keepthefaith Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Nope 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income taxed the same 10% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine .5% financial transaction tax 12% corporate tax no deductions So why is the fed government entitled to 50% of any dollar that anyone earns regardless of how much they make? You don't see any immorality in that, taking half of one's hard earned money, when it's also subjected to state income tax and your fed sales tax when spent? Edited June 2, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 yep Well that's just going to work wonders. Who is going to want to sell any appreciated asset if they're only going to see half of the proceeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nope 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income taxed the same 10% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine .5% financial transaction tax 12% corporate tax no deductions How does your plan pay for Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? EIC? What's the impact on GDP growth? What changes are you making to the ACA to make this work? What effect does this have on the agriculture sector? How do IRAs, 401(k)s, 529s, etc., factor in to your plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 So why is the fed government entitled to 50% of any dollar that anyone earns regardless of how much they make? You don't see any immorality in that, taking half of one's hard earned money, when it's also subjected to state income tax and your fed sales tax when spent? I have read on this very board that life is unfair, usually this unfairness falls on the lower end of the income spectrum our two tier Justice system, our interest rate apartheid, our bloated military and surveillance state spending, our political system to the highest bidder- isn't the standard answer on this board "life is unfair deal with it"- in the 1940s to 1950s the top rate was 91% in the 1960s the top rate was 70% was the United States fundamentally unfair at that time? My system would be eminently fair to about 95% of Americans. Well that's just going to work wonders. Who is going to want to sell any appreciated asset if they're only going to see half of the proceeds? if it slows down speculation that's not a bug it's a feature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 My system would be eminently fair to about 95% of Americans. 60% of Americans make 100k or more, and pay >95% of the income tax, taxed at 25%. You want to double that tax rate, make them responsible for 100% of the income tax, and think that's fair to 95% of Americans? Really put a lot of thought in to this, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 if it slows down speculation that's not a bug it's a feature Speculation? So only speculative stocks grow over time? Who will buy dividend paying stocks if those dividends will be taxed at 50%? And to continue the question Tom posted. If I'm retired and I'm living off my IRA's but I make less than $100k are they now tax free? Well then all those people that started Roths or converted their IRA's and paid the taxes would be !@#$ed now wouldn't they. How will loans from life insurance be taxed? Life insurance proceeds? Will RMD's still be in place? Yadda...yadda....yadda. The point is I laugh when people say they want to simplify the tax code. It is so !@#$ing complicated now it's nearly impossible to simplify it. I have read on this very board that life is unfair, usually this unfairness falls on the lower end of the income spectrum our two tier Justice system, our interest rate apartheid, our bloated military and surveillance state spending, our political system to the highest bidder- isn't the standard answer on this board "life is unfair deal with it"- in the 1940s to 1950s the top rate was 91% in the 1960s the top rate was 70% was the United States fundamentally unfair at that time? My system would be eminently fair to about 95% of Americans. Yes it was 91%. For people making over $1.8m. How many people were making that much money in the 40's? Compare that to the number of people that make over $100k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Speculation? So only speculative stocks grow over time? Who will buy dividend paying stocks if those dividends will be taxed at 50%? And to continue the question Tom posted. If I'm retired and I'm living off my IRA's but I make less than $100k are they now tax free? Well then all those people that started Roths or converted their IRA's and paid the taxes would be !@#$ed now wouldn't they. How will loans from life insurance be taxed? Life insurance proceeds? Will RMD's still be in place? Yadda...yadda....yadda. The point is I laugh when people say they want to simplify the tax code. It is so !@#$ing complicated now it's nearly impossible to simplify it. If you make less than 100k they are tax free as for people being !@#$ed aren't people always being !@#$ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What the !@#$ is "interest rate apartheid?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 If you make less than 100k they are tax free as for people being !@#$ed aren't people always being !@#$ed So in effect you advocate for even greater income tax stratification by removing even a greater proportion of public from the income tax rolls, and rely on a far smaller tax base to meet the government's needs? Yeah, I don't see any problem with that proposal down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 If you make less than 100k they are tax free as for people being !@#$ed aren't people always being !@#$ed Ha! From what I've seen there are $18 trillion in qualified plans. Those are plans where the contributions have been pre-tax, grown tax deferred and now a vast majority of them are not going to be taxed under your plan seeing most retirees don't make that much money. You know, I'm starting to dig your plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 So in effect you advocate for even greater income tax stratification by removing even a greater proportion of public from the income tax rolls, and rely on a far smaller tax base to meet the government's needs? Yeah, I don't see any problem with that proposal down the road. What problems? The rich have a greater and greater share of the wealth, so shift the tax burden to those that can pay it the easiest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What problems? The rich have a greater and greater share of the wealth, so shift the tax burden to those that can pay it the easiest So now people making over $100k are rich. Geez with inflation you'd think that number would rise as opposed to be cut by 50% So the new interview question from prospects will be "soooo, how quickly can I get my income under six figures?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What was the definition of "income" again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What was the definition of "income" again? According to lybob it's defined as income. You know "income is income." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 According to lybob it's defined as income. You know "income is income." What about my stock options? And what are corporations being taxed on again? 12% of what, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What problems? The rich have a greater and greater share of the wealth, so shift the tax burden to those that can pay it the easiest The rich already bear a greater tax burden. By shrinking the tax base you invite a host of bigger problems, because your tax revenues will start to fluctuate wildly with the economic swings, while the truly filthy rich will simply defer the income. The main point of a flat tax is to set the rate as low as possible to maximize tax revenues by expanding the tax base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What about my stock options? As income. You know income is income! I think he means any appreciated asset is taxed as income when sold. Not sure how he plans on handling stock losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 The rich already bear a greater tax burden. By shrinking the tax base you invite a host of bigger problems, because your tax revenues will start to fluctuate wildly with the economic swings, while the truly filthy rich will simply defer the income. The main point of a flat tax is to set the rate as low as possible to maximize tax revenues by expanding the tax base. I don't know the exact form his response is going to take, but it will confuse sound tax policy with wealth redistribution, and completely miss your point. And it will be hilarious. As income. You know income is income! I think he means any appreciated asset is taxed as income when sold. Not sure how he plans on handling stock losses. But aren't stock options awarded as bonuses now reported as income when they're awarded? That was part of the fallout from Enron's implosion, to make CEO salaries more "transparent." Screw it. I'll just incorporate and pay 15% on...something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 How do all of my hammers play into this new tax system? That's where all of my wealth is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 How do all of my hammers play into this new tax system? That's where all of my wealth is. Hammers aren't income. They're capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts