Jump to content

Tax Schemes, Equalization, Etc


Recommended Posts

A flat tax is a fatally flawed idea, because it depends on defining "income". Depending on where your income is from and how your business is structured, this definition varies widely and favors the rich. All income tax has this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously in any flat tax structure you start the line at a certain point. Say you start it at 35,000 and you tax at the rate of 17%. I have no problem telling the person making 35,000 that you need to pay 5,950 of that for taxes that year ... also I would have no problem with the person making 1,000,000 per year only paying 170,000.
I will just point out that under this system, anyone making between $35,000 and say $41,000 is a complete idiot. If you want to have a starting point for a flat tax, you make it all income above x(x= the number you start at)taxable at whatever %. Otherwise, a pay raise from 34k= net loss of income. The 35k income earner you example here would have less net income than someone making $29051.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can argue that since the rich have 50% of the wealth in this country that they should have to shoulder 50% of the tax burden. In fact, I make that argument all the time on here.If we had a 17% flat tax rate, we would be broke in a week. Ummm, broke-er anyway. More broke?
the fact that you argue it doesn't make it correct or smart. Besides speaking as a member of the so called "rich" I personally would be happy for the rich to only contribute 50 percent of the tax burden.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact that you argue it doesn't make it correct or smart. Besides speaking as a member of the so called "rich" I personally would be happy for the rich to only contribute 50 percent of the tax burden.
I mean it depends where you draw the line of "rich" but in general the #s line up where the pct of wealth is pretty darn close to the pct of tax burden shouldered.I would love to hear a reason why this is unfair. The fact that you disagree doesn't make it incorrect or stupid.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean it depends where you draw the line of "rich" but in general the #s line up where the pct of wealth is pretty darn close to the pct of tax burden shouldered.I would love to hear a reason why this is unfair. The fact that you disagree doesn't make it incorrect or stupid.
Where have you seen those numbers?I could tell you how it breaks down by income, but I haven't seen it by wealth.(For example, the top 1% of taxpayers made 23% of the total gross income and paid 40% of the income taxes (in 2007)).
Link to post
Share on other sites
A flat tax is a fatally flawed idea, because it depends on defining "income". Depending on where your income is from and how your business is structured, this definition varies widely and favors the rich. All income tax has this problem.
What if we could get it so that we had income specifically defined so that if evened out the entire playing field ... then would a flat tax work? Notice I am saying a HUGE what if .... I see where you are coming from and in that I can see how it would be "fatally flawed", but IF it was defined so as to make it even on everyone, then would a flat tax be the right thing?As JoeyJoJoShabadoo said, I really am just looking for an idea to reform the current tax laws while also making it easier than going through lines and lines of tax code.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean it depends where you draw the line of "rich" but in general the #s line up where the pct of wealth is pretty darn close to the pct of tax burden shouldered.I would love to hear a reason why this is unfair. The fact that you disagree doesn't make it incorrect or stupid.
My main reasoning for this as unfair is that generally people who get rich take chances. Why should they be penalized more than me tax wise because they took a risk and it paid off. As it is I like working for someone, but that someone is on the hook at all times for millions of dollars worth of equipment, so why shouldn't we be taxed at the same rate. We both made our decisions of how we were going to make money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact that you argue it doesn't make it correct or smart. Besides speaking as a member of the so called "rich" I personally would be happy for the rich to only contribute 50 percent of the tax burden.
I mean it depends where you draw the line of "rich" but in general the #s line up where the pct of wealth is pretty darn close to the pct of tax burden shouldered.I would love to hear a reason why this is unfair. The fact that you disagree doesn't make it incorrect or stupid.
Where have you seen those numbers?I could tell you how it breaks down by income, but I haven't seen it by wealth.(For example, the top 1% of taxpayers made 23% of the total gross income and paid 40% of the income taxes (in 2007)).
this is about spot on to what i was refering to. any other questions cain?
Link to post
Share on other sites
this is about spot on to what i was refering to. any other questions cain?
But Cane might be right; I just haven't seen that analysis. The distribution of wealth is even more concentrated at the top than the distribution of income.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But Cane might be right; I just haven't seen that analysis. The distribution of wealth is even more concentrated at the top than the distribution of income.
i am well aware of that, the tax structure that says income over 250k = wealthy is just dead wrong. 250k plus many years can = wealthy, 750k for a couple years can add up pretty quick but 250k is just a very good job.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i am well aware of that, the tax structure that says income over 250k = wealthy is just dead wrong. 250k plus many years can = wealthy, 750k for a couple years can add up pretty quick but 250k is just a very good job.
As I was looking for the data, I came across a tax proposal that would create brackets based on lifetime earnings instead of annual earnings. So something like the first $250k you earn is tax free, which frees you to do things like save up to buy a house or pay off student loans, etc. After you've earned $250k, your annual earnings are taxed at x%. Then there are other lifetime milestones where your rate will increase. I thought it was kind of interesting.For what it's worth, it was a Canadian proposal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i am well aware of that, the tax structure that says income over 250k = wealthy is just dead wrong. 250k plus many years can = wealthy, 750k for a couple years can add up pretty quick but 250k is just a very good job.
median income in 2004 was $44,389. $250k is five times larger than what is likely the average person's salary today. while I agree that one is not instantly wealthy with $250k/year income, it is certainly enough to not be shitting bricks over getting moved up from 36% to 39%.
Link to post
Share on other sites
median income in 2004 was $44,389. $250k is five times larger than what is likely the average person's salary today. while I agree that one is not instantly wealthy with $250k/year income, it is certainly enough to not be shitting bricks over getting moved up from 36% to 39%.
But it is enough to make a certain number of people think it is not worth it to put in the extra effort that it takes to make that much.Less effort = less economic activity = everyone worse off.And yes, it happens. I did it. I gave up six figures because the taxes sucked so bad it wasn't worth it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What if we could get it so that we had income specifically defined so that if evened out the entire playing field ... then would a flat tax work? Notice I am saying a HUGE what if .... I see where you are coming from and in that I can see how it would be "fatally flawed", but IF it was defined so as to make it even on everyone, then would a flat tax be the right thing?As JoeyJoJoShabadoo said, I really am just looking for an idea to reform the current tax laws while also making it easier than going through lines and lines of tax code.
I think the "if" is too big to even address the question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But it is enough to make a certain number of people think it is not worth it to put in the extra effort that it takes to make that much.Less effort = less economic activity = everyone worse off.And yes, it happens. I did it. I gave up six figures because the taxes sucked so bad it wasn't worth it.
my parents consciously made this decision a while ago when they decided not to franchise, limit inventory, etc. I know the thought process exists, and it's a reasonable/rational approach. what's your solution to getting the finances in line? seems to me like it pretty much has to include some combination of higher taxes and lower spending. how do you limit the damage?
Link to post
Share on other sites
my parents consciously made this decision a while ago when they decided not to franchise, limit inventory, etc. I know the thought process exists, and it's a reasonable/rational approach. what's your solution to getting the finances in line? seems to me like it pretty much has to include some combination of higher taxes and lower spending. how do you limit the damage?
This is the best idea I've seen, and it's really sort of painless:http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Well, painless unless you just love bloated federal programs that are essentially just corporate welfare and job programs for political cronies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
my parents consciously made this decision a while ago when they decided not to franchise, limit inventory, etc. I know the thought process exists, and it's a reasonable/rational approach. what's your solution to getting the finances in line? seems to me like it pretty much has to include some combination of higher taxes and lower spending. how do you limit the damage?
higher taxes should not be part of getting finances in line...look at the Reagan model. lower tax rate, expand private business = more tax $$...cutting spending should be priority 1. This is the problem I have with Bush 2. he spent money like a drunken sailor and then Barak, Nancy and the gang made hime look like a rookie.
Link to post
Share on other sites
higher taxes should not be part of getting finances in line...look at the Reagan model. lower tax rate, expand private business = more tax $$...cutting spending should be priority 1. This is the problem I have with Bush 2. he spent money like a drunken sailor and then Barak, Nancy and the gang made hime look like a rookie.
I think you will change your mind on this once we get closer to a crisis. I expect most people will clamor to find ways to screw foreign investors before voting to cut benefits.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you will change your mind on this once we get closer to a crisis. I expect most people will clamor to find ways to screw foreign investors before voting to cut benefits.
it will be the first time in my life that i don't believe lowering taxes is a good thing. I don't even mind paying taxes, i get that they required. i have a problem with the amoun, use, waste and idiots in charge of spending them. If we ran the government in a reasonable way all of our taxes would go down!! I do agree with you that crisis is coming and it is going to hurt deeply...and the little guys are going to hurt the worst.That being said I don't think you will ever see me changing my mind or Washington doing a good job with our money.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...