| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:39 PhiliBiRD wrote: i like that he wants to remove the death tax... that shit is ridiculous Do you mean the fact that he wants to remove it is ridiculous? Or do you mean the death tax is ridiculous? | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 25 2011 11:56 Risen wrote: I like the sound of it. Now someone come in and tell me why it's completely fucked. It's going to make things easier on the rich, while keeping those who aren't rich the same. This will increase the wealth disparity tremendously, because those in the lower income brackets depend on government programs to somewhat make up for their lack of income (it helps a little, although it isn't enough), and these programs will just plain have less funding, so they'll have less programs to benefit from. So the poor get poorer, the rich get richer. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:41 relyt wrote: Do you mean the fact that he wants to remove it is ridiculous? Or do you mean the death tax is ridiculous? Talk about spin, the so called 'death' tax is just an estate tax. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
Without doing extensive research into the US tax code and assuming it works like the Canadian one, it looks like it allows people with higher incomes to just opt to pay less taxes. If I'm facing a choice between paying 40% income tax and paying 20%, then I choose 20% every time. This won't be hard for most people to do because accountants will automatically file under the cheaper option. The key concept to realize is that it allows you to choose the cheaper one. Higher rates of taxation are applied to higher incomes. Therefore, the benefit will be greater for people with higher incomes. In my opinion, I would go the other way and apply greater taxes to wealthier people if you have debts to pay and you're still struggling from the recession. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:48 Whitewing wrote: Talk about spin, the so called 'death' tax is just an estate tax. Are you saying that to me? I'm just repeating what he called it D:. And i'm pretty sure we all know what the 'death' tax is. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:50 relyt wrote: Are you saying that to me? I'm just repeating what he called it D:. And i'm pretty sure we all know what the 'death' tax is. No, I was replying to the same guy you were replying to. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:52 Whitewing wrote: No, I was replying to the same guy you were replying to. Ah, well in that case I'll point out he was just quoting the article. This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses. … | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Oh right. Libertarian ideas are the worst EDIT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?_r=1&hp | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote: Hahahaha. A public state university, and he couldn't even try hard enough to get a GPA over 3.0? People actually want to elect a slacker? I mean, you'd have to be sitting around all day with your thumb up your ass to get a GPA that low. I truly do not trust people like this to run an entire nation. J.R. Bob Dobbs help us TT Edit: Also, animal science? Hmm.... The problem is not that Perry is (or was) a slacker (indeed, his career trajectory seems to indicate that he is a hard worker). The problem is that Perry is an idiot. | ||
|
Lann555
Netherlands5173 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:59 tree.hugger wrote: So basically, this just cuts the tax rate of the wealthy to 20%, and everyone else pays the same. Sounds super fair, what was that income distribution gap again? Highest in the industrialized world? Oh right. Libertarian ideas are the worst The income tax rate is a relatively small boon for the super mega rich. Elimination of capital gains tax + dividend tax + death tax is probably where it's really at for the 0.1%. Overall, just another rather see-through republican scheme  | ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
On October 26 2011 15:59 tree.hugger wrote: So basically, this just cuts the tax rate of the wealthy to 20%, and everyone else pays the same. Sounds super fair, what was that income distribution gap again? Highest in the industrialized world? Oh right. Libertarian ideas are the worst I was wondering how many pages it was going to take before someone had this realization... ATTENTION AVERAGE TEAMLIQUID USER: You already qualify for a tax rate of around 20% or lower. This changes nothing for you. If you are making between 40 and 85k in a single person household 1) you save less than 5% at most (usually less) and 2) you are economically fine, so stop bitching. If you are married and make less than a combined 140K!!!!!! the same thing applies. Do people not check the math? This only benefits people who are economically fine already. We've done that. It's called current US tax law. You may have heard of it. | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On October 26 2011 06:43 relyt wrote: 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. Consumption taxes are fine as a component of taxation long as you refund low-income earners accordingly. If America introduced a national consumption tax that could be adminstered uniformly and rebated uniformly (as opposed to the current morass of state-adminstered sales taxes), that would be fine. Consumption taxes as the only form of taxation are a conservative fever dream and terrible (since the rich barely spend any of their income in ways 'seen' by a consumption tax). | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On October 26 2011 16:08 Sleight wrote: I was wondering how many pages it was going to take before someone had this realization... It's a tiny bit more complicated than that. There are the poor and middle class who pay less than 20% overall in taxes anyways. Then there is the upper class and moderately rich who pay noticeably more than 20% in taxes (say, professionals or small business owners making upwards of 75k or so, but for whom most of their income is taxable as 'regular' income). This is the only affected group. Then there are the ultra rich who receive almost all of their income as capital gains and pay less than 20% currently, so still don't care about this new plan. | ||
|
Black Guy
15 Posts
| ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
| ||
|
Imperfect1987
United States558 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On October 26 2011 16:29 relyt wrote: The worst part about this upcoming election is that the person that will probably win will be terrible. I don't like Romney, Cain, or Obama. That's how it is for most elections, isn't it? Sigh more GOP plans to save the wealth money... | ||
|
Nadagast
United States245 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On October 26 2011 16:47 synapse wrote: That's how it is for most elections, isn't it? Sigh more GOP plans to save the wealth money... You mean create jobs (overseas)! | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
Or is the typical Republican that bad at math they can't be bothered to work out deductions etc? | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
