Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 While it'd be nice if everyone paid the same, I don't think the real impact on real people would be desirable, especially at the rates we'd need to be at to get remotely close to balancing the budget (I think estimates were at like 25% flat tax? Forget). Taking 10, or 25% from someone who makes $20k, is much different than taking the same from someone making $200k. Taking from that lower bracket is directly taking from needs, such as food and shelter. While the person making $200k won't really miss that money for much other than luxuries. That's really my big problem with 'flat taxes', is that it will disproportionately impact the lower classes. All that being said, I'm not nearly the financial expert you guys are, so I'm open to being educated/corrected.
Chef Jim Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 While it'd be nice if everyone paid the same, I don't think the real impact on real people would be desirable, especially at the rates we'd need to be at to get remotely close to balancing the budget (I think estimates were at like 25% flat tax? Forget). Taking 10, or 25% from someone who makes $20k, is much different than taking the same from someone making $200k. Taking from that lower bracket is directly taking from needs, such as food and shelter. While the person making $200k won't really miss that money for much other than luxuries. That's really my big problem with 'flat taxes', is that it will disproportionately impact the lower classes. All that being said, I'm not nearly the financial expert you guys are, so I'm open to being educated/corrected. I guess you didn't read his proposal.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 While it'd be nice if everyone paid the same, I don't think the real impact on real people would be desirable, especially at the rates we'd need to be at to get remotely close to balancing the budget (I think estimates were at like 25% flat tax? Forget). Taking 10, or 25% from someone who makes $20k, is much different than taking the same from someone making $200k. Taking from that lower bracket is directly taking from needs, such as food and shelter. While the person making $200k won't really miss that money for much other than luxuries. That's really my big problem with 'flat taxes', is that it will disproportionately impact the lower classes. All that being said, I'm not nearly the financial expert you guys are, so I'm open to being educated/corrected. The purpose of a flat tax, regardless of rate, is to give everyone a stake in the size and scope of government. People care what gets spent where when it hits them in the pocket.
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 I guess you didn't read his proposal. I browsed through it, what'd I miss?
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 I browsed through it, what'd I miss? While this practice is frowned upon... "For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free."
Chef Jim Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 While this practice is frowned upon... "For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free." Yes that. And I'd like to know how that will be monitored. Will I be able claim my cat and rhododendron?
unbillievable Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 95% flat tax rate where the first $1million is free!Each kid you pop out gives an additional 5 cents off~ 95% flat tax rate where the first $1million is free!Each kid you pop out gives an additional 5 cents off~
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) While this practice is frowned upon... "For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free." Yes, I saw that. I'm assuming there's something else I missed. Tax free is in reference to breaks due to children, specifically 2 in this case at that income level. What about those without children? You still run into the above problems of real world impact. I'm all for a simplified code, but I just haven't been convinced on flat taxes. There was some national sales tax stuff floated that was intriguing, but I think that also leaves a bit to be desired. Edited January 16, 2016 by Dorkington
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Yes that. And I'd like to know how that will be monitored. Will I be able claim my cat and rhododendron?Well, YOU won't. But tons of other people can and will. Yes, I saw that. I'm assuming there's something else I missed. Tax free is in reference to breaks due to children, specifically 4 in this case at that income level. What about those without children? You still run into the above problems of real world impact. I'm all for a simplified code, but I just haven't been convinced on flat taxes. There was some national sales tax stuff floated that was intriguing, but I think that also leaves a bit to be desired. A childless couple can live off of $62K a year or 56 after taxes. It's not 4 children, it's 2 children. It's a family of 4. I don't see why somebody making 30k a year shouldn't have to pay taxes. It also incentivizes making more money. I agree that it should be set to ensure food, water and shelter but no more. If you want to get an iPhone and still pay rent, work harder. Edited January 16, 2016 by FireChan
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 My bad on the 2 vs 4. A childless couple making $62k should be fine in most parts of the country, I agree.
Chef Jim Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Yes, I saw that. I'm assuming there's something else I missed. Tax free is in reference to breaks due to children, specifically 2 in this case at that income level. What about those without children? You still run into the above problems of real world impact. I'm all for a simplified code, but I just haven't been convinced on flat taxes. There was some national sales tax stuff floated that was intriguing, but I think that also leaves a bit to be desired. The first step is to get government waste under control. I imagine if government spent only what it absolutely needed the tax rate could be greatly reduced for all and a flat tax would be a piece of cake.
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Yeah, I was wondering how much would need to be cut in order to balance this out.
Chef Jim Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Yeah, I was wondering how much would need to be cut in order to balance this out. Probably a good amount. The hard part would be what waste to cut seeing there is likely a lot to choose from.
meazza Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Probably a good amount. The hard part would be what waste to cut seeing there is likely a lot to choose from. I've worked in 1 very large company, 1 medium sized and 1 small and I'd say, just trying to cut waste in those is extremely difficult. Once the waste is there, it's there forever.
IDBillzFan Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) My bad on the 2 vs 4. A childless couple making $62k should be fine in most parts of the country, I agree. The other thing to keep in mind is that everyone...everyone...must have skin in the game as best possible. The thing you probably overlook is that there are WAY too many people in this country who only know how to live off the government, and know how to work the system so they don't have to do a damn thing but wake up and occasionally fill out paperwork. And it's a generational thing within their family tree. Now take the progressive 'have-more-unwanted-babies' incentive program that gives free money to single mothers. The more unwanted babies they have, the more money they get. What incentive do they have to step up their game? Answer: none. Because keeping people on the government dole ensures progressives continue stay in power by blaming everything on the rich while exempting themselves from laws that affect the rich to pay the poor. I asked you earlier how Obama raised your income 3x since he's been in office because we both know Barry didn't raise your income. You did it in large part, I suspect, through hard work and found opportunity. What you're missing is that just because some people look like they're struggling doesn't mean they have to struggle. Many times it just means they have no incentive to try harder. Exempting them from getting skin in the game does nothing to fix their lot in life. Hand up? Yes. Hand out? No. Edited January 16, 2016 by LABillzFan
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Obama (with the help of Congress) authorized spending on certain programs that I support, so yes, he's partially to thank, though only about as much as others blame him for their specific woes. Outside of funding my job, my raises have come from hard work. As far as 'have more unwanted babies', I thought the progressive strategy was to kill unwanted babies? Also, how is the progressive strategy of child credits different than the conservative strategy of child credits? In my own personal experience, and the great many people I've known over my life that have received some sort of government subsidy, every single one of them, including myself, would much rather be earning a decent wage. While I know that isn't proof that people would rather be gainfully employed generally, it certainly paints a different picture than you paint. I always come back to the fact that America has so much wealth and so many resources, yet there's still people without roofs over their head, and food in their stomachs. It doesn't make a lick of sense. So generally speaking, I tend to support a progressive tax system, and social safety nets. But if neither of those are fixing things for the lower classes in terms of opportunities and basic necessities, I'll need to keep an open mind about the various flat tax ideas. At the very least, I guess, I might be paying less, depending on the number selected, but that ends up making me feel a tad selfish.
starrymessenger Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Obama (with the help of Congress) authorized spending on certain programs that I support, so yes, he's partially to thank, though only about as much as others blame him for their specific woes. Outside of funding my job, my raises have come from hard work. As far as 'have more unwanted babies', I thought the progressive strategy was to kill unwanted babies? Also, how is the progressive strategy of child credits different than the conservative strategy of child credits? In my own personal experience, and the great many people I've known over my life that have received some sort of government subsidy, every single one of them, including myself, would much rather be earning a decent wage. While I know that isn't proof that people would rather be gainfully employed generally, it certainly paints a different picture than you paint. I always come back to the fact that America has so much wealth and so many resources, yet there's still people without roofs over their head, and food in their stomachs. It doesn't make a lick of sense. So generally speaking, I tend to support a progressive tax system, and social safety nets. But if neither of those are fixing things for the lower classes in terms of opportunities and basic necessities, I'll need to keep an open mind about the various flat tax ideas. At the very least, I guess, I might be paying less, depending on the number selected, but that ends up making me feel a tad selfish. I agree and I pay income tax at a 50% combined federal and provincial rate in Canada. I guess that makes me a liberal democrat in a US context.
Chef Jim Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 I've worked in 1 very large company, 1 medium sized and 1 small and I'd say, just trying to cut waste in those is extremely difficult. Once the waste is there, it's there forever. Did the leaders of those companies have reapply for their jobs every few years?
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Obama (with the help of Congress) authorized spending on certain programs that I support, so yes, he's partially to thank, though only about as much as others blame him for their specific woes. Outside of funding my job, my raises have come from hard work. As far as 'have more unwanted babies', I thought the progressive strategy was to kill unwanted babies? Also, how is the progressive strategy of child credits different than the conservative strategy of child credits? In my own personal experience, and the great many people I've known over my life that have received some sort of government subsidy, every single one of them, including myself, would much rather be earning a decent wage. While I know that isn't proof that people would rather be gainfully employed generally, it certainly paints a different picture than you paint. I always come back to the fact that America has so much wealth and so many resources, yet there's still people without roofs over their head, and food in their stomachs. It doesn't make a lick of sense. So generally speaking, I tend to support a progressive tax system, and social safety nets. But if neither of those are fixing things for the lower classes in terms of opportunities and basic necessities, I'll need to keep an open mind about the various flat tax ideas. At the very least, I guess, I might be paying less, depending on the number selected, but that ends up making me feel a tad selfish. America is broke. Try again.
KD in CA Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Will the flat tax rate be 0%? It's time we wake up and start taxing consumption rather than productivity. Income taxes are an idiotic concept.
Recommended Posts