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.
I, along with the vast majority of the middle class would pay a hell of a lot more in taxes every year, and the wealthy would spend a hell of a lot less on taxes.
Which is why as long as we have a highly progressive income tax system, the government has a very strong incentive to support any and all efforts to keep as much of an income gap as possible. Any shift of income share away from the highest tax rate payers (the top 1%) results in a dramatic decline in income tax revenue.
This last recession caused an economic contraction of 5.1% during which the top 1%'s income share shrank by 7%. Even though those numbers are relatively small, the result was a 25% decline in income tax revenue because of the over-reliance on the top 1% for so much of that revenue (about 40%). An over-spending government simply CANNOT have that.
Which is why as long as we have a highly progressive income tax system, the government has a very strong incentive to support any and all efforts to keep as much of an income gap as possible. Any shift of income share away from the highest tax rate payers (the top 1%) results in a dramatic decline in income tax revenue.
This last recession caused an economic contraction of 5.1% during which the top 1%'s income share shrank by 7%. Even though those numbers are relatively small, the result was a 25% decline in income tax revenue because of the over-reliance on the top 1% for so much of that revenue (about 40%). An over-spending government simply CANNOT have that.
Exactly. This is why we need to approach the tax issues from a finance/mathematical standpoint instead of the overly emotional "the wealthy don't pay enough" standpoint. I would die a happy man if I saw a blackboard with equations show up at a presidential debate.
OMG, you seriously don't get it, do you? It would eliminate all tax breaks and deductions.
It's not rocket science. Well............for some, it is.
You're fighting a losing argument. You can't fix stupid, you know!
I love the idea of paying the going rate for taxes and for everybody. Some will not pay any while others will pay some. In other words, a new car will demand a tax while a used car would not. Same thing with a new house vs a used house. College would be considered an investment, so they would not need to be taxed. If you go to buy a new pair of pants, it would be automatically taxed. If you bought it at a second-hand store it would not be taxed...and so forth. Everybody would pay a tax automatically at the counter, so they know what the price is right away.
Well for starters, it would at least collect as much as the payroll tax since that's a flat tax for the exact same percentage of just wages (up to a certain amount) that already brings in 950 billion. But due to the fact that there would be no income cap, plus gifts dividiends, capital gains, and other income etc would be taxed at that rate, I argue that just a 15.3% income tax with 0 deductions or exemptions would bring in more than our current individual income tax, not to mention it's fair.
On all income? it would probably cut taxes for the moderately wealthy and parts of the middle class but raise them on everyone else (the poor and the very wealthy). I also don't think it would raise enough money. Since there is not enough at the bottom really and I don't think it would be much of a tax increase on the super wealthy. In fact if you factor in the new 2013 rates it would probably be a cut for them as well.
I call bull-****.....I don't even have to do the math......Trulia is just hoping for another real estate bubble to cash in on.
Actually if you plan to stay for about 7 years it definitely can be cheaper to buy the rent assuming you have a good steady job and reasonable credit/a good surety and don't put down too small of a down payment.
The reason for this is in large part the home mortgage interest deduction which can lead to a fair amount of savings no such deduction exists for rent and the fact that interest rates are extremely low.
Which is why as long as we have a highly progressive income tax system, the government has a very strong incentive to support any and all efforts to keep as much of an income gap as possible. Any shift of income share away from the highest tax rate payers (the top 1%) results in a dramatic decline in income tax revenue.
This last recession caused an economic contraction of 5.1% during which the top 1%'s income share shrank by 7%. Even though those numbers are relatively small, the result was a 25% decline in income tax revenue because of the over-reliance on the top 1% for so much of that revenue (about 40%). An over-spending government simply CANNOT have that.
My proposal to tax discretionary income at a flat rate does not incentivize a large income gap; indeed; government has an incentive to promote an environment in which more people can enjoy discretionary income - whether $50,000 or $50,000,000.
On all income? it would probably cut taxes for the moderately wealthy and parts of the middle class but raise them on everyone else (the poor and the very wealthy). I also don't think it would raise enough money. Since there is not enough at the bottom really and I don't think it would be much of a tax increase on the super wealthy. In fact if you factor in the new 2013 rates it would probably be a cut for them as well.
But it also embodies the conservative ideal of disincentivizing poverty. Since you get less of what you tax, taxing poverty should reduce poverty substantially.
Exactly. This is why we need to approach the tax issues from a finance/mathematical standpoint instead of the overly emotional "the wealthy don't pay enough" standpoint. I would die a happy man if I saw a blackboard with equations show up at a presidential debate.
My proposal to tax discretionary income at a flat rate does not incentivize a large income gap; indeed; government has an incentive to promote an environment in which more people can enjoy discretionary income - whether $50,000 or $50,000,000.
Actually, it doesn't. When you exempt up to a certain income level from taxation, you create a very strong incentive for the government to support any and all efforts to keep as much of an income gap as possible to get as much tax revenue as possible. That's exactly the problem we have now.
So taxing someone who makes minimum wage and someone who is a billionaire hedge fund manager at the same rate is "fair?"
Please make that a GOP sales pitch in 2014. We'll enjoy taking the House back.
Under the FairTax, billionaires and millionaires will pay more, though at the same rate, though they'll be paying more in taxes since they are buying a bigger house than somebody who is buying a smaller house (assuming it is a new house).
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.
