Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice.

Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?

"And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice."

There is no income tax in this scenario.

"Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?"

The lower and middle class are not buying high-priced luxury items.

There was an income tax in 2013 correct? And 2014? So if I saved a bunch of money for a new car, money I already paid income taxes on, and we changed the system to a national sales tax next year, I'd be double taxed on the money used to buy the car.

Re: line 2, you didn't answer the question. If the upside is status quo, what's the point in making the change? What are we trying to accomplish?

"What are we trying to accomplish?"

A fair system of taxation.

What is unfair about the current system?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

The flat tax won't work. Either the percentage is too low to generate enough revenue or too high for the poor and middle class to afford it.

Did you read what I posted?  Or did you not understand what I posted?

You're advocating a two bracket system instead of the seven we have now. Money under X is taxed at 0%, money above X is taxed at A%.

Depending on what X and A are, we have one of two different problems. Either X is too high and A is too low for the government to replace the income it is collecting under the current system or X is too low and A is too high for the poor and middle class to afford it.

I ask the same question I asked regarding the sales tax. What is the goal of this change? It seems like you want to lower the taxes on the people at the top and increase the taxes on the people on the bottom. Is that right? If not, what is the goal?

"Depending on what X and A are, we have one of two different problems. Either X is too high and A is too low for the government to replace the income it is collecting under the current system or X is too low and A is too high for the poor and middle class to afford it."

We don't know what X is, and we don't know what A is.  How can you possibly say that there isn't a balancing point between your two "problems"?

"What is the goal of this change?"

A fair system of taxation.  One set of non-progressive tax rules that applies equally to everybody, rich or poor.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice.

Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?

"And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice."

There is no income tax in this scenario.

"Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?"

The lower and middle class are not buying high-priced luxury items.

There was an income tax in 2013 correct? And 2014? So if I saved a bunch of money for a new car, money I already paid income taxes on, and we changed the system to a national sales tax next year, I'd be double taxed on the money used to buy the car.

Re: line 2, you didn't answer the question. If the upside is status quo, what's the point in making the change? What are we trying to accomplish?

"What are we trying to accomplish?"

A fair system of taxation.

What is unfair about the current system?

A progressive tax rate.  The more you make, the higher rate you pay. 

And now, you are proposing even more progression at the top.  For the mere purpose of "they're rich, they can afford it".  Otherwise known as class warfare.

Here's a clue for you . . . if you want people to be on your side, don't treat them unfairly.  Because if you do, they're prone to fight back.

So you want the middle and lower classes to pay more in taxes and the upper class to pay less?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):
So you want the middle and lower classes to pay more in taxes and the upper class to pay less?

That's what he's saying, yes.  He believes it's better for society.  I don't know a ton about economics but that sounds like disaster.

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.

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? 

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?