Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,226,365 times
Reputation: 2536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I expect spending to increase at the inflation rate for most government activities (note: the cap on taxable Social Security income would also be eliminated and benefits restricted to people that really need them) with, hopefully a major decrease in Military spending as we realize our presumptive empire is costing us far more than it is worth.
OS the amount of money your 90 % tax will need o cover will grow larger while the amount of money you get will grow smaller.I am not sure your numbers will add up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,799,372 times
Reputation: 24863
With a deductable set at a percentile, not percentage, it will increase with inflation. The primary goal of my proposed flat Tax is to place the burden of financing the federal government on the people that own and control the country instead of our current system where the middle class pays for subsidizing both the wealthy and the poor.

This system would allow 90% of our population to keep, invest or spend their, generally wage based income, as they wish. It would force the investor and control class to pay for the government they control. This is a, tax the wealthy system, because it places the tax where the money is located instead of where it is created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:41 AM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,807,980 times
Reputation: 5478
I expect we will never go to a flat tax...always progressive.

Why?

Willie Sutton on why you rob banks..."Cause that is where the money is"

The upper percent makes a out of keeping percent of the income...so you go there for the money.

The more interesting question is how progressive it should be...it is actually not very at the moment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,799,372 times
Reputation: 24863
Setting the deductable at 90th percentile makes my flat Tax very progressive without the complications of rising rate brackets and complex deductibles that plague our current system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:59 AM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,807,980 times
Reputation: 5478
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Setting the deductable at 90th percentile makes my flat Tax very progressive without the complications of rising rate brackets and complex deductibles that plague our current system.
Progression is a minor complication. One can simplify a progressive tax code as easily as a flat one. The easy way to do this is convert all deductions to direct payments. Then a single table allows one any scheme of progression one likes.

Note that direct payments can be made cost neutral. You simply charge an appropriate fee against the payment.

It also has the property of making such payments visible. Always a good thing in government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 07:34 AM
 
Location: San Diego
990 posts, read 939,717 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
It's liberal United States where no one needs to work
If that's the case, how come San Francisco has an unemployment of 6.9% while Kern County has one of 12%?

Most Americans want to work, some just actually care about others having affordable healthcare access...especially because the more uninsured people we have, the more expensive healthcare gets for those of us who actually pay for it.

I'm all for a flat tax if it's supplemented by a Progressive VAT which taxes luxury goods and services heavily. The flat tax should be something low, like 10%, and then VATs should be low on staples and economical items (items under a certain price level, like say all couches under $200 carry a 5% tax while those above $200 are taxed at 5% for the first $200 and 10% thereafter) while being higher for things which fill no need, like Jewelry and video games.

However, I do agree with the wealth tax in one of the world's most free economies: Liechtenstein. In Liechtenstein, wealth is taxed at 0.06% per year. So if you have a net worth of $1,000,000 (euros) you will be taxed $600/yr, if you're worth a billion, you will be taxed $600,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,827,269 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
It's liberal United States where no one needs to work
It is not surprising that you believe in this BS spewed by authoritarians, because you're one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,421,542 times
Reputation: 4190
Cool story except money isn't water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 07:46 AM
 
Location: San Diego
990 posts, read 939,717 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Cool story except money isn't water.
It's called an analogy, genius.

And what was your contribution to this thread other than trolling?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 07:48 AM
 
2,042 posts, read 2,905,307 times
Reputation: 1546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
The ASSumtion that those who succeed will continue to work hard without rewards for their hard work is incorrect. I'm not going to bust my butt so someone else can have more. Forget it. I'd rather kick back and just earn less.

That's some interesting logic. I don't buy it, but interesting nonetheless.
So let's say you make $30K/year and tomorrow someone offers you a position for $60K/year. You will turn it down because you'd pay more taxes? That sounds both dubious and disingenuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:49 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top