With the discussions about the Republican Party nominations and Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, I was wondering what everyone's opinion is of Perry's flat tax plan.
In essence he wants to allow taxpayers to choose between one of two systems: the current tax code, or a flat 20% tax, allowing you to choose the plan that is cheaper for you, or if you have trouble understanding the current tax code, an easier way to file.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
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. … Continue Reading
Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.
Looks interesting, I like it much more than 9-9-9 because I hate the idea of having a federal sales tax. It also seems to fix a lot of the problems of the present tax code without being overbearing with change that would hurt businesses.
On October 25 2011 11:48 Saryph wrote: With the discussions about the Republican Party nominations and Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, I was wondering what everyone's opinion is of Perry's flat tax plan.
In essence he wants to allow taxpayers to choose between one of two systems: the current tax code, or a flat 20% tax, allowing you to choose the plan that is cheaper for you, or if you have trouble understanding the current tax code, an easier way to file.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
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. … Continue Reading
Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.
I like the sound of it. Now someone come in and tell me why it's completely fucked.
Breaking News: Rick Perry, Unlikely to Be Nominated Has Announced Free MuthaTrucking Rainbows and Unicorns! You Get a Ron Paul, You get a Ron Paul, EVERYONE GETS A RON PAUL!
I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
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.
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
where can i find out more about these tax loopholes?
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
Looks really nice, my family makes too much that they have to pay ridiculous taxes because it hasn't been scaled down since the '70s or w/e. Would really like this so we can either get out of our tax bracket or pay less taxes.
But then again I could be understanding this completely wrong...
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.
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.
Different from what I thought it would be when I read the title, but honestly, how is this going to help? It seems like everyone paying less than 20% will just stick with the current system and everyone paying more will switch to the flat tax and get a tax cut. And deficit will increase yet again.
Something has to be done about the tax code. It is unnecessarily convoluted, highly discriminatory, and full of loopholes. Designed to be full of loopholes.
But honestly, as much as I hate taxes, as much as how I think a flat tax would force fairness, it simply isn't practical. A progressive tax does ultimately make more sense.
let's see.. some countries with a flat tax system: bulgaria, albania, kazakhstan, iraq, hungary, kyrgyzstan, russia, ukraine
countries with a progressive tax system: most of western europe and scandinavia?
i think anyone on earth who knows about the US tax code would agree that it needs simplified, but a flat tax seems like it would do nothing but maintain income disparities. eliminate tax shelters and follow finland's tax bracketing, imo.
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.
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.
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.
No, we're going broke because government spending is roughly FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
Some simplification and restructuring of the tax code would be a good thing. The current system is really corrupt, what with exemptions for special interests with enough lobbying power and the loopholes. And it's created a lot of financial and tax service jobs that don't create anything useful in reality. (i.e. people in theory, that could be doing productive work maybe)
But replacing your income tax with 20% (if you want) sounds like just huge tax cut to a lot of rich people, thus reducing tax revenue by a lot. No thanks?
On October 25 2011 11:48 Saryph wrote: With the discussions about the Republican Party nominations and Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, I was wondering what everyone's opinion is of Perry's flat tax plan.
In essence he wants to allow taxpayers to choose between one of two systems: the current tax code, or a flat 20% tax, allowing you to choose the plan that is cheaper for you, or if you have trouble understanding the current tax code, an easier way to file.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
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. … Continue Reading
Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.
I like the sound of it. Now someone come in and tell me why it's completely fucked.
Just off a cursory glance, it probably shifts the majority of the tax burden to people making between $50k and $500k. If it fails to address the problem with capital gains tax, it's just going to give the top% a more solid seating where they are now.
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
On October 25 2011 12:08 peekn wrote: Looks really nice, my family makes too much that they have to pay ridiculous taxes because it hasn't been scaled down since the '70s or w/e. Would really like this so we can either get out of our tax bracket or pay less taxes.
But then again I could be understanding this completely wrong...
you are....taxes are the lowest since, i think, the 50s. your parents are definitely paying less than they were before
Perry riding on Herman Cains economic policy coattails.. is there no low to which Perry will stoop? With the exception of one, those republican nominations are a dime a dozen politicians..
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
How is that possible?
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.
On October 25 2011 12:23 LaLLsc2 wrote: Perry riding on Herman Cains economic policy coattails.. is there no low to which Perry will stoop? With the exception of one, those republican nominations are a dime a dozen politicians..
Stuck between Obama and the GOP is not fun. Not fun at all.
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.
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.
The problem is that everyone frames this "expansion and hiring people" as only happening in the US. Corporations might be considered citizens now but you can sure as hell bet they're not American citizens. In this global economy, they're going to reinvest that money in China or India where wages can be dirt cheap and production costs are low as fuck, at a rate that we can't possibly match cause the Chinese government subsidies everything + people there are willing to work for dirt cheap.
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.
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.
The problem is that everyone frames this "expansion and hiring people" as only happening in the US. Corporations might be considered citizens now but you can sure as hell bet they're not American citizens. In this global economy, they're going to reinvest that money in China or India where wages can be dirt cheap and production costs are low as fuck, at a rate that we can't possibly match cause the Chinese government subsidies everything + people there are willing to work for dirt cheap.
Or do what they've done in the past with tax breaks, rebuy company stock to increase the price and give them a way to increase investment in the future.
The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents
Why on earth do people that make $500,000 a year have a choice to not pay regular taxes? Lower that down to like $50,000 and below and I'll I won't laugh at it.
Seriously do all republicans just not want to pay taxes at all? This is just a Tax plan that lowers the tax rates of the rich imo which need to go up not down.
On October 25 2011 12:28 randomKo_Orean wrote: This is stupid as hell. This is like "free get out of paying taxes" card for the wealthy. And people ask why Occupy Wall Street is gaining so much ground.
Pretty much. Right now about a third of the country thinks that people like Perry are geniuses. I live in liberal Boston, and it's absolutely crazy, the far right's economic plans and regard toward Romneycare is.
Well I guess at this point it's a race to the bottom to see which candidate can offer the least amount of taxes. We just need Bachmann or another Tea Party courting nominee to cut federal taxes completely. It would be very inline with the loaded question "How much of my money do I deserve to keep?". 'All of it' was the answer I think he was going for.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents
Why on earth do people that make $500,000 a year have a choice to not pay regular taxes? Lower that down to like $50,000 and below and I'll I won't laugh at it.
Seriously do all republicans just not want to pay taxes at all? This is just a Tax plan that lowers the tax rates of the rich imo which need to go up not down.
It's the other way around. Below $500k, you get to deduct mortgage interest and other things from taxable income. Above the $500k, you have to play it all.
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
How is that possible?
I'm guessing that his parents used to have a high salary, say ~300K, in year N. For year N+1 they probably chose to prepay an estimated tax based on the previous year's salary but then they got pwned in the economic downturn and only made a more modest 85k, which would result in them getting refunded.
Whenever you hear people brag about these big legit refunds they usually leave out the obvious implication "I previously made a LOT more money than I do now," because it doesn't sound as exciting.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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.
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
How is that possible?
I'm no tax expert, but likely they've got large 401k-s (or other investments) that took heavy losses. Tax returns offset some of those...
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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.
On October 25 2011 12:01 Viciousvx wrote: Breaking News: Rick Perry, Unlikely to Be Nominated Has Announced Free MuthaTrucking Rainbows and Unicorns! You Get a Ron Paul, You get a Ron Paul, EVERYONE GETS A RON PAUL!
On October 25 2011 12:01 Viciousvx wrote: Breaking News: Rick Perry, Unlikely to Be Nominated Has Announced Free MuthaTrucking Rainbows and Unicorns! You Get a Ron Paul, You get a Ron Paul, EVERYONE GETS A RON PAUL!
Political analysis right here^. The candidates need plans that make sense.
Even though this plan may help out the middle class, many citizens will lose their jobs as an immediate result with only a chance that the amount of jobs will be increased down the road. I personally don't see this plan as being efficient enough in creating jobs to warrant passing.
On October 25 2011 12:53 dhe95 wrote: oh god when will republicans notice that the tax codes need to be fixed and in return tax rates for the wealthy will inevitably go up
Once they start the move toward the center, which ought to be in about ten years depending on whether Obama or Romney get elected. Romney would bring the country to the center because he's effectively the heir to the now dead liberal republican wing, whereas Obama is too polarizing to even things out.
On October 25 2011 11:48 Saryph wrote: Here is a short selection from the above link:
My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses. …
[/i]
Just to make it clear. The "death tax" he is referring to, known as the estate task to those of us who do not watch fox news religiously, exempts the first $5 MILLION you leave to your family, and if you have a spouse, you can leave an UNLIMITED amount to your spouse, who can then leave another $5 MILLION to your kids. Only after that first 5 to 10 MILLION dollars does the estate tax BEGIN to take a CUT from the rest.
TL;DR: I don't know what Perry either doesn't understand estate tax, using the term "small business" in a misleading way... but he's apparently wants to help out all the kids inheriting more than $5 to $10 MILLION dollars.
The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents
Why on earth do people that make $500,000 a year have a choice to not pay regular taxes? Lower that down to like $50,000 and below and I'll I won't laugh at it.
Seriously do all republicans just not want to pay taxes at all? This is just a Tax plan that lowers the tax rates of the rich imo which need to go up not down.
It's the other way around. Below $500k, you get to deduct mortgage interest and other things from taxable income. Above the $500k, you have to play it all.
Thats whats so stupid. Why does someone at $75k-499k a year need any kind of benefit at all.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents
Why on earth do people that make $500,000 a year have a choice to not pay regular taxes? Lower that down to like $50,000 and below and I'll I won't laugh at it.
Seriously do all republicans just not want to pay taxes at all? This is just a Tax plan that lowers the tax rates of the rich imo which need to go up not down.
It's the other way around. Below $500k, you get to deduct mortgage interest and other things from taxable income. Above the $500k, you have to play it all.
Thats whats so stupid. Why does someone at $75k-499k a year need any kind of benefit at all.
Yea. Compared to those above $500k, they're living lives of luxury. Those millionaires are hurtin these days with the hate train making stops in their towns left and right.
I'm a conservative myself and I do not like this plan at all. I would much rather make the current tax rates flatter than institute an extremely regressive 20% flat tax, although I guess it would all depend on the deductions people would still get.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Look at American politics. We're not going to be adopting your system of political-economy anytime soon (even though I personally prefer something closer to it than what we have now). Sweden has a lot more regulation and a larger welfare state if I remember correctly (social democratic?) and the US is a liberal (not as in left, but as in primarily individual freedom) system with little regulation and a smaller welfare state. There are pros and cons to each. US tends to have more inequality and Sweden is arguably more inefficient. Unfortunately, US doesn't have a strong left leaning party. Republicans have a strong conservative base and democrats are a more loose coalition of different groups that isn't even really left at all compared to any of Sweden's political groups.
As for the Rick Perry Plan, I'm not a fan. Everyone getting the 20% sounds fair, but the last $100 of my income is worth a lot more than the last $100 of a CEO's income. And I have no idea how this will work in regards to revenue. Not entirely sure how all the deductible stuff works so I'll wait till I read some more about it.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Look at American politics. We're not going to be adopting your system of political-economy anytime soon (even though I personally prefer something closer to it than what we have now). Sweden has a lot more regulation and a larger welfare state if I remember correctly (social democratic?) and the US is a liberal (not as in left, but as in primarily individual freedom) system with little regulation and a smaller welfare state. There are pros and cons to each. US tends to have more inequality and Sweden is arguably more inefficient. Unfortunately, US doesn't have a strong left leaning party. Republicans have a strong conservative base and democrats are a more loose coalition of different groups that isn't even really left at all compared to any of Sweden's political groups.
As for the Rick Perry Plan, I'm not a fan. Everyone getting the 20% sounds fair, but the last $100 of my income is worth a lot more than the last $100 of a CEO's income. And I have no idea how this will work in regards to revenue. Not entirely sure how all the deductible stuff works so I'll wait till I read some more about it.
Actually turns out Sweden has quite a few of unregulated economic sectors. I don't think they're more heavily regulated than the US in the economic sense
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Sweden has a fraction of the GDP and population of the United States. You simply cannot compare the economic ideologies of the two nations at any relevant level.
Also I didn't put words in your mouth. I'll be sure to get your permission next time I start another train of thought in the same post.
Edit: Not that I'm saying there's all that much wrong with Sweden. They're probably the only EU nation that is worth half a damn (excluding the big three) and their government showed incredible wisdom in rejecting the idea of using the Euro for currency.
On October 25 2011 12:28 randomKo_Orean wrote: This is stupid as hell. This is like "free get out of paying taxes" card for the wealthy. And people ask why Occupy Wall Street is gaining so much ground.
On October 25 2011 13:13 Alou wrote: As for the Rick Perry Plan, I'm not a fan. Everyone getting the 20% sounds fair, but the last $100 of my income is worth a lot more than the last $100 of a CEO's income.
The sad part is that the super rich would elect NOT to take Perry's 20% option, because under the current US income tax regime, the super rich actually pay LESS THAN 20%.
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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.
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?
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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.
I don't understand how people who know jack shit about principles of economics, and the idea behind accounting are allowed to be in charge of the nation's financial plan. Please, can we just contract the budgeting to a major accounting firm, and be done with it?
Does this remind anyone of the income tax in Monopoly? Obviously most people, especially the ones that have people to do their taxes for them, are just going to choose the cheaper option. This isn't really tax reform, just a new way to make it seem like everyone's interests are at heart.
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.
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.
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.
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.
50% flat tax rate seems better in my opinion. I believe it is roughly what they have in China. With the slightly more transparent American government, things might actually work out.
Actually it seems rather nice on the outside, but the fact that you can choose over the current tax and a new one still makes it overall a bad thing.
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.
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, switching to the flat 20% would be disadvantageous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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
On October 25 2011 14:22 0neder wrote: 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.
Yes, European more social oriented approach to capitalism is unbridled socialism. Would you please check some historical and academic definitions of the terms before you throw them around? Or are you just using them like your politicians as buzz- and scarewords. And funny how unbridled socialism does not work in a world were the world still suffers from the aftershocks of a financial crisis that originated in an american sector where governmental oversight failed.
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?
Here the chairman of the Bush economic advisory team Glenn Hubbard (not related), responsible for the Bush tax cuts, clearly says from 14:30 onwards: Tax cuts do not pay for themselves by increasing economic activity. Not by a long shot. No reputable economist claims that. Tax cuts are a revenue loss. I just wish this myth would die.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Sweden has a fraction of the GDP and population of the United States. You simply cannot compare the economic ideologies of the two nations at any relevant level.
Also I didn't put words in your mouth. I'll be sure to get your permission next time I start another train of thought in the same post.
Edit: Not that I'm saying there's all that much wrong with Sweden. They're probably the only EU nation that is worth half a damn (excluding the big three) and their government showed incredible wisdom in rejecting the idea of using the Euro for currency.
Actually the government (and almost all political parties) wanted to introduce the Euro. They opted for a national referndum, though, in which the people voted no. The then sitting prime minister even went so far as to say that the people chose "incorrectly", but upheld the (consultative) result of the vote. Thank god for that.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Sweden has a fraction of the GDP and population of the United States. You simply cannot compare the economic ideologies of the two nations at any relevant level.
Also I didn't put words in your mouth. I'll be sure to get your permission next time I start another train of thought in the same post.
Edit: Not that I'm saying there's all that much wrong with Sweden. They're probably the only EU nation that is worth half a damn (excluding the big three) and their government showed incredible wisdom in rejecting the idea of using the Euro for currency.
Actually the government (and almost all political parties) wanted to introduce the Euro. They opted for a national referndum, though, in which the people voted no. The then sitting prime minister even went so far as to say that the people chose "incorrectly", but upheld the (consultative) result of the vote. Thank god for that.
Adverse selection at work. The states that act fiscally responsible, that would be the greatest contribution to a common currency and would benefit the most don't have to join. States that act more irresponsible and with less to lose will want to join the common currency, which in turn might put off the responsible states.
Having said that, from the perspective of 2003, it was irrational for Sweden to opt out.
On October 26 2011 00:44 frontliner2 wrote: lol, in socialist netherlands if you make over 50k a year you pay 52% income tax
In any case Sale Tax is always 19% hahahahah
We're being fucked so hard by the Govt.
But it's clearly the better system, amirite? Why do people bash the US for having such low taxes, just because they themselves are so used to being screwed so hard by the government that anything else seems really weird.....The problem with people is they want it both ways, they want no taxes AND free health care, Social Security, etc. I myself would rather keep my money and decide what to do with it, get my own insurance, etc., rather than the ever so thrifty government controlling it and spending it so wisely on things like useless wars and policing the planet. Obviously you need roads and other public services so don't go raging at me, saying I want zero taxes, period. I just want the government to be as minimally involved in every aspect of my life as possible. I want insurance? I should probably get off my butt and get a job.
On October 25 2011 12:10 benjammin wrote: let's see.. some countries with a flat tax system: bulgaria, albania, kazakhstan, iraq, hungary, kyrgyzstan, russia, ukraine
countries with a progressive tax system: most of western europe and scandinavia?
i think anyone on earth who knows about the US tax code would agree that it needs simplified, but a flat tax seems like it would do nothing but maintain income disparities. eliminate tax shelters and follow finland's tax bracketing, imo.
well now he'll never be nominated, i can see the ads now
On October 26 2011 00:44 frontliner2 wrote: lol, in socialist netherlands if you make over 50k a year you pay 52% income tax
In any case Sale Tax is always 19% hahahahah
We're being fucked so hard by the Govt.
But whos country is on the verge of bankruptcy, not the netherlands.
very true,, just most people don't see that shit doens't pay for itself, they think that when national taxes(income for example) goes down, they are paying less taxes, while in fact the government just gives less money back to indivual states and city's, who then have to increase taxes just to not go bankrupt..
most americans(not all, but hey, it only takes 51%). are too fucking stupid to realize the're country is going to shit. that they think when they lower taxes i save more money to buy payTV and watch oprah winfrey all fucking day instead of getting a fucking job. jzus christ people are so stupid(this is general so don't feel offended if you're american) you probably belong to the 49% who isn't a total fucking idiot
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.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Sweden has a fraction of the GDP and population of the United States. You simply cannot compare the economic ideologies of the two nations at any relevant level.
Also I didn't put words in your mouth. I'll be sure to get your permission next time I start another train of thought in the same post.
Edit: Not that I'm saying there's all that much wrong with Sweden. They're probably the only EU nation that is worth half a damn (excluding the big three) and their government showed incredible wisdom in rejecting the idea of using the Euro for currency.
Actually the government (and almost all political parties) wanted to introduce the Euro. They opted for a national referndum, though, in which the people voted no. The then sitting prime minister even went so far as to say that the people chose "incorrectly", but upheld the (consultative) result of the vote. Thank god for that.
Ah, I was under the impression it was a government choice.
On October 26 2011 00:44 frontliner2 wrote: lol, in socialist netherlands if you make over 50k a year you pay 52% income tax
In any case Sale Tax is always 19% hahahahah
We're being fucked so hard by the Govt.
youre not getting fucked. the government is making sure that the wealth gets somehow evenly distributed among the people. as opposed to a 20% flat tax, which basically only benefits the rich. (who clearly dont need the support at all)
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.
Maybe it's not morally right to take half of people's income, but it's necessary if they want to run a welfare state and continue funding wars and spending $4 trillion a year. You could try distributing the taxation equally, but the poor people don't have much to give. Trying to gain the majority of your revenue from people that don't own the majority of wealth is unsustainable, IF you want to spend massive amounts of money.
Now if you think taxation in general is morally wrong, I don't think Ron Paul really fails this litmus, as far candidates go he wants to cut taxes more than any of the others. Now if you wanted total anarchy and zero government spending I suppose he fails. Although I'm having trouble finding any anarchy candidates to support. 0_o
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
. Here is a good place to discover how very different two places can be. If you think one system will work worldwide then you are a simpleton. Many things listed here are good ideas. Others are strange, people will think the Swedish system's laws very strange here so implementing them here would break America. Cva.stanford.edu/people/davidbbs/Swedish_facts.html We have no Poland from which to steal dirty power (lol) and we like to drive fast, regardless of the law. Whoops Sweden already doesn't work in America! That's what he's talking about.
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.
hmmm, I think most people are not utilitarian unless you are only talking about TL or the internet specifically. Also I don't think you're truly rejecting utilitarianism, it's just that you've crossed in to the realm of the neurological impact of a policy and now you have to find some way to quantify the impact of "unfairness" or whatever.
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.
Yeah it's almost like no other country is in debt. Damn those Americans.
Speaking for Sweden, we've been reducing our debt since the mid 90's, while still doing quite well in all major political areas (domestically and internationally). Sure, everyone has debt, but not everyone has a system that's heading for a trainwreck.
The economy of Sweden and the economy of the United States are not even remotely comparable in any way. What works for one will not work for another.
"Debt" is not a bad thing. Ridiculous, run away spending resulting in hilariously high debt is.
On October 25 2011 12:47 aethereality wrote:
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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....
A 2.5? How the hell...
Why in the world would it not be comparable? You have a different system, that much is true. How that leads you to conclude that one could not adopt (let alone compare) the others system, not even in theory, is lost on me however.
And I never said debt in itself is a bad thing. Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth.
Notice that Sweden is not commonly known to singlehandedly go into some third world country and dump billions in aid when there was no disaster there other than poverty. Sweden definitely helps out, but do they do near what America does?... The global community likes to focus on what's wrong with America and never gives much thanks for the good we do.
In 1862 AbeLincoln said:
"If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will."
But of course you never really said America was bad- You're just trying to help, and I find that admirable. Indeed, I personally believe America needs to do what nobody will vote for: Raising tax and cutting spending. We are in too huge of debt to cut taxes yet. Once we're out we can keep the cuts and start to cut taxes along with spending. America is about Independence, that means we have some risk. Those who are afraid of risk, should go somewhere like Sweden!
On October 25 2011 13:40 Froadac wrote: Good god. This makes me sad to even identify with the Republican Party.
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"
If you cut your grass and find a Paul 88 sign, you might be a republican.
I'm more than a lil perplexed how an American politician can not realize the growth alone of goverment spending is absolutely no go. Even John Maynard Keynes would say hold up.
If interest on the debt, gobbles 100% of the tax reciepts, then what? No, we are not there yet, but it's hardly a stretch to say we are on the path there. We're not taxing enough? Spending is spiraling so far from reality. Obama has spend over 4 Trill, in one term, and they want to tax it out of you, then fail to budget, then tax it some more. How about some accountability. No lets raise the debt ceiling 2 trillion. Guess what, we might spend that all before the election. Then what? raise again? This is insane. Take it on the chin and fix it, or ride the train off the cliff. Calling conservatives careless or heartless works with balanced budgets and butter to go with the guns. We're so far from that, the position fails dead on it's face. Dems and Republicans both love the Fed. Social Programs financed and tanks built.
It's hard for me to take a liberal perspective on in tax plans discussions because it's always about filling the coffers, not about how damn big the coffer has gotten lately.
Rick Perry fails on this gimmick in my horribly interested perspective
Look at the federal grants the Dept of Energy gave out, Solyndra, 500 mill loss, 13 other got money, and they all failed/failing/ were failing, money was supposed to save them. You cannot find a list of any of the other companies either(ala Federal Reserve/half audit) A mirror of the bailout cronyism for banks. Not going to Pick on Rick any further than to say he's not serious, not informed, or just not willing to take on the reality. CDC wants to recommend gardasil to all boys nationwide now, so i guess he will probably stop retreating, and maybe go a lil offensive if anyone brings HPV up again
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
When in reality it's more like this
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.
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?
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
When in reality it's more like this
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.
Don't have the energy to take a stand in this debate, however I agree with this post and was just about to write something simular. The subject is simply to complex to be easily calculated or predicted.
From what i know about the current tax rate, the fact that we tax more than 20% income from the people who can afford it is really the only thing keeping the government barely afloat.
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
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)
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
When in reality it's more like this
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.
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
When in reality it's more like this
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.
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.
These are the current federal tax brackets (the bold ones are being raised 3% and 4.6% in 2013 just in time for Obama or whoever to be elected).
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.
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 find it strange that people actually vote for something like that. Generally speaking, i don't see why i should vote for something that distributes more tax burden to me in comparision to rich people if i am not rich. And as rich people are usually a minority, i don't understand how it can be popular.
Do some people really fail to realize that they do not own hotels or banks?
20% tax, allowing you to choose the plan that is cheaper for you, or if you have trouble understanding the current tax code, an easier way to file. So the rich still can get out of taxes since they can choose the normal one? Gonna go ahead and give it a no imo
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.
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
How is that possible?
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.
Why not just completely cut taxes for the rich and the let the rest of america pay more to keep it afloat? I mean, when rich haz so much muney they spend aswell, give back to system kk??
And as some have pointed out it really seems like the ones who profits from this is the rich, suprise suprise.
On October 25 2011 12:02 McFeser wrote: I like the idea of having options, but what this means is people paying over 20% will take this plan while leaving everyone else to pay a larger share.
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)
How is that possible?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
But seriously, how can you possibly be getting richer if your income grows more slowly than inflation? What that means is that the value of your money is decreasing faster than you are gaining more income. You then have less purchasing power, and that is what the income disparity is about. You can't 'create' wealth. There is a finite amount of resources and wealth is entitlement to those resources.
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.
But seriously, how can you possibly be getting richer if your income grows more slowly than inflation? What that means is that the value of your money is decreasing faster than you are gaining more income. You then have less purchasing power, and that is what the income disparity is about. You can't 'create' wealth. There is a finite amount of resources and wealth is entitlement to those resources.
It's probably cause we're too lazy and not trying hard enough and not picking the choices to do well /end sarcasm
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?
Well, perhaps this is a ludicrous notion, but... we might pay for them quite easily if all our revenue wasn't going towards paying off the interest of the national debt, or going towards unsustainable war efforts and entitlements. In fact, before the federal government got involved in education, we put LESS money into schools and the quality of the education was BETTER.
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?
You do it by not spending money on the wasteful shit that they do. You don't need 30% taxes to pay for that. Like I said earlier Hong Kong has 15% flat tax or a progressive tax of 2% to 17% depending on which liability is lower. They seem to do fine.
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?
Well, perhaps this is a ludicrous notion, but... we might pay for them quite easily if all our revenue wasn't going towards paying off the interest of the national debt, or going towards unsustainable war efforts and entitlements. In fact, before the federal government got involved in education, we put LESS money into schools and the quality of the education was BETTER.
The thing is, before the federal government got involved in education, the parents were better too. Education at the high end is as good as it ever was. Its the low end that is the problem and you're not going to solve that problem until you solve the crab bucket mentality within the lower classes, along many of the other social ills plaguing the poor.
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?
You do it by not spending money on the wasteful shit that they do. You don't need 30% taxes to pay for that. Like I said earlier Hong Kong has 15% flat tax or a progressive tax of 2% to 17% depending on which liability is lower. They seem to do fine.
Hong Kong isn't really the best example. For a start, its one of the most unequal places on earth, its effectively city state, its one of the most densely populated places on earth, plus its one of the major commercial/financial hubs in asia.
Its like comparing the tax system of the US to Monaco. You can run a city on gambling revenue. You can't run a country on it.
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?
You do it by not spending money on the wasteful shit that they do. You don't need 30% taxes to pay for that. Like I said earlier Hong Kong has 15% flat tax or a progressive tax of 2% to 17% depending on which liability is lower. They seem to do fine.
Hong Kong isn't really the best example. For a start, its one of the most unequal places on earth, its effectively city state, its one of the most densely populated places on earth, plus its one of the major commercial/financial hubs in asia.
Its like comparing the tax system of the US to Monaco. You can run a city on gambling revenue. You can't run a country on it.
Not to mention the massive amounts of corruption and triads with their hands everywhere...
If you're poor in HK you get to live in the slums, if you're rich you get to live in the nice ass hills.
Here's a pic of famous Kowloon's walled city back in the day:
On October 25 2011 12:01 Viciousvx wrote: Breaking News: Rick Perry, Unlikely to Be Nominated Has Announced Free MuthaTrucking Rainbows and Unicorns! You Get a Ron Paul, You get a Ron Paul, EVERYONE GETS A RON PAUL!
The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan.
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan.
Yeah, I agree that there are social programs out there that should stay. I just don't like all the money we spend on war and foreign aid.
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
In reference to the $16 muffin/$8 coffee story, I'm sure you're referring to O'Reilly little story about how the Justice Department had a conference where the invoice charged said muffins were $16 bucks a piece right?
That's actually not the complete story:
Hilton Worldwide, which manages and franchises hotels including the Capital Hilton where the conference took place, says the price included not only breakfast baked goods but also fresh fruit, coffee, tea, soft drinks, tax and tips. It says the report misinterpreted its invoices, which often use shorthand and don't reflect the full menu and service provided.
The IG says that the total cost per person at the reception was $14.74 -- 2 cents over the allowable Justice Department limit. Totaling up the items in the IG's report, the 534 attendees over five days were given 1,150 pastries, 1,350 pieces of candy and fruit, 1,250 cups of coffee and tea and 250 soft drinks.
The IG's audit of excessive spending at 10 Justice Department conferences was one of those news stories that make the public sit up and take notice. Once again, the profligate government was overspending. But it wasn't billions. Or even millions. It was muffins at $16 apiece, according to the IG's office.
The report referenced the $16 muffins half a dozen times and it said their cost was one of many food items that "appeared extravagant and potentially wasteful."
Not so, Hilton Worldwide said in a statement Thursday.
"In Washington, the contracted breakfast included fresh fruit, coffee, juice, muffins, tax and gratuity, for an inclusive price of $16 per person," Hilton Worldwide said in a statement.
"Dining receipts are often abbreviated and do not reflect the full pre-contracted menu and service provided, as is the case with recent media reports of breakfast items approved for some government meetings," Hilton Worldwide's statement added.
So, it appears that not only did DOJ not extravagantly overspend for food and beverages at the conference -- it went 2 cents over the allowable limit -- many other things besides muffins were included in that $16 cost, including service, tax, and gratuity.
A lot of hotel services generally just charge all food and services under one vague heading in their invoices, this one just happened to have it under breakfast foods, ex. Muffins
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
In reference to the $16 muffin/$8 coffee story, I'm sure you're referring to O'Reilly little story about how the Justice Department had a conference where the invoice charged said muffins were $16 bucks a piece right?
That's actually not the complete story:
A lot of hotel services generally just charge all food and services under one vague heading in their invoices, this one just happened to have it under breakfast foods, ex. Muffins
Ah, thanks for the info looks like i was misinformed. And just to be clear I didn't hear it from O'Reilly, I hate that guy.
But I do agree with cutting back on superfluous spending. Kill the the pork barrel projects and cut really unnecessary military R&D projects that have no chance of being viable or useful.
At the same time though, taxes need to be raised, at least for those in the higher income brackets. O'Reilly even says so himself, agreeing that he's willing to pay increased taxes if government spending is also reigned in.
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan.
Yeah, I agree that there are social programs out there that should stay. I just don't like all the money we spend on war and foreign aid.
Foreign aid is only 1% of the budget (when polled, the public says it's a staggering 25%). It's a small price to pay for increasing stability in the third world and engendering good will for the United States (which means we can spend less on military intervention).
On October 26 2011 15:27 chaoser wrote: But I do agree with cutting back on superfluous spending. Kill the the pork barrel projects and cut really unnecessary military R&D projects that have no chance of being viable or useful.
At the same time though, taxes need to be raised, at least for those in the higher income brackets. O'Reilly even says so himself, agreeing that he's willing to pay increased taxes if government spending is also reigned in.
With our debt problem we have now I guess I will agree that some taxes do need to be raised and spending does need to go down. I wish that we didn't need higher taxes though, I guess I can always hope that in the future things will be better and we can have lower taxes while still keeping a lot of the useful social programs we have.
On October 26 2011 14:46 chaoser wrote: The US really doesn't have that high a tax rate compared to the rest of the first world countries. Hong Kong is basically a city and if you compare it's tax rate to American cities you'll still find that American cities have lower tax rates.
The problem with taxes here is that so much of the tax money is wasted. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if it went to actually help people in this country, and if it was spent wisely and efficiently. I just don't like having so much money spent on subsidies, wars, foreign aid, $16 muffins, and $8 dollar coffee.
You hear these horror stories but they happen in any large organization, public or private. Whenever a candidate is asked what he or she would cut, the answer invariably angers many people. The reason is most of the money is in fact well-spent on things people want and need. I wish the discussion was about what services we want to pay for as a society, not some limbo low tax contest to see who can have the most outrageous plan.
Yeah, I agree that there are social programs out there that should stay. I just don't like all the money we spend on war and foreign aid.
Foreign aid is only 1% of the budget (when polled, the public says it's a staggering 25%). It's a small price to pay for increasing stability in the third world and engendering good will for the United States (which means we can spend less on military intervention).
On October 25 2011 11:48 Saryph wrote: With the discussions about the Republican Party nominations and Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, I was wondering what everyone's opinion is of Perry's flat tax plan.
In essence he wants to allow taxpayers to choose between one of two systems: the current tax code, or a flat 20% tax, allowing you to choose the plan that is cheaper for you, or if you have trouble understanding the current tax code, an easier way to file.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
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. … Continue Reading
Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.
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.
I can't speak for the US tax code, but typically you have a tiered system whereby the poorest people don't pay any tax (no or negative income); then you have some low percent for people scraping by and the tax rate ramps up as wealth increases. This means that people with higher income are still making more money than people with lower incomes, but paying significantly more taxes. This is justified because high income families will have their necessities covered and are able to make their payments, but people with lower incomes struggle to make ends meet.
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.
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?
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.
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. …
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 sometimes always.
Wikipedia: Perry graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in animal science with a 2.5 GPA.
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.
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 sometimes almost always.
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
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 sometimes almost always.
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.
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.
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).
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.
This is just another attempt for Republicans to help the rich and corrupt at the expense of everyone else. The rich will pay 20% instead of the higher rates they pay. The federal government will get an even worse budget deficit and this doesn't simplify our tax system at all. This is a lose/lose plan for anyone who isn't rich.
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.
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.
I don't know why an average American would go for this. It clearly benefits the richest of the rich while making no difference to the middle-class and poor who find it best to stay on the current scheme. Which means the middle-class and the poor will either end up paying a larger share of all tax revenue, or enjoy less social benefits (as much as you hate socialism, social security and benefits are a good, good thing), or both.
Or is the typical Republican that bad at math they can't be bothered to work out deductions etc?
it doesn't help the super rich because they don't pay >20% in taxes anyways it helps the people who came from middle class homes and with hard work and sacrifice became working professionals
the super rich pay themselves $1 and bypass taxes with loopholes and stock options remember?
On October 26 2011 17:42 PrideNeverDie wrote: it doesn't help the super rich because they don't pay >20% in taxes anyways it helps the people who came from middle class homes and with hard work and sacrifice became working professionals
the super rich pay themselves $1 and bypass taxes with loopholes and stock options remember?
Well, that depends on how Capital Gains is taxed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on their salary portion they will pay the 20% which is less than the 35% top tier right now, then because "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.", which means low or no Capital Gains tax, they will pay less than 20% overall on their income, which means, yes, Perry's proposal does help the super rich. Plus, "they don't pay >20% in taxes anyways" is the wrong outcome of the current tax code in the first place and the flat tax does not fix that.
The marginal tax rate is indeed lower for middle-classes but currently the confusing system gives a lot of credits and deductions, so if it does make a difference it will be a small one.
I don't like it, though I personally would benefit. It's just a tax cut for the wealthy. Also, it fails to simplify doing your taxes because everybody is now just going to do their taxes both ways to see which saves them more money.
And elimination of capital gains tax? Are you frickin kidding me? Totally insane. I mean, I'm all for it personally and selfishly but wtf... A bit of $400 engine trouble drives my girlfriend to tears because she can't afford to pay that and her student loans and her rent and groceries, and you're giving ME more money?!
Incredible.
I really don't understand why they want to cut taxes for the rich so badly. You give more money to poor people, and they can buy what they need. Plus, Walmart's stock goes up, so I make more money, too, since all my money's invested. Win/win.
On October 28 2011 01:50 RibsNGibs wrote: I don't like it, though I personally would benefit. It's just a tax cut for the wealthy. Also, it fails to simplify doing your taxes because everybody is now just going to do their taxes both ways to see which saves them more money.
And elimination of capital gains tax? Are you frickin kidding me? Totally insane. I mean, I'm all for it personally and selfishly but wtf... A bit of $400 engine trouble drives my girlfriend to tears because she can't afford to pay that and her student loans and her rent and groceries, and you're giving ME more money?!
Incredible.
I really don't understand why they want to cut taxes for the rich so badly. You give more money to poor people, and they can buy what they need. Plus, Walmart's stock goes up, so I make more money, too, since all my money's invested. Win/win.
Isn't it obvious? Greed. The rich want the money in their hands now so they can spend it, rather than give it to the poor, which the poor spend, so it makes its way into the hands of the rich, so the rich can spend it.
The money flows up towards them one way, or another. They're simply impatient and greedy.
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
When in reality it's more like this
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.
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.
Have you read and understood my comment or just typed a straw man reply based on a few words you saw in it?
Obviously taxing people just because they can take a beating, was never fair to begin with.
On October 26 2011 15:49 Fuhrmaaj wrote: I can't speak for the US tax code, but typically you have a tiered system whereby the poorest people don't pay any tax (no or negative income); then you have some low percent for people scraping by and the tax rate ramps up as wealth increases. This means that people with higher income are still making more money than people with lower incomes, but paying significantly more taxes. This is justified because high income families will have their necessities covered and are able to make their payments, but people with lower incomes struggle to make ends meet.
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.
it's pretty much this.
currently we have a capital gains tax of 15% on long term capital gains (for the highest tax bracket). people who make immense amount of money often have a salary of very little, so they they only have to pay 15% in long term capital gains (stock options ect) - any tax deductions they can get their hands on. oftentimes paying at little as 10-11% which is actually the lowest tax bracket we have for people making positive income.
now the 20% flat tax option eliminates capital gains tax (account to perry) which would allow the richest americans to opt for this, and pay 35 cents in taxes legally.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.snapdrive.net/files/522046/Monopoly/Income%20Tax%20Pay%2010%25%20or%20$200.Gif)
![[image loading]](http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/554/original/facepalm.jpg?1248715065){kind=icon}
![[image loading]](http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/60msl1lj7k12giph/images/1-e6702e1c14.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg/745px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ksI5H-K89vw/R6cj4j0szvI/AAAAAAAAB-Q/fthndTZLuhU/s400/laffuer-curve.png)
![[image loading]](http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/293599_263794676991569_240984512605919_655561_474454595_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051006/DSCN1063.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051006/DSCN1121.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8yt1c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.danhagerman.com/images/Bronx%20Ghetto.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.american-pictures.com/gallery/usa/mediums/usa-03472.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://holapicasso.pbworks.com/f/1297424909/ghetto.jpg)
