Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would still be MASSIVE increases from what they pay now, under this flat tax garbage.
Sorry, no. You STILL don't understand the concept. Earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax.
Quote:
Quite a bit actually pay, especially those who don't have kids or those who rent and don't have mortgage deductions
47% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. The poverty rate (aka, the poor) in the U.S. is only 13 to 17%. There are quite a bit who don't pay that should be paying.
Quote:
They take massive deductions which put their taxable incomes at much lower amounts than it should.
You're spewing talking points, and FALSE ones at that. Try looking at the facts. If the rich are taking massive deductions, explain the HUGE discrepancy in effective tax rates.
Quote:
They shouldn't be able to deduct all the crap they can now, but having MASSIVE decreases in their tax rates while having MASSIVE increases in the poor tax rates isn't the way to do it.
Besides the fact that you're exaggerating to ridiculous proportions (remember the concept? Earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax.), why should some people support the government, and not others? Don't all people benefit from government services?
Quote:
What a load of garbage. Take a look at the mid 90's for example, did quite fine then.
Two words for you: dotcom bubble. We don't have the same economic conditions now, which is exactly why raising taxes on our society's producers/contributors will be disastrous.
Quote:
Tax rates are already at pretty much near all time lows.
And yet that isn't enough to rev the economy into gear. Hmmm... Why would that be? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce explained that quite succinctly to Obama and Congress:
http://library.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/files/100713_jobs_openletter.pdf (broken link)
Quote:
Sharp decreases in taxes to the wealthy while sharply increasing the taxes on the poor is pure disaster.
No. Actually the tax system we have now, in which 47% pay no federal income tax at all, is a disaster. Here's why: "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson paraphrasing Alexis de Tocqueville in the December 9th, 1951 edition of The Daily Oklahoman
As 47% pay no federal income tax and can vote for politicians that promise ever more federal freebies and entitlements, we're in the midst of the collapse instead of on our way to a recovery.
Too few people have a stake in the country's financial health. They get their freebies regardless, so they care not that our elected officials are acting in a fiscally irresponsibe way.
Quote:
1. Rich or poor do you think any exemptions, deductions should be given. Personal exemptions per dependent, child tax credits, mortgage interest deduction, etc? Or should it just be based on pure income whether its $15,000 or $15,000,000?
Pure income. No deductions/exemptions. However, NO double taxation of income that is saved and invested. That means no death tax (inheritance tax), no capital gains tax, etc.
Quote:
2. What is the % of the flat tax you favor?
This one is a bit tougher. I've seen the 17% figure bantied about, but I think that's too high for those whose income is in the lower quintiles. Perhaps a 2-step rate could be used. For example, households that have a family of 4 would pay 5% or so on the first $30,000 of annual income (amount adjustable based on number of dependents). Thereafter, the flat tax rate would apply.
Sorry, no. You STILL don't understand the concept. Earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax.
I understand the concept quite well, and this would DRASTICALLY increase the taxes the poor will pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
47% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. The poverty rate (aka, the poor) in the U.S. is only 13 to 17%. There are quite a bit who don't pay that should be paying.
Much of that is due to child credit's deductions, mortgage deductions, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're spewing talking points, and FALSE ones at that. Try looking at the facts. If the rich are taking massive deductions, explain the HUGE discrepancy in effective tax rates.
If they were not taking those deductions it would be even greater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Besides the fact that you're exaggerating to ridiculous proportions (remember the concept? Earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax.), why should some people support the government, and not others? Don't all people benefit from government services?
Not at all this would be DRASTIC increases to the poor. Their tax rates would increase DRAMATICALLY, while those at the top end would see tax rates decrease dramatically
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Two words for you: dotcom bubble. We don't have the same economic conditions now, which is exactly why raising taxes on our society's producers/contributors will be disastrous.
The economy started booming even before that
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And yet that isn't enough to rev the economy into gear. Hmmm... Why would that be? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce explained that quite succinctly to Obama and Congress:
http://library.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/files/100713_jobs_openletter.pdf (broken link)
Thats due to how far the economy flew off the cliff. It takes time to kick the economy back into gear. Continuing to decrease taxes on the uber wealthy while increasing taxes on the poor and middle class is not a good polcy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. Actually the tax system we have now, in which 47% pay no federal income tax at all, is a disaster. Here's why: "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson paraphrasing Alexis de Tocqueville in the December 9th, 1951 edition of The Daily Oklahoman
We have more seniors now which is part of it, also the mortgage deductions and child tax deductions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
As 47% pay no federal income tax and can vote for politicians that promise ever more federal freebies and entitlements, we're in the midst of the collapse instead of on our way to a recovery.
Too few people have a stake in the country's financial health. They get their freebies regardless, so they care not that our elected officials are acting in a fiscally irresponsibe way.
Raising the tax burden on the poor and middle class in order to give the top of the top more help is not the way to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Pure income. No deductions/exemptions. However, NO double taxation of income that is saved and invested. That means no death tax (inheritance tax), no capital gains tax, etc.
This one is a bit tougher. I've seen the 17% figure bantied about, but I think that's too high for those whose income is in the lower quintiles. Perhaps a 2-step rate could be used. For example, households that have a family of 4 would pay 5% or so on the first $30,000 of annual income (amount adjustable based on number of dependents). Thereafter, the flat tax rate would apply.
MASS deficit, + MASSIVE increases in taxes to the poor and middle class while DRASTICALLY reducing the taxes on the wealthy. Utterly HORRIBLE. I would BEG the GOP to run on a policy like this. Taxes would SOAR for the people who need the help the most.
I will use an example here of an average middle class family living in an average COL area.
Lets take a family of four, income $70,000 (two kids under 17) mortgage around $200,000 (so lets say about $1,000 a month in mortgage interest, $4,500 in yearly property taxes, $750 in mortgage insurance. Would exemptions would they be eligible for under this plan? just the personal exemptions? Anything else? Any standard deductions? How much is the exemptions for having kids, etc?
I understand the concept quite well, and this would DRASTICALLY increase the taxes the poor will pay.
Not so. Little tax on little income is not drastic.
Quote:
Much of that is due to child credit's deductions, mortgage deductions, etc.
*So the 47% not paying are the ones actually getting help, while the other 53% foot the bill for that help. Got it. It's not the rich getting help, it's the 47% who pay no federal income tax who are getting help.
Quote:
Not at all this would be DRASTIC increases to the poor. Their tax rates would increase DRAMATICALLY, while those at the top end would see tax rates decrease dramatically
That doesn't make any sense. According to all you lefties, the rich don't pay taxes. With a flat tax, they would.
Quote:
The economy started booming even before that
No. There was a recession in the early 90s. Then we had the dotcom bubble.
Quote:
Thats due to how far the economy flew off the cliff.
...because of exactly the type of policies you espouse. "CRA and GSE Act promoted "innovative or flexible" lending practices such as downpayments of 5% or less, acceptance of impaired credit, higher debt ratios and creative definitions of income. This loosened underwriting resulted in total CRA originations and non-overlapping GSE AH acquisitions by the GSEs of $7 trillion over the period 1993-2007. This tsunami of high risk lending spawned and sustained a housing bubble unlike any this country has ever seen." RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?
'Help' for low-income homebuyers proved to be disastrous. The housing bubble burst, taking our financial system with it.
"BEN BERNANKE: Oh, the worst moments were back in September. The financial crisis began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large housing companies that were taken over by the government, and subsequent to that a number of very large financial firms came under enormous pressure. One of them, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, failed. Others came close to failure, needed government support, not just in the United States, but around the world. And those were some very long nights I spent on the sofa in my office as we worked to try to keep the financial system running." At Forum, Bernanke Defends Fed's Aggressive Moves | Online NewsHour | July 27, 2009 | PBS
Quote:
Raising the tax burden on the poor and middle class in order to give the top of the top more help is not the way to do so.
The top aren't the ones getting help. See * above.
Quote:
MASS deficit, + MASSIVE increases in taxes to the poor and middle class while DRASTICALLY reducing the taxes on the wealthy. Utterly HORRIBLE. I would BEG the GOP to run on a policy like this. Taxes would SOAR for the people who need the help the most.
No. The GOP would reduce taxes and cut the deficit. Look at what happened after Bush's tax cuts with a Republican Congress's budget (2004-2007):
In fact, notice how the deficit goes down when there's a Republican Congress (Congress passes all appropriations bills and the federal budget), and increases exponentially when there's a Democrat Congress.
Quote:
I will use an example here of an average middle class family living in an average COL area.
Lets take a family of four, income $70,000 (two kids under 17) mortgage around $200,000 (so lets say about $1,000 a month in mortgage interest, $4,500 in yearly property taxes, $750 in mortgage insurance. Would exemptions would they be eligible for under this plan? just the personal exemptions? Anything else? Any standard deductions? How much is the exemptions for having kids, etc?
5% on the first $30,000 - $1,500
17% on the next $40,000 - $6,800
Total federal income tax liability - $8,300, just under 12%.
If you think that's too high, then it's time to shrink the federal government back down to it's originally intended Constitutional responsibilities.
Not so. Little tax on little income is not drastic.
This would be a DRASTIC increase in taxes for the poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
*So the 47% not paying are the ones actually getting help, while the other 53% foot the bill for that help. Got it. It's not the rich getting help, it's the 47% who pay no federal income tax who are getting help.
Under the flat tax those at the very top would see huge cuts, those at the bottom, and middle class families will see sharp increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That doesn't make any sense. According to all you lefties, the rich don't pay taxes. With a flat tax, they would.
They don't pay on the income they should, but with these type of rates they would still see drastic decreases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. There was a recession in the early 90s. Then we had the dotcom bubble.
I was talking more mid 90's, before the dot.com bubble took off
Quote:
...because of exactly the type of policies you espouse. "CRA and GSE Act promoted "innovative or flexible" lending practices such as downpayments of 5% or less, acceptance of impaired credit, higher debt ratios and creative definitions of income. This loosened underwriting resulted in total CRA originations and non-overlapping GSE AH acquisitions by the GSEs of $7 trillion over the period 1993-2007. This tsunami of high risk lending spawned and sustained a housing bubble unlike any this country has ever seen." RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?
'Help' for low-income homebuyers proved to be disastrous. The housing bubble burst, taking our financial system with it.
"BEN BERNANKE: Oh, the worst moments were back in September. The financial crisis began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large housing companies that were taken over by the government, and subsequent to that a number of very large financial firms came under enormous pressure. One of them, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, failed. Others came close to failure, needed government support, not just in the United States, but around the world. And those were some very long nights I spent on the sofa in my office as we worked to try to keep the financial system running." At Forum, Bernanke Defends Fed's Aggressive Moves | Online NewsHour | July 27, 2009 | PBS
It got bad due to lack of regulation, with some of the mortgage backed securities, all of the leveraging and what not that went on. Spending hundrerds of billions in Iraq, while giving the richest of the richest huge break
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The top aren't the ones getting help. See * above.
They would see IMMENSE rax cuts at the top, even with not being able to deduct as much due to the rates being so much lowe
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent;15387018No. The GOP would [I
reduce[/i] taxes and cut the deficit. Look at what happened after Bush's tax cuts with a Republican Congress's budget (2004-2007):
In fact, notice how the deficit goes down when there's a Republican Congress (Congress passes all appropriations bills and the federal budget), and increases exponentially when there's a Democrat Congress.
1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act , five year budget plan, greatly reduced the deficit in the 90's. The GOP took over and combined with a GOP President caused massive deficits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
5% on the first $30,000 - $1,500
17% on the next $40,000 - $6,800
Total federal income tax liability - $8,300, just under 12%.
If you think that's too high, then it's time to shrink the federal government back down to it's originally intended Constitutional responsibilities.
Under the example I gave which is very typical for your average middle class family, the taxes would be $2,091. This proposal would cause a $6,209 or a 297% increase in taxes for this typical middle class family. NICE....
...Spending hundrerds of billions in Iraq, while giving the richest of the richest huge break
Hmmm... the deficit went DOWN after the Bush tax cuts and during the war in Iraq when the Republicans controlled Congress. Seems you're blaming the wrong party. Look at that chart again to see what happened to the deficit with the Democrat Congress. There's the problem.
Quote:
1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act , five year budget plan, greatly reduced the deficit in the 90's. The GOP took over and combined with a GOP President caused massive deficits.
Look at the chart again. The deficit goes down with a Republican Congress, and increases exponentially with a Democrat or mixed Congress:
Quote:
Under the example I gave which is very typical for your average middle class family, the taxes would be $3,091. This proposal would cause a $5,209 or a 169% increase in taxes for this typical middle class family.
You want to continue the government goodies giveaways? They're not free. Sorry. Everyone should man up and pull their weight... EVERYONE should contribute. If you're unhappy with the costs, get the government to start cutting back.
You still don't get it. Earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax.
That little tax as you call it would be FAR FAR FAR higher than what the poor and middle class are paying now. The lot of tax as you call it would be FAR FAR LESS than what the rich are paying now
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Dotcom bubble: 1995-2001. That is the mid 90's.
The deficit was in a downward trajectory prior to that as a result of the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Actually, the problem was the Democrats blocking regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie, the CRA twins.
A multitude of factors helped cause the economic crash. Big Business running around rough shot with no regulation, investigating in all the crap they invested in, un regulated credit default swaps among other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Hmmm... the deficit went DOWN after the Bush tax cuts and during the war in Iraq when the Republicans controlled Congress. Seems you're blaming the wrong party. Look at that chart again to see what happened to the deficit with the Democrat Congress. There's the problem.
Look at the chart again. The deficit goes down with a Republican Congress, and increases exponentially with a Democrat or mixed Congress:
It went down slightly from 2005-2007 after increases from 2001-2004. It 2007 the deficit was much higher than what it was prior to these policies going forward. It did increase after that again (Bush did not have to sign it did he? and that was due to all the problems with the crash of the economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You want to continue the government goodies giveaways? They're not free Sorry. Everyone should man up and pull their weight... EVERYONE should contribute. If you're unhappy with the costs, get the government to start cutting back.
Giving MASSIVE increases in taxes to the poor and middle class (over $6,000 or about 300% to the middle class example I showed) in order to give MASSIVE cuts to the very wealthy is horrid. I BEG the GOP to run on that kind of platform. Lets increase the taxes on the middle class by upwards of 300% so we can cut taxes on the wealthy. AHH YES great fiscal policy there.
That little tax as you call it would be FAR FAR FAR higher than what the poor and middle class are paying now. The lot of tax as you call it would be FAR FAR LESS than what the rich are paying now
Wait... you mean the rich who lefties keep insisting don't pay taxes? How is that possible?
Quote:
The deficit was in a downward trajectory prior to that as a result of the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act
No. Deficits went down under a Republican Congress AFTER Bush's tax CUTS, but increased exponentionally under a Democrat or mixed Congress.
Quote:
A multitude of factors helped cause the economic crash. Big Business running around rough shot with no regulation, investigating in all the crap they invested in, un regulated credit default swaps among other things.
No. Bernanke tells us what happened. "BEN BERNANKE: Oh, the worst moments were back in September. The financial crisis began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large housing companies that were taken over by the government, and subsequent to that a number of very large financial firms came under enormous pressure. One of them, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, failed. Others came close to failure, needed government support, not just in the United States, but around the world. And those were some very long nights I spent on the sofa in my office as we worked to try to keep the financial system running." At Forum, Bernanke Defends Fed's Aggressive Moves | Online NewsHour | July 27, 2009 | PBS
Quote:
It went down slightly from 2005-2007 after increases from 2001-2004. It 2007 the deficit was much higher than what it was prior to these policies going forward.
Look at who controlled Congress. Congress legislates appropriations and the federal budget. The increased deficit spikes occurred under a Democrat or mixed Congress. The deficits were reduced under a Republican Congress.
You better think again if you think democrat and independent voters who have to pay taxes are happy with 47% not paying any federal income tax at all, with some of those even getting more money FROM the government, when they themselves are being squeezed.
Wait... you mean the rich who lefties keep insisting don't pay taxes? How is that possible?
They don't pay taxes at the rate they should, but the cuts you would be given them, the rates you would have them paying at would be less than they are now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. Deficits went down under a Republican Congress AFTER Bush's tax CUTS, but increased exponentionally under a Democrat or mixed Congress.
False the deficits exploded after Bush's tax cuts. The deficits then decreased slightly from 05-07, but were much higher than they were prior to the tax cuts (which was a surplus)
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. Bernanke tells us what happened. "BEN BERNANKE: Oh, the worst moments were back in September. The financial crisis began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large housing companies that were taken over by the government, and subsequent to that a number of very large financial firms came under enormous pressure. One of them, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, failed. Others came close to failure, needed government support, not just in the United States, but around the world. And those were some very long nights I spent on the sofa in my office as we worked to try to keep the financial system running." At Forum, Bernanke Defends Fed's Aggressive Moves | Online NewsHour | July 27, 2009 | PBS
Combination of factors, banks and big corporations running wild, trading bad securities, leveraging debt, credit default swaps with no regulation
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Look at who controlled Congress. Congress legislates appropriations and the federal budget. The increased deficit spikes occurred under a Democrat or mixed Congress. The deficits were reduced under a Republican Congress.
The deficit reduction started under a Democratic Congress, continued as a result of the 1993 Reconciliation Act. Then once Bush took over deficits, skyrocketted. Even when the deficit was reduced from 05-07, it was still far worse than it was pre-Bush. It exploded the last couple years as a result of the financial collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You better think again if you think democrat and independent voters who have to pay taxes are happy with 47% not paying any federal income tax at all, with some of those even getting more money FROM the government, when they themselves are being squeezed.
Ahh so the plan is to increase taxes on middle class families by 300% in order to greatly reduce what the wealthiest few pay. Yes thats the ticket....
Totally false. They pay a grossly disproportionate amount compared to their share of the income. They pay nearly twice as much as they should. In fact, everyone above the 50th percentile in income is paying more than they should.
Table 1 here: The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Quote:
False the deficits exploded after Bush's tax cuts.
Not with a Republican Congress. The deficits only spiked with a Democrat or mixed Congress. The chart lays it out plain as day:
Quote:
Combination of factors, banks and big corporations running wild, trading bad securities, leveraging debt, credit default swaps with no regulation
Those came from Fannie and Freddie. Didn't you read the article I linked detailing Fannie's and Freddie's massive securities fraud? Here you go: Origins of an American Kleptocracy | zero hedge
Quote:
The deficit reduction started under a Democratic Congress, continued as a result of the 1993 Reconciliation Act. Then once Bush took over deficits, skyrocketted. Even when the deficit was reduced from 05-07, it was still far worse than it was pre-Bush.
Look at the chart. The only skyrocketing deficits that took place were legislated by a DEMOCRAT OR MIXED CONGRESS. If Bush were the problem, deficits would have spiked under a Republican Congress too during his 2 terms. They didn't.
Quote:
It exploded the last couple years as a result of the financial collapse.
Ahh so the plan is to increase taxes on middle class families by 300% in order to greatly reduce what the wealthiest few pay. Yes thats the ticket....
What, you mean those wealthy that lefties keep insisting don't pay any taxes?
That's not possible. They'll pay MORE under a flat tax.
The flat tax ensures that everyone pays in proportion to their share of income, which isn't happening now. 47% are getting a free ride, with some of those getting paid EVEN MORE by the government, who is taking that money from the 53% who DO pay taxes.
Oh people, if only you would learn how to CAREFULLY read the English language.
People are trying to equate "owe" with "pay," but they are NOT synonymous. "Owe" means after all other payments they have made (payroll and quarterly payments), they don't owe anymore. 47% don't owe any taxes because they paid all their taxes via payroll taxes and quarterly payments, and when filling out their forms for April 15, their payment, AFTER payroll is factored in, is 0 or even negative because they overpaid.
I find it ludicrous how people are really this stupid about their tax system or perhaps even dishonest about it. If you look at ALL brackets within the income tax schema, ALL income minus a deduction is taxed. Everyone is paying into it unless they make less than the standard deduction, which would be destitute poverty even for a single person with no kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(remember the concept? Earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax.), why should some people support the government, and not others? Don't all people benefit from government services?
