|
|
On September 18 2012 23:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is. Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position. It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
For all the changes in how people label themselves, the actual positions Americans support regarding abortion (ie "Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady" in your link) have remained quite steady.
|
On September 18 2012 19:48 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics... By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program. Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class.... Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sincerly puzzled that anybody could ever think otherwise. They don't even try to hide it!
|
United States6277 Posts
On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly...
You could set up one tax rate, say 30% (or whatever) and then give everyone a large standard deduction (say $30K). Income below $30K you pay no tax and above it you start paying 30%. That would be a flat tax that's also progressive since as your income goes up your effective tax rate will increase.
At $30K you pay 0%
At $50K you pay 12%
At $100K you pay 21%
At $1M you pay 29%
|
Vote Day[9] guys!
User was warned for this post
|
On September 18 2012 23:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... You could set up one tax rate, say 30% (or whatever) and then give everyone a large standard deduction (say $30K). Income below $30K you pay no tax and above it you start paying 30%. That would be a flat tax that's also progressive since as your income goes up your effective tax rate will increase. At $30K you pay 0% At $50K you pay 12% At $100K you pay 21% At $1M you pay 29%
I would totally support something along those lines.
|
On September 18 2012 23:36 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is. Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position. It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx For all the changes in how people label themselves, the actual positions Americans support regarding abortion (ie "Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady" in your link) have remained quite steady.
Except that they haven't. A percentage shift of a few points can punch above its weight on a fiery and almost perfectly divided issue like this, which is what has happened.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
The numbers are even worse for the pro-choice side in some of the other polls as well. And the pro-life side is the more fired up of the two, which along with the small but important shift in public opinion has caused abortion to come back as a legislative issue more prominently.
|
On September 18 2012 23:48 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... You could set up one tax rate, say 30% (or whatever) and then give everyone a large standard deduction (say $30K). Income below $30K you pay no tax and above it you start paying 30%. That would be a flat tax that's also progressive since as your income goes up your effective tax rate will increase. At $30K you pay 0% At $50K you pay 12% At $100K you pay 21% At $1M you pay 29% I would totally support something along those lines.
It's how it works in France (with higher rates of course, different baremes, and many reductions depending on the number of children, if you disable, with a long terme disease, retired, etc), I doubt it would be very popular in USA, a bit too much on the left I think 
|
On September 18 2012 23:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:36 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 23:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is. Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position. It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx For all the changes in how people label themselves, the actual positions Americans support regarding abortion (ie "Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady" in your link) have remained quite steady. Except that they haven't. A percentage shift of a few points can punch above its weight on a fiery and almost perfectly divided issue like this, which is what has happened. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htmThe numbers are even worse for the pro-choice side in some of the other polls as well. And the pro-life side is the more fired up of the two, which along with the small but important shift in public opinion has caused abortion to come back as a legislative issue more prominently.
Pro-life used to mean "no abortions for any reason ever." Nowadays we see more people calling themselves pro-life but for abortion in cases of rape and endangerment to the mother. That's not actually pro-life, but that's what they call themselves. Edit: dude those polls go directly against what you are saying lol.
What exact do you think is "divisive"?
|
On September 18 2012 23:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:36 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 23:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is. Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position. It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx For all the changes in how people label themselves, the actual positions Americans support regarding abortion (ie "Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady" in your link) have remained quite steady. Except that they haven't. A percentage shift of a few points can punch above its weight on a fiery and almost perfectly divided issue like this, which is what has happened. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htmThe numbers are even worse for the pro-choice side in some of the other polls as well. And the pro-life side is the more fired up of the two, which along with the small but important shift in public opinion has caused abortion to come back as a legislative issue more prominently. Pro-life used to mean "no abortions for any reason ever." Nowadays we see more people calling themselves pro-life but for abortion in cases of rape and endangerment to the mother. That's not actually pro-life, but that's what they call themselves. What exact do you think is "divisive"?
The public is less supportive of abortion than it was, deal with it.
I don't think anything is divisive, if someone is calling something divisive to me that means it's an important issue and the person yelling "you/they are being divisive!" is just trying to dodge it. People don't get all hot and bothered and divided about stuff that they perceive unimportant. And in politics perception creates and is reality. We need some division, some clear contrast, and in doing so give Americans a chance to be decisive about these issues, to settle them for a long time one way or another. That's the only way to reduce partisan antagonism, the people authoritatively answering the questions being fought over. Otherwise the losing side just reloads for the next election.
|
On September 18 2012 23:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:36 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 23:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is. Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position. It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx For all the changes in how people label themselves, the actual positions Americans support regarding abortion (ie "Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady" in your link) have remained quite steady. Except that they haven't. A percentage shift of a few points can punch above its weight on a fiery and almost perfectly divided issue like this, which is what has happened. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htmThe numbers are even worse for the pro-choice side in some of the other polls as well. And the pro-life side is the more fired up of the two, which along with the small but important shift in public opinion has caused abortion to come back as a legislative issue more prominently.
That link supports exactly what I was saying. Of the polls in that link that asked about when abortion should be legal vs illegal, there was, if anything, a very slight tick in favor of legality (looks like statistical noise to me though). However more people called themselves "pro-life" despite their actual policy positions not changing that much.
|
On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers!
I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way.
|
On September 19 2012 00:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:59 DoubleReed wrote:On September 18 2012 23:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:36 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 23:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is. Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position. It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx For all the changes in how people label themselves, the actual positions Americans support regarding abortion (ie "Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady" in your link) have remained quite steady. Except that they haven't. A percentage shift of a few points can punch above its weight on a fiery and almost perfectly divided issue like this, which is what has happened. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htmThe numbers are even worse for the pro-choice side in some of the other polls as well. And the pro-life side is the more fired up of the two, which along with the small but important shift in public opinion has caused abortion to come back as a legislative issue more prominently. Pro-life used to mean "no abortions for any reason ever." Nowadays we see more people calling themselves pro-life but for abortion in cases of rape and endangerment to the mother. That's not actually pro-life, but that's what they call themselves. What exact do you think is "divisive"? The public is less supportive of abortion than it was, deal with it. I don't think anything is divisive, if someone is calling something divisive to me that means it's an important issue and the person yelling "you/they are being divisive!" is just trying to dodge it. People don't get all hot and bothered and divided about stuff that they perceive unimportant. And in politics perception creates and is reality. We need some division, some clear contrast, and in doing so give Americans a chance to be decisive about these issues, to settle them for a long time one way or another. That's the only way to reduce partisan antagonism, the people authoritatively answering the questions being fought over. Otherwise the losing side just reloads for the next election.
??? Your link says the opposite. Opposition to abortion has mostly just held constant...
And wasn't your post on the last page complaining about democrats being divisive? I can't tell if you're being stupid or hypocritical. I'm so confused... What are you doooing?
|
On September 19 2012 00:09 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers! I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way.
What's a tax function?
|
On September 19 2012 00:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:09 HunterX11 wrote:On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers! I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way. What's a tax function?
A mapping from your wallet onto the government. In general lacking an inverse.
|
On September 18 2012 10:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Romney called everyone that philosophically disagrees with him entitled, he's basically pulling a Bioware here.
Which is amusing coming from a guy with as much money as he has paying the tax rate he does.
On September 18 2012 10:57 kmillz wrote:
Somewhat, Obama really meant that as a literal phrase of "you didn't build that" physically by themselves (no shit) but it still implies that all successful people were carried to their success as opposed to making good decisions and getting to that point with their own perseverance. Tell me what he REALLY meant by that to you and how it is the exact same situation?
He wasn't taking away from their good decisions and perserverance. He was saying most people's success wouldn't have been possible without the support infrastructure in place, like roads, education and a relatively safe enviornment provided by public police (just a few examples among the many.)
On September 18 2012 11:53 Zaqwert wrote:
The numbers are completely made up, but the people are real.
There are people who pay very little in taxes, use way more than they pay in taxes in government services, and then have the disgusting gaul to moan and complain about others "not paying their fair share"
So that makes pulling arbitrary numbers from a certain cavity ok?
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
No, they aren't making society possible. The rise of this country was built on a strong middle class, not the rich.
On September 18 2012 15:55 kmillz wrote:
Well, the funny thing is, the rich payer higher tax rates, so a flat tax (15% across the board for example) would actually mean the rich are taxed less. I would support a flat tax, but I think it is kind of bullshit we are double taxed. I would completely get rid of income tax and just raise sales tax.
No they don't. An average lower or middle class worker pays a higher effective tax rate than the rich. (For instance I pay about 21%, Mitt pays 13%.)
|
On September 19 2012 00:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:09 HunterX11 wrote:On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers! I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way. What's a tax function?
The idea would be to make the tax rate a function of income so that your tax liability is calculated as the integral of the tax function from zero to your gross income. Also it would simplify things to replace tax credits with a negative income tax (i.e. have f(0) be negative) since as it stands, tax credits aren't entirely progressive.
|
On September 18 2012 16:58 antelope591 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho
I'm not waiting for wealth to trickle down to me from anyone. If you want wealth go f'ing earn it. Go invent something, go start a business, go make goods and services people enjoy.
|
On September 19 2012 00:48 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:22 Roe wrote:On September 19 2012 00:09 HunterX11 wrote:On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers! I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way. What's a tax function? The idea would be to make the tax rate a function of income so that your tax liability is calculated as the integral of the tax function from zero to your gross income. Also it would simplify things to replace tax credits with a negative income tax (i.e. have f(0) be negative) since as it stands, tax credits aren't entirely progressive.
How does this clarify anything for someone who doesn't understand calculus? The usual progressive tax system would simply be a piecewise linear tax function under your definition. Even a flat tax for various income brackets where you can possibly make less net income as your gross increases, can be put into this framework. So I don't see what the point of introducing this concept is, other than to needlessly complicate.
|
On September 19 2012 00:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
How does that clarify anything for someone who doesn't understand calculus. The usual progressive tax system would simply be a piecewise linear tax function under your definition. Even a flat tax for various income brackets where you can possibly make less net incme as you gross increases, can be put into this framework. So I don't see what the point of introducing this concept is, other than to needlessly complicate.
Funny, that's actually how I explain the progressive tax system to anyone who has taken calculus. A surprising number of well-educated people think that the published tax rates for each bracket is the percentage paid of their entire income, not the marginal rate. Saying that "your taxes paid is the integral from 0 to your taxable income of the tax rate function" is a very simple, fast way to explain it... provided the person understands integrals 
|
On September 19 2012 00:55 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 00:22 Roe wrote:On September 19 2012 00:09 HunterX11 wrote:On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers! I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way. What's a tax function? The idea would be to make the tax rate a function of income so that your tax liability is calculated as the integral of the tax function from zero to your gross income. Also it would simplify things to replace tax credits with a negative income tax (i.e. have f(0) be negative) since as it stands, tax credits aren't entirely progressive. How does this clarify anything for someone who doesn't understand calculus? The usual progressive tax system would simply be a piecewise linear tax function under your definition. Even a flat tax for various income brackets where you can possibly make less net income as your gross increases, can be put into this framework. So I don't see what the point of introducing this concept is, other than to needlessly complicate.
The primary role would be to remove some of the very complicated deductions that take a law-degree to figure out and move it onto mathematics instead. Logic does beat law every day of the week and twice on sunday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
