| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
I could be wrong, but this looks like a thinly veiled tax cut that will really help the rich and won't really affect the poor at all, but will look really cool and be a wonderful buzzword to resuscitate his campaign. I agree with an earlier sentiment: Whoever thought this up in Perry's camp should be given a beer and a promotion, but for different reasons  | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On October 26 2011 02:31 FabledIntegral wrote: Won't this only benefit those making large sums of money? Most people's taxable income rate isn't above 20%. Does anyone know the threshold for the amount of money when you'd start to benefit switching plans, not taking into account any exemptions/deductions, etc? And what marginal rate are you at when it would be good to switch? Given that most of the people that'd see the best benefits from this plan (2 income filers in the 50k to 100k per year gross income) tend to have the most insanely complex set of tax compliance issues (2 incomes, maybe just a little from investments and a whole host of tax credits for many things), the truth is that you can invent a lot of examples of people that would suddenly pay more or suddenly pay less. Which is the issue. You can't even make a random judgment about someone's tax liability because there's so many different moving pieces. The main beneficiaries, given the outline, are going to be 2 income filers with a few children, single people making over about 75k (they get wrecked by the tax code) and those being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax (so people around the 85k income range). And don't knock the ability to get the entire tax filing done in around 15 minutes. A lot of people end up needing to pay outside accountants to deal with a lot of the issues, especially if you own a small business. That's a big issue for a lot of the people making solid money. Oh, and if forced across the board, this would raise Warren Buffett's tax rate close to 2%. So, he should like it, haha. (Seriously, Capital Gains taxes are at 15% right now. Forcing them up to 20% would be a tax increase, but for the time being this would be optional) As for the business side of the proposal, the truth is no business actually pays the 35% tax rate. They pay a whole ton of lawyers & lobbyists to find ways to not pay that much. The companies would still keep a lot of the lawyers & lobbyists around, but they'd be less effective. They'd also have a good chunk less of the corrupting effect they can have now. Granted, expecting Congress to give up that type of power is going to take a large election mandate. (Power is rarely given up without a fight) | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
On October 26 2011 02:30 Bibdy wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 26 2011 01:29 Equity213 wrote: This whole issue is always and only tackled from a pragmatic standpoint. If a 50% tax rate is the most efficient rate on the laffer curve, then thats what people advocate. Does no one ever stop to ask if it is MORALLY right to take half of peoples income? Its not money your taking, its time and labour. I personally find it reprehensible that morality is not only disregarded, but it is never even considered. Should we have a 20% flat tax? The 9-9-9? Keep the progressive tax? These questions have their root in the root in the public perception that the government OWNS you and can arbitrarily take what ever they want. They are loaded questions. The only reason the tax rate isnt 100% is because they know no one would work. I might sound like a Ron Paul type, but Ron Paul fails this litmus test too. Of course to agree with any of this you have to reject utilitarianism, which seems to be the default moral position for most people. The problem with the Laffer Curve is a lot of people believe it's something like this ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg/745px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png) When in reality it's more like this ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ksI5H-K89vw/R6cj4j0szvI/AAAAAAAAB-Q/fthndTZLuhU/s400/laffuer-curve.png) There are just too many variables, ripple effects and events in modern life to accurately predict revenues based on the taxation rate. The theory has been put to the test, and found lacking, numerous times. Like most things related to the economy, the validity of a theory depends more on faith, conviction and dumb luck, than science. Not to mention maximizing tax revenue shouldn't be the goal of the government. Little things like fairness/morality/rights of the taxpayer, and the amount, efficiency and necessity of spending should be taken into account as well. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 26 2011 03:18 Frigo wrote: Not to mention maximizing tax revenue shouldn't be the goal of the government. Little things like fairness/morality/rights of the taxpayer, and the amount, efficiency and necessity of spending should be taken into account as well. So raising taxes on the rich just to punish them more (even though it doesn't raise additional revenues) and "level the playing field" is good policy? That's news to me. | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
The 20% mark is 77.5k(~149 jointly), so if you make less than that you're better off filing normally and if you make more you file 20% and you make out better. That is of course depending on deductions you would get. 10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 35% Bracket $379,150+ I don't know if I like that. It's obviously better for the rich while not really helping (relatively) the lower income people aside from being possibly more convenient (again depending on deductions). I think I may just prefer the Sim City plan. | ||
|
machination
United States175 Posts
Tax Bracket_____Single____________Married Filing Jointly__________Head of Household 10% Bracket_____$0 – $8,500___________$0 – $17,000______________$0 – $12,150 15% Bracket_____$8,500 – $34,500______$17,000 – $69,000_________$12,150 – $46,250 25% Bracket_____$34,500 – $83,600_____$69,000 – $139,350________$46,250 – $119,400 28% Bracket_____$83,600 – $174,400____$139,350 – $212,300_______$119,400 – $193,350 33% Bracket_____$174,400 – $379,150___$212,300 – $379,150_______$193,350 – $379,150 35% Bracket_____$379,150+____________$379,150+______________$379,150+ *cough* tax breaks for the rich *cough* | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11922 Posts
Do some people really fail to realize that they do not own hotels or banks? | ||
|
Kamille
Monaco1035 Posts
| ||
|
RumTalk
Jamaica135 Posts
| ||
|
RoyGBiv_13
United States1275 Posts
I live in california, so my state tax is really high, as is my sales tax (even with onlie purchases I have to pay california sales tax). I am currently taxed around 40% overall between state and federal taxes. With the flat tax, I would be taxed 35%. Thats nontrivial. I'm for i. I make a handsome living, but because I am taxed so heavily, I can't afford to spend the money that I make. That is an extra 5% going to my local bar. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:25 B00ts wrote: Some tax credits can be carried over and compounded in certain situations... so its not really like they're getting extra back... they just didnt get as much back as they could have in past years. (unless there is some other rules Im aware of) Sorry guys, I'll explain. My parents have adopted alot of kids. Adoptions are given tax credits. But due to my parents active charity work they never pay taxes anyways. Tax credits from my parents adoptions pile up over the years. New law was enacted by Obama that gets rid of this tax credit. Therefore these tax credits must be paid out in full. Turns out my parents have 95k in tax credits. | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
And as some have pointed out it really seems like the ones who profits from this is the rich, suprise suprise. | ||
|
hipsterHobbit
United States218 Posts
lol | ||
|
Shaetan
United States1175 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:08 McFeser wrote: Sorry guys, I'll explain. My parents have adopted alot of kids. Adoptions are given tax credits. But due to my parents active charity work they never pay taxes anyways. Tax credits from my parents adoptions pile up over the years. New law was enacted by Obama that gets rid of this tax credit. Therefore these tax credits must be paid out in full. Turns out my parents have 95k in tax credits. Time to begin mass adoption. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
| ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:22 relyt wrote: Why does he still allow people to use the current tax code? If our current tax code is so messed up then why not just get rid of it and replace it with a 15% flat income tax? Average revenue would go down considerable if that happens. Also, doing so would mean a huge downswing in charitable donations - unfortunately most people donate because of the tax refund - and when that happens a lot of charity (AKA jobs) will go down. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:28 McFeser wrote: Average revenue would go down considerable if that happens. Also, doing so would mean a huge downswing in charitable donations - unfortunately most people donate because of the tax refund - and when that happens a lot of charity (AKA jobs) will go down. I'm not saying a 15% or whatever % flat tax is good. I'm wondering why we are keeping the current tax code if everyone hates it so much. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: Also, on a unrelated note, due to a tax loophole my parents are recieving 95K back from the government this year. They made 85K. The IRS is auditing them to hell and back in case they gamed the system (They didn't) Yea, right. 95k in tax credit =/= 95k cash. As for the plan I think it's fine, but it doesn't really address the problem that money makes money and nobody is going to willingly vote their paycheck away. With that said half of congress are millionaires and they would like to keep it that way. When money is allowed to buy votes (legally) there is no possible way for the system to function in a way that the commonwealth is represented hence all the occupy movements growing and realizing that something is really fucked up with the system. I make around 180k a year and I don't really care too much about how much I pay in taxes, however, I do care a great deal about where the money is going. I feel like the government is grossly negligent with the way they spend the resources of the people and I'd like to see some reform in the way that tax money is managed. All-in-all it looks like more bullshit. People are coming up with plans that don't address the problem. It's like me trying to prescribe medication for someone without figuring out the signs and symptoms. edit: I don't see anyone considering a consumption tax which I'm a fan of. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:31 relyt wrote: I'm not saying a 15% or whatever % flat tax is good. I'm wondering why we are keeping the current tax code if everyone hates it so much. OK. I think of simplification of the tax code would be a good option but that is too much work for the current congress to complete (They can't do anything efficiently). So a rewrite is off the table. And this option is off the table because it won't (in my opinion) be helpful. So with the current enviroment at Washington right now I don't see a solution to something that the people desperately want (A better tax code). What I think they should do, and this is within their idiotic grasp, is to cut down on waste. If anyone watches the Jon Stewart show, you would have seen the piece he did where Obama is trying to weatherize homes in US. Less than 10% of the money he granted for that job actually went to towards weatherizing houses. That is a huge problem. It might be an overblown incident, but it hardly a law is passed today that doesn't have some special hook attached by some random senator/congressmen who needs something for there homedistrict. If the government wants more revenue I think they should focus on getting more for their dollars and once they do that I think they might be competent enough to fix the tax code or rewrite a better one. As is, any rewrite will end up being worse than the current model. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:34 starcraft911 wrote: edit: I don't see anyone considering a consumption tax which I'm a fan of. Eh, I think the consumption tax is too regressive. People with little income pay too much to taxes relative to their income with a consumption tax. Personally i prefer a flat income tax. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
