll tax spending. Then we'll tax saving. You must really have a grudge against people who help others get things done.
I'm all about the guy who quits his whining and does something to help the economy. The more he does, the more he gets paid. If you don't think that's true, you should stop paying people who don't give you anything. Oh wait, that's what the rich do to the lazy poor.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I don't see why savings should be the basis for taxation rates. First, we'll tax earning. Then we'll tax spending. Then we'll tax saving. You must really have a grudge against people who help others get things done.[/quote]No I have a grudge against sh!theels like you who take my words out of context!
Does anyone find it funny that I posted a thread that didn't actually say anything, and now it's three pages long, with people getting into long-winded arguments over the validity of my non-claim?
I think that's very funny, actually.
I think that's very funny, actually.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Actually I think it brought out alot of good discussion about alot of popular misconceptions.
Please change your thread title back.
CkG
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The rich shouldn't have to pay a higher perventage of their income than the Middle Class or the Poor. That's why I think we should have a flat tax.Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"See the whole point here is that the leftists are saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and want to tax them more, but they don't define "fair" and don't even attempt to present an argument on their behalf - they just keep saying it, hoping that it'll stick."
Well, ok, if your point is the "leftists" shouldn't ask the rich to pay more on the basis of fairness, I can see that point. (I posted a rambling concept about this once, but I don't want to do it again.
So how about we just raise taxes on the wealthy because we need the money and we thought they wouldn't mind ? We promise to speak highly of their sacrifice too.
The reason that we have a progressive tax on income is a matter of economics. Remember the items (most) taxes pay for are publicly consumed goods, not private. An individual's willingness to pay for such goods generally increases with the amount of income you have. Consider something as basic as a neighborhood park. If you had plenty of money, wouldn't you be willing to shell out the cash for a big open, well maintained zone for your children to play in? Of course. However if you're poor, you would not be willing to pay to have a public good like that, because comparatively speaking, there are more pressing matters to you when income is a limitation. In the end however, even if a wealthy individual pays more for the park via income tax than the poor person, both are better off as opposed to not having that park at all. This same idea applies to all publicly provided goods. To give you another example, suppose you and your wife wanted to take a vacation. You make 30,000 a year, and your wife makes 4,000,000 a year. Lets say that we'll apply the regressive tax structure to families, and say that both you and your wife must both shell out equal amounts of money for all household purchases (this concept is the same as a flat tax). Hypothetically speaking, lets say a trip to....Tahiti costs 15,000 dollars. You, as a 30,000 dollar earner, will NOT be able to go on that trip to tahiti, because you wouldn't be able to foot the bill for all of the other living expenses you and your spouse will incur. This means that as a couple, you would have to live in a small house, drive inexpensive cars, eat at budget restauraunts, because costs must be split evenly. However, if you guys decide that your wife will foot a larger percentage of the cost of living (which is what a progressive tax does), BOTH of you can now enjoy a nice big house, nice cars, nice vacations, and nice meals, even though you make substantially less than her. As a result, BOTH of you are better off, even though she paid more. The same concept applies to public goods and taxation. By having a flat tax, we would not be able to pay for many of the public goods we have now, and we would all be worse off.
I hope all of that made sense.
The ironic thing is that from an economic standpoint, the progressive taxation system is most likely more inefficient than a flat income tax-based system.
Regarding this stat:
top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%
Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%
I think that's misleading, as there are other ways to gain income that are not classified as wages. In addition, by just focusing on income tax (the most progressive of taxes here in the US) and not the total tax burden (including sales taxes and other regressive taxes) gives the false impression that the rich are overtaxed, when in reality they pay roughly the same percentage of their income to taxes as everyone else (as reflected in the NYTimes chart).
This misunderstanding leads to comments like this from Caddy:
top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%
Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%
I think that's misleading, as there are other ways to gain income that are not classified as wages. In addition, by just focusing on income tax (the most progressive of taxes here in the US) and not the total tax burden (including sales taxes and other regressive taxes) gives the false impression that the rich are overtaxed, when in reality they pay roughly the same percentage of their income to taxes as everyone else (as reflected in the NYTimes chart).
This misunderstanding leads to comments like this from Caddy:
The rich and poor are taxed exactly the same on thier first $6000 of income, on their first $26,250 of income, and so on as pointed out earlier in the thread.
Three strikes you're out.
Income and contribution to the economy are not necessarily connected. Some people are compensated beyond their contribution, others are compensated below.
Unless you tax the rich at 100% they still keep more when they earn more. At 50% a rich guy keeps $5 million out of every $10 million. $5 million is great incentive to earn more. Even at 90% it is still $1 million more than he has otherwise. You guys are blowing smoke whining about no incentive to succeed.
Only an idiot assumes poor means lazy. Some poor are lazy. Some rich are lazy. Some poor work as hard or harder than any rich people. You Republican elitists complain about class warfare from the left. That's just what you are doing with comments like that.
Originally posted by: CWRMadcat
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The rich shouldn't have to pay a higher perventage of their income than the Middle Class or the Poor. That's why I think we should have a flat tax.Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"See the whole point here is that the leftists are saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and want to tax them more, but they don't define "fair" and don't even attempt to present an argument on their behalf - they just keep saying it, hoping that it'll stick."
Well, ok, if your point is the "leftists" shouldn't ask the rich to pay more on the basis of fairness, I can see that point. (I posted a rambling concept about this once, but I don't want to do it again.
So how about we just raise taxes on the wealthy because we need the money and we thought they wouldn't mind ? We promise to speak highly of their sacrifice too.
The reason that we have a progressive tax on income is a matter of economics. Remember the items (most) taxes pay for are publicly consumed goods, not private. An individual's willingness to pay for such goods generally increases with the amount of income you have. Consider something as basic as a neighborhood park. If you had plenty of money, wouldn't you be willing to shell out the cash for a big open, well maintained zone for your children to play in? Of course. However if you're poor, you would not be willing to pay to have a public good like that, because comparatively speaking, there are more pressing matters to you when income is a limitation. In the end however, even if a wealthy individual pays more for the park via income tax than the poor person, both are better off as opposed to not having that park at all. This same idea applies to all publicly provided goods. To give you another example, suppose you and your wife wanted to take a vacation. You make 30,000 a year, and your wife makes 4,000,000 a year. Lets say that we'll apply the regressive tax structure to families, and say that both you and your wife must both shell out equal amounts of money for all household purchases (this concept is the same as a flat tax). Hypothetically speaking, lets say a trip to....Tahiti costs 15,000 dollars. You, as a 30,000 dollar earner, will NOT be able to go on that trip to tahiti, because you wouldn't be able to foot the bill for all of the other living expenses you and your spouse will incur. This means that as a couple, you would have to live in a small house, drive inexpensive cars, eat at budget restauraunts, because costs must be split evenly. However, if you guys decide that your wife will foot a larger percentage of the cost of living (which is what a progressive tax does), BOTH of you can now enjoy a nice big house, nice cars, nice vacations, and nice meals, even though you make substantially less than her. As a result, BOTH of you are better off, even though she paid more. The same concept applies to public goods and taxation. By having a flat tax, we would not be able to pay for many of the public goods we have now, and we would all be worse off.
I hope all of that made sense.
Yes!
Taxable income. Everyone shelters $1000's of income with dependents and standard deductions. The wealthy can shelter millions more.
CWRMadcat: cute analogy, but faulty. You fail to take into account the sheer number of wage-earners that are exempt or that pay comparatively very low percentages of income in taxes. You also fail to take into account the inefficiency of such a complicated system, and the number and variety of exemptions available to the wealthy.
Take a look at
Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems, Joel Slemrod, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Winter, 1990), pp. 157-178.
Financing Public Goods, Russell D. Roberts, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, No. 2. (Apr., 1987), pp. 420-437.
Tax-Based Incomes Policies, Laurence S. Seidman; Robert J. Gordon; Arthur M. Okun, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1978, No. 2. (1978), pp. 301-361.
On Tax Reform, W.E. Diewert, The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Feb., 1988), pp. 1-40.
Prospects for Fundamental Tax Reform:The Future of Fundamental Tax Reform, Alan J. Auerbach, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1997), pp. 143-146.
Prospects for Fundamental Tax Reform: Deconstructing the Income Tax, Joel Slemrod, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1997), pp. 151-155.
Lots of random crap to read through, I know.
Take a look at
Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems, Joel Slemrod, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Winter, 1990), pp. 157-178.
Financing Public Goods, Russell D. Roberts, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, No. 2. (Apr., 1987), pp. 420-437.
Tax-Based Incomes Policies, Laurence S. Seidman; Robert J. Gordon; Arthur M. Okun, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1978, No. 2. (1978), pp. 301-361.
On Tax Reform, W.E. Diewert, The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Feb., 1988), pp. 1-40.
Prospects for Fundamental Tax Reform:The Future of Fundamental Tax Reform, Alan J. Auerbach, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1997), pp. 143-146.
Prospects for Fundamental Tax Reform: Deconstructing the Income Tax, Joel Slemrod, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1997), pp. 151-155.
Lots of random crap to read through, I know.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter