They are completely relevant to the discussion, and your unwillingness to discuss them illustrates my point: simplicity doesn’t work. You are already making exceptions left and right, and refusing to make others that must be made. (Why not discuss what you’d do with rich kids if you’re exempting kids? Because you don’t have a clue?) We haven’t even started discussing your flat tax and already you’ve thrown the ‘ain’t gonna talk about THAT’ flag -your entire argument fails the second you get into the first detail.
I’m not avoiding anything. It is self evident. If ANYONE has income over your poverty level, they are taxed at whatever rate you want to establish for EVERYONE. Am I speaking Plutonian? I thought I stopped that when they said it wasn’t a planet anymore.
The kids that were passed in response to the lemonade stand kids were the lemonade stand kids.
Don’t they have a name for people who just put stuff in chat rooms to try to rile people up? Seems strange to do it in your own thread though…
Yes. It makes about as much sense, anyway.
You’re not allowed to accuse other posters of trolling (including implications like this one) unless you’re posting in the BBQ Pit. Don’t do this again.
Let me take you seriously for just a minute and ask you a serious question: if your cut-off point is $20,000 and your tax rate is 30% (substitute any numbers you like), the guy who makes $20,000.01 is going to get clobbered, losing 6 grand, that he needs desperately to buy food, housing, and other bare necessities. Is it fair that he should pay 6 grand in taxes while his neighbor who makes $19,999.99 gets to take home his entire paycheck?
Second serious question: the guy who makes $200,000 has $140,000 to live on. I think he can scrape by on that, don’t you? Is that your idea of fair? And the guy who earns $2,000,000 barely feels a thing. He still has $1,400,000 to play with.
A flat-tax system leads to resentment because it is inherently unfair, though simple and “logical”–to rich people, who feel virtually no pain, but feels punitive and arbitrary to poor people.
And this is taking into account your concession that you need some sort of “poverty” distinction so you’re not being completely cruel to the very poorest people. There’s a reason no one other than right-wing nutballs have proposed this insane method of taxation. Do you really want to stand with the right-wing nutters? Really?
I will answer you seriously then.
if your cut-off point is $20,000 and your tax rate is 30% (substitute any numbers you like), the guy who makes $20,000.01 is going to get clobbered, losing 6 grand, that he needs desperately
This is how taxes work now.
If we have a progressive system where we get 20,000 standard deduction, then
15% bottom rate from 0 to 30,000 TAXABLE INCOME
30% from 30,000 to 60,000
50% from 60,000 to 150,000
And I make 70,000…I chop off 20,000 standard deduction like in your example.
leaves 50,000 TAXABLE INCOME
so first 30 taxed at 15% = 4,500
next 20 taxed at 30% = 9,000
total tax liability for the year, 13,500
Not 50% of 50,000 taxable…
So, in your example, if the cutoff is 20,000 and he makes 20,000.01, then we subtract 20,000.01 - 20,000 and find that he owes 30% of 0.01 or in other words, nothing and his desperation doesn’t affect the math at all.
Second serious question: the guy who makes $200,000
minus 20,000 leaves 180,000 with the tax rate of 30% = 54,000 tax liability from his gross 200,000 leaves him with 146,000
Is that your idea of fair?
No, it isn’t. That is a good point. He should be permitted to keep it all. He earned all of it the same as the other guy, right? How much does the other fellow get to keep? 100%. Run the government on import and export duties like it used to be.
The idea that most people can’t get their mind around is that everyone of those 200,000 dollars are just as much his as the other fellows 20,000 are his. They DO NOT belong to the government.
And the guy who earns $2,000,000 barely feels a thing. He still has $1,400,000 to play with.
2,000,000 -20,000 = 1,980,000 times 30% = 594,000 liability.
I can’t see how anyone could miss almost 600,000 either. Again, he earned that money. It isn’t about how much you want to allow him to “play” with. It is HIS money.
A flat-tax system leads to resentment because it is inherently unfair, though simple and “logical”–to rich people, who feel virtually no pain, but feels punitive and arbitrary to poor people.
So, to the person who earns 25,000, and subtracts 20,000 and ends up with a tax liability of 750.00 this is punitive and arbitrary? It sounds like you’re just making stuff up. What this 750 dollars does is give the person the idea of doing his part. It makes him feel legitimate in participating in our government.
Is the purpose of the system to generate revenue for the legitimate operation of the federal government supposed to cause pain or is this a personal agenda? If the purpose is to cause pain, don’t you want that pain to be felt by everyone? I mean if that is the purpose, let’s use it for that, but for everyone. It seems like with all the other divisive plans, some people want to make some laws that only apply to people they don’t like. Can’t you see the inherent UNfairness to that?
Callling people nutters isn’t really helpful. I’m not a right winger. I’m a Liberal.
A Classical Liberal before some people tried to abscond with the title.
mmmbeer, would you please learn to use the quote tags? I’m finding it more and more difficult to follow your arguments, and it cannot all be due to your incoherent assertions.
I would appreciate any help anyone would please provide. Are there instructions somewhere? I just found out I was doing it wrong.
Well, that’s different from “simply” exempting people making $20,000–now you’re talking about exempting the first $20,000 of earned income. IOW, you’re talking about a graduated rate, in which 20,000 = 0 taxable income, but $21,000 = 1,000 taxable income, etc. This is far from your original proposal of “Everyone pays the same!!!”
But as long as we’re making up numbers, why are we using $20,000 as the cutoff point? I could go for taxes starting at the $100,000 point. Or maybe $250,000. Everything below that is tax-free, and of course you’d need to make the flat rate a trifle higher on the rich folks to make up for starting taxation at the higher level, but I’d be willing to talk about that. Are you?
Or are you more interested in punishing poor folks by making those who have only enough income for bare necessities suffer? I suspect, Mr. Classic Liberal, that suddenly your flat-tax isn’t as appealing anymore.
Please reply after you master the quoting mechanism. It’s even simpler than your original flat-tax proposal. You should get it with only a few weeks of diligent labor.
I don’t want any of that. I want what I started with. These exceptions were your idea. There is no reason that it is 20,000. That kind of thing is called arbitrary. I just picked a number to show you how our tax system works. I’m not talking about a graduated rate. There is one rate. 10% You wanted to know about this and that and I said I would go along with the poverty level idea…but every time I answer you, you change the statement. First it was kids selling lemonade, then after I answered that, you changed these little lemonade tots to being the most successful lemonade stand entrepenuers ever with million dollar portfolios. I answered that the comatose drunk bum would have no income, but you want to accuse me of wanting to tax her nickel that she bummed. I’m for lowering taxes and this is where you end up? And once again, when I say fine to your poverty BS, you do the old bait and switch and make 100,000 the poverty level.
But as long as we’re making up numbers, why are we using $20,000 as the cutoff point? I could go for taxes starting at the $100,000 point. Or maybe $250,000. Everything below that is tax-free, and of course you’d need to make the flat rate a trifle higher on the rich folks to make up for starting taxation at the higher level, but I’d be willing to talk about that. Are you?
That is exactly how this income tax mess started. trying to punish the rich…with no tax on the masses.
Oh, we’re all for this taxation thing as long it is taxing someone else and not me. And then have the nerve to say, See this is the fair way taxes should be administered. Tax the hell out of those people and don’t tax me at all. Yep, that is what I call fair.
As far as how to post, actual instructions would be more useful than “learn to quote”, that doesn’t tell me squat. I have been looking for directions, but don’t see any anywhere.
I apologize for the ineptitude, but like I said, first timer on these.
Also for the insinuation earlier, didn’t know it was such a deal. I found don’t do this and that and the other thing, but nothing on how to post something correctly.
So until I can find something out, it’s been fun. Good luck to all and thanks. Talk to ya later.
Is this better? How do I include who I am quoting?
Like you put
Anyone who knows the answer just shout it out there. Don’t be bashful.
See the button at the lower right of the post that says QUOTE ? Give that a try.
(Somebody has to do it. This has become tiresome.)
Thank you. Wow, that was uncanny, Dan.
See it isn’t so hard to be nice. Not as fun as bitchin, but this helps you lol.
Ok, how many other ways to say you guys are wrong? hehe
You’re welcome.
I haven’t bitched yet (in this thread). I alluded to the foolishness of flat tax way back toward the beginning of this discussion. Other posters have taken you to task on it since, but I’ve been lazy. Still, I haven’t seen you yet provide any evidence that we are wrong.
I didn’t read any further into your post than this, so forgive my overlooking your later displays of wisdom.
They were NOT my idea. I merely suggested a colossally obvious problem with a pure flat tax–that you can’t really make it illegal for a junkie to earn a nickel or a kid to sell lemonade for a nickel without making it necessary by law to collect a penny or two of those nickels as income tax under a pure flat tax system, which is a very stupid waste of governmental resources. Instead of saying “No, I wouldn’t collect that penny,” you chose to respond by claiming that you would create an exception to your brilliant “Everybody pays the same as everyone else on all income” fiat. YOU created the exeption–I just pointed out its implications for you.
Ok. Thanks. And…
If you want to go with an, "It is impractical to have the same rate for everyone theory, just because I haven’t figured out the nickels and pennys, then go with that.
I think you’re doing fine showing the problems with flat tax theory on your own:
- You don’t really want a flat tax, you want a flat tax rate. So you don’t want everyone to pay the same, you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their income. So you don’t want something equal, anyway. You acknowledge that people should pay more if they earn more.
- You don’t think there should be a flat tax rate, you think there should be a graduated rate, by exempting an arbitrary (your word) amount of income to account for minimal living expenses.
- You don’t want a no-exemptions tax code, as you’re willing to make exemptions when the need for them is pointed out.
As near as I can tell, you like the abstract idea of a flat tax, probably because so many conservative luminaries hold it forth as a holy grail. But you’re smart enough to recognize the problems with it in practice, and when it comes down to details, the policy you’re advocating is a progressive policy with exemptions.
It may be time to reconsider your earlier claim that a progressive policy with exemptions is class warfare.
Wow, does one person get what I’m saying? Halla Fuckin Looya! Part way at least.
I have, since post 1, said I want everyoneto pay the same percentage.
Of course pay more if you earn more, in dollars. Progressives want increasing percentages. By definition. And that is just wrong.
You are actually agruing with yourself in 1 and 2
If you want to call 0% up to 20,000, then 10% on everything after graduated. It isn’t and it is dangerous to use that terminology. Once people think it is a graduated system, then the next words out of their mouths is let’s make more graduations and really sock it to those other guys and we’re right back where we started. That is why the reluctance for exceptions, exemptions, etc. See, already someone has come along and suggested:
Nice try. It isn’t an exemption if it is for everyone. That would be closer to the standard deduction that we have now. First 20,000 or 10,000 or whatever around there for everyone. So, except for the lemonade stand kids with the billion dollar portfolios, no kids or junkies in the HRBlock offices.
Why not $50,000? Or $100,000?
Because you say so?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
It may be time to reconsider your earlier claim that a progressive policy with exemptions is class warfare.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say the devil would be in the details. The current (taking ‘current’ to mean since the 70’s at least) tax system as it is definitely isn’t ‘class warfare’, IMHO…and, basically I think anyone who is trying to claim it is either has a political agenda or is a nutball of the first order. However, a progressive system as I’ve seen some liberals fantasizing over would definitely be ‘class warfare’, since the main idea is to attempt to use tax policy to penalize The Rich™ for being successful and having lots of money…money that should, in their minds, be confiscated for the common good of the less fortunate. That way of thinking, IMHO, meets my own definition of ‘class warfare’, and it’s fairly common IMHO in the more left leaning liberal mantra. Realistically, I don’t see our progressive system moving that radically regardless of liberal (or conservative if we are talking moving it the other way) fantasies, instead we are talking about a few percentage points change up or down…and that is because I think we HAVE a pretty fair system already, and one that just needs to be occasionally tweaked up or down a bit for fine tuning. Our big problem is on the spending side, not on the tax collection side of things, a final IMHO just tossed out for fun. 