-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
TacticalFox88
Banned
Flat Taxes only work in certain countries in certain circumstances. See Russia, Central Asia, and the Eastern Bloc
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I am not sure how a flat tax, one that taxes everyone equally, could be unfair.
I grew up ridiculously poor (USA scale, not Africa scale), but I can't see how this would be unfair. Plus, all income would be taxed the same. No loopholes outside of maybe the first 30k of income.
I grew up ridiculously poor (USA scale, not Africa scale), but I can't see how this would be unfair. Plus, all income would be taxed the same. No loopholes outside of maybe the first 30k of income.
Everyone is already taxed equally in the current systemAlteredBeast said:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Matt said:
A family making 50k will get other helps, it isn't like social programs would end all of a sudden. I think if people all paid their share of taxes, people would be more invested on where that money went, too. Maybe that is being idealistic, but if I were struggling on 30k a year with a wife and kid, I would be very interested on where my money was going.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
It's unfair because of the marginal utility of income.AlteredBeast said:
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
dave is ok said:
That's why the first x amount for individuals or 2x amount for families isn't taxed. I just don't see how taxing people a higher percentage for making more money is inherently more fair than taxing all earnings exactly the same, whether they be income, investment earnings, etc.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
CHART OF THE DAY: Tim Pawlenty's Tax Cuts Are Bush's On Steroids
Brian Beutler | June 15, 2011, 3:45PM
Tim Pawlenty has a plan for America, and it would force the government out of just about every sphere of American life where it exists now.
Pawlenty's tax plan, by design and effect, would dramatically erode the government's revenue base. As noted here, his plan would reduce the top individual income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, cut the top corporate rate from 25 percent to 15 percent, and allow pass-through corporations to pay taxes at the corporate -- not the individual -- rate. He also wants to completely eliminate capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends and interest, and the estate tax.
An independent analysis found that it would cost the Treasury over $11 trillion over the course of a decade -- nearly three times the cost of the Bush tax cuts -- most of which would benefit the wealthiest Americans.
But how severe would the upward redistribution be? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities crunched the numbers and came up with a handy chart
After taxes, the very wealthiest people in the country would see their after-tax income spike by over one-third. Those on the other end of the income spectrum would hardly notice the bump. And that's to say nothing of the fact that, without all that revenue, the government would no longer be able to fund the services many middle class and lower income Americans depend on.
From CBPP: "In 2013 the Pawlenty plan would give people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent on the income scale (i.e., people with incomes above $2.7 million) an average annual tax cut of $1.8 million"
His plan is driving the debate among GOP presidential hopefuls. Though not all of them will ultimately match his cuts or exceed them, they will certainly be using it as a benchmark.
################
HOLY SHIT!!! T-Paw is crazy as hell. I thought he was suppose to be the reasonable one like Romney and Huntsman. Who is T-Paw trying to fool. I doubt most middle of the road (a few in number I know) GOP members would even think this is a reasonable starting point.
Is it just me or does each time someone on the right puts out a budget plan, it gets worse and worse?
Brian Beutler | June 15, 2011, 3:45PM
Tim Pawlenty has a plan for America, and it would force the government out of just about every sphere of American life where it exists now.
Pawlenty's tax plan, by design and effect, would dramatically erode the government's revenue base. As noted here, his plan would reduce the top individual income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, cut the top corporate rate from 25 percent to 15 percent, and allow pass-through corporations to pay taxes at the corporate -- not the individual -- rate. He also wants to completely eliminate capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends and interest, and the estate tax.
An independent analysis found that it would cost the Treasury over $11 trillion over the course of a decade -- nearly three times the cost of the Bush tax cuts -- most of which would benefit the wealthiest Americans.
But how severe would the upward redistribution be? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities crunched the numbers and came up with a handy chart
After taxes, the very wealthiest people in the country would see their after-tax income spike by over one-third. Those on the other end of the income spectrum would hardly notice the bump. And that's to say nothing of the fact that, without all that revenue, the government would no longer be able to fund the services many middle class and lower income Americans depend on.
From CBPP: "In 2013 the Pawlenty plan would give people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent on the income scale (i.e., people with incomes above $2.7 million) an average annual tax cut of $1.8 million"
His plan is driving the debate among GOP presidential hopefuls. Though not all of them will ultimately match his cuts or exceed them, they will certainly be using it as a benchmark.
################
HOLY SHIT!!! T-Paw is crazy as hell. I thought he was suppose to be the reasonable one like Romney and Huntsman. Who is T-Paw trying to fool. I doubt most middle of the road (a few in number I know) GOP members would even think this is a reasonable starting point.
Is it just me or does each time someone on the right puts out a budget plan, it gets worse and worse?
The Chosen One
Member
RustyNails said:
Exactly.
For example a middle income family may spend ~$1,000 a month on groceries, which might account for 1/4 of their monthly income. But a multi-millionaire is not spending 1/4 their monthly income on food necessities. A 20% tax on middle/lower income family is a much harder hit because they're making just enough to cover basic costs of living. Whereas the rich make far beyond the basic costs of living, so it's not at all an equal tax.
TacticalFox88
Banned
With the current loopholes? Not really.Zabka said:
empty vessel
Member
AlteredBeast said:
What is the moral imperative for treating all income the same? We should strive to treat all people the same, and that is exactly what a progressive tax does. I am treated the same as Bill Gates. He just happens to have more income than I do. If Bill thinks it is unfair that he has more income than I do, he is welcome to give it to me, and transfer his tax burden to me as well. Yet, he does not do this. How, then, can we speak about this arrangement being unfair?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The Chosen One said:
1000 dollars on groceries! I'm not eating beluga caviar and washing my mouth out with dom perignon.
We spend probably 350 on groceries and I still tell my wife that she is wasting too much money on food!
Invisible_Insane
Member
Perhaps I was a little too flippant before, but it struck me as the case that if you understood why there might be a need to exempt some people from a tax, you should already understand why a flat tax is not really a good idea.AlteredBeast said:
"The marginal utility of income" explanation is the best one. If you have a person who earns $10 and you tax him at ten percent, he has $9 left to live on. If you tax a person making $100 at the same rate, then you are correct in that they both surrender the same percentage of their incomes. But the guy who started with $100 now has $90 left, and retains considerably more buying power than the person who only has $9 left. The person with less money feels the impact of a flat tax more.
Zabka is being a little linguistically lazy about his claim that everyone is already taxed equally (and I don't know that it's actually true), but the idea behind the way the income tax rates are structured currently in the US is to make their impact on people of disparate incomes similar. This system is called marginal taxation. So currently, if I make $34K a year, I am taxed on that income at a rate of 10%. If you make $50K a year, you pay a 10% rate on the first 34K of that income, plus 15% (or something like that) on the next 16K. And so on through five tax brackets that end at roughly $250K.
Does that help?
The Chosen One
Member
AlteredBeast said:
How many kids do you have?
Alpha-Bromega
Member
The practical value of super high incomes is basically reduced exponentially at a point so taxing that to a very high degree doesn't affect the well being of that person.
speculawyer
Member
That is what I said the second I heard it. It was pure fantasyland. Free magic cake for everyone. And it has no calories too!mckmas8808 said:
You ever notice that none of these tax-cut plans ever gives a list of matching spending cuts? It is all smoke & mirrors. Even the Ryan plan that was called 'bold' because it had some cuts like the famous medicare cut was complete bullshit . . . it grew the deficit for years and required an unemployment rate of 2.8%.
And it would be one thing if they just pushed these crazy plans . . . but they want to be called 'fiscally conservative' and 'deficit hawks' at the same time.
It is crazy town. Has the disrespect for science grown so much that even basic math is heresy now too?
Gallup: Unemployment now at 8.9%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Been that way since yesterday. Not a single article in the general media about it. I suppose it goes against the "tanking economy" narrative.
So much for the media's "liberal bias".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Been that way since yesterday. Not a single article in the general media about it. I suppose it goes against the "tanking economy" narrative.
So much for the media's "liberal bias".
Measley said:
If it was good news, they would report it.
This is purely subjective. What would you say is the minimum salary someone could have and not have their well being adversely affected? It's probably surprisingly low if your just talking about necessities - roof over your head, food, transportation, etc.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The Chosen One said:
one eighteen month old, which means diapers, wipes, milk, snacks, other foods not in a normal adult diet, etc.
Of course, I could have 4 or 5 babies, but even then, 1000 dollars on groceries is asinine. People who make less income should buy off brands and less Haagen-Daz.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Liberal Bias is an utter fallacy created by the right wing hysteria.
polyh3dron
Banned
For everything except Israel stuff, yeah.TacticalFox88 said:
Alpha-Bromega
Member
Wrong. If the news fit into a chosen ideologically narrative it would have run.
Underemployment isn't spoken of nearly enough, either.
Underemployment isn't spoken of nearly enough, either.
speculawyer
Member
Measley said:
That is not the standard unemployment number that people follow. People follow the BLS statistics.
The Chosen One
Member
AlteredBeast said:
Btw, please tell me where you shop where you essentially are spending just $11 a day on groceries. There's absolutely no way you could feed a family of four with just $11 a day unless you're getting some government assistance.
EDIT: And you have a 18 month kid? I find it very hard to believe you're only spending $350 month on groceries. Diapers alone will run around $20 every few days. Unless you're eating only 1.5 meals a day, I can't see how you're surviving off $11 a day with a wife and a baby.
RustyNails
Member
So if you have a 15% on the first $33,000 in a progressive tax rate, the person earning 33k gives $4,950 to the government (leaving out deductions and credits for a while). If you want a 20% flat tax, the person will pay $1,650 more to the government.Kosmo said:
A person making $200,000 under progressive taxation gives about $60,000 to the government (roughly, adding up all the layers), yet under a flat tax of 20%, he gives $20,000 less. This is not taking into account the status of his unearned revenue, interest, dividends, etc.
Even Adam Smith, the champion of free market capitalism realized that people earning higher income should give from their earnings an amount proportional to their income, and even more.
From your link:Measley said:
Gallup's U.S. employment measures report the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed and unemployed, without seasonal adjustment
Summer hiring is going on right now. Employment data needs to be seasonally adjusted in order to be meaningful.AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I should have mentioned that my wife cooks at home a lot. We don't eat out, we don't buy mixes of things or pre-packaged foods. We do clip a few coupons to save a buck or two, as well.
RustyNails
Member
I can emphatically say no, you cannot live on $11 a day for a family of four. We are talking about 3 meals per day for 4 mouths.Kosmo said:
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
My wife and I spend under $300 a month on groceries and eating out. I'm having New York Strip Steak and vegetables for dinner... the second time this week.Matt said:
I love the marginal utility of money explanation for progressive taxation. It immediately shuts up anyone who brings up any sort of flat tax. It should be so fucking obvious but it's completely ignored by the people pushing this shit.
You can absolutely do this, though the variety would be limited.RustyNails said:
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
eznark said:
hmmmm...I think I might have to try this on the next baby. Diapers are really the only thing that I don't want to think are damn near impossible to drop down considerably on. We have searched long and hard for good coupons, but you can never manage to save more than a buck or two on a box.
The Chosen One
Member
Kosmo said:
No.
Have you been to the grocery store recently? Bread costs $5, milk costs $4-5, eggs $3, fruits $3-4, vegetables $3-4, cereal $3-4, cheese $2-3, and etc.
When you cook your own food (my wife cooks), it can actually get expensive because you have to get a variety of ingredients that need to refilled every few days when you need to feed four people for 3 meals a day. That's 12 portions a day. 36 portions over 3 days. 84 portions in a week, 360 portions a month.
Ironically it's the McDonalds and cheap pizza places (Lil' Ceasers) that are the inexpensive options for feeding a group of people, which is why we have a lot of fat people in America who are usually low income. If you want to cook your own food from mostly normal healthy ingredients, the costs add up. It's the high-fat unhealthy instant foods that are dirt cheap.
- Status