Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 9:44:00 AM (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.

Here's my answer, moron.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 9:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 8:06:00 AM (view original):
Why is the tax burden going to be shifted?

Right now, the upper class do pay a higher tax rate than the lower and middle class.  But putting forth a flat sales tax only, since the upper class save more money than the lower and middle classes, the tax burden shifts.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 9:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 9:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 8:06:00 AM (view original):
Why is the tax burden going to be shifted?

Right now, the upper class do pay a higher tax rate than the lower and middle class.  But putting forth a flat sales tax only, since the upper class save more money than the lower and middle classes, the tax burden shifts.

The guy spending 240k a year will pay 6 times as much as the guy spending 40k a year.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 10:07:00 AM (view original):
"That's a dodge. You didn't answer. The tax burden will be shifted somewhere. If the current system is so unfair because the rich pay a lot of taxes, should we assume that you want to see some of the burden shifted to the middle and lower classes?"

The current system is unfair because the rich are being asked to pay a higher rate of taxes than the middle and lower classes.  "Because they're rich and they can afford it".

I've given you my proposal, and I threw out an example with some made up numbers.  I don't know what actual numbers would be needed to make this feasible.

Did that example result in "some of the burden shifted to the middle and lower classes"?

I know you're just dying for me to say "Yes, I want the middle and lower class to pay more taxes".  But I'm not going to say that.  Because that's not my goal.

My goal is to prevent morons like you from saying "Tax the rich at a higher rate.  They can afford it.  **** 'em".  Because "they can afford it" is not a valid justification.

I don't know how to say that more simply than I have.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

There's always X amount of money in the bank, and it's usually owned by the rich. Right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

There's always X amount of money in the bank, and it's usually owned by the rich. Right?

I'm not sure I get your point.    How much value does your bank money have?    I say "None" because it's collecting interest at a rate lower than inflation.   It's the bank's money until you take it out and use it.   

Kevin Garnett has 10m in the bank.   It's worth 10m today.    In 2018, it's worth 8m.    He's simply passed the tax burden down to his children.  Because, at some point, that 10m will get spent. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 10:07:00 AM (view original):
"That's a dodge. You didn't answer. The tax burden will be shifted somewhere. If the current system is so unfair because the rich pay a lot of taxes, should we assume that you want to see some of the burden shifted to the middle and lower classes?"

The current system is unfair because the rich are being asked to pay a higher rate of taxes than the middle and lower classes.  "Because they're rich and they can afford it".

I've given you my proposal, and I threw out an example with some made up numbers.  I don't know what actual numbers would be needed to make this feasible.

Did that example result in "some of the burden shifted to the middle and lower classes"?

I know you're just dying for me to say "Yes, I want the middle and lower class to pay more taxes".  But I'm not going to say that.  Because that's not my goal.

My goal is to prevent morons like you from saying "Tax the rich at a higher rate.  They can afford it.  **** 'em".  Because "they can afford it" is not a valid justification.

I don't know how to say that more simply than I have.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

There's always X amount of money in the bank, and it's usually owned by the rich. Right?

I'm not sure I get your point.    How much value does your bank money have?    I say "None" because it's collecting interest at a rate lower than inflation.   It's the bank's money until you take it out and use it.   

Kevin Garnett has 10m in the bank.   It's worth 10m today.    In 2018, it's worth 8m.    He's simply passed the tax burden down to his children.  Because, at some point, that 10m will get spent. 

If you're rich, you generally save more money.  If you die rich, and pass the money on to your children, nothing changes.  If they're also rich, they'll save money like their parents did.  If they actually need the money, they'll spend it.  But that's money being spent by someone with a low salary.  So they're not rich.  Yes, at some point, the 10m will get spent.  But there will be another 10m from the next Kevin Garnett in the bank.  The rich are more likely to save their money.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2014 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2014 10:07:00 AM (view original):
"That's a dodge. You didn't answer. The tax burden will be shifted somewhere. If the current system is so unfair because the rich pay a lot of taxes, should we assume that you want to see some of the burden shifted to the middle and lower classes?"

The current system is unfair because the rich are being asked to pay a higher rate of taxes than the middle and lower classes.  "Because they're rich and they can afford it".

I've given you my proposal, and I threw out an example with some made up numbers.  I don't know what actual numbers would be needed to make this feasible.

Did that example result in "some of the burden shifted to the middle and lower classes"?

I know you're just dying for me to say "Yes, I want the middle and lower class to pay more taxes".  But I'm not going to say that.  Because that's not my goal.

My goal is to prevent morons like you from saying "Tax the rich at a higher rate.  They can afford it.  **** 'em".  Because "they can afford it" is not a valid justification.

I don't know how to say that more simply than I have.

So the current system is unfair because dollars earned after x amount are taxed differently than dollars earned before x. That's what you're saying?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

There's always X amount of money in the bank, and it's usually owned by the rich. Right?

I'm not sure I get your point.    How much value does your bank money have?    I say "None" because it's collecting interest at a rate lower than inflation.   It's the bank's money until you take it out and use it.   

Kevin Garnett has 10m in the bank.   It's worth 10m today.    In 2018, it's worth 8m.    He's simply passed the tax burden down to his children.  Because, at some point, that 10m will get spent. 

If you're rich, you generally save more money.  If you die rich, and pass the money on to your children, nothing changes.  If they're also rich, they'll save money like their parents did.  If they actually need the money, they'll spend it.  But that's money being spent by someone with a low salary.  So they're not rich.  Yes, at some point, the 10m will get spent.  But there will be another 10m from the next Kevin Garnett in the bank.  The rich are more likely to save their money.

And the tax rate would be set on consumer dollars spent the previous year.    If the rich want to hoard their money, it's just going to increase the tax rate for when it does get spent.  Making it worth even less.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

There's always X amount of money in the bank, and it's usually owned by the rich. Right?

I'm not sure I get your point.    How much value does your bank money have?    I say "None" because it's collecting interest at a rate lower than inflation.   It's the bank's money until you take it out and use it.   

Kevin Garnett has 10m in the bank.   It's worth 10m today.    In 2018, it's worth 8m.    He's simply passed the tax burden down to his children.  Because, at some point, that 10m will get spent. 

If you're rich, you generally save more money.  If you die rich, and pass the money on to your children, nothing changes.  If they're also rich, they'll save money like their parents did.  If they actually need the money, they'll spend it.  But that's money being spent by someone with a low salary.  So they're not rich.  Yes, at some point, the 10m will get spent.  But there will be another 10m from the next Kevin Garnett in the bank.  The rich are more likely to save their money.

Posted by moy23 on 6/10/2014 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/10/2014 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure he spends a lower % of his salary.  Nonetheless, for that money to have any value, it has to be spent at some point.   10k today will be worth less than 10k next year. 

There's always X amount of money in the bank, and it's usually owned by the rich. Right?

I'm not sure I get your point.    How much value does your bank money have?    I say "None" because it's collecting interest at a rate lower than inflation.   It's the bank's money until you take it out and use it.   

Kevin Garnett has 10m in the bank.   It's worth 10m today.    In 2018, it's worth 8m.    He's simply passed the tax burden down to his children.  Because, at some point, that 10m will get spent. 

If you're rich, you generally save more money.  If you die rich, and pass the money on to your children, nothing changes.  If they're also rich, they'll save money like their parents did.  If they actually need the money, they'll spend it.  But that's money being spent by someone with a low salary.  So they're not rich.  Yes, at some point, the 10m will get spent.  But there will be another 10m from the next Kevin Garnett in the bank.  The rich are more likely to save their money.

Rich people are rich because they value saving $. Poor people are poor because they value spending $.

Why is it so wrong to save money? I've always been taught you can never save enough money because inevitably something will go wrong. I wish more people thought this way instead of only thinking about SPENDING rich people's hard earned $.