|
Post by tigercpa on Feb 17, 2016 18:42:40 GMT
It's not nonsensical. It is why poor people suffer from a flat tax more than the rich. Bob makes $50, pays 10% on tax and spends $10 on basic needs. He is left with 70% of his income. I make $100, pay 10% in tax and spend $10 on basic needs. I'm left with 80% of my income. A flat tax hurts him more than me. Very simple concept. It is nonsensical. A ratio of taxes paid to discretionary income makes no sense. It's like dividing by zero.
Bob paid $5 in absolute dollars, you paid $10, You paid twice as much in taxes as did Bob. A flat tax is still "progressive", the more you make, the more you pay.
You are arguing from the wrong viewpoint. The tax rate is being applied equally. It's fair, everyone pays 10% of what they earn. Everyone has skin in the game.
Perhaps you make $100 because you are an ER doctor and Bob is a security guard?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 18, 2016 2:31:13 GMT
I am using the same logic. 10% of Bob's income is more valuable to Bob than 10% of my income is to me. So if Bob pays 10% of his income, I should probably pay a more than 10% of my income. How much more is up for debate. Yes... it's up for debate. Just keep in mind, what we're now debating is: Who gets to decide just how much of YOUR money, YOU deserve to keep? Why should you be allowed to keep more than Bob? Won't it ALWAYS mean less for you than it does for him? As long as you get to keep more? It's an argument that my side has lost... for a long time. But, I believe it's a concept still worth fighting for. History has shown: When people get to keep more of their own earnings, they work much harder. I also reject the idea that, YOU won't spend your own money MORE WISELY than the government will. Who knows, you MIGHT even be more charitable than the government? Did you see any of the stories about how much tax Cam Newton was going to have to pay on his Super Bowl winning? Hint: He paid MORE than he actually earned. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/02/03/california-taxes-will-eat-up-all-of-cam-newtons-super-bowl-earnings/#6e2a23df50a6I think, THAT was why Cam was so upset during his press conference. He knew he lost more than the game... he actually LOST money, playing in the Super Bowl. We've gone too far. W's tax cut "For the Wealthy" removed MILLIONS of people from the tax rolls entirely. Our country is spending FAR MORE than we collect, and it simply cannot continue forever. Obama's budget last week projects $1TRILLION annual deficits beginning in just a few more years. We simply can't get that money from just the 1%. Not even if we took ALL their money. Even Bernie understands this... his tax plan raises taxes on EVERYONE. Even still, his spending plans far outstrip his ambitious tax plan. So badly, a Democrat economist call it a " puppies and rainbows" lol dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/puppies-and-rainbows-even-obamas-top-economic-adviser-is-bashing-sanderss-health-plan/We were debating whether a flat tax is reasonable. I disagreed and gave my reasons. We could definitely spend the tax income we have in a better way, and not need to raise taxes. The sad state of affairs is that raising taxes is more popular than spending less on wars and inflated benefits for the elderly.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 18, 2016 2:58:48 GMT
aufan: We were debating whether a flat tax is reasonable. I disagreed and gave my reasons."
Your "reasons" didn't make any sense, but I'll accept that you oppose a flat tax.
aufan: "We could definitely spend the tax income we have in a better way, and not need to raise taxes."
True, but I imagine that your "better way" is a whole bunch different than my "better way".
aufan: "The sad state of affairs is that raising taxes is more popular than spending less on wars and inflated benefits for the elderly."
Yep, we do indeed differ on the "better way". I trust that you don't agree that a strong military is a deterrent to war. However, if you are planning on doing something about the inflated benefits I am receiving courtesy of your paycheck, I will be proud of you.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 18, 2016 3:02:00 GMT
It's not nonsensical. It is why poor people suffer from a flat tax more than the rich. Bob makes $50, pays 10% on tax and spends $10 on basic needs. He is left with 70% of his income. I make $100, pay 10% in tax and spend $10 on basic needs. I'm left with 80% of my income. A flat tax hurts him more than me. Very simple concept. It is nonsensical. A ratio of taxes paid to discretionary income makes no sense. It's like dividing by zero.
Bob paid $5 in absolute dollars, you paid $10, You paid twice as much in taxes as did Bob. A flat tax is still "progressive", the more you make, the more you pay.
You are arguing from the wrong viewpoint. The tax rate is being applied equally. It's fair, everyone pays 10% of what they earn. Everyone has skin in the game.
Perhaps you make $100 because you are an ER doctor and Bob is a security guard?
So ideally we should all pay a flat rate, not percentage based. Then it would be completely equal. We need both ER doctors and security guards. And I can't guarantee that I wouldn't be a security guard if I were born in his shoes. I see no reason to disadvantage him even more. If we go to a flat tax and maintain the same level of tax income, the poor will have a bigger burden, and I disagree with that.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 18, 2016 3:59:58 GMT
Whatever you guys finally come up with is ok with me, just so long as it doesn't mess up my extravagant senior benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 18, 2016 4:43:50 GMT
It is nonsensical. A ratio of taxes paid to discretionary income makes no sense. It's like dividing by zero.
Bob paid $5 in absolute dollars, you paid $10, You paid twice as much in taxes as did Bob. A flat tax is still "progressive", the more you make, the more you pay.
You are arguing from the wrong viewpoint. The tax rate is being applied equally. It's fair, everyone pays 10% of what they earn. Everyone has skin in the game.
Perhaps you make $100 because you are an ER doctor and Bob is a security guard?
So ideally we should all pay a flat rate, not percentage based. Then it would be completely equal. We need both ER doctors and security guards. And I can't guarantee that I wouldn't be a security guard if I were born in his shoes. I see no reason to disadvantage him even more. If we go to a flat tax and maintain the same level of tax income, the poor will have a bigger burden, and I disagree with that. The poor MUST pay a larger share...as do the Middle class. I tried to show you evidence of this, and mathematical proof. But, you're idealism won't allow you to see the reality of our situation. No worries, Time will prove me correct. I HOPE it's a long time. I doubt that it will be.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 18, 2016 8:35:01 GMT
. I disagree with a flat tax. Somehow you interpret this as me not understanding that our deficit spending is out of control. Two different discussions.
We agree spending is the problem. We disagree whether that the tax rate should be flat. I'm good leaving it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Feb 18, 2016 10:54:17 GMT
Might as well leave it. A flat tax makes so much sense it will never happen.
Politicians would lose the IRS as a weapon. No way they will let that happen.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Feb 18, 2016 12:14:12 GMT
Whatever you guys finally come up with is ok with me, just so long as it doesn't mess up my extravagant senior benefits. LOL good one.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Feb 18, 2016 12:21:03 GMT
It is nonsensical. A ratio of taxes paid to discretionary income makes no sense. It's like dividing by zero.
Bob paid $5 in absolute dollars, you paid $10, You paid twice as much in taxes as did Bob. A flat tax is still "progressive", the more you make, the more you pay.
You are arguing from the wrong viewpoint. The tax rate is being applied equally. It's fair, everyone pays 10% of what they earn. Everyone has skin in the game.
Perhaps you make $100 because you are an ER doctor and Bob is a security guard?
So ideally we should all pay a flat rate, not percentage based. Then it would be completely equal. We need both ER doctors and security guards. And I can't guarantee that I wouldn't be a security guard if I were born in his shoes. I see no reason to disadvantage him even more. If we go to a flat tax and maintain the same level of tax income, the poor will have a bigger burden, and I disagree with that. Most people are against racism, bigotry and discrimination.
So why do we allow discrimination against income levels?
A flat tax, where everyone is taxed the same rate, does a couple of necessary things about our tax process:
1. Eliminates / significantly reduces the billions we spend on tax code, lobbyists, compliance, etc. We have a tax code that is what? 70,000 pages? Ridiculous.
2. Removes the "fair share", "should pay" and other similar socially charged aspects from the lexicon.
But, as Hero correctly points out, politicians don't want 1 or 2 above to happen, so it won't.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 18, 2016 18:02:59 GMT
. I disagree with a flat tax. Somehow you interpret this as me not understanding that our deficit spending is out of control. Two different discussions. We agree spending is the problem. We disagree whether that the tax rate should be flat. I'm good leaving it at that.
My point in bringing up the deficit discussion was: We've already made the tax rate SO PROGRESSIVE, there really isn't much potential for making it more so. We NEED to get MORE people on the tax rolls. True, they won't pay as much .. but, there's so many of them. It's the only way to get any kind of handle on our deficit problem.
I am a little curious though.... How do you think we should define "normal living expenses"... so, we can figure out how to tax people 'equally'.
Consider these two case:
Bob earns $100k per year. He has very little debt. Lives in a low rent apartment. Rarely eats at restaurants. Drives a 10 year old, PAID-for car. His "Discretionary income"... after his expenses, is $50k per year.
Mary earns $100k per year. She vacations frequently. Has $30k in credit card debt. Parties all the time, eating at fancy places. Lives in a high rent high-rise condo and drives a brand new Lexus (financed for 8 years). Her "Discretionary income"... after expenses, is negative $5k per year.
Clearly, and additional $10k in taxes is going to hurt Mary a lot more than Bob.
Is it your contention that Mary should pay NO tax? Or, that Bob should pay more?
Who gets to decide which lifestyle we all must choose?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 19, 2016 0:55:33 GMT
. I disagree with a flat tax. Somehow you interpret this as me not understanding that our deficit spending is out of control. Two different discussions. We agree spending is the problem. We disagree whether that the tax rate should be flat. I'm good leaving it at that.
My point in bringing up the deficit discussion was: We've already made the tax rate SO PROGRESSIVE, there really isn't much potential for making it more so. We NEED to get MORE people on the tax rolls. True, they won't pay as much .. but, there's so many of them. It's the only way to get any kind of handle on our deficit problem.
I am a little curious though.... How do you think we should define "normal living expenses"... so, we can figure out how to tax people 'equally'.
Consider these two case:
Bob earns $100k per year. He has very little debt. Lives in a low rent apartment. Rarely eats at restaurants. Drives a 10 year old, PAID-for car. His "Discretionary income"... after his expenses, is $50k per year.
Mary earns $100k per year. She vacations frequently. Has $30k in credit card debt. Parties all the time, eating at fancy places. Lives in a high rent high-rise condo and drives a brand new Lexus (financed for 8 years). Her "Discretionary income"... after expenses, is negative $5k per year.
Clearly, and additional $10k in taxes is going to hurt Mary a lot more than Bob.
Is it your contention that Mary should pay NO tax? Or, that Bob should pay more?
Who gets to decide which lifestyle we all must choose?
I was only illustrating how a flat tax affects the poor more than the rich, which is why I disagree with a flat tax.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 19, 2016 1:58:09 GMT
I agree.
With a 12% flat tax, a person earning $20,000 would have a $2,400 tax burden. This would hit this low income taxpayer harder than would a $6,000 tax on a $50,000 income.
A fair solution would be to have a standard deduction, say $20,000 for an individual or joint return. Thus, this low income "taxpayer" would have not have any tax burden.
Only tigercpa will understand this explanation of a joint return (no additional deductions for children): Step 1: Average the incomes of the spouses. Step 2: Subtract the standard deduction. Step 3 Compute the tax on the adjusted average income. Step 4. Multiply the computed tax by 2.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 19, 2016 2:24:42 GMT
Who gets to decide which lifestyle we all must choose?
I was only illustrating how a flat tax affects the poor more than the rich, which is why I disagree with a flat tax. In truth, ALL taxes affect the poor more than the rich. So, really...you're saying you disagree with all taxes.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 19, 2016 3:50:52 GMT
So ideally we should all pay a flat rate, not percentage based. Then it would be completely equal. We need both ER doctors and security guards. And I can't guarantee that I wouldn't be a security guard if I were born in his shoes. I see no reason to disadvantage him even more. If we go to a flat tax and maintain the same level of tax income, the poor will have a bigger burden, and I disagree with that. Most people are against racism, bigotry and discrimination.
So why do we allow discrimination against income levels?
A flat tax, where everyone is taxed the same rate, does a couple of necessary things about our tax process:
1. Eliminates / significantly reduces the billions we spend on tax code, lobbyists, compliance, etc. We have a tax code that is what? 70,000 pages? Ridiculous.
2. Removes the "fair share", "should pay" and other similar socially charged aspects from the lexicon.
But, as Hero correctly points out, politicians don't want 1 or 2 above to happen, so it won't.
Income levels are not people. All people are taxed using the tax code the exact same, no discrimination.
|
|