| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2011 04:01:30 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Before you guys jump all over me, I'm well aware there are serious problems in structuring a flat-tax system that would work and be "fair" (whatever that is). |
Like what "serious problems"? |
One that looms large in my mind is this: currently, the moneyed interests have the system rigged with loopholes that allow you to "exempt" certain types of income from tax, or move to to a lower tax bracket, or defer taxes on it, whatever. I'd expect that any serious move to implement the flat tax would be met with an equally serious effort to "redefine" what "income" is: the moneyed interests would have a million justifications to support their concept of what should be exempted from the category altogether, and in the end compromises would be made to pass the law, and it would come to much sound & fury but little substance, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:20:26 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Before you guys jump all over me, I'm well aware there are serious problems in structuring a flat-tax system that would work and be "fair" (whatever that is). |
Like what "serious problems"? |
One that looms large in my mind is this: currently, the moneyed interests have the system rigged with loopholes that allow you to "exempt" certain types of income from tax, or move to to a lower tax bracket, or defer taxes on it, whatever. I'd expect that any serious move to implement the flat tax would be met with an equally serious effort to "redefine" what "income" is: the moneyed interests would have a million justifications to support their concept of what should be exempted from the category altogether, and in the end compromises would be made to pass the law, and it would come to much sound & fury but little substance, I'm afraid. |
That's already a reality.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 16:32:58. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:31:02 PM · #103 |
There's no reason why we need all those classifications for income. In fact we should probably do away with using income period and just go by your net worth. That's a far better indicator of your ability to pay taxes. We shouldn't be asking anyone with little or no net worth to pay more in taxes, period.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 16:32:18. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:48:03 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by yanko:
There's no reason why we need all those classifications for income. In fact we should probably do away with using income period and just go by your net worth. That's a far better indicator of your ability to pay taxes. We shouldn't be asking anyone with little or no net worth to pay more in taxes, period. |
Sa-weeet! With over a hundred grand in student loans I'm livin the high life under that system! |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:51:27 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population? |
I stand corrected. 38% of the population pays no income tax (remember, it is INCOME tax we are talking about). But I suspect the 12% difference pays much less than any proposed flat tax, so any flat tax would effectively be a tax hike for a good majority of the population (except the rich). |
That's not entirely correct. In the U.S. if you make $400 or more during the year you must file an income tax return because you're still subject to other taxes such as FICA which is based on your income and goes to paying social security. In short, if you're receiving paychecks and make more than $400/yr you're paying taxes on your income. |
Only an idiot who makes $400 in a year pays taxes on it - they would have to overlook their personal exemption and/or any other deduction. I know people who make under $40k/yr and pay zero taxes after exemptions and deductions and in some cases, get money back from various tax credits. Bottom line is that there is a significant portion of the non-rich population that pays zero taxes. Not saying they should, just pointing out that many reforms discussed would change that fact, much to their disliking.
As for net worth - that may sound good, but what would you include - 401k? $100k in the market today could be worth $10k tomorrow. Would there be credits for losses? As for getting rid of loopholes, I am all for that, but getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction would mean a large tax increase for me. If they offset it by raising the threshold/tax brackets, I'd be ok with it and I do think it would be fairer to those without a mortgage. My concern would be that they come up with a plan that sounds good on paper, but has an overall negative impact on the people on the low end. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:56:53 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
There's no reason why we need all those classifications for income. In fact we should probably do away with using income period and just go by your net worth. That's a far better indicator of your ability to pay taxes. We shouldn't be asking anyone with little or no net worth to pay more in taxes, period. |
Sa-weeet! With over a hundred grand in student loans I'm livin the high life under that system! |
If we'd had the tax system in place like during the 1950-60s period (before playing "dominoes" in SE Asia and "deregulating" just about everything) you would probably have been able to pay cash for medical school, at least at a public university ...
FWIW I've never heard any flat-tax proposal/proposer make mention of any income "floor" below which people would pay no tax -- they always seem to be stressing how "everyone" will pay the same (whether they can afford it or not) ... |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:59:12 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
As for net worth - that may sound good, but what would you include - 401k? $100k in the market today could be worth $10k tomorrow. |
It could work by evaluating a snapshot on a particular day, similar to the way some businesses are (or used to be) assessed "inventory taxes" ... |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 05:15:01 PM · #108 |
| A "net worth" tax system seems like a bad idea. Let's say I bought a house in 1985 for $50,000 and it is paid off and now worth $1.2 million. This year I have a job that earns $100,000 a year. Next year I get laid off and have no job. The difference in my tax bill will be <10% between years. How would I pay? I made no money! |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 05:27:13 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW I've never heard any flat-tax proposal/proposer make mention of any income "floor" below which people would pay no tax -- they always seem to be stressing how "everyone" will pay the same (whether they can afford it or not) ... |
According to the Heritage Foundation (which is, of course, very pro-flat-tax):
Originally posted by Heritage Foundation:
Family-Friendly: All flat tax proposals have one "loophole." Households receive a generous exemption based on family size. For instance, a family of four would not begin to pay tax until its annual income reached more than $30,000. |
That's always been my understanding. Flat taxes without a starting threshold are not to be taken seriously, they are very regressive.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 17:27:35.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 06:05:06 PM · #110 |
| In the Bay Area $30,000 for a family of four is well below the actual cost of living, and not all that much higher than the official poverty line; it's about twice what someone would earn working full-time at the minimum wage 52 weeks/year. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 06:08:31 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In the Bay Area $30,000 for a family of four is well below the actual cost of living, and not all that much higher than the official poverty line; it's about twice what someone would earn working full-time at the minimum wage 52 weeks/year. |
Yeah, but that's just a number cribbed from one of many proposals. In any case, the *principle* you queried, is established: at least SOME, but probably not ALL, flat-tax proposals have thresholds.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 06:22:18 PM · #112 |
Some years ago I came across a proposal for a truly Simplified 1040:
1. How much did you make last year? _______
2. Send it in. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 06:23:03 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
So you will be voting against your incumbent Rep and Senator in the next election, no matter what party they belong to? |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 06:47:21 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Only an idiot who makes $400 in a year pays taxes on it - they would have to overlook their personal exemption and/or any other deduction. I know people who make under $40k/yr and pay zero taxes after exemptions and deductions and in some cases, get money back from various tax credits. Bottom line is that there is a significant portion of the non-rich population that pays zero taxes. Not saying they should, just pointing out that many reforms discussed would change that fact, much to their disliking. |
In the case of FICA, deductions don't reduce the amount. If you're a W2 employee then FICA gets taken out automatically and you never hear from it again. There's no line item for FICA on a 1040 form. The only place where FICA comes up is if you're self employed in which case you have to fill out a Schedule SE to determine how much you haven't been paying and that number then gets transfer to the very end of your 1040 (i.e. after your standard or itemized deductions) so the amount isn't reduced. Now granted, if you paid too much in other taxes and get a refund that fully covers this tax then it's a wash.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
As for net worth - that may sound good, but what would you include - 401k? $100k in the market today could be worth $10k tomorrow. Would there be credits for losses? As for getting rid of loopholes, I am all for that, but getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction would mean a large tax increase for me. If they offset it by raising the threshold/tax brackets, I'd be ok with it and I do think it would be fairer to those without a mortgage. My concern would be that they come up with a plan that sounds good on paper, but has an overall negative impact on the people on the low end. |
The net worth idea is just a starting point. Yeah, there would have to be some exempts or credits based on liquidity and such. The point was it shouldn't matter how you earned a dollar but in today's world it does. If it came from gambling it's taxed at 50%. From a dividend, it's 15%. From labor, it's across the board. It would make some sense if we actually taxed based on how useful the dollar was to society (eg. pay less tax if earned through labor or created/invented something) instead of giving the biggest tax breaks to those who just shuffle money around or reap benefits from work done long ago.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 18:59:43. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 07:03:56 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
There's no reason why we need all those classifications for income. In fact we should probably do away with using income period and just go by your net worth. That's a far better indicator of your ability to pay taxes. We shouldn't be asking anyone with little or no net worth to pay more in taxes, period. |
Sa-weeet! With over a hundred grand in student loans I'm livin the high life under that system! |
Maybe you should have become a dentist? :P |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 07:08:23 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A "net worth" tax system seems like a bad idea. Let's say I bought a house in 1985 for $50,000 and it is paid off and now worth $1.2 million. This year I have a job that earns $100,000 a year. Next year I get laid off and have no job. The difference in my tax bill will be <10% between years. How would I pay? I made no money! |
How would you pay now? You'd have to sell it since you wouldn't be able to pay the property tax. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 08:00:51 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
So you will be voting against your incumbent Rep and Senator in the next election, no matter what party they belong to? |
Yes, you should know I think the parties are worthless. They're ALL a bunch of crooks. The differences between parties are simply a distraction from their overall corruption and ineptitude.
ETA: It doesn't help his case that the representative from my district was on the "Super" committee
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 21:20:30. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 08:04:51 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A "net worth" tax system seems like a bad idea. Let's say I bought a house in 1985 for $50,000 and it is paid off and now worth $1.2 million. This year I have a job that earns $100,000 a year. Next year I get laid off and have no job. The difference in my tax bill will be <10% between years. How would I pay? I made no money! |
How would you pay now? You'd have to sell it since you wouldn't be able to pay the property tax. |
The property tax would be its own issue, but that problem varies far and wide depending on where you live and what your assessed house value is (which could be quite different from the "worth"). But pointing out that you have two problems (property tax AND "net worth tax") instead of one doesn't make your system any more appealing, does it?
Who would ever want to own a house under such a system? Renting would be far smarter. You'd live in the same house but pay no tax for it.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 20:10:18. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 08:07:25 PM · #119 |
I am truly surprised that this is not in rant by now
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 08:19:34 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A "net worth" tax system seems like a bad idea. Let's say I bought a house in 1985 for $50,000 and it is paid off and now worth $1.2 million. This year I have a job that earns $100,000 a year. Next year I get laid off and have no job. The difference in my tax bill will be <10% between years. How would I pay? I made no money! |
How would you pay now? You'd have to sell it since you wouldn't be able to pay the property tax. |
The property tax would be its own issue, but that problem varies far and wide depending on where you live and what your assessed house value is (which could be quite different from the "worth"). But pointing out that you have two problems (property tax AND "net worth tax") instead of one doesn't make your system any more appealing, does it?
Who would ever want to own a house under such a system? Renting would be far smarter. You'd live in the same house but pay no tax for it. |
You think the property owner isn't passing the property tax burden on to the renters? Sure as an individual renter you're not paying the whole bill but you're also not getting much space. Anyway as I said to Art it's just a starting point. If I had all the details nailed down I'd write a book an then make a career promoting it on all of the talking head shows.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 20:20:33.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:06:59 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
There's no reason why we need all those classifications for income. In fact we should probably do away with using income period and just go by your net worth. That's a far better indicator of your ability to pay taxes. We shouldn't be asking anyone with little or no net worth to pay more in taxes, period. |
Sa-weeet! With over a hundred grand in student loans I'm livin the high life under that system! |
... and then you have the poor retired person such as myself who owns all kinds of land but has no income. Best I put all that crap in my daughter's name ASAP huh
Ray |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:26:31 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and then you have the poor retired person such as myself who owns all kinds of land but has no income. Best I put all that crap in my daughter's name ASAP huh
Ray |
Feel free to put it in my name, Ray. ...ASAP... I won't charge you rent. ...at least not for the first year or so, but then, well you know, I gotta pay the taxes... |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:28:30 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
So you will be voting against your incumbent Rep and Senator in the next election, no matter what party they belong to? |
Yes, you should know I think the parties are worthless. They're ALL a bunch of crooks. The differences between parties are simply a distraction from their overall corruption and ineptitude.
ETA: It doesn't help his case that the representative from my district was on the "Super" committee |
We are on the same page! What would it take to get enough people to NOT vote for a D or R in the next election? |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:38:35 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
So you will be voting against your incumbent Rep and Senator in the next election, no matter what party they belong to? |
Yes, you should know I think the parties are worthless. They're ALL a bunch of crooks. The differences between parties are simply a distraction from their overall corruption and ineptitude.
ETA: It doesn't help his case that the representative from my district was on the "Super" committee |
We are on the same page! What would it take to get enough people to NOT vote for a D or R in the next election? |
Even I am with you on this.....We need to get rid of what we have...I helped in my buddies campaign, he was running against Rodney Alexander ( Louisiana 5th district)and does nothing more than giving retired vets a medal (that is important but more needs to be done). Alexander was and incumbent (meaning he had a much better chance)my buddy(being completely unknown) commanded %35 of the vote. If he had a budget more than $1,500 he prob would have won. Alexanders account at that time was slightly over $1,000,000.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:51:44 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
So you will be voting against your incumbent Rep and Senator in the next election, no matter what party they belong to? |
Yes, you should know I think the parties are worthless. They're ALL a bunch of crooks. The differences between parties are simply a distraction from their overall corruption and ineptitude.
ETA: It doesn't help his case that the representative from my district was on the "Super" committee |
We are on the same page! What would it take to get enough people to NOT vote for a D or R in the next election? |
Even I am with you on this.....We need to get rid of what we have...I helped in my buddies campaign, he was running against Rodney Alexander ( Louisiana 5th district)and does nothing more than giving retired vets a medal (that is important but more needs to be done). Alexander was and incumbent (meaning he had a much better chance)my buddy(being completely unknown) commanded %35 of the vote. If he had a budget more than $1,500 he prob would have won. Alexanders account at that time was slightly over $1,000,000. |
Money may not be enough to save them if enough people voted for "Anybody but the incumbent!" This happened in several races in the 2010 mid-term. |
|
