So long and thanks for the fish!

[MeDeFe]

In any case, you should read it, it's a good contribution.

[captainwalrus]

So, I'll start by saying that my family is rich. We make over 250,000 a year, and so we are rich.

Once you subtract money for collage payments, taxes and bills (heating, electric, etc.) we have about 100,000 each year for expenses and luxury for 4 people. This is a perfectly reasonable amount.

Now take a friend of mine. 160,000 a year, for a single mother and two kids.

After the same expenses (taxes, heat, collage, etc) they have about 80,000 each year for three people.

This is very fair, In my opinion. We each have about the same (instead of me having 90,000 more) because of taxes. His mother works just as hard as either of my parents, yet because of only one income, they have less.


This works the same for all the people I know, roughly at least, so that everyone is working just as hard, and they have just as much.

So, what is wrong about taxing the rich until they are middle class?

[BigBallinStalin]

In any case, you should read it, it's a good contribution.

as mentioned earlier:

On a more serious note, I'd like to read this when I have more time and respond as soon as possible.


And thanks because I couldn't find this thread.

[AAFitz]

So, I'll start by saying that my family is rich. We make over 250,000 a year, and so we are rich.

Once you subtract money for collage payments, taxes and bills (heating, electric, etc.) we have about 100,000 each year for expenses and luxury for 4 people. This is a perfectly reasonable amount.

Now take a friend of mine. 160,000 a year, for a single mother and two kids.

After the same expenses (taxes, heat, collage, etc) they have about 80,000 each year for three people.

This is very fair, In my opinion. We each have about the same (instead of me having 90,000 more) because of taxes. His mother works just as hard as either of my parents, yet because of only one income, they have less.


This works the same for all the people I know, roughly at least, so that everyone is working just as hard, and they have just as much.

So, what is wrong about taxing the rich until they are middle class?

$250k a year is not as much as you think it is. You certainly have more than many, but you are not in the bracket that can be taxed too heavily, because it simply isnt as much as you think it is. Certainly your parents do end up contributing a higher percentage, and necessarily a higher dollar figure, but after that, you will still have more discretionary income than many who pay much less in taxes.

In any case, your parents wont be fleeing the country to avoid paying a few more percentage points on there taxes, because they cant afford to live anywhere else, because its very likely, this is the only place they can make that kind of money doing what they do.

This thread is more about people with much much more money than that. People making 250k a month and more. They do have the capacity to flee, very often have benefited from taxes, even more than most, and are more the discussion of this topic. Some may very well think people making $250k is excessive, but they are essentially naive. Some state troopers can make that much if they play the game right, and while they do very well for themselves, not many would call them rich.

[taco_man1]

to ask a someone on topic and somewhat off topic question...

what, exactly, is so wrong with a flat tax rate?
What, exactly, is so wrong with a step based tax rate? (i.e. make up to x, get taxed at x % income past that is taxed at x rate until you hit the next step, and so on)

taxes are necessary. Taxes need to pay for infrastructure, utilities, and other things the free market can not, or would not, provide at a fair and reasonable price (generally due to high barriers in entry, usually extreme entrance costs).

Taxes do NOT need to be this complex!!!

I AM an accountant. It's early april, and I'm sick of doing taxes. Not because there's so many, but because they are all SOOOO needlessly complex.sched c, sched e, k1, misc. bull s*** credits. Did you know, that for the 2009 tax year, if you make less than a certain amount you get a $25 tax credit from the government to compensate you for raising gas prices? NO! do you know why? because it doesn't freaking matter! $25, even to someone making minimum wage, isn't enough to get excited about.

simply the tax forms. CUT BACK the IRS (simplified tax forms mean far less cost in checking and misc.) and stop congress from passing stupid stuff (i know I'm really dreaming now)

[tzor]

to ask a someone on topic and somewhat off topic question...

what, exactly, is so wrong with a flat tax rate?
What, exactly, is so wrong with a step based tax rate? (i.e. make up to x, get taxed at x % income past that is taxed at x rate until you hit the next step, and so on)

First and foremost, I could live with a flat tax rate. I would prefer something I call a flat tax with offset; start off with an acceptable offset based on some definition of poverty and tax all income above that offset on a flat rate.

Step based rates result in a large disincentive to cross the steps. It is possible for you to work that extra hour or get that extra bonus which would move you across the step resulting in a new loss of income instead of a net gain. While one may argue that more effort should not always result in equivalent gain, one has a hard time arguing that more effort should result in a net loss.

[taco_man1]

Step based rates result in a large disincentive to cross the steps. It is possible for you to work that extra hour or get that extra bonus which would move you across the step resulting in a new loss of income instead of a net gain. While one may argue that more effort should not always result in equivalent gain, one has a hard time arguing that more effort should result in a net loss.

you misunderstand MY proposal.

crossing that step doesn't change how much tax you pay on the money prior to that step.

i.e. make up to 30 k and pay 10 %
the next 20 k is at 20 %

no matter HOW MUCH you make, the first 30 k is taxed at a 10 % rate.

so if you make 40 k, you pay 3 k in taxes on the first 30 k, and 2 k on the next 10 k

[tzor]

you misunderstand MY proposal.

Oops, you are right, I did misunderstand. Your proposal has less problems than the current system and only slightly more problems than a straight flat tax; the problems come in the concept of the "corporate" income; that is one person working for multiple people (one person working for a simple family, for example, needs to make more than a single person to maintain the same standard of living between the one and the two) but that could always be conpensated for. The trick is making that both equitable and simple. If you don't have the later, it will only get more complex over time and therefore more corrupt.

[AAFitz]

you misunderstand MY proposal.

Oops, you are right, I did misunderstand. Your proposal has less problems than the current system and only slightly more problems than a straight flat tax; the problems come in the concept of the "corporate" income; that is one person working for multiple people (one person working for a simple family, for example, needs to make more than a single person to maintain the same standard of living between the one and the two) but that could always be conpensated for. The trick is making that both equitable and simple. If you don't have the later, it will only get more complex over time and therefore more corrupt.

It also ignores using tax initiatives for better or worse to drive the economy. Home purchase tax credit, auto tax credit, hybrid, etc.

Even with a flat rate tax, its finding that relative amount you make that is the hard part. Im self employed and ironically was preparing mine today for the accountant, and while most of it is straight forward, I certainly just dont have a number sent to me that says I make this, so a flat tax wouldnt even really apply to so many people when you consider such things as businesses, securites, investment properties, mortgage interest that its no surprise its so complicated, but probably necessarily so.

I agree about the $25 gas tax credit. That wastes so much time and money just talking about it, that it cant be worth it.

[tzor]

It also ignores using tax initiatives for better or worse to drive the economy.

Yes it does. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Ironically the power to give tax incentives is also the power to destroy. In the end, the last thing you want is to have congress "drive" the economy; the only thing they are interested in is their own re-election.

[2dimes]

So tacoman's family may be able to cash in on the bargains coming up in the multi million dollar realestate market.

[AAFitz]

It also ignores using tax initiatives for better or worse to drive the economy.

Yes it does. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Ironically the power to give tax incentives is also the power to destroy. In the end, the last thing you want is to have congress "drive" the economy; the only thing they are interested in is their own re-election.

which is why its important to elect the right congress

[2dimes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG6b3V2MNxQ

[spurgistan]

to ask a someone on topic and somewhat off topic question...

what, exactly, is so wrong with a flat tax rate?
What, exactly, is so wrong with a step based tax rate? (i.e. make up to x, get taxed at x % income past that is taxed at x rate until you hit the next step, and so on)

First and foremost, I could live with a flat tax rate. I would prefer something I call a flat tax with offset; start off with an acceptable offset based on some definition of poverty and tax all income above that offset on a flat rate.

Step based rates result in a large disincentive to cross the steps. It is possible for you to work that extra hour or get that extra bonus which would move you across the step resulting in a new loss of income instead of a net gain. While one may argue that more effort should not always result in equivalent gain, one has a hard time arguing that more effort should result in a net loss.

Oh come on. You never lose income by working more! You know how graduated income tax brackets work, I'm not going to explain them.

[jbrettlip]

to ask a someone on topic and somewhat off topic question...

what, exactly, is so wrong with a flat tax rate?
What, exactly, is so wrong with a step based tax rate? (i.e. make up to x, get taxed at x % income past that is taxed at x rate until you hit the next step, and so on)

First and foremost, I could live with a flat tax rate. I would prefer something I call a flat tax with offset; start off with an acceptable offset based on some definition of poverty and tax all income above that offset on a flat rate.

Step based rates result in a large disincentive to cross the steps. It is possible for you to work that extra hour or get that extra bonus which would move you across the step resulting in a new loss of income instead of a net gain. While one may argue that more effort should not always result in equivalent gain, one has a hard time arguing that more effort should result in a net loss.

Oh come on. You never lose income by working more! You know how graduated income tax brackets work, I'm not going to explain them.

Thank God someone pointed this out more tactfully than I was about too.