Obama's first failed appointment - Page 24

Clodfobble · 04-05-2009, 07:27 PM

Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.

TGRR · 04-05-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.

Okay, then to gain sufficient revenue, you'd have to have your tax rate so high that you'd clobber the middle class.

Which is, of course, the whole point. The funniest thing is that the rich have sold this to the middle class (or at least their kids away at college).

TheMercenary · 04-06-2009, 11:39 AM

The only fair system is where everyone pays the same and additionally there should be a tax on all purchases.

lookout123 · 04-06-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

The current tax system is unfair because rich people get away with paying less than they should,

How much 'should' they pay, and why?

TheMercenary · 04-06-2009, 12:32 PM

Someone please define "Rich People". Thank you.

TheMercenary · 04-06-2009, 01:08 PM

That, is not, an unbiased source. That is opinion.

lookout123 · 04-06-2009, 02:10 PM

I've said it before but I'll say it again... cuz I can. My personal idea for flat tax really isn't flat but much flatter.

Every single dollar of income (earned and unearned) up to and including $50,000 is taxed at 1%. I believe everyone should know they are paying something even if it is a seemingly insignificant amount.

Every single dollar earned and unearned over$50,001 is taxed at 20%. NO deductions, no loopholes, no limits.

Personal tax returns will consist of a one page, easy to understand form.

INCOME:
INCOME IN EXCESS OF $50,000:

The guy making $30K will have paid $300 which is more than he's paying now, but he is now paying like everyone else.

The guy making $50K will be paying $500 which is less than some people say they are paying now.

The guy making $90K will be paying $8,499.80 which is 9% of total pay.

The guy making $900K will be paying $170,499 which is 19% of total pay.

The guy making $9,000,000 will pay $1,790,499.80 which is 20%. While that may seem like they are getting a bargain it is a hell of a lot more than they are paying now.

TheMercenary · 04-06-2009, 02:18 PM

And added up, we would have much more in income collected. Flaten the tax, everyone pays, close the loopholes.

04-06-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And added up, we would have much more in income collected..

Got a cite for that...or is it just fuzzy math?

I have not seen any reliable source that would suggest a flat tax at a 20% rate of wages (with or w/o non-wage income like capital gains) would come close to covering even the basic current costs of defense, payment on debt and entitlements (combined nearly $2 trillion/year)...and that excludes any discreationary spending on domestic programs.

lookout123 · 04-06-2009, 03:36 PM

Do you believe the "rich" are paying more significantly more than that, on average?

classicman · 04-06-2009, 03:53 PM

Are there any real statistics or is this really just a argument in futility?

lookout123 · 04-06-2009, 04:00 PM

We're talking about the government. Only arguments of futility are possible.

It does go back to my thread asking the purpose of taxes though. If we don't know the total number of dollars the government needs to do its business and we aren't trying to match those numbers with an appropriate income level, then all the tax rates are just arbitrary numbers established for psychological reasons.

classicman · 04-06-2009, 04:04 PM

not psychological at all. - They are then numbers based upon what they WANT to spend not what they need. Thats what it all comes down to in my opinion. The debate between the definition of needs versus wants.

04-06-2009, 04:19 PM

I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.

I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."

But I am a Washington insider.

classicman · 04-06-2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.

Doesn't one necessitate the other?

04-05-2009, 07:27 PM	#1
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000. __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

04-06-2009, 11:39 AM	#3
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	The only fair system is where everyone pays the same and additionally there should be a tax on all purchases. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-06-2009, 12:32 PM	#5
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Someone please define "Rich People". Thank you. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-06-2009, 01:08 PM	#6
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	That, is not, an unbiased source. That is opinion. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-06-2009, 02:10 PM	#7
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	I've said it before but I'll say it again... cuz I can. My personal idea for flat tax really isn't flat but much flatter. Every single dollar of income (earned and unearned) up to and including $50,000 is taxed at 1%. I believe everyone should know they are paying something even if it is a seemingly insignificant amount. Every single dollar earned and unearned over$50,001 is taxed at 20%. NO deductions, no loopholes, no limits. Personal tax returns will consist of a one page, easy to understand form. INCOME: INCOME IN EXCESS OF $50,000: The guy making $30K will have paid $300 which is more than he's paying now, but he is now paying like everyone else. The guy making $50K will be paying $500 which is less than some people say they are paying now. The guy making $90K will be paying $8,499.80 which is 9% of total pay. The guy making $900K will be paying $170,499 which is 19% of total pay. The guy making $9,000,000 will pay $1,790,499.80 which is 20%. While that may seem like they are getting a bargain it is a hell of a lot more than they are paying now. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

04-06-2009, 02:18 PM	#8
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	And added up, we would have much more in income collected. Flaten the tax, everyone pays, close the loopholes. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-06-2009, 03:36 PM	#10
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	Do you believe the "rich" are paying more significantly more than that, on average? __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

04-06-2009, 03:53 PM	#11
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Are there any real statistics or is this really just a argument in futility? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

04-06-2009, 04:00 PM	#12
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	We're talking about the government. Only arguments of futility are possible. It does go back to my thread asking the purpose of taxes though. If we don't know the total number of dollars the government needs to do its business and we aren't trying to match those numbers with an appropriate income level, then all the tax rates are just arbitrary numbers established for psychological reasons. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

04-06-2009, 04:04 PM	#13
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	not psychological at all. - They are then numbers based upon what they WANT to spend not what they need. Thats what it all comes down to in my opinion. The debate between the definition of needs versus wants. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

04-06-2009, 04:19 PM	#14
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility. I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all." But I am a Washington insider. Last edited by Redux; 04-06-2009 at 04:34 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)