Government sanctioned exploitation of a minority group.

[OriginalWheelman]

I figured that would get your attention. I'm talking about the tax increase. The government wants the minority group of the $250k+ earners to carry more of the tax burden of the government. Where are the people standing up to protect them? Where are all the people crying out "These people need protected!"? They do need protection, from the self righteous majority who believe they can force these people to pay their way for them. The $250k+ earners are not enough to vote this down on their own, and the people who- stand up to fight for them are being laughed at by the mainstream. Just because the line that divides them is not a social or racial one, does not make them any less a minority. I believe this tax increase is nothing more than a minority group being exploited for the benefit of the many.

/rant

[intermilanrox]

I agree 100%

Why should people making $250k+ have to carry the burden and be taxed more. They are being taxed more as it is and paying more than anyone else. On top of it, they aren't getting any tax refunds or any other money from the gov't as it is.

These people work just as hard if not harder than everyone else, so why should they have their hard earned money taken away when people who barely pay taxes are getting money from the gov't and getting their taxes lowered??!?!?

It angers me that people think that just because they make more, that they should be required to pay more and that it won't hurt them. Some of them have the same financial problems as everyone else, but where is the hand to help them?

I feel that there should be a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same % regardless of how much you make.

[Armelius]

I figured that would get your attention. I'm talking about the tax increase. The government wants the minority group of the $250k+ earners to carry more of the tax burden of the government. Where are the people standing up to protect them? Where are all the people crying out "These people need protected!"? They do need protection, from the self righteous majority who believe they can force these people to pay their way for them. The $250k+ earners are not enough to vote this down on their own, and the people who- stand up to fight for them are being laughed at by the mainstream. Just because the line that divides them is not a social or racial one, does not make them any less a minority. I believe this tax increase is nothing more than a minority group being exploited for the benefit of the many.

/rant

I would tend to agree. But this minority group do things that make them more taxable. Such as getting stock bonuses. If you make yourself a corporation then you accept all the terms and taxes that may come with it.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

But this minority group do things that make them more taxable.

What's that, make money?

[Armelius]

nope

[OriginalWheelman]

nope

*DISCLAIMER* Sarcasm Content.With such a compelling argument, how can I not support your side. The facts you have listed are simply staggering.

/sarcasm

Seems like the Dems got their tax policy from Ten Years after, "Tax the rich, feed the poor, Till there are no rich no more"

[Armelius]

Smockers is going to run a corporation thread. Not me.

[WDRacing]

Just a quick opinion on this...

When the Republicans gain office next, they will reverse the tax law, so the people that "think" they are getting a good deal will find they are all of the sudden paying their share. Maybe then they will understand why we don't want the Gov spending all of our money.

For now they are to stupid and lazy to understand. Or they don't care...either or, makes me sick.

[DJ Raijin]

I feel that there should be a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same % regardless of how much you make.

I agree with this, a flat tax rate would be the best and most fair.

BUT 99% of the time, if you're making $250k a year or more, you are not going hungry.

I grew up poverty. If it weren't for the hunting rifle, I might not have made it as far as I have in life. I probably would have died during the winter when dad was laid off (Ironworker, Local 568 out of Cumberland, MD) and we did not have the money to sustain our meager lifestyle. Yet we were one of those families that fell through the cracks. We made too much money to get government help but we barely made enough to live on.

Our vehicles were always a minimum of 5 years old or more, we lived in a small modular home, we kept our bills to a minimum, we grew our own veggies and fruits and my dad hunted for a large portion of our meat (you can substitute venison for anything).

This is not a pity story. I loved my life despite it's flaws. It's made me what I am today, but should we have been taxed heavier? We didn't live beyond our means by any stretch of the imagination. I didn't get to go on a vacation until I was 15 years old because we could never afford it. Our next step in survival (for my family growing up) was to cut out health insurance.

But for those making $250k+ a year, it's easier for them to downsize a little bit, pay a little more in taxes and still be very comfortable. Go from a Mercedes to a Lexus. Maybe instead of a 5br 4ba house, they move down to a 3br 2.5ba house. Or maybe they sell a condo or 2 to cut down on property taxes. It's much easier for a human to cut back luxuries than it is to cut back necessities.

Yes, they worked hard to get to the top. Yes they enjoy a higher standard of living because of it. But I've never experienced middle class life (60k-150k a year), let alone $250k+ a year.

Everyone, including the middle to upper class, needs to learn to live within their means. Living outside of your means is what's caused this economic mess in the first place.

[JustinStrife]

I agree with this, a flat tax rate would be the best and most fair.

BUT 99% of the time, if you're making $250k a year or more, you are not going hungry.

But for those making $250k+ a year, it's easier for them to downsize a little bit, pay a little more in taxes and still be very comfortable. Go from a Mercedes to a Lexus. Maybe instead of a 5br 4ba house, they move down to a 3br 2.5ba house. Or maybe they sell a condo or 2 to cut down on property taxes. It's much easier for a human to cut back luxuries than it is to cut back necessities.

Yes, they worked hard to get to the top. Yes they enjoy a higher standard of living because of it. But I've never experienced middle class life (60k-150k a year), let alone $250k+ a year.

Everyone, including the middle to upper class, needs to learn to live within their means. Living outside of your means is what's caused this economic mess in the first place.

I love your sob story. Really. But the only 'fair' tax you could possibly have, that is what our Founding Fathers would have invisioned, is one where everyone is taxed under the same rates. The evil Rich, would still end up paying more taxes than everyone else due to the numbers system, but they don't get cheated by being picked on unfairly.

Seriously, America was not founded on people who contributed less, getting more. This class-warfare that is being waged makes me sick. I'm on the VERY bottom of the middle class, and even though I wish I had lots of money, I don't want to take it away from those who have it. I just want to work to be as successful as they are. Through my own means.

And yes, people living outside of their means is a HUGE factor in what caused this economic mess. You know what? People who make that gamble with their finances and lives, deserve the outcome that comes to them. Buy a house you can't afford, a 60k truck and toy hauler on credit then default? Tough crap you should have been smarter with your money. Maybe next time you'll learn. Imagine that, learning by experiencing.

I'm a big believer in you never being too big or small to fail. Let the system work on it's own, don't try and prop it up, or cripple it, let it work itself out.

[themadscientist]

I agree with this, a flat tax rate would be the best and most fair.

The free market guy has to point out why a flat tax is unfair.

Let's take two people

Tom makes $250,000 a year.

Bob makes $30,000 a year.

Flat tax is 10% for the sake of this exercise

Tom pays his $25,000 tax, Bob, his $3,000 tax

Tom has $225,000 left, Bob has $27,000 left.

Tom and Bob live in an area with the same personal property tax rate, because it's "fair". $0.50 per $100 of adjusted value.

Tom has a $800,000 house and two cars worth $80,000, he pays his $4400 in PPT, leaving him with $220,600

Bob has a $70,000 house and one car valued at $16,000, he pays his $430 in PPT, leaving him with $26,570.

Tom pays a mortgage at $3800 (30 year fixed at 7%), for the year this costs $45,000.and two car payments totalling $2700 (48 months @ 6%), for the year this costs $32,400.These two bills leave Tom with $148,170.

Bob also has a mortgage and car loan at the same rates, for the sake of this discussion. His Mortgage is $208, for the year $2497 and his car note is $353, for the year $4236. This leaves Bob with $19837.

Gas is $3 a gallon, Tom's cars suck 120 gallons a month, 1440 for the year at $4320. He pays insurance of $3600 (guestimate based upun this for two cars) http://blogs.cars.com/kickingt....html. this leaves him with $140250.

Bob, car will cost him $240 a month in gas for $80 gallons, extended to $2880 for the year. Assume he pays the same ballpark rete for insurance, (again, oversimplified), at $3600 these expenses leave him with $13357 in his pocket.

The two families buy, on average $400 in groceries a month. Tom like "poor food".

Tom is sitting at $139850Bob is sitting at $12957

They have the same health insurance, say $4000 a year.

Tom is sitting at $135850Bob is sitting at $8957

State sales tax is 5%

Tom buys $50,000 worth of consumer products +tax would be $52500 and he would still have $83,350.

Bob buys $5000 worth of consumer products, easy enough to do, his total is $5250 and the cash in his bank account is now $3707.

Tom's Hummer drops a transmission, $3350. He still has $80,000

Bob's Kia drops a transmission, $707. He still has $3000.

This has been a good year for both men. Nobody had any serious medical conditions, nobody lost their job.

One man started with $250,000 and banked $80,000. 32%The other started with $30,000 and banked $3,000. 10%

Wait, they are supposed to be fairly taxed!

They are not fairly taxed. A flat tax does not take into account fixed expenses. A flat tax hurts the low earnes who still have to pay recurring expenses that don't change. A graduated income tax is a fairer tax.

I say fairer because there can never be a completely equitable tax but let's try this.We tax Tom's $250,000 at 20%. At the end of the year he still banks $55,000, or 22%We tax Bob's $30,000 at 5%. At the end of the year he banks $4500, or 15%.Isn't that "more fair"?

If they both deposit these amounts in a simple savings account they will grow at the same percentage but owing the different amounts accrue wealth at rates commensurate with their income.

Flat tax is a great bumper sticker but it actually harms the people it claims to champion.

[OriginalWheelman]

Why does Bob pay the same $ for insurance when he only has 1 car? I think you made a tiny error there. Either way, I see your point. I still don't believe it's fair. This is America. If you don't like how much money you make there are plenty of ways you can change that with good, hard work.

[themadscientist]

To a certain extent yes. I think it is well documented that I am no bleeding heart liberal looking for wealth redistribution but takes money to make money and middle class and below have very little. Poor kids are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty and crime that is very hard to break free from.Everybody should benefit from the fruits of their labor. Out of the three; the rich, the poor, and the government, I think we know who can suck it.

[OriginalWheelman]

Poor kids are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty and crime that is very hard to break free from.

Wrong. I was poor as hell. You know what it got me? A free trip to community college on the gov. On top of that they gave me $1500 a semester for living expenses / travel costs/ books / etc. Poor is no excuse.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The free market guy has to point out why a flat tax is unfair.

Let's take two people

Tom makes $250,000 a year.

Bob makes $30,000 a year.

Flat tax is 10% for the sake of this exercise

Tom pays his $25,000 tax, Bob, his $3,000 tax

Tom has $225,000 left, Bob has $27,000 left.

Tom and Bob live in an area with the same personal property tax rate, because it's "fair". $0.50 per $100 of adjusted value.

Tom has a $800,000 house and two cars worth $80,000, he pays his $4400 in PPT, leaving him with $220,600

Bob has a $70,000 house and one car valued at $16,000, he pays his $430 in PPT, leaving him with $26,570.

Tom pays a mortgage at $3800 (30 year fixed at 7%), for the year this costs $45,000.and two car payments totalling $2700 (48 months @ 6%), for the year this costs $32,400.These two bills leave Tom with $148,170.

Bob also has a mortgage and car loan at the same rates, for the sake of this discussion. His Mortgage is $208, for the year $2497 and his car note is $353, for the year $4236. This leaves Bob with $19837.

Gas is $3 a gallon, Tom's cars suck 120 gallons a month, 1440 for the year at $4320. He pays insurance of $3600 (guestimate based upun this for two cars) http://blogs.cars.com/kickingt....html. this leaves him with $140250.

Bob, car will cost him $240 a month in gas for $80 gallons, extended to $2880 for the year. Assume he pays the same ballpark rete for insurance, (again, oversimplified), at $3600 these expenses leave him with $13357 in his pocket.

The two families buy, on average $400 in groceries a month. Tom like "poor food".

Tom is sitting at $139850Bob is sitting at $12957

They have the same health insurance, say $4000 a year.

Tom is sitting at $135850Bob is sitting at $8957

State sales tax is 5%

Tom buys $50,000 worth of consumer products +tax would be $52500 and he would still have $83,350.

Bob buys $5000 worth of consumer products, easy enough to do, his total is $5250 and the cash in his bank account is now $3707.

Tom's Hummer drops a transmission, $3350. He still has $80,000

Bob's Kia drops a transmission, $707. He still has $3000.

This has been a good year for both men. Nobody had any serious medical conditions, nobody lost their job.

One man started with $250,000 and banked $80,000. 32%The other started with $30,000 and banked $3,000. 10%

Wait, they are supposed to be fairly taxed!

They are not fairly taxed. A flat tax does not take into account fixed expenses. A flat tax hurts the low earnes who still have to pay recurring expenses that don't change. A graduated income tax is a fairer tax.

I say fairer because there can never be a completely equitable tax but let's try this.We tax Tom's $250,000 at 20%. At the end of the year he still banks $55,000, or 22%We tax Bob's $30,000 at 5%. At the end of the year he banks $4500, or 15%.Isn't that "more fair"?

If they both deposit these amounts in a simple savings account they will grow at the same percentage but owing the different amounts accrue wealth at rates commensurate with their income.

Flat tax is a great bumper sticker but it actually harms the people it claims to champion.

Oh wow, a man that makes more money has more money left over at the end of the year! Isn't that the point?

What if Tom didn't like "poor food" and ate out more and spent $800 a month on food?

What if Bob didn't take out a car loan, and Tom has 3 leased cars? Also, Bob making $30k and owning a $16k car is really close to Bob being car poor.

Tom could easily spend every penny he earns, and Bob, making $30,000, could save as many pennies as possible.

Also, you're confusing "fair tax" which is a federal sales tax, and flat tax.

Fair is a loaded word, and I don't like the word fair tax. What I can tell you is that forcing people that graduated taxes are theft, plain and simple.

For f***'s sake, RUSSIA has had a flat tax rate of 13% since 01. Russia! The former USSSR has a better tax plan than we do!

Or why don't we just make the tax policy that at the end of the year, everyone is $3k in the black? That's fair!

Aside: I know you've confused support for the flat tax with support of the FairTax, but sadly, I've never seen a flat tax bumper sticker.
Modified by charlieo at 12:57 PM 4/26/2009

[DJ Raijin]

Wrong. I was poor as hell. You know what it got me? A free trip to community college on the gov. On top of that they gave me $1500 a semester for living expenses / travel costs/ books / etc. Poor is no excuse.

Lucky you. I applied for government help and they denied me despite the fact we were living on a fixed income after my father died. The basis was too much income and the fact I wasn't disabled or a "refugee" (whatever refugee was supposed to mean, I guess it's because I'm a US Citizen).

[themadscientist]

Oh wow, a man that makes more money has more money left over at the end of the year! Isn't that the point?

And he still does under a graduated income tax. And he still banks a higher total, AND a higher percentage of his income. You were attempting a point?

What if Tom didn't like "poor food" and ate out more and spent $800 a month on food?

See above.

What if Bob didn't take out a car loan, and Tom has 3 leased cars? Also, Bob making $30k and owning a $16k car is really close to Bob being car poor.

That's the cheapest car I could think of short of a beat down used car that when you figure in the higher loan rate inherent and increased unwarranteed maintenance costs is just as costly. Let's not be facetious.

Tom could easily spend every penny he earns, and Bob, making $30,000, could save as many pennies as possible.

I am suggesting Bob gets to keep a few more pennies. Tom has a choice due to his higher income. At the lower income levels the basics of life are more insistent upon your available cash.

Also, you're confusing "fair tax" which is a federal sales tax, and flat tax.

Fair is a loaded word, and I don't like the word fair tax. What I can tell you is that forcing people that graduated taxes are theft, plain and simple.

You know I was responding to the flat tax, I quoted DJ for a reason.

For f***'s sake, RUSSIA has had a flat tax rate of 13% since 01. Russia! The former USSSR has a better tax plan than we do!

Or why don't we just make the tax policy that at the end of the year, everyone is $3k in the black? That's fair!

So we are looking to Russia for economic models now? Perhaps we should seize private businesses and place them under government control as well?Wait, too late,,,

Aside: I know you've confused support for the flat tax with support of the FairTax, but sadly, I've never seen a flat tax bumper sticker.

Modified by charlieo at 12:57 PM 4/26/2009

I keep seeing one about reporting bad driving but when I call 1-800-328-7448 it doesn't connect.

[szh]

From an older post of mine:

The problem is that people conveniently forget that when taxes are based on percentage, the person making more actually does pay more in absolute dollars in taxes. And does not get the same benefits in return, by the way (no extra voting rights, no extra schools for kids, or road improvements in front of their house, no better response from fire-fighters, etc., etc., etc.)!

We sugar-coat taxes as a percentage - even in flat tax proposals - to make it more palatable and feel less guilty about it! My problem is that we then take the additional steps and say "oh, the rich can afford it, so let's tax them at a higher percentage!"

That is where the unfairness occurs!

BTW, in many other taxes and fees and things, we do not make people pay more ... based on their income. Think about these:

- Should you pay more in property tax than your neighbor if you make more money, even if your houses are identical?

- Is your car excise tax based on your income?

- Is your sales tax percentage higher or lower than somebody else who makes more or less than you do?

- Your fishing license does not cost more based on your income!

Etc, etc., etc.

The fact is that we have become so inured to using percentage as a means of calculating personal income tax, that we are not likely to change that at all. So, all my (and others) flat tax proposals are still based on percentages - but I think that people opposed to flat tax don't realize that or "get it".

My suggestion: create a threshold to accommodate the "poor" (even if I think this is somewhat unfair, but I will play along with the libbies here) and then charge a flat tax on everything about that. No deductions (even for mortgage or number of kids, etc. ... those are choices, not privileges), no loopholes, including capital gains, etc.

For a hypothetical calculation, keep a floor of, oh, let's say $30,000 (change this to suit, if you think it needs to be different, or even add in a few thousand per dependent like we do today - I disagree with this, but I'll go along) and make the flat tax percentage be 20% (change that if you think it needs to be different) on everything above that.

Then - taxes could be done with a simple calculator (imagine the savings on tax professionals and the IRS alone!):

1. A person making $ 30,000 a year pays $ 0.2. A person making $ 40,000 a year pays $ 2,000.3. A person making $ 75,000 a year pays $ 9,000.4. A person making $ 100,000 a year pays $ 14,000.5. A person making $ 250,000 a year pays $ 44,000.6. A person making $ 500,000 a year pays $ 94,000.7. A person making $ 1,000,000 a year pays $ $ 194,000.

And so on.

Fair? I believe so!! Totally!!

Z

P.S. I have posted statistics from a site in other posts here, about the actual total tax revenue collected from the people who pay taxes. Not surprisingly, the large portion of taxes is, indeed, already paid by the so-called "rich".

[szh]

And, another older post from me ... some of the words are not totally relevant here, of course, because they were addressing the stuff in the other thread:

The "wealthy" in this country are paying much more, in absolute dollars, than those who don't! Period. We like to express it in terms of percentages (to make it palatable and fuzzy the issue a bit, so that it does not look like we are actually screwing those "wealthy" folks) and forget that the absolute actual amounts are important too.

What is actually unfair is that the "wealthy" do not get the same "return" on the value of the payments! Lousy ROI frankly.

Let me prove this to you with a simple "flat-tax" based example (even though with the current tax system, the situation is much worse because of the increase in tax percentages as your AGI rises!).

Let's take two scenarios: One person making $50,000 (your average guy) and one making $250,000 (your supposedly "wealthy" guy - although this is not really true either), along with a flat tax rate of 20% and, for simplicity, a single "poverty" deduction of $10,000.

The first person pays: 0.2 * (50,000-10,000) = $8,000 in taxes.

The second person pays: 0.2 * (250,000-10,000)=$48,000 in taxes ... almost as much as the first person earns in total and a factor of six times as much actual money!

Does that second person get six times better roads near his house? Or six times quicker response from police and fire? Or six times better education for his kids at the local public school? Or six times better park service where he/she takes their kids to play? Or six times better service from a public official in the local town? Or six times as many books to take out from the library?

I could go on and on ...

And, given actual tax rates (lower for the $50k earner and higher for the $250k earner), the factor is closer to 10 to 20 times higher absolute payments - not 6 times!

That is the real unfairness!

So, I will please ask you not to ask questions like: "Shouldn't the wealthy in this country be paying their fair share?"

Indeed, a way better question is: "Why do we ask the wealthy in this country to pay far more than their fair share?"

Z

P.S. Please don't believe that claptrap about the wealthy not paying any taxes, that I see on some web sites with a socialist axe to grind. That is simply not the case.

[themadscientist]

Whatever system we go with, being simple to compute is a must! They make it complicated to fleece people out of money they don't have to pay.

[szh]

Whatever system we go with, being simple to compute is a must!

Heartily agreed!!

Z

[Kalypso]

Federal Income tax... is bulls***

im not sure exactly where our local taxes go but im beginning to recognize that they provide most of our basic services. like Roadways, public services, fire fighters and police.

Im starting to have serious problems with our present government and this administration. I felt very different about barack a few months ago.

[themadscientist]

Federal Income tax... is bulls***

im not sure exactly where our local taxes go but im beginning to recognize that they provide most of our basic services. like Roadways, public services, fire fighters and police.

Im starting to have serious problems with our present government and this administration. I felt very different about barack a few months ago.

Another statement I can get behind!

[themadscientist]

From an older post of mine:

The problem is that people conveniently forget that when taxes are based on percentage, the person making more actually does pay more in absolute dollars in taxes. And does not get the same benefits in return, by the way (no extra voting rights, no extra schools for kids, or road improvements in front of their house, no better response from fire-fighters, etc., etc., etc.)!

We sugar-coat taxes as a percentage - even in flat tax proposals - to make it more palatable and feel less guilty about it! My problem is that we then take the additional steps and say "oh, the rich can afford it, so let's tax them at a higher percentage!"

That is where the unfairness occurs!

That's the point. Income lost to taxes based on percentage is "fair" in that the impact upon those at the top and bottom is closer to equitable. To use raw dollar figures rather than percentage misrepresents the true impact on people's money. A person who started with more money and paid at a higher rate to offset average fixed expenses for his group so that both he and people in other tax brackets would up with the same net result as a percentage would still have more money.

BTW, in many other taxes and fees and things, we do not make people pay more ... based on their income. Think about these:

- Should you pay more in property tax than your neighbor if you make more money, even if your houses are identical?

- Is your car excise tax based on your income?

- Is your sales tax percentage higher or lower than somebody else who makes more or less than you do?

- Your fishing license does not cost more based on your income!

Etc, etc., etc.

I didn't suggest that so let's not pretend I did. I would abolish all personal property taxes. The idea that the government has the right to charge you for the privelage of owning your own stuff, stuff that you paid sales tax for at time of purchase, and likely additional one time and or recurring fees, like car registration, is rediculous and smacks of double and triple taxation.

The fact is that we have become so inured to using percentage as a means of calculating personal income tax, that we are not likely to change that at all. So, all my (and others) flat tax proposals are still based on percentages - but I think that people opposed to flat tax don't realize that or "get it".

My suggestion: create a threshold to accommodate the "poor" (even if I think this is somewhat unfair, but I will play along with the libbies here) and then charge a flat tax on everything about that. No deductions (even for mortgage or number of kids, etc. ... those are choices, not privileges), no loopholes, including capital gains, etc.

For a hypothetical calculation, keep a floor of, oh, let's say $30,000 (change this to suit, if you think it needs to be different, or even add in a few thousand per dependent like we do today - I disagree with this, but I'll go along) and make the flat tax percentage be 20% (change that if you think it needs to be different) on everything above that.

Then - taxes could be done with a simple calculator (imagine the savings on tax professionals and the IRS alone!):

1. A person making $ 30,000 a year pays $ 0.2. A person making $ 40,000 a year pays $ 2,000.3. A person making $ 75,000 a year pays $ 9,000.4. A person making $ 100,000 a year pays $ 14,000.5. A person making $ 250,000 a year pays $ 44,000.6. A person making $ 500,000 a year pays $ 94,000.7. A person making $ 1,000,000 a year pays $ $ 194,000.

And so on.

Fair? I believe so!! Totally!!

Z

So taxing people at a different rate based upon their income is unfair, but you outline a policy that does just that. How do you reconcile those opposing ideas?Further, the plan you suggest above is unfair within the brackets themselves.

1. A person making $ 30,000 a year pays $ 0. ($39,999=$39,999, $40,000=$38,000)2. A person making $ 40,000 a year pays $ 2,000.($40,000=$38,000, $74,999=$72,999)3. A person making $75,000 a year pays $ 9,000.($75,000=$66,000, $99,999=$90,999)4. A person making, $100,000 a year pays $ 14,000.($100,000=$86,000, $249,999=$235,999)5. A person making $ 250,000 a year pays $ 44,000.($250,000=$206,000, $499,999=$455,999)6. A person making $ 500,000 a year pays $ 94,000.($500,000=$406,000, $999,999=$905,999)7. A person making $ 1,000,000 a year pays $ $ 194,000.

So, you propose that brackets are unfair and then outline a plan that is even more disjointed?

Let's take the 5th bracket.The guy at $250,000 is being taxed at 17.6%The guy at $499,999 is being taxed at 8.8%

They say the rich get richer and it's easy to see how with tax theory like that.

How dare those evil peasants dare reproduce! Own a home, damn their insolence! They shall be punished! We will keep them renting so that all the money they spend on housing will contribute not one dime into equity. That will keep them from ever being a viable candidate for a small business loan and potentially pulling themselves out of thier circumstances. They will toil and live hand to mouth until they eventually die to be replaced by children who were allowed to exist by the elites.

The peasants are without bread.Let them eat cake.

You should really step outside yourself and truly read what you wrote, it's chilling.

P.S. I have posted statistics from a site in other posts here, about the actual total tax revenue collected from the people who pay taxes. Not surprisingly, the large portion of taxes is, indeed, already paid by the so-called "rich".

As it should be. Certainly not to levels Obama would like but brackets are closer to equitable in how much they cut into each tax payers income as a percentage. Despite the suggestion that dollar amount is a more accurate way to determine taxes, it has yet to be shown to truly do that. When trying to determine equality of effect between two numbers being subtracted from does one use totals? No, one uses percentages.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

And he still does under a graduated income tax. And he still banks a higher total, AND a higher percentage of his income. You were attempting a point?

Under a graduated income tax, more of a higher bracket's money is stolen. It doesn't matter how much he has after taxes, total or percentage. You're taking a larger percentage from the man, and often times giving it to someone else. Government sponsored theft.

That's the cheapest car I could think of short of a beat down used car that when you figure in the higher loan rate inherent and increased unwarranteed maintenance costs is just as costly. Let's not be facetious.

I am suggesting Bob gets to keep a few more pennies. Tom has a choice due to his higher income. At the lower income levels the basics of life are more insistent upon your available cash.

No, let's be realistic. You've manipulated your estimations to make a point. Like I said, it's possible for a man making 250k to end up with less in the bank than a man making 30k. Easily.

Why don't we tax everyone to the point where they all get to keep 5k a year in the bank?

So we are looking to Russia for economic models now? Perhaps we should seize private businesses and place them under government control as well?Wait, too late,,,

Oh, you mean the Russia who's economy is considerably more privatized than the USSSRs? You've also created a strawman with that argument. Russia has a superior tax system to the United States. They've lowered the taxes on just about everyone and are seeing increased revenue. Hmmm...

Sz, you probably know this, but you're talking about Negative income tax

They say the rich get richer and it's easy to see how with tax theory like that.

Everyone gets richer. Except maybe the government. Big deal, they're not good with money anyway.

TMS, your basing of taxable income of spent and saved income makes me rage.

This also makes me rage:

Further, the plan you suggest above is unfair within the brackets themselves.

1. A person making $ 30,000 a year pays $ 0. ($39,999=$39,999, $40,000=$38,000)2. A person making $ 40,000 a year pays $ 2,000.($40,000=$38,000, $74,999=$72,999)3. A person making $75,000 a year pays $ 9,000.($75,000=$66,000, $99,999=$90,999)4. A person making, $100,000 a year pays $ 14,000.($100,000=$86,000, $249,999=$235,999)5. A person making $ 250,000 a year pays $ 44,000.($250,000=$206,000, $499,999=$455,999)6. A person making $ 500,000 a year pays $ 94,000.($500,000=$406,000, $999,999=$905,999)7. A person making $ 1,000,000 a year pays $ $ 194,000.

So, you propose that brackets are unfair and then outline a plan that is even more disjointed?

Let's take the 5th bracket.The guy at $250,000 is being taxed at 17.6%The guy at $499,999 is being taxed at 8.8%

There are no brackets!

A person making $75,000 a year gets taxed on $75,000-$30,000. So 20% of $45,000 is $9,000. A person making $76,001 a year gets taxed on $75,001-$30,000 and 20% of $45,001 is $9000.20.

There are no brackets with a flat negative income tax. It's really fair, though I don't give a damn about fair.

[themadscientist]

Under a graduated income tax, more of a higher bracket's money is stolen. It doesn't matter how much he has after taxes, total or percentage. You're taking a larger percentage from the man, and often times giving it to someone else. Government sponsored theft.

No, it's equal hardship based upon income. It's equitable.

No, let's be realistic. You've manipulated your estimations to make a point. Like I said, it's possible for a man making 250k to end up with less in the bank than a man making 30k. Easily.

Why don't we tax everyone to the point where they all get to keep 5k a year in the bank?.

A person would have to be exceeding stupid to end up in the situation you describe. They would have to live beyond their means in either extreme to have that happen and whether it is someone pissing away $250,000 or someone pissing away $30,000, the behavior, and the fault is the same.

Your next comment is just rhetorical question based in emotion. Such a system would not encourage a person to strive for more which is an atrophitic idea. If you honestly beleive in that, I am concerned for you. If you are trying to be mirthful, it doesn't really play well. Not very constructive to the discussion.

Oh, you mean the Russia who's economy is considerably more privatized than the USSSRs? You've also created a strawman with that argument. Russia has a superior tax system to the United States. They've lowered the taxes on just about everyone and are seeing increased revenue. Hmmm....

You brought up Russia. The strawman came to the party with you. Don't blame me if I say he stinks. http://www.worldwide-tax.com/russia/russia_tax.asp

Yeah, they are doing GREAT! We should rush to be like them.

http://www.economist.com/resea...34130

As commodity prices have swooned, Russia’s rich have seen their wealth diminish. In 2008, says Forbes magazine, Russia had 87 dollar billionaires. Now it has 32. As the oligarchs face impatient creditors, there is only one place they can turn to for help: the Kremlin. It publicly opposes more state control of the economy. But if the situation keeps deteriorating, it may end up owning bigger chunks of it whether it wants to or not.

Sz, you probably know this, but you're talking about Negative income tax..

Speaking of a strawman argument.

In economics, a negative income tax (abbreviated NIT) is a progressive income tax system where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government.

Uh, no. I invite you to show where I said pay the poor people. I am for a graduated income tax. A progressive tax yes, but not the welfare state this sort of policy champions.

Everyone gets richer. Except maybe the government. Big deal, they're not good with money anyway.

TMS, your basing of taxable income of spent and saved income makes me rage..

Everyone gets richer with my system too. The poor bank more, the rich bank a lot more but less than under a flat tax. Your rage may be frustration that you have someone before you who expects you to support your assertions and you have thus far failed. You don't make me rage. I don't have any emotional attachment to my postion. If you can prove to me your way is in fact better, I will gladly join you. You have yet to do that, Don't get mad, improve your argument.

This also makes me rage:

There are no brackets!

A person making $75,000 a year gets taxed on $75,000-$30,000. So 20% of $45,000 is $9,000. A person making $76,001 a year gets taxed on $75,001-$30,000 and 20% of $45,001 is $9000.20.

There are no brackets with a flat negative income tax. It's really fair, though I don't give a damn about fair.

Alright, so you rage at this suggested unfairness at the beginning and then close by admitting you don't give a damn about fair.Nice.

[szh]

That's the point. Income lost to taxes based on percentage is "fair" in that the impact upon those at the top and bottom is closer to equitable. To use raw dollar figures rather than percentage misrepresents the true impact on people's money. A person who started with more money and paid at a higher rate to offset average fixed expenses for his group so that both he and people in other tax brackets would up with the same net result as a percentage would still have more money.

The point of my argument was that we have allowed ourselves to be told over decades that percentages is better than absolute dollars for taxation purposes - we are now inured to that. That is the false premise that I do not like! As it leads to the current worse premise of overly graduated income taxes, because "the rich can afford to pay more" ... without the acknowledgment that we are already asking them to pay more all the time.

Frankly, to be truly equal, everyone should pay the same fixed amount of dollars per person ... then it would be the fairest position of all! Because, the "benefits" of paying taxes would be the same for every person no matter what.

Obviously, this is a way extreme situation, and the legit flat tax believers (like myself) are not proposing that we go there. I just want people to recognize and acknowledge that we already have a situation where the wealthy are helping the less well off. By paying more in absolute taxes. And this does not get changed with a flat percentage tax situation either!

I didn't suggest that so let's not pretend I did. I would abolish all personal property taxes. The idea that the government has the right to charge you for the privelage of owning your own stuff, stuff that you paid sales tax for at time of purchase, and likely additional one time and or recurring fees, like car registration, is rediculous and smacks of double and triple taxation.

I agree ... you did not propose that at all! I was not saying that, so my apologies if it came across that way.

This earlier post of mine is merely using examples from other taxation to show that we do, indeed, treat income tax as something quite unusual and different compared to the other taxes that the government levies on its citizens. And, then, we penalize people for success by taxing them at a higher percentage if they make more!

The big question to think about: Is that fair?

So taxing people at a different rate based upon their income is unfair, but you outline a policy that does just that. How do you reconcile those opposing ideas?

Ummm? I think you have misunderstood my flat tax proposal - I will describe it below again.

My approach: I would love to see a simple flat percentage tax ... "to each according to their capabilities", if you will - without going to the extreme "fixed amount per person" silliness! My only extension to the liberal side (of me too) is to allow for a "poverty" level single deduction, so that you pay no taxes below that amount. In my system, there would be no allowances for houses, mortgages, interest payments, etc. If you want to tax capital gains, then there should be an equal reduction for losses (and as offsets to gains).

Further, the plan you suggest above is unfair within the brackets themselves.

Ummm, you misunderstand my plan. The calculation is based on percentage payments on everything above a certain threshold - no brackets at all!, other than the deduction for a poverty level threshold I will explain the results better shortly. In my post, I was merely giving some examples of payments - not brackets. Sorry for the confusion.

So, you propose that brackets are unfair and then outline a plan that is even more disjointed?

Nope, not disjointed at all. Here is a better described method of what the flat tax people (like me) want done - Note: there are NO brackets:

1. Take your income.2. Subtract $30,000 (or pick some other "poverty" level, if you want) to get the the "adjusted income".3. If the adjusted income is less than or equal to $0, you pay NO tax.4. Otherwise, you pay 20% of your adjusted income.

So, let's show your "take-home" examples again (taken to two decimal places here to show some detail) - but corrected for this calculation method. And, some other values to show the effect on low-income people.

$30,000=$30,000.00. Tax is $0.00 at 0.00%$32,500=$32,000.00. Tax is $500.00 at 1.54%$34,999=$33,999.20. Tax is $999.80 at 2.86%

($39,999=$39,999, $40,000=$38,000)

Corrected:$39,999.00=$37,999.20. Tax is $1,999.80 at 5.00%$40,000.00=$38,000.00. Tax is $2,000.00 at 5.00%

($40,000=$38,000, $74,999=$72,999)

Corrected:$40,000.00=$38,000.00. Tax is $2,000.00 at 5.00%$74,999.00=$65,999.20. Tax is $8,999.80 at 12.00%

($75,000=$66,000, $99,999=$90,999)

Corrected:$75,000.00=$66,000.00. Tax is $9,000.00 at 12.00%$99,999.00=$85,999.20. Tax is $13,999.80 at 14.00%

($100,000=$86,000, $249,999=$235,999)

Corrected:$100,000.00=$86,000.00. Tax is $14,000.00 at 14.00%$249,999.00=$205,999.20. Tax is $43,999.80 at 17.60%

($250,000=$206,000, $499,999=$455,999)

Corrected:$250,000.00=$206,000.00. Tax is $44,000.00 at 17.60%$499,999.00=$405,999.20. Tax is $93,999.80 at 18.80%

($500,000=$406,000, $999,999=$905,999)

Corrected:$500,000.00=$406,000.00. Tax is $94,000.00 at 18.80%$999,999.00=$805,999.20. Tax is $193,999.80 at 19.40%

A few more to show how why it is percentages:

$1,000,000.00=$806,000.00. Tax is $194,000.00 at 19.40%$2,000,000.00=$1,606,000.00. Tax is $394,000.00 at 19.70%Etc., etc., etc.

Does this explain better?

Let's take the 5th bracket.The guy at $250,000 is being taxed at 17.6%The guy at $499,999 is being taxed at 8.8%

Second one is not correct. See above for why the guy at $499,999 is at 18.8%, not 8.8%.

Despite the suggestion that dollar amount is a more accurate way to determine taxes, it has yet to be shown to truly do that. When trying to determine equality of effect between two numbers being subtracted from does one use totals? No, one uses percentages.

That is indeed the sad situation that we have allowed ourselves to justify, yes! And, we justify it all too easily, don't we? Even I use it for my "flat tax" method - I stick to percentages, since the "fixed dollar amount per person" is impossible to ever consider ... even if it would be the fairest by true "all people are equal" standards.

Z

[C-Kwik]

How does your theoretical proposal compare to current taxes? Since ultimately, it works out to a graduated tax anyways. Further, and more importantly, what is the difference in tax revenue generated? If less money becomes generated then how do we make up the difference?

Ultimately, no matter the tax plan, we need to try and ensure a certain level of tax revenue. In order to do that with a pure flat tax, it would be so high that low earners would be crippled by it (Close to $7K per taxpayer by my estimates). The plan you use is still biased against the higher earners. And chances are, the actual tax rate would need to be higher than 20% to provide as much tax revenue as we get now (A little over 1 trillion in 2006). The reason for this is that the 30,000 deduction would negate almost 26 billion in revenue from people making $30K and under. Not to mention it would also lower the Taxable income across the board by $30K per taxpayer. Once you get over the $500K adjusted gross income mark, those taxpayers are already paying more than 20% of their AGI in taxes.

While adjusting the tax rate to a higher percentage would offset some of this, ultimately, it wouldn't work out much differently than the current system does and it would likely work out to a bigger overall tax to the higher earners in the end given the same tax revenue generated.

Does that second person get six times better roads near his house? Or six times quicker response from police and fire? Or six times better education for his kids at the local public school? Or six times better park service where he/she takes their kids to play? Or six times better service from a public official in the local town? Or six times as many books to take out from the library?

I might argue they do get better benefits. Perhaps not on the order of 6 times more, but more affluent areas do indeed to tend to have better teachers, facilities and public services.

Wrong. I was poor as hell. You know what it got me? A free trip to community college on the gov. On top of that they gave me $1500 a semester for living expenses / travel costs/ books / etc. Poor is no excuse.

Qualifying for these benefits doesn't mean everyone can take advantage of said opportunity. Lower income familes, may value putting food on the table on a day-to-day basis over being able to send a kid to college. This means they put the kid to work rather than school. The lower a family's income is, the more an education becomes a luxury.

[OriginalWheelman]

I worked 2 jobs and did college. It's hard, slept 4 hours on a good night, but I did it. I'd rather do that all again than to grow up in Somalia, or Baghdad.

[C-Kwik]

I applaud your accomplishment. But nothing in my post was meant to suggest it wasn't possible for a person from a low-income family to get through college and become successful. My point is that low-income families in general are going to be less likely to place as much value on higher education than wealthier families. Whether due to low-morale, influence by a child's peers, or the need to survive, these conditions are much more prevalant in lower-income areas than affluent ones.