Which tax system to do you agree the most with?

[Jeffy25]

the current Progressive Tax system

A Flat Tax System

A Consumption Tax System

Regressive Tax System



Which tax system, this is a small list of options, do you prefer (or support the most?)

[SirKodiak]

Could you define each a little? That way we could make sure we are all talking about the same thing.

[Jeffy25]

Fair enough....

ok - per wikipedia

Progressive Tax System:


A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.[1][2][3][4][5] "Progressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the marginal tax rate.[6][7] It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay.

Flat tax system

A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate.[1] Usually the term flat tax would refer to household income (and sometimes corporate profits) being taxed at one marginal rate, in contrast with progressive taxes that may vary according to such parameters as income or usage levels. Flat taxes generally offer simplicity in the tax code, which has been reported to increase compliance and decrease administration costs.[2]

Consumption tax system


A consumption tax is a tax on spending on goods and services. The term refers to a system with a tax base of consumption. It usually takes the form of an indirect tax, such as a sales tax or value added tax. However it can also be structured as a form of direct, personal taxation: as an income tax that excludes investments and savings.[1] A direct consumption tax is sometimes called an expenditure tax, a cash-flow tax, or a consumed-income tax, to name a few. Expenditure taxes of this kind have been briefly implemented in the past in India and Sri Lanka.[2]

Regressive Tax System


A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[1][2][3][4][5] In simple terms, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income. "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.[6][7] It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Regressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability-to-pay. The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, where the tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[8][9][10][11] In between is a flat or proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

[Jeffy25]

Personally, i am for a flat tax system:

it keeps things fair, everyone pays an equal percentage, and everyone is doing their fair share. it keeps the tax system simple, requires very little administrative costs, and keeps corruption limited. You work hard and earn more? doesn't effect you any differently, you pay more, but you still pay a fair percentage.

The only issue is that you still need socialized programs to counter the balance.

And it would require some consumable taxation in order for things to remain a little more even.

A progressive tax system is the one i have an issue with....it includes way to many problems.

a second favorite would be the a consumption tax system.

either way, you have to pay taxes on everything you do, everything from dying, to investing, to saving, to operating through life...i hate how much money is wasted by a backassward gov't.

we elect big gov't conservatives thinking they will fix the problem, and they don't.
we elect big gov't liberals and they do exactly what they say they will do....continue to grow a gov't. and overly tax everyone...taking from those that earn and giving to those that necessarily have not earned it.

[Alloutwar]

Progressive. Those that earn more, can afford to give more. Simple as that. I'm taxed higher now than I was at $45k or $55k, and that is fine by me.

Consumption-based would be effective as well, but too many people would hoard wealth in assets, stocks, etc, and avoid those taxes altogether.

Non-wage income should be taxed higher than wages - thinks like capital gains, passive income, etc.

[kenny1234]

Personally, i am for a flat tax system:

it keeps things fair, everyone pays an equal percentage, and everyone is doing their fair share. it keeps the tax system simple, requires very little administrative costs, and keeps corruption limited. You work hard and earn more? doesn't effect you any differently, you pay more, but you still pay a fair percentage.

The only issue is that you still need socialized programs to counter the balance.

And it would require some consumable taxation in order for things to remain a little more even.

A progressive tax system is the one i have an issue with....it includes way to many problems.

a second favorite would be the a consumption tax system.

There doesn't seem to be anything especially "fair" about a flat tax. And a consumption tax is effectively regressive unless there are significant exemptions, as those in poverty use a higher fraction of their income for consumption.

You say that there are too many problems with a progressive system - what do you have in mind?

[kellys11]

There doesn't seem to be anything especially "fair" about a flat tax. And a consumption tax is effectively regressive unless there are significant exemptions, as those in poverty use a higher fraction of their income for consumption.

You say that there are too many problems with a progressive system - what do you have in mind?

Comsumption tax only works at a small rate, if it gets too high, people will buy on the black market (that would develop quickly, saw it happen in Canada (actually in Quebec) when they raised taxes on cigarettes to a huge rate).

The biggest problem with a progressive system is I pay too much. :D

[kenny1234]

High tax rates of any kind can generate a black market - this is why most governments use a mix of taxes. Income tax hits those that work legally, but misses the informal/illegal sector. Consumption taxes hit everyone, but as you say there are ways around them. This is actually a good reason to support a significant gas tax - it is highly unlikely that a black market for gasoline is going to develop.

[Coach Owens]

I agree with AOW. I think the Progressive Tax System is the best one out there (though it could stand to have a few tweaks). Heck, there are actually sensible rich people who say that they should have to pay more.

[BINGLEBOP]

Personally, i am for a flat tax system:

it keeps things fair, everyone pays an equal percentage, and everyone is doing their fair share. it keeps the tax system simple, requires very little administrative costs, and keeps corruption limited. You work hard and earn more? doesn't effect you any differently, you pay more, but you still pay a fair percentage.

Once again, we agree. No need to worry about the middle class having their taxes increased, because it would be applied across the board.

At the same time, I wouldn't be against a progressive tax, or at least I wouldn't spend much time complaining about it. I like how Mark Cuban thinks about it. Personally, if I'm paying "that much money" in taxes, it means I'm doing pretty damn good. ;) I'll love the day I'm paying a lot of money in taxes, because it'll mean I'm making a lot of money. :cool:

[gRYFYN1]

I agree with AOW. I think the Progressive Tax System is the best one out there (though it could stand to have a few tweaks). Heck, there are actually sensible rich people who say that they should have to pay more.

I think the progressive system is the best; although, I you really need to have a combonation of taxes to be effective.

The issue relly is how taxes are written and levied. the US tax code:


By the way, if you go to the US Government Printing Office ( www.gpo.gov ), you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included.

According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845.

Thats 11 time linger than War and Peace and 13 times longer than the Bible

[BenFink]

I think progressive tax is the best, but our tax code has become a "little bit" too complicated. 16000 pages? We can simplify it without changing systems.

Flat tax would seem like a "fair" idea, but I don't really like it. The poorer families need a higher percentage of their income to stay living. A flat tax would probably increase their tax rates while decreasing the rich's tax rate trying to find middle ground.
An argument I always hear is "it punishes success" which is the same thing as saying you don't want to win the lottery because you'd have to pay taxes on it.

Consumption tax would lead to far too many problems. An income tax basically predicts consumption and taxes that, which works. A consumption tax would probably lead to a black market, and would drive lots of money out of the country. I could make a bunch of money here in the US, then go to other countries without this tax and buy goods for much cheaper. This would be especially true for the rich, since they usually have sneaky accountants. Like AOW said, they could make tons of money in stocks and such and never pay said taxes.

Regressive tax is just silly. :)

[filihok]

:eek:

absolute sanity in a thread about taxes started by Jeffy?

Amazing

[kenny1234]

The flat tax that is most commonly suggested also has a significant base deduction. You pay a flat rate on all income earned above a specific cutoff - say $10,000. This introduces progressivity into the tax system, means that the government doesn't have to worry about assessing tax penalties on a bunch of people that don't work very much, and is relatively simple. Of course, the progressivity of the tax system, and how complicated it is are entirely unrelated.

[TheNamelessPoet]

Actually the progressive tax is not as complicated as you would think... there are i believe 5 tax brackets and have been for a few years. i wrote a basic program years ago on my graphing calculator. i never got it quite right... SSi and Medicare always threw it off for some reason

[edit] here (http://taxes.about.com/b/2008/10/21/2009-tax-brackets-announced.htm) it is

[TheNamelessPoet]

Once again, we agree. No need to worry about the middle class having their taxes increased, because it would be applied across the board.

At the same time, I wouldn't be against a progressive tax, or at least I wouldn't spend much time complaining about it. I like how Mark Cuban thinks about it. Personally, if I'm paying "that much money" in taxes, it means I'm doing pretty damn good. ;) I'll love the day I'm paying a lot of money in taxes, because it'll mean I'm making a lot of money. :cool:

only problem with that is that it is going to LOWER the tax line form what it is now to incompas a higher % not a Lower % on the lower income. All the income(tax) lost by not taxing the higher income will have to be gained from the lower income. Also the lower middle class may suffer as well. The problem isnt so much that its a progressive tax... its the wasteful spending of tax$ to begin with. Switching to another will just make things worse or status quo in my opinion. we need to fix spending THEN fix the income...

God Forbid we fix spending, and actually LOWER the debit for 5-10 yeas then change the taxes to even everything out...

[Jeffy25]

I charge my clients a flat rate....4 percent of annual revenue. they make more, they pay me more....they don't, then they don't have to pay me as much....keeps the bill very simple, and seeing how i am contractually obligated to make them a dollar amount per year, it is in my best interest to get them to that dollar amount so that they have to pay me more.

just because they make more doesn't mean they should have to pay more....they have earned that money, i see no reason why they should be forced to pay me more.

i could do something like this instead though:

3 percent until 500k, 4 percent until 1 mil, 5 percent above 1 million in annual revenue.....but then i would be forced with more bad accounts, who don't pay as well, and the incentive to be decietful to me increases as people won't want to pay a higher amount...and some may even care enough to do just well enough and then stop whenever they reach the next plateau.

Just like with individual Americans now.

keep it simple, keep it fair.

you can charge a base amount at a specific dollar amount, and then nothing more. I see no reason why the average American should have to pay 40 percent of every dollar they make to our gov't.....which most of us don't agree are even doing a good job...of course, that is a different debate.

I see the progressive tax system as being complicated, filled with errors and all around unecessary. I have no problem with the wealthy paying more.....and in a flat tax, they do.

[guidi2009]

I can name a few countries where the rich don't pay more than the poor, most of them are in Africa.

[Jeffy25]

only problem with that is that it is going to LOWER the tax line form what it is now to incompas a higher % not a Lower % on the lower income. All the income(tax) lost by not taxing the higher income will have to be gained from the lower income. Also the lower middle class may suffer as well. The problem isnt so much that its a progressive tax... its the wasteful spending of tax$ to begin with. Switching to another will just make things worse or status quo in my opinion. we need to fix spending THEN fix the income...

God Forbid we fix spending, and actually LOWER the debit for 5-10 yeas then change the taxes to even everything out...

if every American paid tax on income at a specific rate...let's say.

7 percent to state, and 20 percent to federal.

this doesn't include many other things obviously.

someone making 25 grand a year will take home 18,250 a year.

someone making 50 grand will take him 36,500

and someone making 100 grand will take home 73,000

the incentive to make more and work harder is still there.

everyone is doing their share...and you can look around and know, if you aren't doing as well, you aren't taxed as much....if you are doing well, then you are being taxed more.

in the opposite direction it looks like this.

Person A paid 6750 dollars this year in taxes
Person B paid 13500 dollars this year in taxes
and Person C paid 27000 dollars in taxes this year....or more than Person A even made.

everyone pays their fair share for police, education, fire, military.

and you can still have socialized programs to help the poor reach more of a middle class standard, such as Medicare etc.

[TheNamelessPoet]

Jeffy
Do I maybe not understand the flat tax?
over 378K you have to pay 35%...
you said

I see the progressive tax system as being complicated, filled with errors and all around unecessary. I have no problem with the wealthy paying more.....and in a flat tax, they do.
are you saying the flat tax would be more than 35%!!! if so... go fly a kite on your flat tax :p

[Jeffy25]

I stated the reasoning in my most recent post.

the percentage stays the same, the amounts are the only thing that change.

[TheNamelessPoet]

I stated the reasoning in my most recent post.

the percentage stays the same, the amounts are the only thing that change.

Yes but then the total income by the government is not as much. Now with say 20% comming out of somone who makes under 20K a year that means they will need even more programs then before to try and stay afloat, more programs means the government needs more $ so higher taxes, which then needs more income... with a flat tax you are never trying to help thoe that have little income. And as much as I have always said... go get a better job, there will always be people who need to flip my burgers and ring out my groveries... if they get raises to say 15-20 an hour that means prives go up, more inflation...etc

[TheNamelessPoet]

Like comunisem, in principal it is a GREAT idea, but I just dont see any aplication whee it would be feasable

[Jeffy25]

Yes but then the total income by the government is not as much. Now with say 20% comming out of somone who makes under 20K a year that means they will need even more programs then before to try and stay afloat, more programs means the government needs more $ so higher taxes, which then needs more income... with a flat tax you are never trying to help thoe that have little income. And as much as I have always said... go get a better job, there will always be people who need to flip my burgers and ring out my groveries... if they get raises to say 15-20 an hour that means prives go up, more inflation...etc

or limit gov't. spending ;)

which is a pipe dream, the only way the federal gov't can continue their reckless, arrogant spending is to have a progressive tax system that brings in more dollars....so we don't really have any chances for tax reform.

make me president and many unecessary programs would go the way of old yeller...there is so much pointless spending, we already know there is....so the whole debate and argument is pointless unless some of this money is spent more responsibly.

Right now, if we did a flat tax, just to cover gov't. spending, the average American would need to be paying more than half their paychecks....and since the poor can't survive on half their paychecks, the argument becomes moot.

[Jeffy25]

Like comunisem, in principal it is a GREAT idea, but I just dont see any aplication whee it would be feasable

s-p-e-l-l check


;) love ya TNP :p

i would prefer a flat tax concept, but i agree, it isn't feasible...it is just what i would be in favor of...but it couldn't happen without massive reform, and as long as Pelosi and many other exist, it is pointless to even think about positive reform.


although, you fix the current tax system, and then you can talk about socializing health care and many other things....it makes those things much more realistic.

[TheNamelessPoet]

I think we agree overall that the main problem is the overspending. if that was gone a flat tax might just do the trick... gut until the spending is fixed :(



(no spelling :D)

[HoustonGM]

Right now, if we did a flat tax, just to cover gov't. spending, the average American would need to be paying more than half their paychecks....and since the poor can't survive on half their paychecks, the argument becomes moot.
Way to shoot down your own argument buddy! ;):p

[filihok]

I'm not so much concerned with overspending as with inefficient spending and blatant corruption.

As you were

[Jeffy25]

Way to shoot down your own argument buddy! ;):p

Well it's true. A flat tax system with socialized programs would be the most fair, but least feasible of the above stated systems with our current setup. I believe there is more wasteful spending then we even think. But until the gov't. Has to go through a system of checks and balances, it's pointless, bc as TNP said, that flat tax rate would have to be so high just to cover the spending we have that the only people that would benefit would be the wealthy.

If u can fix the current spending and lower govt' expenses then a flat tax rate with a few proper socialized programs would make the most sense and be the most fair.

[Alloutwar]

If I were James H. Buffington the Third, who had an income of say $2,225,000 each year (and corporate perks above and beyond that, like a suite in Manhattan and use of a private jet on occasion), I would completely sponsor the flat tax. I will pay 35% of my wage income (and bonuses, sigh), enacted under President Jeffington TwentyFivre. I don't like paying 35% - or paying anything, really, which is why so much of my money is in retirement funds or overseas - but at least those people at the bottom are paying the same 35% rate. I worked hard to get where I am (or, daddy paid for Harvard, and now I lounge around, taking a large corporation in bad, uninformed directions all day - which SEEMS like work).

I could probably actually LIVE on less than $100k, but I have to pay people - nanny, maid, and especially stock broker and tax evading accountant. (And of course, there's hotels and gifts for the mistress). And then I couldn't invest my money into looking for cheap crude oil in Chad, either - which should return some big dividends soon (despite the workers that died in the last fire, so sad). Anyway, a flat tax takes some of that heat off of me, and thank goodness, because my money is put to much better use when I'm in control of it. Do you know I even gave $10,000 to charity last year? Heck of a write off - it was my friend Brad's charity, turns out he has some kind streak...despite only making a paltry $900k a year! Anyway, I am off to the golf course!

Oh, before I forget - luckily my Capital gains - money I get, for my money MAKING money - is taxed at 28% tops, and real estate 25%. Most of the stuff my broker has me in I get charged only 15% - excellent for me! I am funding the future, giving the Engine of Capitalism its much-needed lubricant - and turning a pretty penny on it, too! Now if only I could get that bank in the Netherlands to work with me on my 'company' idea over there, I could avoid more of these taxes...

-------------------------------------------

If I were Chad Evans, a late-30s machinist, a guy that works, physically works, every day - and then has a low-level stockroom job on the weekends to pull in some extra cash - I sure miss the days where I was in the lowest tax bracket, and that meant something. Back then you paid a slowly rising scale depending on your income, from 10% up to maybe 28% - but now, despite having two kids to raise on his own, since his b*tch wife left him to be some rich prick's mistress, he has to pay a flat 35% of his meager $35,000 earnings each year. And 35% on the $10,475 from his weekend gig.

Chad can't afford anything better than the trailer he and the kids now reside in. He tried renting, but all his money went to rich guys that owned the building. There's no way he could ever amass enough to make a down payment - he almost had enough for an FHA down payment of 2.5%, but president Jeffington TwentyFivre cancelled the FHA program as 'just more useless government spending'. Doesn't matter much, 'cause his little one ended up getting too sick and he had to blow a few grand on that, since his insurance plan was so bad. Thank goodness that Public Option never got passed, ha ha. That would cost too much.

Chad hates the flat tax. He's never going to get out of the situation he is in, because everywhere he turns, there's more people taking his money. Maybe if he was taxed at 18%, 25%, he might make things better - even get something better than a Lego toy for his son's 14th birthday - that was so stupid, he wanted a guitar or video game. but somewhere along the line, it was decided that everyone should pay a flat rate, regardless of their income or situation. Simpler, they called it. Sure was simple - simply impossible to improve his life. Chad sits back and goes to sleep, thinking of the people making tons of money, without really working or giving anything to society, and it makes him want to cry.

[BenFink]

I see the progressive tax system as being complicated, filled with errors and all around unecessary. I have no problem with the wealthy paying more.....and in a flat tax, they do.

I think you confuse progressive tax with our tax system.
Most of our tax system's problems have to do with things like deductions, dependents, write-offs, etc.
A flat tax wouldn't solve this




someone making 25 grand a year will take home 18,250 a year.

someone making 50 grand will take him 36,500

and someone making 100 grand will take home 73,000

the incentive to make more and work harder is still there.


Again, this is like saying you don't want to win the lottery because you have to pay taxes on it.
I don't think anyone in are current system has been offered a raise at work and turned it down saying they don't want to pay more taxes.
You still get more money for making more money.

[filihok]

if every American paid tax on income at a specific rate...let's say.

7 percent to state, and 20 percent to federal.

this doesn't include many other things obviously.

someone making 25 grand a year will take home 18,250 a year.

someone making 50 grand will take him 36,500

and someone making 100 grand will take home 73,000

Let's see a guy making

20,000 a year with a 15% total tax will take home 17,000

50,000 a year with a 25% total tax will take home 37,500

120,000 a year with a 35% total tax will take home 78,000

2,500,000 a year with a 60% total tax will take home 1,000,000




the incentive to make more and work harder is still there.

everyone is doing their share...and you can look around and know, if you aren't doing as well, you aren't taxed as much....if you are doing well, then you are being taxed more.

everyone pays their fair share for police, education, fire, military.

and you can still have socialized programs to help the poor reach more of a middle class standard, such as Medicare etc.

[Jeffy25]

If I were James H. Buffington the Third, who had an income of say $2,225,000 each year (and corporate perks above and beyond that, like a suite in Manhattan and use of a private jet on occasion), I would completely sponsor the flat tax. I will pay 35% of my wage income (and bonuses, sigh), enacted under President Jeffington TwentyFivre. I don't like paying 35% - or paying anything, really, which is why so much of my money is in retirement funds or overseas - but at least those people at the bottom are paying the same 35% rate. I worked hard to get where I am (or, daddy paid for Harvard, and now I lounge around, taking a large corporation in bad, uninformed directions all day - which SEEMS like work).

I could probably actually LIVE on less than $100k, but I have to pay people - nanny, maid, and especially stock broker and tax evading accountant. (And of course, there's hotels and gifts for the mistress). And then I couldn't invest my money into looking for cheap crude oil in Chad, either - which should return some big dividends soon (despite the workers that died in the last fire, so sad). Anyway, a flat tax takes some of that heat off of me, and thank goodness, because my money is put to much better use when I'm in control of it. Do you know I even gave $10,000 to charity last year? Heck of a write off - it was my friend Brad's charity, turns out he has some kind streak...despite only making a paltry $900k a year! Anyway, I am off to the golf course!

Oh, before I forget - luckily my Capital gains - money I get, for my money MAKING money - is taxed at 28% tops, and real estate 25%. Most of the stuff my broker has me in I get charged only 15% - excellent for me! I am funding the future, giving the Engine of Capitalism its much-needed lubricant - and turning a pretty penny on it, too! Now if only I could get that bank in the Netherlands to work with me on my 'company' idea over there, I could avoid more of these taxes...

-------------------------------------------

If I were Chad Evans, a late-30s machinist, a guy that works, physically works, every day - and then has a low-level stockroom job on the weekends to pull in some extra cash - I sure miss the days where I was in the lowest tax bracket, and that meant something. Back then you paid a slowly rising scale depending on your income, from 10% up to maybe 28% - but now, despite having two kids to raise on his own, since his b*tch wife left him to be some rich prick's mistress, he has to pay a flat 35% of his meager $35,000 earnings each year. And 35% on the $10,475 from his weekend gig.

Chad can't afford anything better than the trailer he and the kids now reside in. He tried renting, but all his money went to rich guys that owned the building. There's no way he could ever amass enough to make a down payment - he almost had enough for an FHA down payment of 2.5%, but president Jeffington TwentyFivre cancelled the FHA program as 'just more useless government spending'. Doesn't matter much, 'cause his little one ended up getting too sick and he had to blow a few grand on that, since his insurance plan was so bad. Thank goodness that Public Option never got passed, ha ha. That would cost too much.

Chad hates the flat tax. He's never going to get out of the situation he is in, because everywhere he turns, there's more people taking his money. Maybe if he was taxed at 18%, 25%, he might make things better - even get something better than a Lego toy for his son's 14th birthday - that was so stupid, he wanted a guitar or video game. but somewhere along the line, it was decided that everyone should pay a flat rate, regardless of their income or situation. Simpler, they called it. Sure was simple - simply impossible to improve his life. Chad sits back and goes to sleep, thinking of the people making tons of money, without really working or giving anything to society, and it makes him want to cry.

this sounds more like an argument of hating those that are wealthy rather than striving to be one of the wealthy. You also seem to be confusing the wealthy with tryants and lumping everyone into one large category of greedy, money first pigs and Monguls.

one of my fav clients, he and his wife live in a double wide, his company makes 120k a year doing outside labor on homes, and he pays me all of 4 percent of that...happily....as i continue to make him more and more each month and year....he does manual hard core labor all day every day as his business is a sub contractor business.

another client, a beauty salon, makes 2 million a year, and the owner lives out her days on vacations and taking it easy.....after 35 years of hardcore labor building that business by herself and providing a service that the community need/wanted. She has 30 people who make their living working for her, and she works incredibly smart (teamed up with me helped a lot) and i am making sure that she continues to get her dreams that she has worked so hard for.

The 30 people working for her, have zero expenses to work there, not worries about clienetale, they don't have to worry about the electric bill, the marketing, the advertising, selling the products, paying the phone bill, paying the rent, or worry about the financial situation or their co-workers....they show up at 9, leave at 5 and make their pay checks....but for Linda, the owner, the stress, the concerns, they don't go away just because she goes on vacation....she is at a point where she has saved so much money, brought in all of the 2 million dollars a year in revenue herself, and now her employees get the benefit of an income because of her initial hard work...

I could do thousands of these examples, Linda was most recent meeting.....you think it's just all good and glory just because someone has money...but you forget the immense responsibilities that come with it...it isn't all play for business owners...and Linda is a rare breed of a business owner...she actually gets to **** around on vacation, which is rare for a business owner, but she was committed to reaching this goal one day. She is earning her retirement herself, no one else helped her, no company had her under their umbrella, she made it herself. How can you hate the person that builds on their own? how is it fair that they should have to pay a higher percentage? when a flat tax, she would still be paying more, but at least she would be charged a fair amount.

hating the wealthy, just because they are wealthy is retarded. The majority of those that have a good amount of money are not trust fund babies, they are hard working Americans who have busted their asses to get where they are. And they have worked intelligently enough and made significant sacrifices while people who took full time jobs did not.

your rant just shows that you hate those that are wealthy and feel for those that aren't....as though everyone that is wealthy is a bad person and doesn't give back and doesn't work hard. Believe me, being a CEO isn't all about enjoying perks....damn hard job!

Learn to work smart, if you are barely getting by, start looking for a better way to survive or live...and quite complaining when you have to pay someone else for a service they offer. no one is entitled to be wealthy, it takes a ton of work and commitment, for those that want it badly enough, there are ways to achieve it. Just because you are an American, you are not entitled to be given the same wealth as the guy that busted his ass.


I think you confuse progressive tax with our tax system.
Most of our tax system's problems have to do with things like deductions, dependents, write-offs, etc.
A flat tax wouldn't solve this

This is true, many of the issues are with deductions, dependents and tax advantages that the gov't throws at people.



Again, this is like saying you don't want to win the lottery because you have to pay taxes on it.
I don't think anyone in are current system has been offered a raise at work and turned it down saying they don't want to pay more taxes.
You still get more money for making more money.

This isn't even close to what i was saying, it is the total mirror opposite. you make more, you keep more...why should you be incentivized to do less? in an economic economy of Capitalism those that want to earn more and work harder should be rewarded for doing so....why should the money earned by someone working hard or working smart be taken from them and given to someone who didn't necessarily earn that money, and throw in countless administrative costs in the process?


Let's see a guy making

20,000 a year with a 15% total tax will take home 17,000

50,000 a year with a 25% total tax will take home 37,500

120,000 a year with a 35% total tax will take home 78,000

2,500,000 a year with a 60% total tax will take home 1,000,000

that would be a very socialized economy

[BenFink]

This isn't even close to what i was saying, it is the total mirror opposite. you make more, you keep more...why should you be incentivized to do less? in an economic economy of Capitalism those that want to earn more and work harder should be rewarded for doing so....why should the money earned by someone working hard or working smart be taken from them and given to someone who didn't necessarily earn that money, and throw in countless administrative costs in the process?

Since when in our current financial system are people not allowed to work more to make more? Since when are we "incentivized" to do less?
All those lucky poor people!

[TheNamelessPoet]

Again, this is like saying you don't want to win the lottery because you have to pay taxes on it.
I don't think anyone in are current system has been offered a raise at work and turned it down saying they don't want to pay more taxes.You still get more money for making more money.

a raise no but overtime yes... there are actualy still people in COMPATANT positions making informed decisions that effect all of us, who think once you work a certaina amount of OT you are taxed more and get LESS overall in your check. i have had people tell me that they worked an extra hour of OT (more than they did before) and honestly say their check is less because of it

[Jeffy25]

Since when in our current financial system are people not allowed to work more to make more? Since when are we "incentivized" to do less?
All those lucky poor people!

I never said people couldn't make more, that's the joy of our system is that you can do better....i wasn't complaining about that, maybe we got mixed up somewhere. I am against, changing that :D

on the second question, my old roomate sold cars for a Honda dealership, straight commission job....

his tax line, was something like 52 grand a year, which he hit at the end of October (this is a few years ago, don't remember exactly) so he quit with 2 and a half months to go, and made sure he didn't make any more money the rest of the year as he was at the top of his tax bracket....he said he was like 700 bucks short of going to the next bracket. so he did jackshit the rest of the year.

that is a rare case, i would think most people woudl want to continue to earn and do more, Jake was sort of lazy to begin with.

but it does encourage people to try to cheat or manipulate their income or depenedents or deductions in order to have to pay a lower percentage rate.

how is it fair that my percentage goes higher just because i made a few thousand more than the next guy? In the end, my net profit can become lower.

[TheNamelessPoet]

I never said people couldn't make more, that's the joy of our system is that you can do better....i wasn't complaining about that, maybe we got mixed up somewhere. I am against, changing that :D

on the second question, my old roomate sold cars for a Honda dealership, straight commission job....

his tax line, was something like 52 grand a year, which he hit at the end of October (this is a few years ago, don't remember exactly) so he quit with 2 and a half months to go, and made sure he didn't make any more money the rest of the year as he was at the top of his tax bracket....he said he was like 700 bucks short of going to the next bracket. so he did jackshit the rest of the year.

that is a rare case, i would think most people woudl want to continue to earn and do more, Jake was sort of lazy to begin with.

but it does encourage people to try to cheat or manipulate their income or depenedents or deductions in order to have to pay a lower percentage rate.

how is it fair that my percentage goes higher just because i made a few thousand more than the next guy? In the end, my net profit can become lower.
that made me laugh for some reason

[Jeffy25]

a raise no but overtime yes... there are actualy still people in COMPATANT positions making informed decisions that effect all of us, who think once you work a certaina amount of OT you are taxed more and get LESS overall in your check. i have had people tell me that they worked an extra hour of OT (more than they did before) and honestly say their check is less because of it

well daddy gov't has to put their hand in everywhere there is a dollar to be made.

sales tax on items, capital gains taxes, insurance tax, income tax, inheritance tax, and as the above example even states, when you work more, they think that means they can tax you even more.

anyone that actually thinks our current tax system is great, i'm sorry, is an idiot.

[BenFink]

I never said people couldn't make more, that's the joy of our system is that you can do better....i wasn't complaining about that, maybe we got mixed up somewhere. I am against, changing that :D
Then we are both for the progressive tax, no?




on the second question, my old roomate sold cars for a Honda dealership, straight commission job....

his tax line, was something like 52 grand a year, which he hit at the end of October (this is a few years ago, don't remember exactly) so he quit with 2 and a half months to go, and made sure he didn't make any more money the rest of the year as he was at the top of his tax bracket....he said he was like 700 bucks short of going to the next bracket. so he did jackshit the rest of the year.

I can be in favor of a sliding scale rather than a ladder/bracket type system.

[Jeffy25]

Then we are both for the progressive tax, no?


no, i am very against it, i think we got mixed up on what we were defining.


I am for it in our current economy, because of our ****ed up gov't spending. i would prefer a flat tax IF our gov't would learn to control themselves and quit asking for more money to spend on **** no one wants or needs.



I can be in favor of a sliding scale rather than a ladder/bracket type system.
I am not in favor of either.

[filihok]

his tax line, was something like 52 grand a year, which he hit at the end of October (this is a few years ago, don't remember exactly) so he quit with 2 and a half months to go, and made sure he didn't make any more money the rest of the year as he was at the top of his tax bracket....he said he was like 700 bucks short of going to the next bracket. so he did jackshit the rest of the year.

that is a rare case, i would think most people woudl want to continue to earn and do more,

So a progressive tax would not lead to MOST PEOPLE deciding to work less hard and make less money. So, people are not being incentivicized to do less?



In the end, my net profit can become lower.

Are you sure?

[BenFink]

I am for it in our current economy, because of our ****ed up gov't spending. i would prefer a flat tax IF our gov't would learn to control themselves and quit asking for more money to spend on **** no one wants or needs.

Shouldn't we fix our spending regardless of what tax system we use?
This is a debate on tax systems not government spending.
Even though inevitably all tax system discussions I've seen turn into people bashing current spending, then everyone agrees that government waste is bad, blah blah blah.

[Jeffy25]

So a progressive tax would not lead to MOST PEOPLE deciding to work less hard and make less money. So, people are not being incentivicized to do less?

If it was a flat tax, he could continue to have worked (again, he was lazy, bad example, just the first that came to mind) and he could have continued to make more money for the year. He was happy with blowing off for the next 10 weeks over making any more money....it was a difference of like 6 percent that he would have been taxed at the end of the year. His words, were that he would have to sell two more cars just to cover the total that he would be taxed since his net income would be lowered by crossing that income line....again, this is verbage from that friend, not my first hand experience, but i have heard similar stories in the past, but i would prefer to not give too much credit to the story, but rather the concept and idea.



Are you sure?

Yes. although it would take an extreme example like my story with Jake. i don't think the issue is do less, i think the issue is the character of the concept....
you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor, that are usually poor because of mistakes made by themselves. Why reward that? I am not asking for special treatment for the rich either. Just believe that the only sensibly fair thing is to keep things even and fair across the board.

I do believe by having a bracket system for taxes allows for corruption and falsed numbers to be more likely evident.

[Jeffy25]

Shouldn't we fix our spending regardless of what tax system we use?
This is a debate on tax systems not government spending.
Even though inevitably all tax system discussions I've seen turn into people bashing current spending, then everyone agrees that government waste is bad, blah blah blah.

very true, and i think i even said something to this effect earlier...that gov't spending is a different debate.

but yes, it is something that has to be fixed regardless....but no politician will change it or make it their mission to eliminate bad gov't spending....no Republican nor Democrat would it be in their best interest (likely)

[ragecage]

Kind of late to the party, but flat tax for me, followed by consumption tax.

[filihok]

If it was a flat tax, he could continue to have worked (again, he was lazy, bad example, just the first that came to mind) and he could have continued to make more money for the year. He was happy with blowing off for the next 10 weeks over making any more money....it was a difference of like 6 percent that he would have been taxed at the end of the year.

But he would have only been taxed the extra 6% on the additional money that he made, right? He would not have been taxed that 6% on the 52Ks that he already made.



you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor, that are usually poor because of mistakes made by themselves.

This is in some instances true, but in a great deal of instances horrifically false.


Why reward that? I am not asking for special treatment for the rich either. Just believe that the only sensibly fair thing is to keep things even and fair across the board.

So you believe that people should keep what they earn and pay for what they use, right?

I would counter by saying that rich people benefit more from government spending than poor people do. Therefore they should pay more for it


I do believe by having a bracket system for taxes allows for corruption and falsed numbers to be more likely evident.

Why?

Income will be corrupted and 'falsed' on any system that taxes based on income.

[TheNamelessPoet]

But he would have only been taxed the extra 6% on the additional money that he made, right? He would not have been taxed that 6% on the 52Ks that he already made.
correct

[filihok]

correct

I know ;)

[Jeffy25]

But he would have only been taxed the extra 6% on the additional money that he made, right? He would not have been taxed that 6% on the 52Ks that he already made.

This is correct, that was Jake's reasoning. it's not like he would have been taxed the additional 6 percent on every dollar he had made on the total year, but that was his argument. I don't see why there should be an increase in the first place, which is what my argument is.



This is in some instances true, but in a great deal of instances horrifically false.

The same can be said about AOW's example of the multi millionaire tyrant....both are extremes. but often, those that are poor, if they so desire to not be, can do something about it.




So you believe that people should keep what they earn and pay for what they use, right?

I would counter by saying that rich people benefit more from government spending than poor people do. Therefore they should pay more for it

How so? everyone uses police, fire, the roads, military, education.....difference is the poor isn't paying any more than the rich for those services under a flat tax...they are paying at the same rate, at a smaller overall amount. still the poor benefit at tax time.



Why?

Income will be corrupted and 'falsed' on any system that taxes based on income.

which is true, but when you are levying amounts that change based on percentages you are giving people the desire to be in different brackets, which cause many loopholes and can cause people to want to be more dishonest, since the reward is that much greater.

it doesn't help having a tax code that is 16,000 pages long that no one can even understand. I just believe a bracket system can make corruption more evident, while with a flat tax rate, it is A.) easier for the IRS to spot, and B.) less likely to happen...

[filihok]

This is correct, that was Jake's reasoning.

Then Jake is lazy, and ignorant.

of course, you also said it.


In the end, my net profit can become lower.


How so? everyone uses police, fire, the roads, military, education.....difference is the poor isn't paying any more than the rich for those services under a flat tax...they are paying at the same rate, at a smaller overall amount.

Think of it like insurance. The rich have more assets to protect



which is true, but when you are levying amounts that change based on percentages you are giving people the desire to be in different brackets, which cause many loopholes and can cause people to want to be more dishonest, since the reward is that much greater.

So it is your contention that rich people will be less likely to work hard to make more money (under a progressive tax)

but will be more dishonest in order to save money

AND

these people are



hard working Americans who have busted their asses to get where they are.

That confuses me


it doesn't help having a tax code that is 16,000 pages long that no one can even understand.

This I agree with


I just believe a bracket system can make corruption more evident, while with a flat tax rate, it is A.) easier for the IRS to spot, and B.) less likely to happen...

This I don't.

How is it easier for the IRS to spot a falsified report of income if the tax rate is a flat xx% than if the tax rate is xx% on XX amount and yy% on YY amount?

[TheNamelessPoet]

Look I will say this...
If these was a way to put 50% of my check into my 401K I would (as an asset and pay no taxes) but let me tell you... I would just take my 3 loans a year out, and avoid all the taxes :p

[BenFink]

Think of it like insurance. The rich have more assets to protect

What's easier to put out, a fire at Bill Gate's house, or a one room shack?
;)

I don't think switching systems will make corruption any less. If the flat tax is 20%, every dollar you lie about on your taxes saves you 20 cents. If the progressive tax for your bracket is 20%, every dollar you lie about saves you 20 cents. Differences? None

[ragecage]

What's easier to put out, a fire at Bill Gate's house, or a one room shack?
;)

I don't think switching systems will make corruption any less. If the flat tax is 20%, every dollar you lie about on your taxes saves you 20 cents. If the progressive tax for your bracket is 20%, every dollar you lie about saves you 20 cents. Differences? None

great analogy

[ragecage]

I'm not so much concerned with overspending as with inefficient spending and blatant corruption.

As you were

there it is.

[Lex Logan]

Flat tax, high deductible. $10,000 is way too low. Probably $6000 or $7000 per person ($24,000 for a family of 4), 33% above that. (It ought to be 3% but that's the spending issue.) Simple, plenty progressive enough for those who don't consider high income earners to be deserving of punishment.

Notice that currently half of Federal revenue comes from the highly regressive Social Security (FICA) tax, 15.65% from $1 to around $100,000, then it drops to just the Medicare tax of 2-3%. Roll FICA into the flat tax, eliminate the ceiling, maybe have a 40% rate.

[SirKodiak]

'Deductible' should probably be based on something like poverty level rather than a set amount.

[SirKodiak]

What's easier to put out, a fire at Bill Gate's house, or a one room shack?
;)


I always pictured an elaborate fire control system in Xanadu.

[haveacigar]

Michigan has a flat income tax. I sat in on a tax policy hearing every week this summer listening to economic expert after economic expert talk about how horrific the Michigan flat tax is. The only reason it still exists is because, for some reason, the flat tax is tied to the MI constitution, so they can't change it without a constitutional amendment, which no one can get on the ballot.

Flat taxes are simply not ever feasible. If you reduced spending to fit the lower flat tax, public services would be severely lacking (just because Jeffy thinks the programs are unnecessary doesn't make it so). If you raise the flat tax to fit the spending, it amounts to a tax hike on the lower middle class. We can all sit here and talk about how great it would be, but it's not feasible, so who cares. We could prattle on how great it would be if I could buy every visitor to this site a copy of BBM and a brand new computer to play it on, but that is also not feasible.

Jeff, I don't think AOW's story's point was about the rich being evil, or hating the rich, or anything. I took his point to be that plenty of rich people don't work hard, and plenty of poor people work hard, and that designing any policy based on the idea that rich people are rich because they deserve it--and poor people are poor because they deserve it too--is a really bad idea. The sooner we dispel the Horatio Alger myth, the sooner we can actually make some real progress in these debates.

I'll use myself as an example. My parents are very hard-working, middle class people. They never had a chance to go to college, or advance higher up in the world, so the best they could do with hard work is just have a solid, middle-class lifestyle. Now, my brother and I come along. My parents are probably a lot harder working people than my brother and I are. However, because we started with a better foundation, we'll both get fancy law degrees and probably make way more money than our parents ever did.

Something that would be good to compare would be to take people's income bracket, and compare it to the income brackets of their parents.

[Alloutwar]

thanks HAC, that is right. FYI Jeffy, I don't hate the rich - I'm getting up there in net worth myself, after all. I'm just astounded at how little effort I have to put out, to get MORE wealthy...while folks older and harder working seemingly can never make ends meet, because the system is so stacked against them. Like my renters. :)

I'm sure you see it in your own life experience. I'm not saying business owners and CEOs have it easy - not all of them, anyway - I'm just saying there's a range at both ends. Some rich people work hard, some don't. Some poor people would do anything for a chance at a better life, and some wouldn't. If given the choice, I would take extra income from those than can afford it, and attempt to equalize living conditions (even if only 1 or 2% of a shift caused by a progressive tax).

But that's because so much of our wealth is in the hands of 1% of the country's populace, anyway.

I've worked for small business owners. Some are devoted, work-a-holic types that really care. Some are lazy as all hell, and think the fact that they were born in the right family or in the right circumstances make them entitled to everything, while they actually contribute nothing to society. Even the best ones typically had some vice, whether it be gambling away revenue, keeping their incompetent kids/family members on staff to kill productivity, or only hiring hot girls to bop them in the back office. You paint this picture of the hard-working small business owner, and honestly, that's fine; if (when) I have my own firm, I'm going to put a lot of effort into it, and get to reap all the rewards.

I simply think your favoritism of one side is blinding you to the plight of the other. The hourly worker can put in his all, and be stunted or ignored (or maltreated) by a bad boss. A worker may contribute $1,000 in revenue in a day, but they only get their flat hourly rate, and the owner keeps the rest -simply for having an opportunity somewhere in life, and turning it into success. It's great and capitalistic and the American Dream, but at the same time, you're profiting off of someone else's labor - you HAVE to be, or else you wouldn't have hired them. Business owners aren't just creating jobs because they would love writing another paycheck - they get something out of the deal. I wouldn't be making the tons of moolah I was unless my company was making MUCH more than that from my efforts.

I guess that's what bothers me the most about how you push these points - it's all about the owner, all the time. Well, not everyone is able to own a business. So what about everyone else? You know, that other 80% of America? The ones stuck paying rent and bank fees for the 'luxury' of having a bank account? someone has to work FOR the business owners..so I guess the choice is, do we treat them as economic equals (when they aren't), or maybe just balance things a bit in their favor, in case they are in a bad situation?

I'm all set in life. I don't need anything over six figures (but I make it anyway). So now, my focus is on helping the less fortunate, maybe equalizing the whole pie-sharing thing here in this great country. I see that as a worthwhile goal. Maybe you don't, but that's why we can agree to disagree, without calling each other retarded or assinine.

A lot of your outlook assumes everyone starts out with the same possibilities, the same opportunities for college and career advancement and capital and owning/building a business. Then you can say that rich people made it work, and poor people didn't, so tough noogies - everyone makes their bed. I just don't think that is anywhere near factual. Not every rich guy is a trust fund baby, and there are definitely good business owners that worked for everything they have (my grandfather was one). I think you would benefit from realizing that not everyone starts on the same square in this game, and some people feel that giving everyone a shot (at least a shot) at a decent living is more important than giving everyone who is or has succeeded, more breathing room.

[haveacigar]

Also, I hate when "fairness" is brought into a tax discussion, because taxes by definition are never fair, and really only exist as a consequence of the Social Contract (the government gets to take your money in return for giving you a functioning society that protects you and your assets).

However, there's a lot more marginal utility for the government to take the wealthy's money as opposed to the poor and middle classes' money. Taxation on the top percentage of income is less likely to affect investment and spending habits. Also, the middle class and lower classes are putting a much higher percentage of their money back into the economy relatively quickly, while the wealthy are more likely to save a larger percentage of their income. Generally speaking, the government is better served taking money that isn't otherwise going directly into the economy.