but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
one can argue about fair. I don't think a flat tax is fair, because if you have more stuff you profit more from the state.
what? how about wellfare, and all that other stuff. yes, there's lobbyist groups talk government into creating regulations which hurt the economy and invariably the lower class but those should be removed either way.
Yeah there are many things where you do not profit at all, but those things also exist for poor people. For example take the most obvious one : Defense. If the US is invated the most a poor person can lose is his life, his rights and the little stuff he has. Rich person also can lose all this stuff, but he can lose much more stuff. So the protection he revices is worth more money than the protection poor people recive.
ok bu the rich pays proportionally more even with the flat tax (flat percentage)
I know that this example is quite silly, but it's the easiest to understand. The most benefit the rich person revices is a benefit that the poor person revices, but it's worth more for the rich person. Education, Medicare and unemployment paiments are examples for this. Educated, healthy workers are worth more than they cost to produce. With more money your chances to profit from them is obviously much better than the chances a poor person has.
no. educated healthy workers aren't always worth more than they cost to produce. when you say something like this you're giving incentive for the cost of becoming educated and healthy to be jacked up. Education and healthcare CAN be worth the cost, but it's not priceless...
------------ Maybe the following is a little bit Offtopic because it focuses on the budget and not how to treat certain people : When i look at the US-budget and i compare it with the german one. I honestly have the feeling that the us is waisting money on a big scale. The german budget for 2012 is 306 Billion euro which is around 459 Billion Dollar (1 Euro = 1,5 Dollar to make it very simpel). So if i scalle the 82 Million population to a 311 Million one i get a budget of arround 1741 Billion, which is not even half of the us budget and i honestly ask myself why is that the case? (For those who don't know how it looks in Germany : http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/nn_139992/DE/BMF__Startseite/Multimedia/Infografiken-Bundeshaushalt/InfografikenBildergalerie,gtp=139996__3D4.html?__nnn=true#imggallerytop the for biggest chunks : 1. Work and Socialstuff (unemployment paiments, money for the retirement (we also have social security but the state needs to put more money into it to make it work, this money is one of the biggest chunk under this point) 2.Payments for the debt and new debt 3. Defense 4. Other stuff Mrd. = Billion = 10^9
If someone could make the world a little bit clearer for me i would be thankfull.
for us i think the rough estimates are 25% healthcare 25% social security 25% defense spending. and we have a 3500 billion budget.
so that allocates around 875 billion for each of those things.
while germany has 40% for social stuff like you and that website say, i can't translate what it is exactly, but 40% of 1740 billion is like 700 billion... so we're actually spending more money on social security alone per person then you guys are spending on that thinig that says "something social" in german which is 40% of your total spending... so yeah...
we need to cut spending eeeeeeeeeverywhere, including our entitlements.
35% is not absurdly high, in some countries it's 70% or higher, and they do just fine.
Don't forget
- State Taxes - Property Taxes - Capital Gains Taxes - Estate Taxes - Sales Taxes - Sin Taxes - Gas Taxes - Payroll Taxes - And Many More I haven't looked up!
Just a reminder that these listed already on top of the 35% federal income tax that this bracket pays. Trust me, we pay our fair share.
In any single state not all of those taxes apply. Additionally, many of these taxes to the state are deductible from your federal income tax.
35% is not absurdly high, in some countries it's 70% or higher, and they do just fine.
Don't forget
- State Taxes - Property Taxes - Capital Gains Taxes - Estate Taxes - Sales Taxes - Sin Taxes - Gas Taxes - Payroll Taxes - And Many More I haven't looked up!
Just a reminder that these listed already on top of the 35% federal income tax that this bracket pays. Trust me, we pay our fair share.
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
one can argue about fair. I don't think a flat tax is fair, because if you have more stuff you profit more from the state.
what? how about wellfare, and all that other stuff. yes, there's lobbyist groups talk government into creating regulations which hurt the economy and invariably the lower class but those should be removed either way.
Seriously, it sounds like youre just repeating talking points. Youre generalizing regulations to be all harmful to the economy and thus the lower class. Regulations are made to protect the people of this country to bad business practices.
Lets talk in absolutes then since you seem to be so keen on using them. Your side says that regulations are bad because it causes businesses to spend more money and time on bureaucratic stuff that could be spent on expanding their business. Yes, sometimes that can be true.
However, the other side of the argument is the lack of regulations can cause businesses to be dishonest about their practices. This causes consumers, both individuals and businesses alike, to spend more money and time on making sure the vendor theyre dealing with is trustworthy and will deliver exactly what they say. This causes *gasp* economic inefficiency.
Its always frustrating to see talking points thrown around without sound logic because usually theyre unrealistic absolutes. In this case, both the cases for and against government regulation have solid reasoning but people arguing them tend to look at idealistic and absolute scenarios, which are unrealistic.
Yeah there are many things where you do not profit at all, but those things also exist for poor people. For example take the most obvious one : Defense. If the US is invated the most a poor person can lose is his life, his rights and the little stuff he has. Rich person also can lose all this stuff, but he can lose much more stuff. So the protection he revices is worth more money than the protection poor people recive.
ok bu the rich pays proportionally more even with the flat tax (flat percentage)
Wait, if everyone pays the same percentage, how would the rich pay a higher percentage?
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
one can argue about fair. I don't think a flat tax is fair, because if you have more stuff you profit more from the state.
what? how about wellfare, and all that other stuff. yes, there's lobbyist groups talk government into creating regulations which hurt the economy and invariably the lower class but those should be removed either way.
Seriously, it sounds like youre just repeating talking points. Youre generalizing regulations to be all harmful to the economy and thus the lower class. Regulations are made to protect the people of this country to bad business practices.
Lets talk in absolutes then since you seem to be so keen on using them. Your side says that regulations are bad because it causes businesses to spend more money and time on bureaucratic stuff that could be spent on expanding their business. Yes, sometimes that can be true.
However, the other side of the argument is the lack of regulations can cause businesses to be dishonest about their practices. This causes consumers, both individuals and businesses alike, to spend more money and time on making sure the vendor theyre dealing with is trustworthy and will deliver exactly what they say. This causes *gasp* economic inefficiency.
Its always frustrating to see talking points thrown around without sound logic because usually theyre unrealistic absolutes. In this case, both the cases for and against government regulation have solid reasoning but people arguing them tend to look at idealistic and absolute scenarios, which are unrealistic.
Yeah there are many things where you do not profit at all, but those things also exist for poor people. For example take the most obvious one : Defense. If the US is invated the most a poor person can lose is his life, his rights and the little stuff he has. Rich person also can lose all this stuff, but he can lose much more stuff. So the protection he revices is worth more money than the protection poor people recive.
ok bu the rich pays proportionally more even with the flat tax (flat percentage)
Wait, if everyone pays the same percentage, how would the rich pay a higher percentage?
What he is trying to say that if someone makes $1 they would pay $0.35, and if someone makes $10 they would way $3.50. With that being said, even if there was a flat % that everyone paid, the rich would CONTRIBUTE more money in taxes. So if you make your money you are already contributing more money than someone who is poor, so why should you have to pay even more.
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is less than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet:
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is more than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is more than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
I am single with no kids, and no house, and I make too much money to deduct student loans, so I have the shittiest deductions possible. Additionally I am in the top quintile of household income and my effective income tax rate is like 28% or something.
As I mentioned before, many of the taxes you listed are deductible from your federal income tax anyway. It seems impossible to me that your family is paying 48% of their income in tax and for your family to be well off enough to be against raising the tax on the highest earners (370k +) AND at least discussing raising capital gains tax. Maybe they run a small business?
for us i think the rough estimates are 25% healthcare 25% social security 25% defense spending. and we have a 3500 billion budget.
so that allocates around 875 billion for each of those things.
while germany has 40% for social stuff like you and that website say, i can't translate what it is exactly, but 40% of 1740 billion is like 700 billion... so we're actually spending more money on social security alone per person then you guys are spending on that thinig that says "something social" in german which is 40% of your total spending... so yeah...
we need to cut spending eeeeeeeeeverywhere, including our entitlements
Yeah that was exactly what i meant, the us budget is bigger in all areas. What i was somehow implying is how can this be? I don't know excactly what social programms your goverment funds, but for me it seems like you pumping more money in and you gett less out (in the social area i don't have a clue about other areas). For example germany one get's unemployment benefits till you retire and not a limited time (1st year is more money but one can make a living of the benefits (not a good one)) and our percentage of people who recive unemployment benefits is defently higher than 10% (I can't point to the excact number because we have a stupid system that makes finding out who recives the money because he has no job is not as easy to see. Politicians want the numbers to look "good" and therefore they are basicly false) . To repeat the basic question again : "How do you spend so much money and get so little?"
no. educated healthy workers aren't always worth more than they cost to produce. when you say something like this you're giving incentive for the cost of becoming educated and healthy to be jacked up. Education and healthcare CAN be worth the cost, but it's not priceless...
Let's view education : It's needed to keep things running. Without a educationsystem that provides sufficient good students your hightech economy gets limited in it's potential. The IT-Industry is a good example for that. Take Microsoft, take Google, take Facebook they all say that they do not have sufficient skilled workers on their hand and this is not only the case in the US. It's the same in europe (don't know about asia). And of course there are these industries that have to cut back their buisness because they do not have the required men power that has enough "brains". Chemical industry is an example from germany. I don't know the US well enough to name one their, but surely someone will know one. If you cut back the "brain" output you increase the effects. There's a reason why most creative, think and research work is still done in the western world (i speak only of western firms here) and education is one although it is getting darker in this regard. Another good example for the economic power of education, the development of South Korea. From third to first world in record time. (Education is not the only factor of course but one can't deny it's effects)
It's similar with healthcare but less certain and more about human behavior. If i come to it i will try to explain this tomorrow in detail if still necessary.
what? how about wellfare, and all that other stuff.
Wellfare keeps the system alive. It's one of the most important tools. Just image what people that are unemployed would do if they didn't recevice anymoney / goods to live. I'm pretty sure there will be blood involved. Furthermore wellfare is one of the most effective stimulus a econmy has, because people who are poor will always spent their and support the economy who gave them the money again. Yeah it's wealth distribution, but it negates massive security costs to keep such a large group at bay and this people will reproduce which garanties a workforce that is not getting smaller (the last one is not always postive, i'm not sure how it's in the US). Without welfare you would be seeing "London riots" far more often.
for us i think the rough estimates are 25% healthcare 25% social security 25% defense spending. and we have a 3500 billion budget.
so that allocates around 875 billion for each of those things.
while germany has 40% for social stuff like you and that website say, i can't translate what it is exactly, but 40% of 1740 billion is like 700 billion... so we're actually spending more money on social security alone per person then you guys are spending on that thinig that says "something social" in german which is 40% of your total spending... so yeah...
700bil/81,799,600=8557.49 per person germany 875bil/312,296,000=2801.83 per person usa
gdp germany:$2.940 trillion usa:$14,526 trillion
Just assuming that you're numbers saying like were correct which they likely weren't usa's gdp is nearly 5x that of germany and we have a population of something like 3.7 times that of germany. Keeping that in mind using the numbers you provided
1740 billion germany 3500 billion usa
means only 2 times the size of the budget of germany, even though we have nearly 5 times the gdp and nearly 4 times the population, so per the person our budget is actually quite low =p sure you could adjust somethings like raise the retirement age rewrite parts of medicare to force the use of generics over name brands etc but at the end of the day to fix the budget quickly you need to raise revenue. You forget that you not only have to break even on the budget but then some to actually be paying off principal on debt
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is more than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
You think this doesn't happen for the lower classes either? Sales taxes, sin taxes, payroll taxes, etc, etc also hit lower income earners. Payroll tax is actually capped, so once you hit a certain level of income, you don't pay further payroll tax on additional income.
That said, the reason why a flat tax is regarded as unfair:
Consider two families, couples with three children. One family earns 20k, the other earns 100k, pre tax. Let us assume no government welfare, and no other taxes. Let us also assume that a 20k income is sufficient for the following: basic transportation, basic shelter, plain clothing, sufficient food, maintenance and insurance of home + contents and $1000 a year left over for appliances, luxuries, health care, investment etc.
The 20k income family is barely squeaking by. They have $20 a week left over for discretionary spending. Taking the family to the cinema once per month would use up the remainder of the budget.
Consider now the 100k income family. Now let us assume that this family was originally a 20k family. At the beginning, they have the same lifestyle. Suddenly, the 100k family is earning 5x more than the 20k family. However, this does not tell the whole picture. The fixed expenditure of both families is 19k a year. Below this income, the family has to either go hungry, stop maintaining/insuring, wear tattered clothing, etc. Now, the 100k family has 81k a year left over for discretionary spending (upgrading transport, the house, new clothes, high quality food, appliances, luxuries, health care, investment).
You see, even though the 100k family makes five times more money, they have eighty one times more money to spend as they wish.
Now consider a 5% flat income tax. The 20k family now has an after tax income of 19k. They now have absolutely no money left over after buying the bare necessities. The 100k family still has 76k a year left over.
Now consider a 10% flat income tax. The 20k family now has 18k after tax. They can longer afford to feed every member of the family, while the 100k a year family still has 71k a year left for discretionary spending.
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is more than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
If you're not willing to elaborate on anecdotal evidence that you provided, then you shouldn't provide it.
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
one can argue about fair. I don't think a flat tax is fair, because if you have more stuff you profit more from the state.
what? how about wellfare, and all that other stuff. yes, there's lobbyist groups talk government into creating regulations which hurt the economy and invariably the lower class but those should be removed either way.
Seriously, it sounds like youre just repeating talking points. Youre generalizing regulations to be all harmful to the economy and thus the lower class. Regulations are made to protect the people of this country to bad business practices.
regulations for the most part are there because of lobbyists that don't at all protect the lower class... they protect particular unions and the employed.
On the other hand they put a strain on the economy and punish the unemployed.
Lets talk in absolutes then since you seem to be so keen on using them. Your side says that regulations are bad because it causes businesses to spend more money and time on bureaucratic stuff that could be spent on expanding their business. Yes, sometimes that can be true.
i wasn't the one who started talking about absolutes...
However, the other side of the argument is the lack of regulations can cause businesses to be dishonest about their practices. This causes consumers, both individuals and businesses alike, to spend more money and time on making sure the vendor theyre dealing with is trustworthy and will deliver exactly what they say. This causes *gasp* economic inefficiency.
Fraud is already illegal, people need to focus more on finding and persecuting fraud, and not by making it hard on the honest businesses...
regulations aren't about stopping fraud at all... they're about protecting those already employed and in a powerful union, which punishes those still unemployed, and creates extra costs for the employer.
Its always frustrating to see talking points thrown around without sound logic because usually theyre unrealistic absolutes. In this case, both the cases for and against government regulation have solid reasoning but people arguing them tend to look at idealistic and absolute scenarios, which are unrealistic.
everything is a talking point according to you. It's hard to talk from a practical perspective as a libertarian, because when was the last time a meaningfully large piece of legislation was repealed?
whenever anyone comes to power in the federal government they only want to give more power to the federal government, while giving contracts to their campaign supporters, and creating regulations and licensing requirements that support interest groups that were on their side, and helped during the elections and what-not.
Yeah there are many things where you do not profit at all, but those things also exist for poor people. For example take the most obvious one : Defense. If the US is invated the most a poor person can lose is his life, his rights and the little stuff he has. Rich person also can lose all this stuff, but he can lose much more stuff. So the protection he revices is worth more money than the protection poor people recive.
ok bu the rich pays proportionally more even with the flat tax (flat percentage)
Wait, if everyone pays the same percentage, how would the rich pay a higher percentage?
no sorry they don't pay a higher percentage, but they pay a higher total.... so in terms of the protection of their assets/property they pay the same percentage per asset as someone who's poor, so saying that the rich need to may more for defense doesn't make sense... yes they need to pay more but not disproportinately more, that's what I was saying.
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is more than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
If you're not willing to elaborate on anecdotal evidence that you provided, then you shouldn't provide it.
Fine I'll throw you a couple of bones, but don't expect anything much more detailed than this.
Total income lost to taxes ~= 28% Property taxes / State Taxes (multiple states, multiple properties) ~= 16% Sales tax / gas tax / other misc taxes =~ 4% Total: 48%
On September 27 2011 09:47 DetriusXii wrote: Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.
You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone?
well obviously you need a definition of fair.
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
edit:
and of course spending cuts... on tons of stuff.
you're the one who wanted to bring up objectivity into the equation... your posts have been plenty subjective also.
i don' think that the marginal rate needs to be highered to 35% for everyone... 35 % is too high in the first place... it's a rate that would destroy the livelihood of like the entire middle-class, but somehow if you're making more money it's not a big enough tax?
why are you trying to punish those that are successful...
plus taking all the money from them wont' cover the federal debt, and and taking all income wont' cover the deficit.
they need to cut spending, because the money is always better of in the private sector.
@Kiarip: I keep on saying marginal tax rates need to be increased. You keep on saying that marginal tax brackets on the rich will hurt the middle class. It suggests that you don't know the math to marginal tax brackets and you're confusing average tax rates to marginal tax rates.
i didn't say it will hurt the middle class. i said that even the current level of taxes imposed on the rich would completely wreck the middle class, so how is such a percentages of taxes fair in the first place...
you're the one who brought up objective fairness...
The USA has a deficit. That deficit needs to be solved. Punishing the successful does seem to be a solution to closing the deficit gap. Right now, not "punishing" the successful is creating a fiscal mess that is affecting the middle class and poor right now.
um... no what's causing a "fiscal mess" is the regulations which makes our labor uncompetitive. Taxing the rich won't make them create jobs... if your only plan is to slowly take all their money to give it to the poor, that's fine eventually they'll have no more money left, and there will be no more jjobs than there were before, and there will be no one actually capable of creating jobs.
and what got us into this deficit is spending and not tax-cuts, because even if we took all the money from the top 2% of the population we still wouldn't cover the national debt.
If the Bush tax cuts were not to have been extended, a third of the US deficit would be removed right now. So it seems to suggest that taxing the rich does provide some measure of reducing the deficit.
And now you've brought up the greatest myth of all time. That somehow the private sector is more efficient at spending money than the public sector. Fire fighting services were socialized because the private sector was historically more inefficient.
firefighting is a pretty extreme example. The vast majority of historical proof point to the inefficiency of big government and the way they spend money.
It's a contradiction in your argument and you need to stop peddling that bullshit. I think the private sector is better at making products, but I don't think they're always good to have. Contractors more expensive.
contractors implies that the government was the one spending the money in the first place... yeah, that's mistake # 1 you can't blame the contracters when it's the government who's handling the money roflz.
The link I've just now cited is an example where the private sector is creating a myriad of inefficiencies and the government would have been more efficient by just hiring the contractors as staff. The government is essentially paying to interact with multiple independent administrations rather with their own managements.
all those are example of contractors....
where government hires the private sector to do something... that's not the private sector doing work, that's the government mishandling money...
You claim that fire fighting is an extreme example. What makes it extreme?
You cant just list out a bunch of taxes and act as if the number of bullet points is what makes our tax burden so high.
I mean for example, capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes for many anyways. Estate taxes only count when someone dies and another inherits it. How are taxes like those relevant when talking about the tax burden US citizens have to worry about on a regular basis?
The point that I was making is that it isn't 35% when you look at all the taxes incorporated into every day life. It's around 45 - 60% when you look at people who are making 6 figure salaries (future me) while retaining an active role in the market.
This is just untrue. The highest tax bracket taxes at 35% and that is only on every dollar you make after 370k. It is mathematically impossible to be taxed 35% of your income from income tax alone. Using this as your base is just unrealistic.
Many people who are rich (executives, etc) make most of their money off of stock/options or real estate anyway. Gains from these are often taxed at a much lower rate. Many millionaires have gone on record saying that their effective tax rate is more than their secretaries. For example, William Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
I wasn't saying that income is taxed at that rate, what I was saying is once you have other taxes incorporated besides income taxes, it can add up very fast in terms of the total percentage of your money you pay in the form of tax. I can say firsthand that my family forfeits roughly 48% of our income annually to taxes in one form or another. Whether or not you believe me on this statistic, I don't care, because i'm not putting all my family's economic data on an internet forum.
You think this doesn't happen for the lower classes either? Sales taxes, sin taxes, payroll taxes, etc, etc also hit lower income earners. Payroll tax is actually capped, so once you hit a certain level of income, you don't pay further payroll tax on additional income.
That said, the reason why a flat tax is regarded as unfair:
Consider two families, couples with three children. One family earns 20k, the other earns 100k, pre tax. Let us assume no government welfare, and no other taxes. Let us also assume that a 20k income is sufficient for the following: basic transportation, basic shelter, plain clothing, sufficient food, maintenance and insurance of home + contents and $1000 a year left over for appliances, luxuries, health care, investment etc.
The 20k income family is barely squeaking by. They have $20 a week left over for discretionary spending. Taking the family to the cinema once per month would use up the remainder of the budget.
Consider now the 100k income family. Now let us assume that this family was originally a 20k family. At the beginning, they have the same lifestyle. Suddenly, the 100k family is earning 5x more than the 20k family. However, this does not tell the whole picture. The fixed expenditure of both families is 19k a year. Below this income, the family has to either go hungry, stop maintaining/insuring, wear tattered clothing, etc. Now, the 100k family has 81k a year left over for discretionary spending (upgrading transport, the house, new clothes, high quality food, appliances, luxuries, health care, investment).
You see, even though the 100k family makes five times more money, they have eighty one times more money to spend as they wish.
Now consider a 5% flat income tax. The 20k family now has an after tax income of 19k. They now have absolutely no money left over after buying the bare necessities. The 100k family still has 76k a year left over.
Now consider a 10% flat income tax. The 20k family now has 18k after tax. They can longer afford to feed every member of the family, while the 100k a year family still has 71k a year left for discretionary spending.
I wasn't arguing for a flat tax rate, even I know that wouldn't work very well at the federal level. What I was saying is that people like me pay a ton of money into the system already, and really aren't to eager to see that amount increase with how bad government is at getting the most out of every dollar.
On September 27 2011 09:47 DetriusXii wrote: Life isn't fair and the middle class doesn't have the income to absorb new taxes. When most of the income of the United States is being captured by the top earners, it suggests that they should be taxed more. If you can show the phenomenal wage growth in the middle class, then maybe they could be a source of government revenue, but middle class families are being stressed by costs that are placed on them that were once subsidized through marginal tax rates. Elizabeth Warren's presentation of the collapse of the middle class.
You're again offering a value judgement that it's unfair to have marginal tax rates. So why not get rid of all marginal tax rates then? Is that what you want? A flat tax across the board for everyone?
well obviously you need a definition of fair.
but there's a reason why flat tax is called the fair tax. anyways i don't want an income tax at all. income tax is bad at its core. they just need a higher salestax.
edit:
and of course spending cuts... on tons of stuff.
you're the one who wanted to bring up objectivity into the equation... your posts have been plenty subjective also.
i don' think that the marginal rate needs to be highered to 35% for everyone... 35 % is too high in the first place... it's a rate that would destroy the livelihood of like the entire middle-class, but somehow if you're making more money it's not a big enough tax?
why are you trying to punish those that are successful...
plus taking all the money from them wont' cover the federal debt, and and taking all income wont' cover the deficit.
they need to cut spending, because the money is always better of in the private sector.
@Kiarip: I keep on saying marginal tax rates need to be increased. You keep on saying that marginal tax brackets on the rich will hurt the middle class. It suggests that you don't know the math to marginal tax brackets and you're confusing average tax rates to marginal tax rates.
i didn't say it will hurt the middle class. i said that even the current level of taxes imposed on the rich would completely wreck the middle class, so how is such a percentages of taxes fair in the first place...
you're the one who brought up objective fairness...
The USA has a deficit. That deficit needs to be solved. Punishing the successful does seem to be a solution to closing the deficit gap. Right now, not "punishing" the successful is creating a fiscal mess that is affecting the middle class and poor right now.
um... no what's causing a "fiscal mess" is the regulations which makes our labor uncompetitive. Taxing the rich won't make them create jobs... if your only plan is to slowly take all their money to give it to the poor, that's fine eventually they'll have no more money left, and there will be no more jjobs than there were before, and there will be no one actually capable of creating jobs.
and what got us into this deficit is spending and not tax-cuts, because even if we took all the money from the top 2% of the population we still wouldn't cover the national debt.
If the Bush tax cuts were not to have been extended, a third of the US deficit would be removed right now. So it seems to suggest that taxing the rich does provide some measure of reducing the deficit.
so would cutting spending.
And now you've brought up the greatest myth of all time. That somehow the private sector is more efficient at spending money than the public sector. Fire fighting services were socialized because the private sector was historically more inefficient.
firefighting is a pretty extreme example. The vast majority of historical proof point to the inefficiency of big government and the way they spend money.
It's a contradiction in your argument and you need to stop peddling that bullshit. I think the private sector is better at making products, but I don't think they're always good to have. Contractors more expensive.
contractors implies that the government was the one spending the money in the first place... yeah, that's mistake # 1 you can't blame the contracters when it's the government who's handling the money roflz.
The link I've just now cited is an example where the private sector is creating a myriad of inefficiencies and the government would have been more efficient by just hiring the contractors as staff. The government is essentially paying to interact with multiple independent administrations rather with their own managements.
all those are example of contractors....
where government hires the private sector to do something... that's not the private sector doing work, that's the government mishandling money...
You claim that fire fighting is an extreme example. What makes it extreme?
well it has to be an insurance based service because the demand for it is very sudden, and it would require an elaborate contract since fires can spread, and being next to an active fire isn't good either...
The thing that makes it most difficult to privatize is the fact that there's already a stigma amongst the general population that it's one of those services that absolutely needs to be provided by the government.
Overall, it's not high on anyone's list to privatize anyways, because at least it's run by individual cities or counties, which is way better than running it state by state, which is in turn much much much better than it being a federal service.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LzuYe.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.ekonomifakta.se/Data/chart-389-v38090-en.png)
