Information about tax cuts

[Back]

Since this topic came up in another thread, I thought I would throw out this link.

CLICKE HER (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)

Even at 17, when I first started paying taxes, I went down the chart and divided the tax into the income and saw for myself that the top 2% of the country pay less on their percentage than the middle. The lowest do get a break.

The fundamental flaw here is that the more you make, the less you need, the less you make, the more you need. Now, I'm not saying the middle should pay less of a percentage. I'm saying everyone should pay the same percentage.

Someone suggested a flat 1% tax on ALL monetary transactions. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
The fundamental flaw here is that the more you make, the less you need, the less you make, the more you need.Ok...
I'm saying everyone should pay the same percentage....wha???

How do you make those two work together?

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
The fundamental flaw here is that the more you make, the less you need, the less you make, the more you need.Ok...
I'm saying everyone should pay the same percentage....wha???

How do you make those two work together?

It made perfect sense to me. I guess its just over your head. But seriously...


Poor wording on my part I giuess. Its late, I've been out...

If you split dinner between five couples, do you give the rich couple a break and pay more than your even share?

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Backlash]

[Latrinsorm]

If there's a guy making 100 million, I can take 50% and he'll still be doing just fine. If there's a guy making 20 thousand, once I start taking around 10% he's in trouble, which is the first thing you said. How exactly do you propose to have a flat tax that accomplishes that? Or, how do you plan to make 10 = 50?

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If there's a guy making 100 million, I can take 50% and he'll still be doing just fine. If there's a guy making 20 thousand, once I start taking around 10% he's in trouble, which is the first thing you said. How exactly do you propose to have a flat tax that accomplishes that? Or, how do you plan to make 10 = 50?

Not sure where I said what you said I said. Because I didn't say what you just said.

What I said was I heard about a flat 1% tax across the board for all monetary transactions and that I think more and more that its a good idea.

Now, I have a question. How is it a flat same for every wo/man tax unfair?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Now, I have a question. How is it a flat same for every wo/man tax unfair? Because 1% of a million is meaningless to the millionaire while 1% of a hundred is meaningful to the hundredaire.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
Now, I have a question. How is it a flat same for every wo/man tax unfair? Because 1% of a million is meaningless to the millionaire while 1% of a hundred is meaningful to the hundredaire.

Not really. I make a good amount of money, but I need as much of it as I can. I have expenses just like someone who makes 10k a year.

[Tendarian]

Being a hundredaire i feel the need to say $1 to me isnt a big deal :)

[longshot]

Nobody said it better than Chris Rock, when he explained it concerning divorces and his "understanding" of OJ killing Nicole.

Not a direct quote by any means...

If you got thirty million, and she wants half, you still got 15 million dollars. No big deal.

But if you making 30 thousand, and the bitch wants 15, she gonna have to die.

I'm not moving back in with my momma just 'cause you aren't in love no more.

-------

It's the same principle.

Poor people also need to use all of their income to survive. This is why for the most part, taxes that effect everyone "equally" really don't.

Sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and things that are supposed to tax when money is used take a much larger percentage of the poor guys income because he has to use his income to survive. A wealthy person can save, and is not forced to use the money, and avoids the taxes.

Lets say there is a 5% sales tax. The guy at 30,000 has to spend all of it to live. So, he would pay 1,500 in sales tax.

The guy making 100,000 only needs to spend 50,000 a year. He saves the other half. He's only taxed on what he spends, so he spends 2,500 in sales tax.

So, the guy at 30,000 paid 5% of his total income, while the rich dude paid 2.5% of his income. This is called a regressive tax. It's a bad thing.

It sounds really good on paper, this is why flat taxes are regressive. It hits the people hardest who can least afford to pay it.

This is a very basic example, but should illustrate why flat taxes are not good.

[Tendarian]

The guy who makes $100,000 is still being taxed on $50,000 and the other guy is being taxed for $30,000 though. And eventually the richer guy isnt just going to save. Eventually he will want to spend that money and as soon as he does that tax will be paid. Even if he doesnt when he dies there will be a tax im sure as its a money transaction.

[TheEschaton]

Not really. I make a good amount of money, but I need as much of it as I can. I have expenses just like someone who makes 10k a year.

Nah, you don't NEED it. You just WANT it. For bigger, better STUFF.


It's the ultimate sickening aspect of capitalism - where we're made to think that "Hey, I need every red cent of that 100k to get all the STUFF I NEED", when in reality, we NEED very little of it.

Do I need Gemstone? Nope.
Do I need this computer? Nah, it's purely for my recreation.
Do I need my treadmill? Pah, there's lots of road out there.
Do I need the brand name Cocoa Puffs? Nah, generic brand Choco-Puffs is good enough.
Do I need the obscene Hummer? Nah, I can survive in the Ford Tempo. Hell, if I live in a big enough city with good enough public transportation, I don't even need a car.

You get the idea.

It always amazed me - in Boston, you can get from anywhere in the city, to the airport....for a BUCK. From my school, just hopped on the red, down to the blue, and to the airport. It was easy. Not as easy as a cab, no, not as quick as a cab, but it was $1 as opposed to $30. I didn't NEED a cab. Hell, if I couldn't afford the T - Boston's a walking city, if anything.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

In major cities with mass transit you don't need a car or a cab.

In the rural areas, you need a vehicle. Maybe not a SUV, but 4 wheels and heat.

My problem isn't so much with income taxing as it is with every other tax out there and the shelters afforded to the rich.

Our household brings in good money and we continue to live on a sub 50k a year budget and sock away the excess. Most people do not have that luxury. Most people, as has been stated, need every dime to survive. It makes no sense that a person making 500 or more a year can work the loopholes and pay an even smaller percentage.

The solution is not just coming up with fair percentages, it is moving the shelters to those households that make 50 or less a year, cutting out the loop-holes and taxing outsourced incomes.

[Tendarian]

The solution is not just coming up with fair percentages, it is moving the shelters to those households that make 50k or less a year, cutting out the loop-holes and taxing outsourced incomes.

:thumbsup: I agree with Tsa`ah.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Tendarian]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Tendarian
The guy who makes $100,000 is still being taxed on $50,000 and the other guy is being taxed for $30,000 though. And eventually the richer guy isnt just going to save. Eventually he will want to spend that money and as soon as he does that tax will be paid. Even if he doesnt when he dies there will be a tax im sure as its a money transaction.

I'm not talking about estate taxes.

You're missing the point.

The guy making $100,000 pays the same amount, percentage wise, as the poor guy if, and only if, he spends all of his income.

He has a choice, where as the poor person who has to spend every dime of his income does not.

Regressive taxes are not fair. A flat tax is a regressive tax.

Tsa'ah made an excellent point as well.

[Edaarin]

It's fair versus efficient. Flat taxes are very efficient, but that Robin Hood mentality sort of discourages people from reaching for that next bracket. Say you make $35k, so you're in the second tax bracket and are paying around 30% of your income (I'm making these numbers up). If you get a raise that pushes you into the $40k bracket, you're now paying 35% of your income, so despite that extra work you put in you're actually making $500 less than you put in. It almost seems like it punishes success.

A progressive tax system that staggers (like we have now) is very inefficient. So many loopholes, so many ways to avoid paying taxes, you have an inherently intrusive method of collection in the form of the IRS, and it takes a lot of man power and machine hours to make work.

One compromise might be a national sales tax like was mentioned earlier in the thread and no income tax, but that sort of punishes people at the lower brackets since they are going to spend most of their income on the essentials and will be unable to save much, so a large portion of income still goes to taxes.

[Tendarian]

If some guy who makes $100,000 a year wants to live like he makes $30,000 a year what does it matter if he is taxed the exact same as the guy who only makes $30,000? As long as the tax is collected eventually(when he spends it) i dont think it makes a big difference. How many people making 100k a year want to live like 30k anyway? Just like TheE said the more money ya make the more money ya want to spend on nifty things(rough translation).

[Scott]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Not really. I make a good amount of money, but I need as much of it as I can. I have expenses just like someone who makes 10k a year.

Nah, you don't NEED it. You just WANT it. For bigger, better STUFF.


It's the ultimate sickening aspect of capitalism - where we're made to think that "Hey, I need every red cent of that 100k to get all the STUFF I NEED", when in reality, we NEED very little of it.

Do I need Gemstone? Nope.
Do I need this computer? Nah, it's purely for my recreation.
Do I need my treadmill? Pah, there's lots of road out there.
Do I need the brand name Cocoa Puffs? Nah, generic brand Choco-Puffs is good enough.
Do I need the obscene Hummer? Nah, I can survive in the Ford Tempo. Hell, if I live in a big enough city with good enough public transportation, I don't even need a car.


Needs vary from person to person, so to say that someone who makes 50k or 100k or whatever doesn't need all of it, isn't true. I know I have my luxuries, and I don't need everything I make. However that doesn't apply to everyone.

Not everything is as cut and dry as someone who makes 100k doesn't need all of it. Some people have higher expenses then others, and to tax someone who makes more because "they have so much, they don't need it" is ridiculous.

Editted: because I'm stupid and I named a whole bunch of shit that was stupid.

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Gemstone101]

[Sean]

Originally posted by longshot
Nobody said it better than Chris Rock, when he explained it concerning divorces and his "understanding" of OJ killing Nicole.

Not a direct quote by any means...

If you got thirty million, and she wants half, you still got 15 million dollars. No big deal.

But if you making 30 thousand, and the bitch wants 15, she gonna have to die.

I'm not moving back in with my momma just 'cause you aren't in love no more.


This is totally tangent as I don't have an actual informed stance on the tax cuts but.. I thought that was an eddie murphy bit about johnny carson and his wife. Eh maybe its both who knows. Just how I remeber it.

[Jazuela]

I'm sticking with Backlash's idea since he's the one who started the thread and suggested it. He's talking about a ONE PERCENT income tax across the board. Not 5 on spent income, not 50 on all income. Not sales tax, not revenue after sales tax.

Currently, my household is in what's considered "lower middle class" in our state. Unfortunately we are considered "upper middle class" in most other states, and according to the federal guidelines, that puts us in a higher tax bracket than the "lower middle class" of other states, which have lower standards of living.

So we're paying around 25% on our combined income.

People who are earning less than we are, are in the lower class, and are paying around 15-20% tax on their gross income.

People who are earning a lot more than we are, in our state, are paying up to 40%, but they are given TONS of deductions that we as middle class people aren't entitled to take, because we USE our income differently than they do and just don't have it to spend on all those nifty deductible expenses.

A flat 1% tax on ALL income - without any deductions allowed at all - would do a bang-up job in levelling things out.

The poor would pay less and get to keep more to live on. The middle class would pay less and get to keep more to live on. The upper class would pay more, dollar-wise, but it wouldn't be enough for them to whine about because after you hit a certain gross yearly income, it's all gravy anyway. This would hit them in the gravy, but not in the living expenses - not even for the rich whose living expenses are MUCH higher than ours.

It would not change the "standard of living" for the rich, but it -would- have a positive impact on the standard of living for the middle and lower classes.

As a middle-class income household, this reduced percentage with no deductibles wouldn't be enough to afford us a jacuzzi and landscaping on our half-acre. But it would be enough to pay for the roof we very desperately need, because the shingles are falling off and we can't afford to re-roof right now.

As a lower-class income household, the reduced percentage wouldn't be enough for them to "move on up to the East Side." But it would certainly be enough for them to enjoy a shopping spree for new winter clothes for the family once a year instead of Junior wearing his brother's hand-me-downs.

As an upper-class income household, the amount won't put them into the poorhouse. But it will require them to be a little more cautious about some of their investments. Perhaps less NYSE individual stocks, maybe sell off a few krugerands, and switch over to something a little more safe like the water company shares.

The rich will still be rich and still be able to enjoy the rich lifestyle and standard of living. The poor will still be poor, but slightly better dressed and fed. The middle class will still be middle class, but they won't have to worry if they need a major repair to their home.

I think it sounds like an excellent idea.

[TheEschaton]

Not everything is as cut and dry as someone who makes 100k doesn't need all of it. Some people have higher expenses then others, and to tax someone who makes more because "they have so much, they don't need it" is ridiculous.

If you have 100k in expenses, and you think everything in that 100k is necessary expense, you're bugging. Unless you're sending your two kids to Harvard (37k last I knew) without aid.

As for the 1% tax on income. The rich would NOT be paying more than they're paying now. 1% on ALL income < the 40% on the income that IS taxable.

For example, if I make 2 million dollars this year, by your 1% scheme, I pay 20,000 in taxes. Under normal federal guidelines, I could probably write off, maximum, 500k, unless I was a hude charity case. So, 40% of 1.5m is 600,000. Tell me how it adds up? It would bankrupt the country in a year. 500 billion deficits? Try deficits in the trillions.


-TheE-

[Back]

Actually, the idea is 1% on every finnancial transaction, whether its buying a pack of gum, or buying out another mega-corporation. Just want to say that this is not some idea I came up with on my own, just one that I read about, and happen to consider from time to time.

How to distribute it is another matter. Half divided by the 50 states, the other half for the Federal Government?