The only tax solution for the U.S.

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

mr_poodles123

Oh God there is so much wrong with this one sentence that I'm not sure where to start...

Increasing the tax burden for those who make less money is "the only tax solution"?

In that case, I'd prefer not to solve the problem in question.

Increasing the tax burden for those who make less money is "the only tax solution"?

In that case, I'd prefer not to solve the problem in question.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Increasing the tax burden for those who make less money is "the only tax solution"?

In that case, I'd prefer not to solve the problem in question.

mr_poodles123

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Increasing the tax burden for those who make less money is "the only tax solution"?

In that case, I'd prefer not to solve the problem in question.

GabuEx

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

Work until your dead (sorry kiddies, no retirement or social security for you!), 80% taxes on everybody, and 100% estate tax on everybody!!!

Joking btw, in case anybody's sarcasm detector is busted.

Work until your dead (sorry kiddies, no retirement or social security for you!), 80% taxes on everybody, and 100% estate tax on everybody!!!

Joking btw, in case anybody's sarcasm detector is busted.

xerxes5678

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] No, having it lower but equal. The problem is now is that the top 5 percent of the country pays 50 Percent of the taxes. If we were to make it simple, and just have everyone pay 15% then it would get the same job done, without being unfair.mr_poodles123

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

Well, yes, hardly making any money generally does lead to hardly paying any taxes.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] No, having it lower but equal. The problem is now is that the top 5 percent of the country pays 50 Percent of the taxes. If we were to make it simple, and just have everyone pay 15% then it would get the same job done, without being unfair.mr_poodles123

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

Ace6301

In theory, I'd be for it. Realistically, create expenditure cuts before proposing government revenue reductions.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] Except according to statistics they hardly pay any taxes anyways. I am just saying that everyone should have to pay an equal percent of their income. I am not saying that everyone has to pay 50,000 dollars or anything.mr_poodles123

Because they can afford it. The proportion of the income of the very wealthy that goes towards basic necessities is much smaller than the proportion of the income of the middle class and the impoverished.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

GabuEx

Well, yes, hardly making any money generally does lead to hardly paying any taxes.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] Except according to statistics they hardly pay any taxes anyways. I am just saying that everyone should have to pay an equal percent of their income. I am not saying that everyone has to pay 50,000 dollars or anything.mr_poodles123

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] But then the lower class would have even less money then they do now. As would the middle class. The only class that would benefit from this is the upper class which frankly seem pretty alright at the moment. But hey what do I know, I don't have a yacht or even a super car.GabuEx

Because they can afford it. The proportion of the income of the very wealthy that goes towards basic necessities is much smaller than the proportion of the income of the middle class and the impoverished.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] But then the lower class would have even less money then they do now. As would the middle class. The only class that would benefit from this is the upper class which frankly seem pretty alright at the moment. But hey what do I know, I don't have a yacht or even a super car.Ace6301

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] I am not also saying we should tax the crap out of people who are living paycheck to paycheck. I am just trying to say that why should the unwealthy have to give up any less of a percent than the rich?

mr_poodles123

Because they can afford it. The proportion of the income of the very wealthy that goes towards basic necessities is much smaller than the proportion of the income of the middle class and the impoverished.

The government needs to bring in X dollars in revenue. Should it:

1. Get that money from those who can afford it; or

2. Get that money from those who can't afford it?

This doesn't seem like a very difficult question to answer.

Do you classify 250,000 a year very wealthy?mr_poodles123

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You said "no", and then you confirmed that your proposal is to increase the tax burden for those who make less money.

Ace6301

Of course that is all hinging on the assumption that a flat tax rate for everyone would be higher than what those with lower incomes pay now (10-25%).

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] Except according to statistics they hardly pay any taxes anyways. I am just saying that everyone should have to pay an equal percent of their income. I am not saying that everyone has to pay 50,000 dollars or anything.jetpower3

Of course that is all hinging on the assumption that a flat tax rate for everyone would be higher than what those with lower incomes pay now (10-25%).

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] Except according to statistics they hardly pay any taxes anyways. I am just saying that everyone should have to pay an equal percent of their income. I am not saying that everyone has to pay 50,000 dollars or anything.jetpower3

Of course that is all hinging on the assumption that a flat tax rate for everyone would be higher than what those with lower incomes pay now (10-25%).

Unless the government wants to go severely in debt or slash the hell out of its spending, it would have to be.

i hope this is a joke thread.... wow

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] But then the lower class would have even less money then they do now. As would the middle class. The only class that would benefit from this is the upper class which frankly seem pretty alright at the moment. But hey what do I know, I don't have a yacht or even a super car.GabuEx

Of course that is all hinging on the assumption that a flat tax rate for everyone would be higher than what those with lower incomes pay now (10-25%).

Unless the government wants to go severely in debt or slash the hell out of its spending, it would have to be.

Doesn't sound like a bad idea (slashing the hell out of spending).

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Of course that is all hinging on the assumption that a flat tax rate for everyone would be higher than what those with lower incomes pay now (10-25%).

jetpower3

Unless the government wants to go severely in debt or slash the hell out of its spending, it would have to be.

Doesn't sound like a bad idea (slashing the hell out of spending).

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]Do you classify 250,000 a year very wealthy?Ace6301

Increasing the tax burden for those who make less money is "the only tax solution"?

In that case, I'd prefer not to solve the problem in question.

GabuEx

either that or there would be almost no budget.

or both.

Certain countries employ a fixed rate of income tax (Hong Kong was/is 15% if I recall). The US isn't Hong Kong though and isn't nearly wholly reliant upon the one financial district (I assume it is anyway). Lessening tax on the rich I assume would actually decrease the amount of revenue the government brings in from tax. Less money for infrastructure, roads, educations, etc. will undoubtedly create more problems than solve.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]Do you classify 250,000 a year very wealthy?mr_poodles123

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Yeah, I would. My family makes less than that and I would classify my quality of life as quite high. Unless there is some kind of massive disparity between US standard of living and Canadian I can honestly say yes, $250k is a rather large sum of money and more than enough to put you past the point where taxes should be a concern. Keep in mind my family that makes below $250k is taxed MORE than a family in the US that makes more than $250k and I'll let you figure out if a family who makes more than $250k a year in the US can part with their money more readily than an extremely low income family.Ace6301

Also ignores marginal tax rates.

Except, when the taxes that will eventually come because of 0bamacare will cause around a 40% income tax on anyone making 250k a year. 250 - 40% = 150,000.mr_poodles123

That is not how a progressive tax rate works... at all.

A 40% tax on income above $250,000 would mean that you subtract off the income below $250,000 before calculating the tax owed at that 40% rate. You don't suddenly start owing more tax on your entire income when it crosses a certain threshold.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Unless the government wants to go severely in debt or slash the hell out of its spending, it would have to be.

Ace6301

Doesn't sound like a bad idea (slashing the hell out of spending).

Whatever they do, they need a spending strategy that is not as indecisive and unsustainable as it is now.

As many others have already pointed out, a flat tax does not achieve the goal of an equitable tax burden across the various strata of income. As Americans, this is a goal that we have agreed is in our national, social, and ethical interests.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm just an accountant.

I am not also saying we should tax the crap out of people who are living paycheck to paycheck.

mr_poodles123

Yes you are. :|

As many others have already pointed out, a flat tax does not achieve the goal of an equitable tax burden across the various strata of income. As Americans, this is a goal that we have agreed is in our national, social, and ethical interests.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm just an accountant.

sogni_belli

I'm just interested in seeing the consequences of a lower progressive individual income tax across the board, assuming the federal government can get their budget (which is more than 60% allocated to either Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, or TARP at least glance) under control.

Unfortunately, it all comes back to the age old question of the balance of foreign policy, equitable treatment of the American public in revenue collection, proper allocation of spending, the grievances of the American public, economic stimulation, regulation etc. etc. etc.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] I am not also saying we should tax the crap out of people who are living paycheck to paycheck.

Pixel-Pirate

Yes you are. :|

Not inherently, no.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] I am not also saying we should tax the crap out of people who are living paycheck to paycheck.

coolbeans90

Yes you are. :|

Not inherently, no.

As a side effect, yes.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Yes you are. :|

Pixel-Pirate

Not inherently, no.

As a side effect, yes.

Not unless assumptions are made. Say for instance, holding government revenues constant.

taxing one more than the other, no matter which, is unfair

taxing the rich more just because they can afford it isn't right. people go to school for years and years and work extremely hard to get a good job. they planned for their future and it payed off for them. why should they be punished for that?

think of it as something other than taxes. a poor person goes into a restaurant and pays $10.00 for his meal. a rich person goes into the same restaurant and gets the same meal, but he has to pay $20.00. when he asks about the increased price, he is told "well it shouldn't matter to you, you can afford it." having more money doesn't justify more of it being taken from you.

but raising taxes for the poor is no good because they're already struggling enough as it is, and the increased tax will still be relatively insignificant

taxing one more than the other, no matter which, is unfair

taxing the rich more just because they can afford it isn't right. people go to school for years and years and work extremely hard to get a good job. they planned for their future and it payed off for them. why should they be punished for that?

think of it as something other than taxes. a poor person goes into a restaurant and pays $10.00 for his meal. a rich person goes into the same restaurant and gets the same meal, but he has to pay $20.00. when he asks about the increased price, he is told "well it shouldn't matter to you, you can afford it." having more money doesn't justify more of it being taken from you.

but raising taxes for the poor is no good because they're already struggling enough as it is, and the increased tax will still be relatively insignificant

Sword-Demon

That is an absoultely terrible comparison. This isn't ordering a hamburger, it's maintaining society. A quality, functional society requires money. A lot of it. Without it we don't have roads, police and fire protections, education, social safty nets or any of the other million things that society requires in order to function. Obviously this burden has to be shouldered by those who live in the society, but the only feasible way to do so is to place more of the burden on those who can carry it more.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not inherently, no.

coolbeans90

As a side effect, yes.

Not unless assumptions are made. Say for instance, holding government revenues constant.

And that's the problem I have with the flat tax, that it will (realistically) almost certainly end up with a higher marginal tax rate on the poor than under a progressive tax scheme, which I think is worse than having a progressive tax scheme.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

As a side effect, yes.

chessmaster1989

Not unless assumptions are made. Say for instance, holding government revenues constant.

And that's the problem I have with the flat tax, that it will (realistically) almost certainly end up with a higher marginal tax rate on the poor than under a progressive tax scheme, which I think is worse than having a progressive tax scheme.

Hence my objection to the flat tax in practice.

taxing one more than the other, no matter which, is unfair

taxing the rich more just because they can afford it isn't right. people go to school for years and years and work extremely hard to get a good job. they planned for their future and it payed off for them. why should they be punished for that?

think of it as something other than taxes. a poor person goes into a restaurant and pays $10.00 for his meal. a rich person goes into the same restaurant and gets the same meal, but he has to pay $20.00. when he asks about the increased price, he is told "well it shouldn't matter to you, you can afford it." having more money doesn't justify more of it being taken from you.

but raising taxes for the poor is no good because they're already struggling enough as it is, and the increased tax will still be relatively insignificant

Sword-Demon

Your comparison makes the same mistake that the other poster made. That is not how a progressive income tax works.

Suppose you have two tax brackets, one at 10% for income below $250,000, and another at 20% for income above $250,000. Now suppose you have two people, person A and person B. Person A makes $240,000, and person B makes $260,000. Given your comparison, one would expect person A to pay $24,000 in tax ($240K x 10%), leaving him with $216,000, and person B to pay $52,000 in tax ($260K x 20%), leaving him with $208,000. This obviously does punish person B for earning more than person A, given that he earns less in take-home pay than he would if he made less money total.

However, this is totally not how it works. The 10% applies on all income less than $250,000, regardless of whether the person makes more than that amount of money. So the way the tax would actually be calculated is by taking the first $250,000 person B makes and multiplying it by 10% to get $25,000, and then taking the $10,000 left over and multiplying it by 20% to get $2,000, and then adding them together to get the final tax burden of $27,000, leaving person B with $233,000 - still more than person A, despite the fact that the person is just barely in a higher tax bracket.

The bottom line is that the idea that we're "punishing" people for making more money is silly. Those who make more money still make more money under progressive taxation - just not quite as much more money. No incentive to make more money has been removed.

you know what I love. stupid programs like link(foodstamps) that some people take advantage of. I hate seeing people with their nice cars and nice hair cut and nice clothes use link. there is no way they need it. total bs flawed system. end foodstamps or regulate it better. also flat tax wont happen government is too damn greedy. things will only get worse.xbox360isgr8t

Not everyone who drives a nice car and is using foodstamps is necessarily taking advantage of it. I have a friend who had a $60,000/year job. He lost it when the company we worked for went through a "payroll restructuring". He couldn't land another job for awhile so he ended up having to use foodstamps for a bit. Should he have gotten rid the BMW that he had bought while making $60,000 just to appease folks like you?

Furthermore, how do you know who's using link and who isn't unless you make a point to be nosy and espy other people's payment methods?