EPTThe real questions that need to be answered are 1. what is the effect on the lowest 50%? 2. what is the effect on the next 49%? 3. what is the effect on the top earners? 4. What is the overall effect on the total tax collection?
Perry Announces Flat Tax Plan - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
The real questions that need to be answered are 1. what is the effect on the lowest 50%? 2. what is the effect on the next 49%? 3. what is the effect on the top earners? 4. What is the overall effect on the total tax collection? | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
D in econ? shocking | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
Ron Paul may want to cut a toooonnnn of stuff, but at least if you look at the numbers, and that stuff gets cut, money is saved. Especially the stuff abroad. Basically this is like "massive random taxcut with ambiguous spending cuts" | ||
|
natrus
United States102 Posts
| ||
|
whiteguycash
United States476 Posts
| ||
|
theBOOCH
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
TheBatman
United States209 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:10 WTFZerg wrote: ![[image loading]](http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/554/original/facepalm.jpg?1248715065){kind=icon} Lose the federal spending limit and drop the choice between the two tax options and it could be sound. Not bad Perry, buy whoever thought of it a beer and a promotion. User was warned for this post why was this guy warned? | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
The facepalm. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Is it me or are they all starting to come out with plans ever since Ron Paul did it lol Well, 9-9-9 came first, I think. | ||
|
fatfail
United States386 Posts
| ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
For example the guys who are exempt with the current tax code will just opt to be on the current tax and your average families are going to opt out of the current tax system believing its bad and end up actually paying more taxes. Also he is a bilderberg member, he was in Bilderberg in Turkey, so I wouldn't tryst this guy. | ||
|
lithiumdeuteride
96 Posts
Who benefits from this plan? According to Wikipedia, a household income of $150,000 puts one in the top 6.04% of all households, and an income of $200,000 puts one in the top 2.87%. Linearly interpolating, we can estimate that an income of $189,000 would be in the top 3.57%, approximately. In summary, those in the top 3.57% of incomes benefit from this plan, and everyone else sees no change. Rick Perry can kiss my ass. | ||
|
aethereality
Canada62 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:29 Trezeguet wrote: He did poorly at an relatively unimpressive school, but I think we are all smart enough to realize that he didn't really come up with any part of this tax plan. Can we please leave his terrible and pathetic grades out of this. He could have flunked out of college for all I care if he is smart enough to listen to people who didn't. The real questions that need to be answered are 1. what is the effect on the lowest 50%? 2. what is the effect on the next 49%? 3. what is the effect on the top earners? 4. What is the overall effect on the total tax collection? How can I trust that someone either lazy or stupid enough to fail hard at school is smart enough to listen to good advice, or differentiate between good and bad advice? I honestly don't care about any of his policies if it is shown that he is so lazy that he BARELY made it out of a low-end public college. I know people who study like 30 minutes per day and keep their gpa higher than that. Lazy people don't deserve my pocket money, nor yours. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 25 2011 14:00 lithiumdeuteride wrote: I threw together an income tax bracket calculator in Excel, and I can inform you that the critical threshold is $94,500 for an individual, and $189,000 for a joint (married) filing. If you make more than this threshold, you get a net benefit from switching to the flat 20%. If you make less, you see no change at all. Who benefits from this plan? According to Wikipedia, a household income of $150,000 puts one in the top 6.04% of all households, and an income of $200,000 puts one in the top 2.87%. Linearly interpolating, we can estimate that an income of $189,000 would be in the top 3.57%, approximately. In summary, those in the top 3.57% of incomes benefit from this plan, and everyone else sees no change. Rick Perry can kiss my ass. I don't think an Excel spreadsheet is large enough to hold all of the potential deductions and credits (that a lot of people are using), lol. edit: or did you account for the main ones already and average those in somehow? The numbers look off, but my intuition could be way off since I don't currently make that kind of money (while in school...) to care about that bracket. In practice, this means that most or many people at those income levels you calculated actually pay less than 20%, so the real figure is a bit higher. Thus it's a smaller percentage who would benefit, than you think. And by "benefit" I mean pay less taxes, which is worse overall. | ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:13 Yergidy wrote: That is your opinion. My opinion is that taking more money from businesses, big or small, reduces business expansion and hiring which in turn reduces overall tax revenue because when taxes are raised on businesses the customer suffers does because businesses HAVE to meet overhead or they can't function so they raise prices to keep their profit. Raising taxes does nothing but raise costs for everyone. While lower taxes gives businesses more money for expansion and hiring people and thus yields a higher return to the government in taxes. What does this have to do with business tax? Its personal income tax. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
|
lithiumdeuteride
96 Posts
On October 25 2011 14:05 Myrmidon wrote: I don't think an Excel spreadsheet is large enough to hold all of the potential deductions and credits (that a lot of people are using), lol. edit: or did you account for the main ones already and average those in somehow? The numbers look off, but my intuition could be way off since I don't currently make that kind of money (while in school...) to care about that bracket. In practice, this means that most or many people at those income levels you calculated actually pay less than 20%, so the real figure is a bit higher. Thus it's a smaller percentage who would benefit, than you think. And by "benefit" I mean pay less taxes, which is worse overall. Yeah, I realize the deductions complicate everything. I did not account for any deductions. I simply looked at the US income tax brackets, and household income percentiles. The result is, as you said, that even fewer people will see a reduction in taxes than my calculation predicts. I stand by the sentiment that Rick Perry can kiss my ass. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:03 jeremysaint wrote: i swear americans live on another planet sometimes. the usa is going broke because of its ridiculously low taxes. 3rd lowest in western world. you dont need a tax cut, and unless you really hate people with low income you dont need a federal sales tax or any kind of flat tax. sometimes complex problems and systems don't have a simple answer, and a tax code you pulled out of your ass on a whim will not help your finacial woes. if there are problems with the current system fix the problems, close the loopholes, force republicans to cooperate with the us govt and president for the good of the country, at least once. Jeremy, your complaints ironically display an even more simplistic viewpoint than you claim us Americans have. There is a reason that Republicans won back the House, and nearly the Senate. We looked at Europe, which is in some measure gradually learning that unbridled socialism is not sustainable, and at dozens of other examples from the last hundred years, and decided that maybe we passed the threshold at which government size is appropriate relative to our private sector's size. Jeremy, are you aware that when Bush lowered taxes, revenues went up? How is that possible? I thought that tax rates had completely linear relationships with revenues? People will mock this tax plan as imperfect and simplistic, but it's been 25 year since we cleaned house with our tax policy and there's no time like the present to review everything. The principle behid this plan is what's important. Our current tax code is an extraordinary catalyst for creating the very collusion between business and government which you so deride. And you say that politicians should be 'forced' to cooperate with 'the us govt' - is a politician only part of the us govt if they are democrat? How would you 'force' them to comply? Do you realize the simplistic and dangerous potential when you start using words like 'force' and 'occupy' ? Those have led to many sad and tragic events throughout the years. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On October 25 2011 14:22 0neder wrote: Jeremy, are you aware that when Bush lowered taxes, revenues went up? How is that possible? I thought that tax rates had completely linear relationships with revenues?. How is that possible? Very simple explanation: you're bullshiting, that's how ;P http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/60msl1lj7k12giph/images/1-e6702e1c14.jpg)
