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 attitude is the problem, worsened by loyal supporters of it, such as yourself. A person who recognizes that he/she can afford to pay progressively more, will NEVER whine about it. I never did. I don't think shifting more burden on those who make less is the way forward. It is anti-capitalistic, and purely oligarchical idea to do so. Of course, plutocrats who believe "humanitarianism is stupidity" would disagree.
The rich end up paying more because they are the ones with more. It is why middle class America was paying a greater proportion than it was thriving. Now, it doesn't. That is a problem, and can't be addressed by forcing them into it, but ensuring that they are in a position to do so. For that reason, these ideas of "our freedom" that is merely republicanism, is a sham. There is absolutely ZERO effort to meet those claims. Trust me, the rich don't spend millions for elections so they can help everybody else. It is utterly foolish to believe so.
Forget all of this. Everyone needs to pay up. Either have one rate for all - or have a poverty rate and an non-poverty rate. But everyone needs to pay up. Forget all of the deduction mumbo jumbo and loopholes. Cut government spending. Make simple rules and reduce the IRS payroll.
I wonder how low a flat tax would be if deductions were removed and every wage earning adult paid into the system. It could probably be about 10%.
(1)Let's go over the numbers again. You insist that someone earning $1,000,000 a year and paying 90% in Federal taxes should be pleased to take home $100,000. My point was that they wouldn't take home that much because of their additional State tax burden. Unless my calulator is in err:
(2)I didn't suggest that earning $1,000,000 and paying 90% Federal tax would be preferable to earning $15,000 and paying 1% Federal tax to most people. You did in the quoted post above. I just applied State taxes to the million dollar earnings since I'm pretty sure the State wouldn't forgo their taxes. At an annual earnings of $15,000 my state would collect no taxes so I didn't deduct any for that earner. So, now the difference in take home is a whopping $7,650.
(3)Do you think the answer to your question might change for some people? I suspect it would.
(4)As to your second question: Yes, I'd be happy if very low earners (you know the ones at the very bottom of the scale, not the whole 47%) paid just $1 in Federal tax. IMO all of us should be invested since we all benefit. I'd like to see a flat tax mostly to get rid of the mess of a tax code we currently have and simplify filing. I like doing my taxes as much as I like going to the dentist.... not at all.
Hope that clears up the confusion.
1. Can you show me where I INSISTED that someone being taxed 90% would be happy?
And no, your calculator is not in err, you are.
The numbers you propose are what WOULD BE PAID IN TAXES. To figure out what would be left after a 7.75% tax on $100,000 you would need to multiple 100,000 x 0.9225... not 0.0775.
Multiplying by 0.0775 would give you how much YOU PAID IN TAXES, not how much WAS LEFT AFTER TAXES.
2. See #1, and consult a math tudor.
3. I think it would too if those people didn't understand math. Tell them to see #1, and take the advice in #2.
4. So, a flat tax for the poor, then a progressive tax for people who make more? Where is that "line" drawn?
There is good history that no one ever pays a very high rate on income. They do go to strategies that avoid income.
That though is how high you let the progression get. There is no where near that level of progression now or proposed and the actual rates are quite low. So fix that.
Simply tax gross income and then pay any "deductions" directly. If you wish to favor capital gains or investment income or mortgage interest do it by a payment from the treasury.
We are the government. The people. The best way to ensure our freedom is for everyone to have a stake in the system. If the rich paid all the taxes they are going to take a "I pay the bills we do it my way" attitude.
Everyone cannot pay a tax. Children for example have no surplus because there is no production. A dirt farmer who only grows enough food to feed himself cannot pay a tax because he has no real surplus. If the dirt farmer grows enough to feed himself with a small surplus he can pay a tax, but only if no other claim is made on it. If he has a $500 a month surplus on free land then $500 is available to pay a tax. However if the land is rented for $500 a month then the surplus is not available directly from labor. The surplus is in other hands. With the FIRE sector growing to 40% of our economy this is much more analogous to our situation. Try to tax someone who has little access to the productive surplus generally just causes unemployment and social problem because they are effectively below subsistence. So either the government pays a subsidy, or the laborer stops working and emigrates.
The situation can be summed up that more money is being sent as rent and mortgages and is not available to tax because we have been tax shifting off this income. Making it even worse is the intrest deduction. So who has the surplus of production that is available to tax? Fewer and fewer people every year. If there were 1 slave master in a country full of slaves only one person could pay tax because they claim the entire productive surplus. Slaves by definition cannot accumulate. They only are paid to maintain their output and nothing more.
1. Can you show me where I INSISTED that someone being taxed 90% would be happy?
And no, your calculator is not in err, you are.
The numbers you propose are what WOULD BE PAID IN TAXES. To figure out what would be left after a 7.75% tax on $100,000 you would need to multiple 100,000 x 0.9225... not 0.0775.
Multiplying by 0.0775 would give you how much YOU PAID IN TAXES, not how much WAS LEFT AFTER TAXES.
2. See #1, and consult a math tudor.
3. I think it would too if those people didn't understand math. Tell them to see #1, and take the advice in #2.
4. So, a flat tax for the poor, then a progressive tax for people who make more? Where is that "line" drawn?
Perhaps insisted was the wrong word. Would inferred be too strong for your sensibilities? And yes, I can show you. Refer to post #22. You infer or insist or suggest that people would rather pay 90% on $1,000,000 than 1% on $15,000.
If you'd read my response correctly, you'd note that the .0775 percent rate applies to the $1,000,000 earned not the $100,000 left after Federal taxes. States levy taxes on gross earnings, not net.
1,000,000 * .9 = 900,000 Federal taxes owed
1,000,000 * .0775 = 77,500 State taxes owed
1,000,000 - 900,000 - 77,500 = 22,500 Take Home
And if you need a math "Tudor", I'm sure one can be found. Perhaps Henry?
Republican speak, that is. If you want to be serious, enumerate what needs to be cut, and how your choices have gone about it. Here is your chance to step beyond a political rhetoric.
Quote:
I guess with the current occupants, you are probably right. Who cares about the fiscal state of the country...
Which pretty much proves my point about the blasphemy that is republicanism.
Quote:
I'm OK with one or two rates - but that's it.
Counts don't matter more than the acknowledgment that there can't be one rate for all.
Quote:
I'm not OK with your condemnation - but considering the source, it's expected.
You betcha! Learn to be okay because I will condemn idiocy EVERY TIME.
(1)Perhaps insisted was the wrong word. Would inferred be too strong for your sensibilities? And yes, I can show you. Refer to post #22. You infer or insist or suggest that people would rather pay 90% on $1,000,000 than 1% on $15,000.
(2)If you'd read my response correctly, you'd note that the .0775 percent rate applies to the $1,000,000 earned not the $100,000 left after Federal taxes. States levy taxes on gross earnings, not net.
1,000,000 * .9 = 900,000 Federal taxes owed
1,000,000 * .0775 = 77,500 State taxes owed
1,000,000 - 900,000 - 77,500 = 22,500 Take Home
And if you need a math "Tudor", I'm sure one can be found. Perhaps Henry?
1. They only thing I was insisting was that people would like more money in their pocket over having a lower percentage of taxes paid.
If you can't point to a person that would rather make $15,000 taxed at 1% over making $100,000,000 taxed at 99%, I think I made my point there, as did another poster. More money is more money, regardless of how much it was taxed before it got to you.
2. Upon further review, I was talking about the 7.75% being taxed after the federal 90% was taken out.
I apologize for saying your math was fuzzy. It was not fuzzy under your conditions, but correct.
But you can't deny that the $22,500 is almost double the amount of money that government considers enough for a single person to live on.
Being taxed at 90% of 97.75% when making $1,000,000 is still more take home money than $15,000 at 1%. There's no denying that.
That attitude is the problem, worsened by loyal supporters of it, such as yourself. A person who recognizes that he/she can afford to pay progressively more, will NEVER whine about it. I never did. I don't think shifting more burden on those who make less is the way forward. It is anti-capitalistic, and purely oligarchical idea to do so. Of course, plutocrats who believe "humanitarianism is stupidity" would disagree.
The rich end up paying more because they are the ones with more. It is why middle class America was paying a greater proportion than it was thriving. Now, it doesn't. That is a problem, and can't be addressed by forcing them into it, but ensuring that they are in a position to do so. For that reason, these ideas of "our freedom" that is merely republicanism, is a sham. There is absolutely ZERO effort to meet those claims. Trust me, the rich don't spend millions for elections so they can help everybody else. It is utterly foolish to believe so.
I never did when I was working. I worry now because I sit on a portfolio that struggles to earn 80 basis points. The risk-free rate in 2000 was six times higher.
They can't tax enough to pay the bills. Next stop: tax wealth.
Meanwhile the middle class, the largest benefactor of the Bush tax cuts, pays less than ever. And they've been brainwashed into thinking I'm the problem.
I don't mind paying progressively more, and have stated as such plenty of times. I mind when the curve reads 0-0-0-100, which is where we are headed. The bottom three quartiles will be paying zero soon. That's not progressive.
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.
