Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Again, what's the goal of this tax change? To collect more taxes? To collect less taxes? To collect the same amount of taxes in a different way?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Again, what's the goal of this tax change? To collect more taxes? To collect less taxes? To collect the same amount of taxes in a different way?

And this?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 5:56:00 PM (view original):
A fair and practical way to ensure the better off pay more taxes.   And it prevents the loopholes that they can hide behind in the current system.   In addition, illegally made money is now taxed. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 6/9/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

Really? Well then I'd argue that you have not thought about the consequences. If everybody where taxed equally the bottom 50% would be taxed more leaving them with even less money to spend then they do right now, so less money being spent at mcdonalds and Walmart. What exactly does that do to the economy? Now if the top say 5% were to pay this equal tax then obviously they total tax they pay would be less. Does that mean they are going to spend more? Don't think so, because the difference to them is negligible like I said what's the difference if your annual salary is 8.5 million or 9.25 million? It won't make a lick of difference to the amount of money you spend. So doing this the economy would suffer hard core. Now let's flip it, a more progressive tax would give more money to the bottom 50, and most if not all that money will be spent at McDonald's and Walmart, which means the economy strengthens. Meaning more money for everybody, which means for the top 5% whom own all these companies anyways. So in the end they will make up the small shortfall in taxes that they paid. And in the end most of that money is going off shore anyways so that they pay less taxes anyways, because that is what the super rich do. How does that sound to u tec?

Sounds like you're trying to funnel money to super-corporations McDonalds and Walmart.

But seriously . . . .

You start with a standard exemption for everybody, rich or poor.  The first $x of your income are not taxed.  Flat income tax rate above that.  For everybody, rich or poor.

The less money you make, the larger percentage of your income is exempt.  That's simple math.  From an overall "what percentage of my income am I paying in taxes?", the poor are paying a smaller percentage and the rich are paying a larger percentage (which converges to whatever the flat rate is for the super rich).

It's fair, it's one set of rules that's applied to equally to everybody (rich or poor), and it inherently provides some sort of "protection" for those at the lower end of the financial scale.

How does that sound 2 u, greeny?

I don't know.  One would have to crack open the books.   Obviously, a guy making 10m a year could put 9m in the bank if he so chooses.   So, yeah, he's only going to be taxed on 1m.  Nonetheless, the money will have to get spent eventually by someone.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 5:56:00 PM (view original):
A fair and practical way to ensure the better off pay more taxes.   And it prevents the loopholes that they can hide behind in the current system.   In addition, illegally made money is now taxed. 

So why not just adjust the income tax brackets, close loopholes, and enforce laws already on the books?

Those are infinitely simpler than completely reforming our entire tax system.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 6:02:00 PM (view original):

I don't know.  One would have to crack open the books.   Obviously, a guy making 10m a year could put 9m in the bank if he so chooses.   So, yeah, he's only going to be taxed on 1m.  Nonetheless, the money will have to get spent eventually by someone.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 5:28:00 PM (view original):

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.

Posted by greeny9 on 6/9/2014 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 6:02:00 PM (view original):

I don't know.  One would have to crack open the books.   Obviously, a guy making 10m a year could put 9m in the bank if he so chooses.   So, yeah, he's only going to be taxed on 1m.  Nonetheless, the money will have to get spent eventually by someone.

Unfortunately with this tax change the super rich will have much much much less taxed paid as a percentage of their income then a middle class person. As obviously middle class people spend way more of their income as a percentage then do the super rich. After all how can you spend 10 million a year on stuff as a single person? Heck forget about 10 million the super rich make upwards of 100 million a year and even more. You say you want tax to be fair, but it seems obvious to me that this wouldnt be fair in the least, the middle and lower classes would be screwed hard core. I like tecs plan much more then this sales tax only scheme.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

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 keep forgetting how slow of mind and dimwitted you are.  Sorry.

Let me make it simple, at a level you seem to understand.  Or at least are screaming for.

If such a plan were in place, with the exemption ceiling and tax rate set such that the upper class paid more income taxes, and the middle/lower class paid less taxes, would you be OK with it?

I'm guessing there are numbers that could do that, and keep the revenue flowing to the federal government to misuse as they do today.

Would that be OK?  Or is it not screwing the rich enough for your taste?