I'm sure it's more complicated than Economics 101, but...
- Thread starter buddy
- Start date
Would these be the prudent people that save for future you are referring to as cheap bastards.
Appears to me that those that spend more than they make are the culprits of this crisis
Be thankful there are enough "cheap bastards" to bail them out--for now
Again - you are an unpatriotic socialist if you are hoarding your money and not recirculating it to the fullest extent.
Dawgball,
I will pick on you (only because I know you...and because if I piss you off, I can buy you a beer and we will once again be friends)....
Explain precisely what a "flat tax" is....
Yes, if you are employed by someone else, it's relatively straight forward....
If you are self-employed or running a corporation, not so much....
I find merit in the sales tax and this is coming from both Dawg and myself who happen to live in a state with the highest sales tax...and no state income tax...which means no state income tax deductions. However, I am tempered because of the comments echoed by I/O...not because I'd be the one finding the angles, while the porch monkeys with 10 children from 7 different daddys currently living off of my dime on their welfare checks paid more taxes than I did, but because it would relegate me to my natural instincts and I'd be growing my own food, making my own beer, using my spare bedroom for an office and riding a bicycle to the courthouse.
...nevermind, Darwin had it right all along....
:0corn
I will pick on you (only because I know you...and because if I piss you off, I can buy you a beer and we will once again be friends)....
Explain precisely what a "flat tax" is....
Yes, if you are employed by someone else, it's relatively straight forward....
If you are self-employed or running a corporation, not so much....
I find merit in the sales tax and this is coming from both Dawg and myself who happen to live in a state with the highest sales tax...and no state income tax...which means no state income tax deductions. However, I am tempered because of the comments echoed by I/O...not because I'd be the one finding the angles, while the porch monkeys with 10 children from 7 different daddys currently living off of my dime on their welfare checks paid more taxes than I did, but because it would relegate me to my natural instincts and I'd be growing my own food, making my own beer, using my spare bedroom for an office and riding a bicycle to the courthouse.
...nevermind, Darwin had it right all along....
:0corn
...spend 12 months in memphrica, then let's talk. (((i.e. Walk a mile in my shoes, fukker...then be a leftist liberal.)))
:0corn
:0corn
fixed it for you.
...have to admit, if you don't look close...or you're just a sheet wearing freak livin' in Tuscalooser, you might not get it. :scared
:mj06:
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
I will ignore your racial remarks, but I don't care for them. :nono:
After a certain number of dollars of income, let's say $20,000, ALL income is taxed at XX%, let's say 25% (I have no clue what the number is, but there is one).
If you make $20K for the year, you keep $20K.
If you make $100K, you will pay $20,000 in income taxes.
If you make $500K, you will pay $120,000 in income taxes.
Now the flat income tax rate would not have to be as large if we implemented a higher consumption tax. If you want to put the efforts into brewing your own beer instead of paying the 12% sales tax (pulled that number out of my ass), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The main complication to the sales tax method is how online purchases are currently taxed (hint: they're not if they are bought and sold in separate states). As a larger percentage of overall purchases are made online, this will need to change at some point.
I think a combination of the two (flat tax, consumption tax) is the best answer for protection against possibilities of gaming the system from both sides.
Just some thoughts.
And as taoist said, we currently live a partial reality of the larger sales tax because TN does not have a state income tax. Personally, I really like the method. So do the majority of our voters because a sure-fire way of not getting elected to office here is to even breathe the idea of implementing an income tax.
I don't know, this doesn't FEEL like a flat tax to me.....
Using your example above:
Someone making $20K pays 0% of their income in taxes a year...
Someone making $100K pays 20% of their income in taxes a year....
Someone making $500K pays 24% of their income in taxes a year.....
That appears to be a progressive scheme to me - and certainly not "fair".
What's wrong with having everyone pay the same %, with no income exclusions.
Seems to me THAT is fair. The rich will still pay the vast majority of overall tax dollars. Nobody can complain - same % applies to all. There also is no disincentive to work and succeed, as there is now with a progressive tax system.
Love the system - just need to tax all income for all - to be "fair".
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Personally, I feel there is a certain amount of money needed to live (this does not include big screen TVs, brand new computers, new cars, etc.).
I think $20K for a single person and $30K for a married couple is a reasonable amount to do this. That is the only reason I see a "need" for the stop gap.
If that was the only sticking point from across the aisle (), then I could certainly line item that out.
Personally, I think this would still only be a transition plan to get to where we really should be which is taxes based on consumption (and possibly use -- never thought about this too much).
The older generations would be greatly crippled by any immediate move to consumption-based taxes because they have spent their whole life being bled of taxes from their income. This, obviously, has hindered their ability to save what they have truly earned.
I think $20K for a single person and $30K for a married couple is a reasonable amount to do this. That is the only reason I see a "need" for the stop gap.
If that was the only sticking point from across the aisle (
), then I could certainly line item that out. Personally, I think this would still only be a transition plan to get to where we really should be which is taxes based on consumption (and possibly use -- never thought about this too much).
The older generations would be greatly crippled by any immediate move to consumption-based taxes because they have spent their whole life being bled of taxes from their income. This, obviously, has hindered their ability to save what they have truly earned.
I've never bought this argument. Does anyone actually know anybody who has held back in their goals, ambition, or greed because they simply don't want to pay more taxes?
I think it's a good argument about flat tax vs "progressive" tax. I see merit in each, although under ideal circumstances the flat tax would seem better.
Right now 33% of Americans fit into this category and Dogs That Bark hates every one of them.
Yes. Quite a number of people including myself. Most of them couples. Many of them self employed already owning multiple businesses or thinking about opening up new locations. It's a big time deterrent.
you can't
Any addition revenues can be eaten up. Many times it's better for the bottom line to not grow. A smaller operation will net better $$ at the end of the day. That's even without throwing in the additional stresses that come with growth (more employees and their drama, more paperwork, more overhead, more headaches).
EXcuse but single person earning $20,000 has federal tax liabilty of $2,600.
That would be a productive person contributing to society.
You have to get down to your base to get to the 40 mil people that pay no taxes.
Case in point-- highest % of Dem voters in 04 exit polls was income under $15,000- you all nailed 68% of them--then tack on your 90%---and consider which segment of voting population you have most in common with- per political views.:kiss:
