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.
We have only your word for this and, no offense, you know what that is worth in open forum. Are you certain that you are not including windfalls, gifts from parents, etc. in your "earned income" scenario? Seriously Miyu, there are hundreds of perfectly normal intelligence Californians living out of their cars that are making 45K. What makes you special?
I don't get any windfalls or parental help since I have been independent since age 17. I can tell you that most people think they have normal financial intelligence, but if they are living out of their cars on a 45k salary that is very, very pathetic. Or they must have spawned too many children that they can't afford to support which is entirely their own fault. I only started making 40-50k in the last 2 years and I'm saving so much money every month even though I'm now in an even more expensive neighborhood in LA (Orange county is cheaper).
By wanting to tax the rich disproportionately more, you are telling them how much money they should take home. You are implying that they do not deserve their current lifestyle because they can absorb more taxes.
When have you ever read where I advocate taxing the rich more?
LOL...okay...if you say so. I'm not interested in more IRS agents or making the laws anymore confusing than they already are.
I'm just going by what's fair. After all, the "progressive" (aka regressive) income tax system is pretty darn involved and creates undue time, money and stress for J6P to comply with. The argument against a fair tax is that people complain it's unfair. I'm just going along with those folks who are crying out for fairness.
By wanting to tax the rich disproportionately more, you are telling them how much money they should take home. You are implying that they do not deserve their current lifestyle because they can absorb more taxes.
Irvine, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove. All totally do-able.
Nonsense. Aint happening. You can't afford to live in Irvine, Costa Mesa, or Garden Grove (to a lesser extent) on 17k-33k per year without living at home with your mom and dad with any real money left over after rent. Can't be done. Aint that much money managing skill on the planet. Irvine would be near impossible on 50k a year if you had any real desire to live a nice lifestyle....let alone 33k. It aint happening. Costa Mesa and Garden Grove would be a bit more possible because they aren't as desirable as Irvine by a long shot. Still though, it would be a brutal existence in those two towns on 33k a year.
Again, i don't doubt you lived in those places on that income. But you weren't living well, and you had little disposable income if any at all. You damn sure didn't have any savings, and you weren't driving anything much better than a Yugo.
Really? A single white male making $20K can use the same loopholes as a married couple with three kids making $200K a year that owns their own home? Just as an example?
I took a second look at my spreadsheet calculations. It looks like the combined OASDI and Medicare rate must be below 12.3% for the Fair tax to better my income tax in 2010. I still think that the combination will end up at 10% at least for the first time around because it's a nice round number. The Fair Tax looks better for my pocket book. I just have to overcome the sticker shock. (I am assuming that my current mortgage (14% of my AGI) is grandfathered and will not be taxed, and I have a 17% savings rate - not available for spending)
When I pay off my mortgage and bump up my savings rate to 22%, and assume I spend the rest of my income; the OASDI and Medicare rates have to drop below a combined rate of 8% in order to better my income tax of 2010. That will be tough to accomplish.
Of course, I can adjust my savings rate upward if I don't get the 8% from the fed.
Also, I'm leaving out local and state sales taxes, but they are the same whether there is a federal income or a fair tax.
Nonsense. Aint happening. You can't afford to live in Irvine, Costa Mesa, or Garden Grove (to a lesser extent) on 17k-33k per year without living at home with your mom and dad with any real money left over after rent. Can't be done. Aint that much money managing skill on the planet. Irvine would be near impossible on 50k a year if you had any real desire to live a nice lifestyle....let alone 33k. It aint happening. Costa Mesa and Garden Grove would be a bit more possible because they aren't as desirable as Irvine by a long shot. Still though, it would be a brutal existence in those two towns on 33k a year.
Again, i don't doubt you lived in those places on that income. But you weren't living well, and you had little disposable income if any at all. You damn sure didn't have any savings, and you weren't driving anything much better than a Yugo.
LOL... it was done without living with parents or relatives. A "nice" lifestyle and a "cockroach" lifestyle are very different. How about a decent Spartan lifestyle? Most of the time there I only earned 20k and I drove used cars, but they were still BMW and Mercedes. I totally fit in with the locals but you would not know how much I earned. If you can find a nice rental situation (i.e. get a roommate, don't rent from the fascist Irvine Company that owns all the properties), get your groceries from Vietnamese stores, buy a used car from a rich friend who is upgrading his BMW, get used electronics from friends who are upgrading, and forego designer clothes, you can totally hack it. Compare that with my friend who was making 3x my salary living in nasty Bellflower but had to live paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure he blew most of his money going out to bars and entertainment and for payments on a new car.
I had a friend who had 3 dependents, living on the same income same city - definitely a worse situation than me - and he too survived. He had to take an extra job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
When have you ever read where I advocate taxing the rich more?
You didn't say it. You did however ask who I was to judge who deserves certain lifestyles. I do not judge who deserves certain lifestyles. People's own financial situation should be the judge of it. And from the way people feel like they are going to be burdened (even though they are paying less percentage of taxes than others) many middle class people are definitely living above their means.
You didn't say it. You did however ask who I was to judge who deserves certain lifestyles. I do not judge who deserves certain lifestyles. People's own financial situation should be the judge of it. And from the way people feel like they are going to be burdened (even though they are paying less percentage of taxes than others) many middle class people are definitely living above their means.
I beg to differ. You specifically stated, "A lifestyle that they don't deserve". One cannot make such a blanket statement without knowing the work, time, and money each person has invested to reach a particular level of lifestyle. "Many" is a much better word to use.
a consumption tax will never work and will never gain any support, might as will give it up now.
the wealthy don't consume at the same rate as the working poor and middle class. by and large they are wealthy accumulators and take in far more than they spend, so a comsumption tax is just another way to dump the tax burden on the middle and poor.
how are you going to control "duty free" shopping? how you going to control black markets that spring up? you going to apply "tax stamps" to everything to prove the tax was paid. that's what I want on my new white tennis shoes, a big red tax label.
the only fair tax is a flat tax on all income above 3 times the poverty rate. lets EVERYONE earn and spend what they need to survive and taxes everything over that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra
I took a second look at my spreadsheet calculations. It looks like the combined OASDI and Medicare rate must be below 12.3% for the Fair tax to better my income tax in 2010. I still think that the combination will end up at 10% at least for the first time around because it's a nice round number. The Fair Tax looks better for my pocket book. I just have to overcome the sticker shock. (I am assuming that my current mortgage (14% of my AGI) is grandfathered and will not be taxed, and I have a 17% savings rate - not available for spending)
When I pay off my mortgage and bump up my savings rate to 22%, and assume I spend the rest of my income; the OASDI and Medicare rates have to drop below a combined rate of 8% in order to better my income tax of 2010. That will be tough to accomplish.
Of course, I can adjust my savings rate upward if I don't get the 8% from the fed.
Also, I'm leaving out local and state sales taxes, but they are the same whether there is a federal income or a fair tax.
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.
