Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

You want what's fair.  OK.  If I make exactly $75,000 this year, If I paid 0 dollars in taxes, and you make $150,000 and pay $45,000 in taxes, would you say that's fair?  You're generating a scenario that you call fair in which this happens.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

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.

You might be surprised to learn that I don't set laws and policies in this country.

Numbers would need to be crunched.  Models would need to be created and evaluated.  A lot of work would need to be done to determine the various combinations of exemption amounts and the tax rates that would make this plan work.  Then, and only then, would you be able to determine (a) the impact on the upper, middle and lower classes; and (b) if it's even feasible.

You just seem to want to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't come with an automatic "hells yeah, **** the rich!" provision.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 4:51:00 PM (view original):
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.

I don't think people put much away.   I think the vast majority of the US spends at least 95% of their money.   And I don't think that would change.

I think you have to tax food.   Maybe at a lower rate and maybe not "staples" like eggs, bread, milk, etc.   But, if the plan is to ensure the better off pay more, you have to make sure the guy buying lobster is paying more towards the govt than the guy buying chicken.

But, anyway, I think you feel people can save money.   I don't think they can. 

I'm probably ok with taxing lobster, non-essentials, etc.  Luxury food.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

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.

You might be surprised to learn that I don't set laws and policies in this country.

Numbers would need to be crunched.  Models would need to be created and evaluated.  A lot of work would need to be done to determine the various combinations of exemption amounts and the tax rates that would make this plan work.  Then, and only then, would you be able to determine (a) the impact on the upper, middle and lower classes; and (b) if it's even feasible.

You just seem to want to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't come with an automatic "hells yeah, **** the rich!" provision.

You are making absolutely no sense, whatsoever. This is simple stuff. If I advocate for a tax change, I should be able to say, in general, what the basic affects will be.

You don't seem to be able to do that. Or you don't want to. Which is it?

I don't know what the sales tax is around here.   I imagine you don't walk up to the counter to buy a CD,  then factor in the sales tax and say "Nah, that's too much."    I think the same thing would occur if a federal sales tax were in place.    It would just be part of a purchase.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 5:12:00 PM (view original):
I don't know what the sales tax is around here.   I imagine you don't walk up to the counter to buy a CD,  then factor in the sales tax and say "Nah, that's too much."    I think the same thing would occur if a federal sales tax were in place.    It would just be part of a purchase.

If the tax rate rises to 30%, you can be sure I'm beginning to factor that in to the purchase price.  

"Oh this TV is $2000? So...$2600. Ok. Hmm...."

Yeah but you have to keep in mind that you just got a 30% raise.     That $700 you got last week is now $1000. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 5:15:00 PM (view original):
Yeah but you have to keep in mind that you just got a 30% raise.     That $700 you got last week is now $1000. 

I get it, but I don't have a choice in the government taking that money from me before.  I do now.  I may be more careful.

It would be an interesting experiment.  But look at it this way - people with more money save more money.  You agreed.  So...if you give more people access to more money, they're more likely to save it.

Within reason.   The guy who spends his paycheck by the next Friday every week isn't going to become a miser.   He's going to spend it all again.

There's a difference between making 100k and needing 80k to live and making 100k and needing 100k to live.   Some people can live within their means and put a few bucks away and some cannot. 

BTW, I just looked up sales tax in my area.  Much to my surprise, it's different depending on the city.  Do you think I'll go to the store 10 miles away to save 2% instead of going to the one 3 miles away?

It's a piece of paper. It only has value if you think it does.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Within reason.   The guy who spends his paycheck by the next Friday every week isn't going to become a miser.   He's going to spend it all again.

There's a difference between making 100k and needing 80k to live and making 100k and needing 100k to live.   Some people can live within their means and put a few bucks away and some cannot. 

BTW, I just looked up sales tax in my area.  Much to my surprise, it's different depending on the city.  Do you think I'll go to the store 10 miles away to save 2% instead of going to the one 3 miles away?

Well, no. There's gas and time as factors.

Again, we're talking about 30% as a tax, not a 2% difference.  I'm going to put it into consideration when I make a purchase.

Posted by DougOut on 6/9/2014 5:23:00 PM (view original):
It's a piece of paper. It only has value if you think it does.

I think it does.

By the way - get rid of the penny. Waste of time, and yea, it costs more than a penny to make.