Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
I think he's suggesting a flat tax.   Say 30%.    A guy making 100k will pay 30k.  A guy making 10k will pay 3k.    I don't think the 100k guy is paying "less" than the 10k guy.

Right, so he wants the lower and middle class to pay more than they are now, and the upper class to pay less than they are now.

Why are you assuming that?

Because you want the same rate for everyone.  Unless you want to drastically lower the amount of federal taxes the government collects, to do that, you need the lower and middle class to raise their tax rates, and the upper class to lower their tax rate.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):
That's not the goal.  A simplified and fair tax system is the goal. 

You're assuming that what you posted above is an inevitable consequence.  Not sure if that's necessarily the case.

Yes or no. Do you want the lower and middle to pay more and the upper class to pay less?

I just want the system to be fair, with equal rules for everybody.

Why do you think I have some sort of evil ulterior motive other than that one simple goal?

I don't think you have an ulterior motive. I'm asking what you think the result of your plan will be.

Will the dollars that the lower class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the middle class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the upper class pay in taxes go up or down?

What's the exemption number?  What's the tax rate?

Those two variables will determine whose taxes go up or down.

Let's play "what if".

The exemption is $75k.  The tax rate is 60%.

The guy making $75k or lower pays no income taxes.
The guy making $150k pays $45k in taxes (30% rate).
The guy making $1m pays $555k in taxes (55.5% rate).

Change the numbers, and you get drastically different results.

Somebody would have to model the numbers to come up with something that (a) keeps the revenue stream going, and (b) doesn't kill the middle/lower class.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
I think he's suggesting a flat tax.   Say 30%.    A guy making 100k will pay 30k.  A guy making 10k will pay 3k.    I don't think the 100k guy is paying "less" than the 10k guy.

Right, so he wants the lower and middle class to pay more than they are now, and the upper class to pay less than they are now.

Why are you assuming that?

Because you want the same rate for everyone.  Unless you want to drastically lower the amount of federal taxes the government collects, to do that, you need the lower and middle class to raise their tax rates, and the upper class to lower their tax rate.

Another one who doesn't understand the plan.

So it's "everyone should pay the same rate" except nobody pays the same rate.

  We can start by getting rid of the baseline budget. 

  Every year the government gets a raise that is in no way connected with actual growth OR inflation.  Every year it grows at a fixed rate well beyond our means to pay for it.  We are currently borrowing 43 cents on the dollar.  It cannot be sustained.  

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):
That's not the goal.  A simplified and fair tax system is the goal. 

You're assuming that what you posted above is an inevitable consequence.  Not sure if that's necessarily the case.

Yes or no. Do you want the lower and middle to pay more and the upper class to pay less?

I just want the system to be fair, with equal rules for everybody.

Why do you think I have some sort of evil ulterior motive other than that one simple goal?

I don't think you have an ulterior motive. I'm asking what you think the result of your plan will be.

Will the dollars that the lower class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the middle class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the upper class pay in taxes go up or down?

What's the exemption number?  What's the tax rate?

Those two variables will determine whose taxes go up or down.

Let's play "what if".

The exemption is $75k.  The tax rate is 60%.

The guy making $75k or lower pays no income taxes.
The guy making $150k pays $45k in taxes (30% rate).
The guy making $1m pays $555k in taxes (55.5% rate).

Change the numbers, and you get drastically different results.

Somebody would have to model the numbers to come up with something that (a) keeps the revenue stream going, and (b) doesn't kill the middle/lower class.

Ok. So what do you want to happen?

Do you want the tax dollars paid by the lower class to stay the same, go up,or go down?
Middle class?
Upper class?

Yea, tec's saying that raising the tax rate on the rich and lowering on the lower and middle class is a bad thing, but he's not really giving us what he wants.  The example he gives is actually a more extreme example of what I'm suggesting.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):
So it's "everyone should pay the same rate" except nobody pays the same rate.

Everybody does pay the same rate after the exemption is crossed.

Kind of like car insurance and a deductible.  Only in reverse.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Yea, tec's saying that raising the tax rate on the rich and lowering on the lower and middle class is a bad thing, but he's not really giving us what he wants.  The example he gives is actually a more extreme example of what I'm suggesting.

Raising the tax rate on the rich (and the rich alone) is a bad thing because there's no justification for it other than "they're rich, they can afford it".

You know, the class warfare thing that the left loves to push.

How is class warfare good for society?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):
That's not the goal.  A simplified and fair tax system is the goal. 

You're assuming that what you posted above is an inevitable consequence.  Not sure if that's necessarily the case.

Yes or no. Do you want the lower and middle to pay more and the upper class to pay less?

I just want the system to be fair, with equal rules for everybody.

Why do you think I have some sort of evil ulterior motive other than that one simple goal?

I don't think you have an ulterior motive. I'm asking what you think the result of your plan will be.

Will the dollars that the lower class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the middle class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the upper class pay in taxes go up or down?

What's the exemption number?  What's the tax rate?

Those two variables will determine whose taxes go up or down.

Let's play "what if".

The exemption is $75k.  The tax rate is 60%.

The guy making $75k or lower pays no income taxes.
The guy making $150k pays $45k in taxes (30% rate).
The guy making $1m pays $555k in taxes (55.5% rate).

Change the numbers, and you get drastically different results.

Somebody would have to model the numbers to come up with something that (a) keeps the revenue stream going, and (b) doesn't kill the middle/lower class.

Ok. So what do you want to happen?

Do you want the tax dollars paid by the lower class to stay the same, go up,or go down?
Middle class?
Upper class?

Again, you're assuming that I have some sort of "goal" that I want to achieve with respect to taxes going up for some and down for others.

I don't.  So I can't answer your question.

So you can stop asking.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Yea, tec's saying that raising the tax rate on the rich and lowering on the lower and middle class is a bad thing, but he's not really giving us what he wants.  The example he gives is actually a more extreme example of what I'm suggesting.

Raising the tax rate on the rich (and the rich alone) is a bad thing because there's no justification for it other than "they're rich, they can afford it".

You know, the class warfare thing that the left loves to push.

How is class warfare good for society?

The example you gave? Is a higher tax rate on the rich. Much higher, actually. It's great for the lower and middle class. You would strike that down immediately.

So what is it you're looking for?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):
That's not the goal.  A simplified and fair tax system is the goal. 

You're assuming that what you posted above is an inevitable consequence.  Not sure if that's necessarily the case.

Yes or no. Do you want the lower and middle to pay more and the upper class to pay less?

I just want the system to be fair, with equal rules for everybody.

Why do you think I have some sort of evil ulterior motive other than that one simple goal?

I don't think you have an ulterior motive. I'm asking what you think the result of your plan will be.

Will the dollars that the lower class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the middle class pay in taxes go up or down?
Will the dollars that the upper class pay in taxes go up or down?

What's the exemption number?  What's the tax rate?

Those two variables will determine whose taxes go up or down.

Let's play "what if".

The exemption is $75k.  The tax rate is 60%.

The guy making $75k or lower pays no income taxes.
The guy making $150k pays $45k in taxes (30% rate).
The guy making $1m pays $555k in taxes (55.5% rate).

Change the numbers, and you get drastically different results.

Somebody would have to model the numbers to come up with something that (a) keeps the revenue stream going, and (b) doesn't kill the middle/lower class.

Ok. So what do you want to happen?

Do you want the tax dollars paid by the lower class to stay the same, go up,or go down?
Middle class?
Upper class?

Again, you're assuming that I have some sort of "goal" that I want to achieve with respect to taxes going up for some and down for others.

I don't.  So I can't answer your question.

So you can stop asking.

So you're advocating for a plan but don't know what the effect will be? That's not very smart.

You do realize that if you put a flat tax into place, taxes will have to go up for some and down for others, right?

Otherwise, it's pointless.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):

The rate can be set to ensure that the govt gets enough. 

How do you do that though?

Also, let's say you set this up and you find you need to adjust it, so you raise the tax rate.  What happens when Americans spend less in response to that and you're getting the same amount you did beforehand? 

How do we set tax rates now?

Americans need things.  The only way to get them is to buy it(unless you grow/make your own stuff).    On a percentage, how many people do you think puts away more than 10% of their earnings?

I have no idea.  We set up taxes at one point and have adjusted as we've gone on.  But this is a completely different way of going about things.  I'm thinking people would spend less than they do now (just my instinct, and how I would react), and the government wouldn't necessarily get the amount of money it needs from us.  If they set the amount at 30%, and they find that they need more money and set it at 40%, there's a good chance we spend even less. Fewer luxury items, baseball games, golf clubs, etc.

You didn't answer the 2nd part.    Percentage-wise, how many people put money away?   IOW, make enough to avoid spending the vast majority of their paycheck?

I don't think you stop people from spending.     If you make $100 now, you get $70.   People will now get $100 and they will spend most of it just like they do now.  I don't think we become "responsible spenders" until we have no money.   

And the govt will get money from people who earn a living illegally. 

I like the idea of the government being able to tax everyone who lives here.  But we'll disagree with the amount of spending that takes place.  My fear is that people spend less money, which leads to businesses struggling, which leads to people making less money, which leads to people spending less money...

Are you taxing food? If you're taxing food, you're hurting the lower class since we don't have to pay for that now either.  And you are putting a greater burden, % wise, on the lower and middle class than you are currently.

I like the idea, it's interesting, but I'm afraid it wouldn't work.  I'd want to research it more.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Yea, tec's saying that raising the tax rate on the rich and lowering on the lower and middle class is a bad thing, but he's not really giving us what he wants.  The example he gives is actually a more extreme example of what I'm suggesting.

Raising the tax rate on the rich (and the rich alone) is a bad thing because there's no justification for it other than "they're rich, they can afford it".

You know, the class warfare thing that the left loves to push.

How is class warfare good for society?

The example you gave? Is a higher tax rate on the rich. Much higher, actually. It's great for the lower and middle class. You would strike that down immediately.

So what is it you're looking for?

Why are you saying I would "strike that down immediately"?

I've already stated what I'm looking for.  Something that's done fairly.