|
South Africa4316 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:43 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 06:34 starcraft911 wrote: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) 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.
Can someone explain to me what the benefit of a flat income tax, as opposed to a progressive income tax, is? As far as I can tell, it won't raise revenues as both a progressive and a flat rate can start at the same point, but the progressive rate would be higher for higher tax brackets. It also doesn't seem better from a moral stand point since you're taxing the entire disposable income for the poor, while barely taxing 20% of the disposable income of the rich. The only advantage I can think of is ease of administration, but the tax system isn't complex because of the tax rate but because of all the tax clearances/loopholes.
I don't know much, but it seems to contradict everything you learn in econ101, so I'm hoping someone can explain why so many people are in favour of a flat tax rate.
|
On October 26 2011 06:55 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 06:43 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 06:34 starcraft911 wrote: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) 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. Can someone explain to me what the benefit of a flat income tax, as opposed to a progressive income tax, is? As far as I can tell, it won't raise revenues as both a progressive and a flat rate can start at the same point, but the progressive rate would be higher for higher tax brackets. It also doesn't seem better from a moral stand point since you're taxing the entire disposable income for the poor, while barely taxing 20% of the disposable income of the rich. The only advantage I can think of is ease of administration, but the tax system isn't complex because of the tax rate but because of all the tax clearances/loopholes. I don't know much, but it seems to contradict everything you learn in econ101, so I'm hoping someone can explain why everyone is in favour of a flat tax rate.
To me, Its not about the economics of it. I just think it is the only fair way to go. I would also rather have less government spending and I wouldn't mind the revenues going down. I think the government wastes too much of the money we give to them. I would like it if we were more like Hong Kong. 15% tax on salaries, and 16.5% corporate tax rate 15% for unincorporated businesses.
|
Does Rick Perry remind anyone of Bush in his mannerisms and stuttering during speeches, or am I the only one who sees it?
|
On October 26 2011 07:04 BryanSC wrote:
Does Rick Perry remind anyone of Bush in his mannerisms and stuttering during speeches, or am I the only one who sees it?
Not just you. Every time i see him talk in the debates he reminds me of Bush.
|
What a shitty tax plan. Simplifying the current tax code is good, but moving away from progressive taxes will only enlarge the gap between the rich and the poor. Taxes need to be more progressive, not less.
|
So people who pay more than 20% will pay less, and people that pay less than 20% already will just stay the same. I guess Perry really likes having a deficit, somebody should tell him you can't just pray it away.
|
The richest don't really need more tax breaks...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?hp&gwh=B989976C5A898A4CED385367AB069B13
Who woulda thunk that rich people were getting richer and everyone else was getting fucked??
WASHINGTON — The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt.
In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.
“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.
In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.
You'd figure with an 275 percent increase (inflation adjusted of course!), we poorer people would be feeling some of that trickle down by now...
|
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...].
|
On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...].
Eh, sort of. Between 1950 and 1980 what you say is pretty true. After 1980 there was a lot of de-regulation of banks and this idea of trickle down economics was introduced. After 1980, the poor people started getting poorer and the rich people got richer. Wealth was redistributed towards the top for a variety of reasons. Mostly it was subtle, but the bailouts made it a great deal more obvious.
Now, really, the rich getting richer actually does help the poor people out in certain conditions (when they invest in the economy). However, investment in speculative markets yields much better profits (especially if you're an inside trader!!), and these speculative markets don't actually produce anything. The other problem is that they also use extra money to exploit cheap labor overseas rather than creating jobs here. When those two things are taken into account, you probably should be very, very worried about the wealth gap.
The thing that needs to be understood is that there really is a finite amount of wealth that is mistakenly perceived as infinite. You think, the rich are getting richer and the poor people are getting richer, too. But taking inflation into account, what's really going on is a reallocation of a finite amount of wealth rather than rich people getting infinitely wealthier.
This idea that things were going great until Obama came around is crazy. This is a problem that has been compounding on itself for over two decades, possibly three.
![[image loading]](http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/293599_263794676991569_240984512605919_655561_474454595_n.jpg)
|
On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...].
Wouldn't it be easier to "invest in the economy" if you had a trillion dollar gorilla investing with you instead of pushing you out the door to do it on your own?
|
The real kicker is how he's going to cut spending to avoid increased deficits with the decreased revenue. I believe his plan caps gov spending at 18% of GDP.
|
On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...].
Where do you even get your facts? The poor HAVE not been getting richer every single year. With overseas markets that have cheaper labor/rates that would be impossible to match in America, there's almost no reason for corporations to reinvest their earns here not to mention how has Obama been fucking with the economy every two seconds?? This problem of widening wealth gap has been happening since the 1980s. That's not Obama's fault is it? I really don't see how the majority of the problems with the economy right now is Obama's fault at all.
And I'll take your projection seeing as how I'm on track to being a surgeon so I'll probably be richer than you. So how you like them apples?
|
On October 26 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...]. Eh, sort of. Between 1950 and 1980 what you say is pretty true. After 1980 there was a lot of de-regulation of banks and this idea of trickle down economics was introduced. After 1980, the poor people started getting poorer and the rich people got richer. Wealth was redistributed towards the top for a variety of reasons. Mostly it was subtle, but the bailouts made it a great deal more obvious. Now, really, the rich getting richer actually does help the poor people out in certain conditions (when they invest in the economy). However, investment in speculative markets yields much better profits (especially if you're an inside trader!!), and these speculative markets don't actually produce anything. The other problem is that they also use extra money to exploit cheap labor overseas rather than creating jobs here. When those two things are taken into account, you probably should be very, very worried about the wealth gap. The thing that needs to be understood is that there really is a finite amount of wealth that is mistakenly perceived as infinite. You think, the rich are getting richer and the poor people are getting richer, too. But taking inflation into account, what's really going on is a reallocation of a finite amount of wealth rather than rich people getting infinitely wealthier. This idea that things were going great until Obama came around is crazy. This is a problem that has been compounding on itself for over two decades, possibly three. Your own rambling nonsense is proven to be such by the very picture you give as visual example of it. We all got richer after 1980, the poor just didnt get as rich as fast.
I already addressed that in my post, though I enjoyed your ridiculous rhetoric. Funny.
|
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.
The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%.
It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do?
|
Your own rambling nonsense is proven to be such by the very picture you give as visual example of it. We all got richer after 1980, the poor just didnt get as rich as fast.
lol...the fact that you DON'T see this as a problem is very telling of how ridiculous your thought process is...increase of income does not mean getting richer if prices are getting higher and inflation makes it so that you spend more than you potentially earn.
|
On October 26 2011 12:14 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...]. Eh, sort of. Between 1950 and 1980 what you say is pretty true. After 1980 there was a lot of de-regulation of banks and this idea of trickle down economics was introduced. After 1980, the poor people started getting poorer and the rich people got richer. Wealth was redistributed towards the top for a variety of reasons. Mostly it was subtle, but the bailouts made it a great deal more obvious. Now, really, the rich getting richer actually does help the poor people out in certain conditions (when they invest in the economy). However, investment in speculative markets yields much better profits (especially if you're an inside trader!!), and these speculative markets don't actually produce anything. The other problem is that they also use extra money to exploit cheap labor overseas rather than creating jobs here. When those two things are taken into account, you probably should be very, very worried about the wealth gap. The thing that needs to be understood is that there really is a finite amount of wealth that is mistakenly perceived as infinite. You think, the rich are getting richer and the poor people are getting richer, too. But taking inflation into account, what's really going on is a reallocation of a finite amount of wealth rather than rich people getting infinitely wealthier. This idea that things were going great until Obama came around is crazy. This is a problem that has been compounding on itself for over two decades, possibly three. Your own rambling nonsense is proven to be such by the very picture you give as visual example of it. We all got richer after 1980, the poor just didnt get as rich as fast. I already addressed that in my post, though I enjoyed your ridiculous rhetoric. Funny.
If your income is increasing over a span of 30 years but it increases slower than inflation, is it still considered "getting richer" ?
|
On October 26 2011 12:18 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:14 lizzard_warish wrote:On October 26 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 26 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote:
How could you when Obama is fucking with the economy every two seconds? Would YOU invest in this economy if you had money?
If the answer is yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here with the projection you will never be rich.
edit: And up until this recent recession, the poor have been getting richer every single year since the depression, the richer simply got richer still. I dont give a fuck if theres a disproportionate wealth gap so long as they invest in the economy, and they do [did until Obama...]. Eh, sort of. Between 1950 and 1980 what you say is pretty true. After 1980 there was a lot of de-regulation of banks and this idea of trickle down economics was introduced. After 1980, the poor people started getting poorer and the rich people got richer. Wealth was redistributed towards the top for a variety of reasons. Mostly it was subtle, but the bailouts made it a great deal more obvious. Now, really, the rich getting richer actually does help the poor people out in certain conditions (when they invest in the economy). However, investment in speculative markets yields much better profits (especially if you're an inside trader!!), and these speculative markets don't actually produce anything. The other problem is that they also use extra money to exploit cheap labor overseas rather than creating jobs here. When those two things are taken into account, you probably should be very, very worried about the wealth gap. The thing that needs to be understood is that there really is a finite amount of wealth that is mistakenly perceived as infinite. You think, the rich are getting richer and the poor people are getting richer, too. But taking inflation into account, what's really going on is a reallocation of a finite amount of wealth rather than rich people getting infinitely wealthier. This idea that things were going great until Obama came around is crazy. This is a problem that has been compounding on itself for over two decades, possibly three. Your own rambling nonsense is proven to be such by the very picture you give as visual example of it. We all got richer after 1980, the poor just didnt get as rich as fast. I already addressed that in my post, though I enjoyed your ridiculous rhetoric. Funny. If your income is increasing over a span of 30 years but it increases slower than inflation, is it still considered "getting richer" ?
Apparently suggesting otherwise is ridiculous rhetoric and mindless rambling.
|
On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +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. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do?
Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone.
|
On October 26 2011 12:41 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:15 -orb- wrote: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. The problem is the vast majority of Americans are unbelievably stupid and have an inability to detach themselves from their fantasies. Thus they dream of becoming rich one day, and thus subconsciously want taxes to be lowered for the rich so if they someday make it big they won't have to pay that oh-so-life-threatening extra 3%. It's a huge problem that I can't conceive a solution to. If poor people are voting to decrease taxes on the rich... what the fuck can we do? Its not just cutting taxes for the rich. Some people(like me) want lower taxes for everyone.
I was more referring to the specific tax cuts to the rich that bush did and obama has been trying to undo
By the way, if everyone gets lower taxes, how do you expect to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, etc?
|
On October 26 2011 06:55 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 06:43 relyt wrote:On October 26 2011 06:34 starcraft911 wrote: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) 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. Can someone explain to me what the benefit of a flat income tax, as opposed to a progressive income tax, is? As far as I can tell, it won't raise revenues as both a progressive and a flat rate can start at the same point, but the progressive rate would be higher for higher tax brackets. It also doesn't seem better from a moral stand point since you're taxing the entire disposable income for the poor, while barely taxing 20% of the disposable income of the rich. The only advantage I can think of is ease of administration, but the tax system isn't complex because of the tax rate but because of all the tax clearances/loopholes. I don't know much, but it seems to contradict everything you learn in econ101, so I'm hoping someone can explain why so many people are in favour of a flat tax rate.
The benefit of a flat tax is that it makes the rich richer. Both this plan and Cain's are nothing less than huge tax breaks to the top income earners in the country, shifting the burden elsewhere and reducing the overall federal budget by a substantial amount. Everyone gets to keep their piles of gold and we don't get roads or schools. It's basically the opposite of what the Occupy 99%ers want, and I'm hoping that they can band together with the Tea Partiers to shut down this kind of nonsense in the Republic party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
