April 19, 201115 yr Again, not so very simple. You are primarily talking about income taxes. Is the money producing income and if so, how much? You seem to imply that the taxes would actually take away some of the money that you made to begin with, not true at all. Are you suggesting that if I take all of the money that I earn and save now and use it to start a business that benefits from the military, and police, and fire, and roads, etc., that I shouldn't have to pay taxes on it at all? I would think that is the same scenario you are talking about. Not only that you saving your money now is not going to put you in the top 1% of income earners. Not sure what you're saying here. If you paid taxes while earning it, why would you have to pay taxes again? However, if you're saying you should pay taxes on the additional income earned by that wealth, that's what happens now.
April 19, 201115 yr Author Not sure what you're saying here. If you paid taxes while earning it, why would you have to pay taxes again? However, if you're saying you should pay taxes on the additional income earned by that wealth, that's what happens now. That is the point I am making. The other hypothetical cannot exist. If I make 1000.00 and pay 35% in taxes or 350.00 and you make 100.00 and pay 35% or 35.00, is it wrong that I now pay 90% and you pay 10%? Of course it is not wrong. Is it easier for me to live on 650.00 than it is for you to live on 65.00? Of course it is, but I am going to complain because I am shouldering way more of the tax burden? Phooey. Edited April 19, 201115 yr by acemona
April 19, 201115 yr You are talking of a flat tax. This is what a lot of people want. The tax rate is the same for both people in the scenario you created. Those who want a flat tax see this as fair. The only reason the person who paid more, is that he earned more. He was not penaltized because he earned more. The higher earner is not going to complain as both are being taxed at the same rate.
April 19, 201115 yr Another part of the problem with the economy.. Obama has no clue to job creation.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110419/bs_yblog_thelookout/with-jobs-czar-under-fire-new-data-confirm-offshoring-trend
April 20, 201115 yr Definite sarcasm, although I am much like you in my understanding. It just seems that we have been led to believe since the 80s that if we lower the top tax rate the economy will get better. Well, the top tax rate is super low and the economy is not doing better and jobs are not being created. So you consider the top rate of 35% super low? True, it is lower than in previous decades, but "super low?". Add in FICA tax of 7.65%, state tax rates of 4-8% depending on the state, and local taxes of 1-2% on average, and they don't seem so low now do they?
April 20, 201115 yr Question for those more educated about the flat tax idea, would this replace all fed income tax, ss, and Medicare tax? What about state?
April 20, 201115 yr So you consider the top rate of 35% super low? True, it is lower than in previous decades, but "super low?". Add in FICA tax of 7.65%, state tax rates of 4-8% depending on the state, and local taxes of 1-2% on average, and they don't seem so low now do they? Shoot, they still get to keep HALF of what they earned. What's there to complain about?
April 20, 201115 yr Question for those more educated about the flat tax idea, would this replace all fed income tax, ss, and Medicare tax? What about state? Income tax is my understanding and I believe it's only the federal. State, local and payroll taxes are entirely different animals.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.