August 4, 201016 yr That 0-100,000 category is pretty broad. Very, very broad. Could be broken down into at least 2 and maybe 3 tiers. Can't see someone at 20K paying the same rate as someone at 100K.
August 4, 201016 yr Charity and justice are NOT the same things. The Civil Rights Act is a perfect example of the government bringing JUSTICE to a group of people. While charity is often left up to the individual TRUE JUSTICE can sometimes ONLY be achieved through the government. C'mon - "level the playing field by threat of imprisonment" is just a silly statement. This present administration has made no bones about the fact they are about redistributing wealth through higher taxes on the wealthy, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, etc. "leveling the playing field" in their eyes. If we don't pay our taxes, we could go to prison. It's no exaggeration. If you think it's silly, try not paying your taxes for a few years... :lol:
August 4, 201016 yr Very, very broad. Could be broken down into at least 2 and maybe 3 tiers. Can't see someone at 20K paying the same rate as someone at 100K. If they did have to... we might actually see some meaningful tax reform. :thumb:
August 4, 201016 yr Yep... I do admire your optimism. Most everywhere I look, the term "supply-side economics" is partnered with phrases auch as "colossal failure", "proven failure", "abject failure", etc. I guess I'm just looking in the wrong places.
August 5, 201016 yr Very, very broad. Could be broken down into at least 2 and maybe 3 tiers. Can't see someone at 20K paying the same rate as someone at 100K. Why? True equality is everyone paying the same rate. It is prejudiced to make someone pay a higher rate. I know there will be those who will scream that is not fair. Why treat people differntly because they earn more? I know envy, some just cannnot stand others having more.
August 5, 201016 yr Just curious. What does everyone think the percentage taxes that should be paid for a family of 4 with the following income: 0-100,000 100K-300K 300K-1M 1M-5M >5M A single person gets the first 8,000 tax free. 2000 for each kid max of 4000. Every couple gets the first 16,000 tax free. 2000 for each kid max of 4000. No credits or other deductions. All other income is taxed at 18%. 30000 income = 1800 which is 6% 50000 income = 5400 which is 10.8% 100000 income = 14400 which is 14.4% 300000 income = 50,400 which is 16.8% 1000000 income = 176000 which is 17.6% 5000000 income = 896000 which is 17.9% Edited August 5, 201016 yr by coldweatherfan
August 5, 201016 yr A single person gets the first 8,000 tax free. 2000 for each kid max of 4000. Every couple gets the first 16,000 tax free. 2000 for each kid max of 4000. No credits or other deductions. All other income is taxed at 18%. 30000 income = 1800 which is 6% 50000 income = 5400 which is 10.8% 100000 income = 14400 which is 14.4% 300000 income = 50,400 which is 16.8% 1000000 income = 176000 which is 17.6% 5000000 income = 896000 which is 17.9% Would this be a flat rate that would cover SS as well?
August 5, 201016 yr Would this be a flat rate that would cover SS as well? Yes it does. I'm trying to find the magazine I read it in. It's been a bit since I read it. The author said that if all income over the minimum - payroll, corporate, investment, dividends, everything were taxed. It would take 16% to cover the federal expenses. With 2% left to reduce debt. There would be no deductions and no tax credits. The IRS could be nearly eliminated. You pay no taxes till you reach the minimum. Then you begin paying taxes, there are no returns. There would be some need to make sure people weren't lying about having kids. I think he said it would take 18 years to eliminate the debt. At which point taxes could be reduced to 16%. As long as government spending was reined in, and could not increase by more than the growth in income for the nation then the tax rate would remain at 16% from that point forward. He speculated that revenue would increase dramatically over time because the 18% corporate rate would be conducive to increased corporate growth and investment.
August 5, 201016 yr Yes it does. I'm trying to find the magazine I read it in. It's been a bit since I read it. The author said that if all income over the minimum - payroll, corporate, investment, dividends, everything were taxed. It would take 16% to cover the federal expenses. With 2% left to reduce debt. There would be no deductions and no tax credits. The IRS could be nearly eliminated. You pay no taxes till you reach the minimum. Then you begin paying taxes, there are no returns. There would be some need to make sure people weren't lying about having kids. I think he said it would take 18 years to eliminate the debt. At which point taxes could be reduced to 16%. As long as government spending was reined in, and could not increase by more than the growth in income for the nation then the tax rate would remain at 16% from that point forward. He speculated that revenue would increase dramatically over time because the 18% corporate rate would be conducive to increased corporate growth and investment. As awesome as all this sounds, the problem is it doe's not give our ruling class (the politicians) enough opportunity to manipulate rewards and penalties on various voting blocks. A truly FAIR and simple tax system would effectively eliminate most of the power plays we're dealing with right now. It would negate the irritation that folks like me feel about 50% of our population having no federal tax burden whatsoever, but still having an equal voice in electing the people responsible for making our spending decisions. No wonder we are split right down the middle in terms of who gets elected. If EVERYONE that votes truly has some "skin in the game" as B.O. touted... I genuinely believe results would be very different and we would actually begin to grow together again as a nation. The need to actually cap and maintain reasonable government spending levels means that many of our current legislators would NEVER vote to approve such an equitable taxation scheme. They will never vote to approve something that genuinely limits their power brokering. Time for another revolution. :thumb:
August 6, 201016 yr As awesome as all this sounds, the problem is it doe's not give our ruling class (the politicians) enough opportunity to manipulate rewards and penalties on various voting blocks. A truly FAIR and simple tax system would effectively eliminate most of the power plays we're dealing with right now. It would negate the irritation that folks like me feel about 50% of our population having no federal tax burden whatsoever, but still having an equal voice in electing the people responsible for making our spending decisions. No wonder we are split right down the middle in terms of who gets elected. If EVERYONE that votes truly has some "skin in the game" as B.O. touted... I genuinely believe results would be very different and we would actually begin to grow together again as a nation. The need to actually cap and maintain reasonable government spending levels means that many of our current legislators would NEVER vote to approve such an equitable taxation scheme. They will never vote to approve something that genuinely limits their power brokering. Time for another revolution. :thumb: The "zero liability voter" is one of our biggest problems.
August 6, 201016 yr Why? True equality is everyone paying the same rate. It is prejudiced to make someone pay a higher rate. I know there will be those who will scream that is not fair. Why treat people differntly because they earn more? I know envy, some just cannnot stand others having more. True equality doesn't work when you're talking the US income tax system.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.