Better start planning

[~Rocktar~]

Yea - shame our politicians will keep fucking us.

Some reason they think the money you, me, and everyone else earns is theirs to just take unfortunately.

WRONG! The shame is that many people seem to think that as individuals they deserve to have money from other people's pockets without earning it. Because of that mentality, the politicians can spend money to buy votes. Because people are selfish as fuck, short sighted and have poor financial education and understanding of how their decisions affect others and themselves AND because they always assume that "do unto others" means it will never be done unto them, they vote for these fucks without any thought to what will happen next month. For example, the unions are typically huge Democrat supporters, well, they voted for Biden in droves and BAM, pipeline closed, factories going back overseas and they are out jobs. But hey, anyone but Trump, always blue no matter who and so on. They got what they paid for and their leadership got paid off in the deal. Republicans are only somewhat better about this, the things they buy votes for often have tangible assets like planes, tanks and bridges.

War is coming, it won't be pretty.

[Ashliana]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/03/weal...iden-plan.html

Potential 61% death tax.

Pay taxes your whole life - die - then they take the rest. Fucking sickening.

This doesn't even affect me, but no one should have their families life savings decimated like is being proposed.

You all that bust my balls for posting over the past few months, seriously need to wake the fuck up. The current administration is going to decimate all desire for people to elevate their position in life through hard work and fiscal responsibility.

The opportunity for upward mobility based upon individual drive and ambition is going to be demolished if they keep going.

We seriously need to get to a flat tax without loopholes to stop this insanity. No loopholes for anyone - just pay 25% in taxes and earn what you can in your life for you and your family.

Fingers crossed these jackasses don't succeed.

Also for you "pay their fair share" crowd - you full of shit jackasses - here's one example:

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...a-2020-update/

"In 2017, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent."

"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent)."

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.8 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than six times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (4.0 percent)."

"Fair share" doesn't mean everything they have - "fair share" would be everyone paying in, but the "fair share" crowd are fucking idiots. So those "rich people" you all hate - better hope they don't stop working and live off what they have - because your ass is just going to be more poor and destitute.

Spoiler Alert: The notion of a flat tax is as retarded as you are, and it will never be the law in the United States. Similarly, you will never be subject to an estate tax, which applies to .01% of estates, those worth nearly twelve million dollars.

So you're either:

• profoundly retarded and ignorant as shit, or
• lying out of your ass.

Which do you imagine reflects better on you?

[Gelston]

Spoiler Alert: The notion of a flat tax is as retarded as you are, and it will never be the law in the United States. Similarly, you will never be subject to an estate tax, which applies to .01% of estates, those worth nearly twelve million dollars.

So you're either:

• profoundly retarded and ignorant as shit, or
• lying out of your ass.

Which do you imagine reflects better on you?

What is wrong with a flat tax, with 0 exemptions for anyone?

[Ashliana]

What is wrong with a flat tax, with 0 exemptions for anyone?

Specific criticisms of a flat tax structure depend on what specific proposal you're talking about, since most involve major shifts to consumption-based taxation rather than income tax.

Generally, though, the notion of a flat tax might seem fair -- the same rate for everyone! You could abolish the IRS! .. It all sounds perfectly fine, until you run the math, which generally both 1) necessarily reduce the scope of what the government could do -- under common proposals -- since they'd be taking in far less money under existing proposals, and 2) shift the existing tax burden from falling disproportionately on those with disproportionately high income, to the lower and middle classes. Conservatives often claim they want to return to the "better" days of American yore.. except the top marginal tax rate in those days was much higher than it currently is. It was in the 90%+ level in the mid-20th century for top earners.

An important point, though: You don't need to move a flat tax in order to remove exemptions from a progressive tax structure, and I absolutely support the simplification of the tax code. You know who doesn't? Special interest groups.. specifically, the tax preparation lobby, who have been waging a war on efforts to simplify it.

Another point: I have no problem with people who want to make the argument that government should play a smaller role in American life, even if I don't agree with it. Dressing it up under the notion of tax policy, though, is a smokescreen.

[Gelston]

Flat Tax completely simplifies the tax code. It removes loopholes, and I'm talking about a pure fat tax, not a progressive or other models. No deductions, period. The IRS wouldn't be abolished, but the average person would never have anything to do with them, because the company would pay the taxes for employees. The current tax code has over a million words in it and seemingly benefits people who look for ways to cheat the system. Why even have that as a possibility?

The total income of the US in 2020 was nearly 20 trillion dollars. A 20% flat tax would be 4 trillion in that instance. Trump had proposed a FY21 budget, which was the largest ever, for 4.8 trillion dollars. The income tax almost covers that by itself in this instance, not even including sales tax and various other ways the Government raises money.

[Neveragain]

Specific criticisms of a flat tax structure depend on what specific proposal you're talking about, since most involve major shifts to consumption-based taxation rather than income tax.

Generally, though, the notion of a flat tax might seem fair -- the same rate for everyone! You could abolish the IRS! .. It all sounds perfectly fine, until you run the math, which generally both 1) necessarily reduce the scope of what the government could do -- under common proposals -- since they'd be taking in far less money under existing proposals, and 2) shift the existing tax burden from falling disproportionately on those with disproportionately high income, to the lower and middle classes. Conservatives often claim they want to return to the "better" days of American yore.. except the top marginal tax rate in those days was much higher than it currently is. It was in the 90%+ level in the mid-20th century for top earners.

An important point, though: You don't need to move a flat tax in order to remove exemptions from a progressive tax structure, and I absolutely support the simplification of the tax code. You know who doesn't? Special interest groups.. specifically, the tax preparation lobby, who have been waging a war on efforts to simplify it.

Another point: I have no problem with people who want to make the argument that government should play a smaller role in American life, even if I don't agree with it. Dressing it up under the notion of tax policy, though, is a smokescreen.

Flat tax is consumption tax, it's the perfect answer to reducing carbon emissions.

Conservatives often claim they want to return to the "better" days of American yore.. except the top marginal tax rate in those days was much higher than it currently is. It was in the 90%+ level in the mid-20th century for top earners.

It has nothing to do with the tax rates at the time but rather the importance of the family unit in a sane society.

[Seran]

Flat tax is consumption tax, it's the perfect answer to reducing carbon emissions.



It has nothing to do with the tax rates at the time but rather the importance of the family unit in a sane society.

No, a Value Added Tax is a consumption tax. A flat tax proposal, as the one bandied about here, would apply equally to the total gross earnings of any income, passive earnings and the exercised value of stock options at the time of award. This would severely crack down on the loopholes used to avoid taxes entirely on non cash earnings.

What precisely is your problem with the proposal? If you have none, ignore this.

Under all of the tax systems in the last few decades, exemptions and loopholes severely reduced the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest. A flat tax would simplify taxation by auditing employers, banks and investment institutions

[Neveragain]

No, a Value Added Tax is a consumption tax. A flat tax proposal, as the one bandied about here, would apply equally to the total gross earnings of any income, passive earnings and the exercised value of stock options at the time of award. This would severely crack down on the loopholes used to avoid taxes entirely on non cash earnings.

What precisely is your problem with the proposal? If you have none, ignore this.

Under all of the tax systems in the last few decades, exemptions and loopholes severely reduced the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest. A flat tax would simplify taxation by auditing employers, banks and investment institutions

I have no problems with a flat tax, it gives the tax payer complete control and incentivises people to consume less. This is why it's a consumption tax in it's purest form.

[Seran]

I have no problems with a flat tax, it gives the tax payer complete control and incentivises people to consume less. This is why it's a consumption tax in it's purest form.

But consumption doesn't drive the tax. Unless you're referring to people in low-wage areas would have less money at first and would have to consume less as a result of having less income

[Neveragain]

But consumption doesn't drive the tax. Unless you're referring to people in low-wage areas would have less money at first and would have to consume less as a result of having less income

And we have a robust safety net to help those people.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that business owners just raise their prices when taxes increase.