Based on http://www.irs.gov/ tax estimator, he is going to pay about $4500 a year on income tax. Maybe that is "hardly anything" to you, I'm glad you are so well off that $4500 is pocket change, but for the rest of us it's a big chunk of money.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
a guy makeing $41 (in taxable income wich he can get reduced a LOT) pays 25% income tax. so he pays roughly $6594 in income tax.
wich IS LOW.
of course the more (or less) you make it changes. less you make means the less you pay. eventually you get to a point where you START getting paid.
Yes, and a hypothetical asset tax, instead of an income tax, would be $41 for the entire year. And you are crying about how it's way too much.
The total tax would be the exact same under either system, the question is just when you pay it.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
yeap you are a fucking idiot.
as i said thats not much considering the amount he makes. Also anyone with any brains (wich you have proven you do not have) can get the taxable about reduced.
that 4-5k tax paid is still less then your idea.
you want to tax his wealth (house, savings, income, stocks, bonds, assets) every year. even at 3% is still going to be MORE then what people pay in.
You already lose money on your property at the rate of about 4% a year due to inflation, a .7% tax on top of that would hardly even be noticable.
Yeah, you would pay it EVERY YEAR. OMG. Just like you pay income tax EVERY YEAR. I don't see why it's something to freak out about.
But your income is lower than your assets, is that why you would rather pay an income tax? Until you have a lot of assets, 15% of your income is going to be a lot more than any asset tax would be, yearly.
drinkmorejava
Diamond Member
- Jun 24, 2004
- 3,567
- 7
- 81
M&B 101
1) Everyone will want to raise i rates by a comparable amount to make up the cost
2) Luckily, the fed has enough autonomy it wouldn't do this but
3) In order to keep i rates from rising the fed would be forced to a) Keep the discount rate low b) inject several hundred billion dollars into the economy (bonds)
4) if a. massive numbers of banks will start using the discount window for everyday loans and the fed with have to come up with several hundred billion dollars to cover them
5) both a and b add to inflation
6) rinse, repeat, inflation gets higher and higher
7) ??????
8) Profit!!!
1) Everyone will want to raise i rates by a comparable amount to make up the cost
2) Luckily, the fed has enough autonomy it wouldn't do this but
3) In order to keep i rates from rising the fed would be forced to a) Keep the discount rate low b) inject several hundred billion dollars into the economy (bonds)
4) if a. massive numbers of banks will start using the discount window for everyday loans and the fed with have to come up with several hundred billion dollars to cover them
5) both a and b add to inflation
6) rinse, repeat, inflation gets higher and higher
7) ??????
8) Profit!!!
LOL. Fine, you are right, I give up. There is no possible way a 1% asset tax would be less than a 15% income tax. Your logic is infallible. Because you SAID SO, it must be true.
Never mind posting *why* it wouldn't be less or the same, it has to be more and you are too good to waste your time by posting facts. Anyone can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
Fine, I'll go out on a limb and blindly accept the fact that it will be the same.
Tell me, why would we spend trillions of dollars overhauling the current system to do this then?
If you think you see you are blind. I have filed taxes for the last 12 years.
What is your point? Are you trying to say that a tax refund = not paying taxes? LOL. You pay taxes every month, the money is deducted from your paycheck before you see it. Even if you get back part of it, you are still paying a lot of money over the year.
If that is your problem with an asset tax, I'm sure they could figure out a workaround for people like you. you could have money taken out of your paycheck every month just like it is for income tax, and at the end of the year the amount you overpaid would be mailed back to you as a refund, would that make spidey happy?
*chuckle*
You can google all you want but it is apparent you are a communist and I truly believe you haven't filed taxes before, otherwise you wouldn't post such nonsense.
As I said in the first post, this idea came to me while reading the stimulus refund thread.
People were talking about how spending the stimulus check would help the economy and the only way it wouldn't help is if people just deposited it in the bank and sat on it without investing it or using it.
I was thinking that if taxes were based on assets rather than income, people would be encouraged to spend or invest money rather than just sit on it.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
actually, someone making $41,000 regular wages and is married filing jointly with no spousal income owes income tax of $2746. or about 6.7%. if the person were single they'd owe $4,480. or about 10.9%. married with both making $41,000 each they'd owe $8966 filing jointly (ooo marriage penalty, that's rare), separately they'd each owe $4,480 each (avoid the $6 marriage penalty by filing two returns!)
Google? Do you think I goggled for that quote or something?
What exactly is it you find hard to believe? Given X income based on income tax rates, you are saying it's impossible to come up with a percentage of assets that gives the same total income to the government? If the government received $2600 billion in income tax, and the total asset value of US individuals and corporations is $520,000billion, a .5% asset tax would give them the same income. If total asset value is $260,000 billion, a 1% asset tax would give them the same income. It's simple mathematics, given *any* total asset value there is a percentage that gives any arbitrary income.
Thats pretty close to the $4500 I posted above, though I should have said single instead of assuming it was understood.
Also, here's another part of the rub.
You've obviously never heard of something called the time value of money. That alone would dictate that overall, you would have to pay more dollars in taxes for the government to get the same value out of what you're paying them.
You've obviously never heard of something called the time value of money. That alone would dictate that overall, you would have to pay more dollars in taxes for the government to get the same value out of what you're paying them.
Thats true, but there is also the fact that the taxes wouldn't be limited by your lifespan.
It would take a bit of work to figure out what the proper formula would be, but for example earlier I posted based on a 50 year lifespan, that isn't really accurate because if this is replacing income tax it wouldn't only apply to people, it would also apply to corporations, which can live a lot longer than 50 years. While there are fewer corporations than people, they typically own a lot more assets than individual people too. I don't claim to have all the minor details worked out, but I mean based on rough estimates and seeing a .7% tax rate being sufficient, I don't see how some of the minor details I skipped over could possibly result in me being off by a factor of 10. I'd be really surprised if it took more than a 2% rate to match our current income taxes.
MotionMan
Lifer
- Jan 11, 2006
- 17,124
- 12
- 81
Why would someone be encouraged to invest in the U.S. if a successful domestic investment would actually result in more taxes? As stated a 100 times previously in this thread, money would leave the U.S. so fast it would make your head spin.
Also, how would your tax ensure that the Federal Government got enough money each year? If we started your plan today and the stock market crashed or the housing market crashed, wouldn't there be a lot less wealth and thus, less for the Govt. to obtain in taxes? how do you make up the shortfall?
Does you plan include getting rid of current asset taxes, like property tax?
MotionMan
Good question, you should ask all the US corporations why they do so, when successful investments lead to more income tax. This seems to be in favor of asset taxes.
Again, I ask why? If the tax paid is the same overall, wouldn't the number of companies leaving because of the "asset tax" balance out perfectly with the number of companies that come to the country to enjoy 0 income tax?
I mean it's like you are looking at the asset tax suggestion in a vacuum. Well yeah, a new tax will have negative effects, that is true of any tax. If it wasn't, the government could just levi a 100% tax and be done with it. The question is, are the negative effects of an asset tax worse than the negative effects of an income tax.
I haven't seen *anyone* address this directly.
As above, simple algebra can get you any desired income based on a known quantity of total assets and a variable tax rate.
What happens if the market collapses? What is the point of asking this? What happens if unemployment increase, income tax goes down. A bad market is bad in either case, I don't see why this would be any worse for an asset based tax system than an income based system.
Those are not federal taxes. How could a federal tax replace county taxes? I'm simply suggesting a change for the income tax, not touching anything else.
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