Hillary knows what "real work" is

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No problem Chid.

[Funkmasterr]

My limited understanding of the topic of taxation and tax brackets:

I know there are brackets for higher earning people to pay higher taxes, however if I am right, those brackets ends pretty low considering how many multi-millionaires this country has. I also know that a big part of rich people and taxes is that they have the money to hire a financial adviser to take care of them by finding every little loophole they can to pay less of their money to the government.

If anything what I would like to see is those loopholes get slammed shut in their greedy fucking faces.

[Fash]

I'd support a plan that had low-income people paying less of a %... They have less to give. The only problem with that I see is if your income increases just enough to put you into the next bracket, it can almost be like losing money. a few extra % on the rich won't affect them, yet the few % spared to the lower income people will give them some room to grow.

[Zaelath]

I'd support a plan that had low-income people paying less of a %... They have less to give. The only problem with that I see is if your income increases just enough to put you into the next bracket, it can almost be like losing money. a few extra % on the rich won't affect them, yet the few % spared to the lower income people will give them some room to grow.

That's another common misconception, if you enter a higher tax bracket you pay higher tax on the portion over that threshold. The bracket isn't retrospective for all money you earnt.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'd support a plan that had low-income people paying less of a %... They have less to give. The only problem with that I see is if your income increases just enough to put you into the next bracket, it can almost be like losing money. a few extra % on the rich won't affect them, yet the few % spared to the lower income people will give them some room to grow.

That's another common misconception, if you enter a higher tax bracket you pay higher tax on the portion over that threshold. The bracket isn't retrospective for all money you earnt.

Very true. I'm glad they have that too. Makes sense.

[Zamtuk]

Reading > you. His job income was taxed at 35 percent, just as his secretary. His capital gains and dividends weren't. The grand total of taxation was 18 percent (17.7 if you want to get technical). That is what he was bitching about.

Why are you the only one in the thread that thinks "work derived income" is different from "income"?

Because when everyone else in the thread throws out the "Warren Buffet bitches about his secretary's tax rate" line, and I back it up that his paycheck was taxed the exact same rate as his secretary's was, just not his total income, no one seems to grasp that. That's why I chose to reiterate that (please note, I only brought that up in response to those comments). I thought it was a pretty simple concept, though.

And, yes, I do believe I just explained to you that I do scrape by (I am a student). I'm sorry that I am smart about what I do with the money I earn. My brother is the exact same way and he is married with 2 kids, and doesn't make much more money than I do (he just graduated). He manages just fine and taxes don't bother him one bit. Granted, I go to school for this and I am a lot more aware of the economy, but why should people get taxed harder for something I actually did on their own? I make smart choices, and choose to progress myself and my income through the means that are granted to everyone, and I should care that the lazy ass next to me with the same oppurtunity who makes poor choices and is then deals with a greater impact from taxes?

I already said that the taxes on work-derived income should be the same, but they should indeed up the taxes on other means of income (yeah, they are different, hence the large difference between Buffett and his secretary), just not to the tune of 35 percent. On further thinking, my last 22% idea was a bit low. I think 28%ish is a more fair estimate, on what I think they should be.

I guess that personal feelings do play a heavy part on why I feel this way. I know not everyone has it like I do, but if you don't make enough money, then by all means get a new job or hold 2 down, or something. Taxes shouldn't be a straw that breaks your back.

[masteen]

That's another common misconception, if you enter a higher tax bracket you pay higher tax on the portion over that threshold. The bracket isn't retrospective for all money you earnt.

Interesting trivia: that kind of retroactive math is what caused the hell levels in EQ.

I am in favor of abolishing income tax entirely. It's fucking communist. Bring us a national sales tax.

The same shit that is untaxed now would stay (groceries, ect.), but tax everything else. Benefits the poor (assuming they aren't spending too much on grillz and spinning rims), AND gets more money out of people who don't actually earn much, but live off of trust funds and such.

[Zaelath]

I'm not saying I pay too much tax. Buffet is not saying he pays too much tax. No one here is doubting your stoicism or your ability to live comfortably with a part time job as a student, with no help at all from anyone, or shelter, etc.

What I am saying is that the burden placed on people with lower incomes under a flat tax scheme is much greater than the burden placed on the people with higher incomes. Not only that, but your meander off into "wages v's income" seems to suggest that you should only be taxed for having a job and actually producing something. You also seem to think that the wealthy have all earned their wealth, I'm sure Paris Hilton would agree with you.

I know you think you're presenting an opposing view, but we're not talking about the same things, and sometimes your flat out inability to grasp the salient points of an argument makes me despair.

[Boogahz]

That's another common misconception, if you enter a higher tax bracket you pay higher tax on the portion over that threshold. The bracket isn't retrospective for all money you earnt.

Interesting trivia: that kind of retroactive math is what caused the hell levels in EQ.

I am in favor of abolishing income tax entirely. It's fucking communist. Bring us a national sales tax.

The same shit that is untaxed now would stay (groceries, ect.), but tax everything else. Benefits the poor (assuming they aren't spending too much on grillz and spinning rims), AND gets more money out of people who don't actually earn much, but live off of trust funds and such.

Funny that you mention groceries, as they are taxed...in some states.

[Zamtuk]

What I am saying is that the burden placed on people with lower incomes under a flat tax scheme is much greater than the burden placed on the people with higher incomes. Not only that, but your meander off into "wages v's income" seems to suggest that you should only be taxed for having a job and actually producing something. You also seem to think that the wealthy have all earned their wealth, I'm sure Paris Hilton would agree with you.

I know you think you're presenting an opposing view, but we're not talking about the same things, and sometimes your flat out inability to grasp the salient points of an argument makes me despair.

And I am the one with the inability to grasp points? I have stated plenty that they should tax capital gains and dividends. In fact a few times. In fact, I had a whole paragraph dedicated to it in my last post. How did you gather otherwise? Here, let me reiterate with a quote, from myself. Let me know if you if something escapes you.

I already said that the taxes on work-derived income should be the same, but they should indeed up the taxes on other means of income (yeah, they are different, hence the large difference between Buffett and his secretary), just not to the tune of 35 percent. On further thinking, my last 22% idea was a bit low. I think 28%ish is a more fair estimate, on what I think they should be.

And yes, I am aware of people like Paris Hilton, and I actually think people like that should get the fuck taxed out of them. But aside from filing taxes every year, there is not much the government can do to tax her. Unfortunately, she doesn't get too many paychecks. How would you propose the government taxes those types? I really have no ideas, other than rape them come filing time. If it seems that I think all the rich earned their money, you seem to think all the poor people are screwed and won't progress after being taxed. (blanket statements are fun!)

Obviously the burden is worse on people with lower incomes, but it isn't crippling like you think it is. You have also not once brought up income tax returns, and seem to strike them from your argument completely. So that monstrous 35% gets widdled down to around ~17% while the higher incomes taxe rate moves up. And if you are 'scraping by' with kids to feed? Sheeeit, you could actually accumulate a negative tax and end up getting more money back than you were taxed for.

So instead of saying I can't grasp a concept, why don't you point one out for me so I can address it.

[Truant]

If 25k is an arbitrary number, then yes, I am totally missing the point and I apologize. (I think I mentioned this earlier) However, the minimum cost of living can't possibly be 8k over the poverty line (valued at 17k before min wage increased). And if it is an arbitrary number, then it is way to large to attribute to a 40k salary. That is my argument there.

It was a completely arbitrary number (and stated as such). Zaelath said you could change the number if it bothered you, as long as it was reasonable.

People would like to make more money to have nicer things and spend more money, in general, period.

Exactly, and in a flat tax system, the closer someone's income is to the Cost of Living #, the less money they have to spend to try and have nicer things, etc. While some would argue that the flat tax is fair, this model shows that it can hurt the lower class...essentially eliminating their opportunity to advance in class/quality of living.

The trick is, if you use a weighted average method of determing the percentage, one end is going to suffer, while the other end gets it easy. If you set the percentage so that the bottom isn't stuck in the loop illustrated above, you significantly reduce the amount of total taxes you collect (which no government would ever agree to).

Fair and Mid, something you two are failing to consider. Is that under our current tax system when you (or I, or anyone else) is at or near the poverty line, we pay the lowest percentage of income in taxes. Under a (true)flat tax system it will be a higher percentage. So to say, "I did it when I was poor, they can too!" isn't really accurate because the poor in this model are having to pay more in taxes than you did in the real world. So unless the poverty line is increased to take this into account (and we know how much this country hates raising minimum wage), it really wouldn't be possible for the lowest class to make their taxes and have any opportunity for advancement with regards to quality of life.

A flat rate doesn't exist now, so you nor I know what that rate would be. So you don't know if the poor today are paying more under the flat tax(that doesn't exist) versus in the past. We are just conjecturing. One would have to be put into place based on economists studies, etc. done to come up with one.

I said "this model" or "in this model" at least twice in just the passage you quoted alone, much less the rest of this thread. We're talking about a hypothetical here. Anyways, as Chid said...common sense dictates that a true flat tax would essentially be the average of our current spread of tax rates across all brackets. In which case, the lowest classes experience an increase in tax rates, and the upper classes experience a decrease in tax rates.

What this model is trying to illustrate (at least my part in it) is that a TRUE flat tax isn't actually the most fair system that it is perceived as. Or that it wouldn't be if the flat tax is applied on income as in the manner our current tax system does (again, as illustrated in the model).
The only way (I can think of) to make a flat tax system actually function in a fair manner would be to have adjustments from income to create a taxable income upon which the flat tax was applied. Adjustments would include the necessities of survival in our society which were touched on in the model above. Factors such as cost of living, children/dependents, etc.

AGAIN, we're talking theory here. We're exploring hypotheticals to better understand a system that doesn't currently exist to determine if it will work/how effective it will work.

[Zaelath]

Obviously the burden is worse on people with lower incomes, but it isn't crippling like you think it is. You have also not once brought up income tax returns, and seem to strike them from your argument completely. So that monstrous 35% gets widdled down to around ~17% while the higher incomes taxe rate moves up. And if you are 'scraping by' with kids to feed? Sheeeit, you could actually accumulate a negative tax and end up getting more money back than you were taxed for.

So instead of saying I can't grasp a concept, why don't you point one out for me so I can address it.

The idea that the poor have more tax claims than the rich is just so clueless I can't be bothered to address it.

[Xyun]

You fair tax people are out of your fucking gords. The simplest arguments have been presented to you and you refuse to accept simple fucking math.

Here is some elementary fucking shit to help you understand what the fuck you are proposing:

Progressive & Regressive taxes describe taxes; not morals or political opinion. In a progressive tax, the more you earn, the higher your tax rate. In a regressive tax, the less you earn, the higher your tax rate. The classical progressive tax is income tax. The classical regressive tax is sales tax. Progressive taxes generally favor the poor, regressive taxes generally favor the rich.

Disposable income is the amount of an individual's total income left after taxes. This income is available to be "disposed of" as either spending or saving.

Discretionary income is equal to disposable income minus the cost of the fixed expenses of life (such as rent/mortgage, food, car payments, insurance, etc.) This is what is left over after you pay all your bills.

The working poor have no discretionary income. They buy the cheapest products available and there is no latitude in quality of goods purchased or services used. They usually live paycheck to paycheck with no savings. They pay 100 percent of their income just to earn a basic living but they don't pay much in taxes. That isn't fair but that's life.

Middle class people have some disposable income. If they live very cheaply, buy used products, and save, they can save discretionary income. They can buy things they wanted rather than just what they needed (better quality, larger, more expensive goods and services). The middle class pays 80 to 100 percent of their incomes for necessities plus they pay a modest amount of taxes. That isn't fair but that's life.

Wealthy people usually have much more than they need, and most of what they want, and are not suffering any kind of financial burdens. While it is possible for a billionaire to spend all his income on food and shelter, the top one percent of rich people spend only 5 to 10 percent of their incomes on living expenses. This leaves 90 to 95 percent of their money free for whatever purpose they can think of. They also pay a higher amount of taxes. That's not fair but that's life.

The clever but dishonest presentations of the FairTax Book never tell the reader that there are two tax rates that the FairTax is proposing. Under the old income tax, your individual tax rate varied but covered everyone's income (100 percent) minus deductions. Under the FairTax we have two tax rates: 1. A sales tax rate of 30 percent for everyone. 2. An income tax rate that depends entirely on how much you consume.

The fact is that the FairTax is a huge burden for the working poor (who are much above poverty but living paycheck to paycheck). Because they are living paycheck to paycheck, they consume 100 percent of what they earn to survive and have no money left over for tax-free investments so they are literally in the 100% tax bracket. Because all of their earnings are used to pay bills (consumption) they are taxed by the FairTax at 100 percent. However the FairTax is a huge burden for the middle-class because they spend 80 percent of what they make in consumption (and have about 20 percent or less for tax-free investing), so they are literally in the 80 percent tax bracket. As you might have guessed, the FairTax is only a nuisance for the top one percent. Since they save and invest most of what they get, and can invest all of it tax-free under the FairTax, and also transfer wealth tax-free under the FairTax, they are literally in the 5% tax bracket.

Virtually all mainstream economists will tell you that consumption taxes are the most regressive taxes and hurt the working poor and the middle classes.

Of course, all of this has been explained to you several times throughout this thread and you have yet to understand it, so maybe your ignorant minds simply can't grasp mathematics or economics 101. There really is no cure for that type of ignorance. Nonetheless, I urge you to please take the time to educate yourself at http://www.fairtaxfraud.com.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

All you posted was a more officialized version of garbage. Fair is paying the same percentage.

[Noysyrump]

Xyun's post actually makes perfect sense to me. However, the main problem is, it does NOT mention the fact that this fairtax would remove the income tax taken from your paycheck. Now I personally pay circa 25% out in income taxes (50% at present due to back taxes!). So a fairtax (even at 30%) would save me money if it left out cost of living expenses. I have no idea what they planned to tax personally, I have not read it.

The problem I have with the current system is, this earned income tax bullshit. My roomate last year payed out 2500 in fedelar taxes, yet recieved a "refund" of 4000. What the fuck is this bullshit. They bust my ass for some back taxes so that they can give it away to someone who makes more than I do? wtf?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

For many years, I got back almost as much as I put in, then this year I'm only getting a tiny bit back. I guess my household income broke some sort of barrier where all of the sudden I get totally fucked.

[Xyun]

All you posted was a more officialized version of garbage. Fair is paying the same percentage.

Like I said, you need the capacity to grasp elementary mathematics to understand my post or this topic...

[Zamtuk]

For many years, I got back almost as much as I put in, then this year I'm only getting a tiny bit back. I guess my household income broke some sort of barrier where all of the sudden I get totally fucked.

That is the part that everyone else in this thread seems to conveniently disregard. The poor get most of their tax money back (a shitload more back if they have kids), while the rich pay a great deal more come tax time. But no, focus all on an income tax and forget the balancing process that would come by 4/15 of every year.

Someone said it earlier, none of us have experienced a flat-tax system. Yet the same people who are quick to insult our current system, call bullshit on a flat-tax change like they directly know the outcome.