Are the poor in America really not that poor?

[1stdeadeye]

Hear is an article that might make you think twice about true poverty.

Story about American vs. European poverty (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109386,00.html)

[1stdeadeye]

Another good piece to read!

Class warfare! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109359,00.html)

Realize that the top 5% of wage earners in America pay MORE THEN 50% OF ALL TAXES!!!!!

[shartley]

Yeah… interesting article. It is obvious thought that they didn’t venture into some of the communities in America that are NOT directly associated or linked to major cities… such as those communities in the Appalachian Mountains, and other very rural areas. We have whole communities in the US that are living in 3rd World conditions…. Yeah, they may “own” their own homes, and have more “living space” than someone in Europe, but I don’t consider those things a real accurate depiction of “wealth”.

So yes, per capita, we may have less truly “poor” than what is found in Europe. And yes, our average “poor” person may be better off than the average “poor” person in Europe. But I for one think it is a shame that we still have some of the poorest people on earth, and in one of the most industrialized (if not THE most) nations on earth, we have the situations I mentioned above. And it bothers me that we as a nation are so quick to give aid and funding to other nations to help them take care of problems we ourselves still have to address and take care of within our own borders.

[/rant]

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Another good piece to read!

Class warfare! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109359,00.html)

Realize that the top 5% of wage earners in America pay MORE THEN 50% OF ALL TAXES!!!!!
Good read. :D

[impostal22]

there's more to take into account than just material wealth, as the article briefly mentioned. sure, some people have houses and a car; the house is necessary to keep them alive, and the car is necessary to keep their job. i wouldn't really say the people with homes and cars are the people we should *really* worry about though.

it's the people who sleep on park benches in the winter with nothing but newspapers to trap the body heat in them.

but really, when people think of the truly impoverished of the country, it ain't people who have a house to keep them sheltered. so, from my perspective, what i view (and most people would agree) are destitute persons are really that poor.


edit- i agree completely with what shartley said. how can we be such a superpower if we have one of the worst rates of homelessness and child starvation?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Another good piece to read!

Class warfare! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109359,00.html)

Realize that the top 5% of wage earners in America pay MORE THEN 50% OF ALL TAXES!!!!!

eh..what you're forgetting is that there's a drop off point...whether you make $150k (i think that's the dropoff point now, although it may have been raised or lowered, i forget) or $150billion, you still pay the same percentage of taxes.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


eh..what you're forgetting is that there's a drop off point...whether you make $150k (i think that's the dropoff point now, although it may have been raised or lowered, i forget) or $150billion, you still pay the same percentage of taxes.

Percentages might be the same, but the amounts paid are vastly different are they not?:rolleyes:

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Percentages might be the same, but the amounts paid are vastly different are they not?:rolleyes:

yes, but why are the incomes from $0/year to $150,000/year taxed in separate brackets yet from $150,001/year to $1billion+ /year are taxed in the same bracket? not to mention the top 1% of the population possesses over 50% of the total population's wealth.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


yes, but why are the incomes from $0/year to $150,000/year taxed in separate brackets yet from $151,000/year to $1billion+ /year are taxed in the same bracket? not to mention the top 1% of the population possesses over 50% of the total population's wealth.

So what do you want! Lower incomes are taxed at lower percentages. For millionaires, they are already paying a over a third of their income to Uncle Same, what do you want 1/2?:confused:

If so, move to England! :rolleyes:

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


So what do you want! Lower incomes are taxed at lower percentages. For millionaires, they are already paying a over a third of their income to Uncle Same, what do you want 1/2?:confused:

If so, move to England! :rolleyes:

i just find it disturbing that someone who makes $152,000 a year is paying the same % of taxes as someone who makes $1.52million.

[f3rr3+]

the taxation of people is absolutly rediculous... 1/3 of your money goes to uncle sam is bs... we give me money to gov. and we have little say in how its run.. moreso than other countrys but for 1/3 of your income i think you should have a hell of alot more say

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


i just find it disturbing that someone who makes $152,000 a year is paying the same % of taxes as someone who makes $1.52million.

Why?

The person making 150K is paying 50k in taxes. The one making 1.5m is paying 500k in taxes! How does that not seem right? They both are paying more then their fair share!

[Rooster]

"not to mention the top 1% of the population possesses over 50% of the total population's wealth."

Exactly as it should be. You deserve nothing of their wealth, nor does anyone else.

[Restola]

Originally posted by impostal22
i just find it disturbing that someone who makes $152,000 a year is paying the same % of taxes as someone who makes $1.52million.
I find it disturbing that someone making $15,200 a year is paying different taxes than someone making $152,000/year.

Everyone should be paying the same percentage. Zero. Or close to it.

[Kevmaster]

although, you DO have to take into account the source for this survey.....

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Rooster
"not to mention the top 1% of the population possesses over 50% of the total population's wealth."

Exactly as it should be. You deserve nothing of their wealth, nor does anyone else.

[Restola]

^ yup

I love people who think "freedom" means "freedom to take someone else's money".

[vf-xx]

Regardless of how you see our tax dollars being spent, I can't complain about it overall. Look at all the benifits that you're gaining from taxes: 1) Roadway system, 2) State Colleges, 3) k-12 education, 4) Police Force.... The list does go on.

Health care and Social Security I'm not praticularly fond of tho.

I'm for a flat tax percentage.

[Chojin Man]

Originally posted by shartley
And it bothers me that we as a nation are so quick to give aid and funding to other nations to help them take care of problems we ourselves still have to address and take care of within our own borders.

Ya thats bogus. Why does it seem that helping our poor is so low on the list.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by vf-xx
Regardless of how you see our tax dollars being spent, I can't complain about it overall. Look at all the benifits that you're gaining from taxes: 1) Roadway system, 2) State Colleges, 3) k-12 education, 4) Police Force.... The list does go on.

Funded by the states! The highway trust fund is federal money from the gas tax that goes to the states, but what you just listed is otherwise paid by state or property taxes! ;)

As for k-12 education, here in Jersey, it costs more then 1/2 of my property taxes. Plus I send my children to private schools, so I pay it twice!
:rolleyes:

[Lohman446]

Most important services you see (highway, police, K-12 education, college) are funded by the states themselves - though often enough the funding comes from the federal government out of tax dollars sent in by other states. Michigan for example is a donor state, we pay more to the federal government than we get back, New Mexico, last a new, got like $1.40 back for every $1 they sent it. This helps even out some of the disparity between the states, right or wrong.

I have to agree, I think a national sales tax is the way for the federal government to raise money (though do you realize it would have to be like 30%). I'm wrong there though, funny how I can state that and then immediatly note that, and not bother to go back to erase it. In theory a flat tax, a sales tax makes money, it would increase savings and investment especially by the top echelon of wealth. It would destroy many loopholes. But why should someone who makes 10 or 20K a year and can barely survive pay the same percentage as I do - if we force that won't we just increase the need for government help. I have no problem with people who are barely scraping by to make it (not those that buy a million dollar house and then have no money after the mortgage) to not pay taxes. The people who work hard and make little (they do exist) should not be forced by taxes to seek assistance. Let those Americans help themselves but don't tie an anchor to them.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Lohman446
Most important services you see (highway, police, K-12 education, college) are funded by the states themselves - though often enough the funding comes from the federal government out of tax dollars sent in by other states. Michigan for example is a donor state, we pay more to the federal government than we get back, New Mexico, last a new, got like $1.40 back for every $1 they sent it. This helps even out some of the disparity between the states, right or wrong.

Come to Jersey then. We are the #1 donor state in the nation. Our ineffectual senators ensure that we get less back then any other state in the nation. Right now around $0.60 for every dollar we send in, yet a hillbilly backwater state like WV gets $1.30 for every dollar. Go figure!:mad:

[Lohman446]

Hey now... i too live in a donor state... though my senator are a touch less pathetic then yours.

[Rooster]

"Ya thats bogus. Why does it seem that helping our poor is so low on the list."

Our poor generally tend not to strap C4 to their chest to blow up buses, or gather automatic weapons to make attacks on civilians. Foriegn aid is nothing more than a bribe. Its unfortunate, such situations should be delt with differently. Sufficient use of deadly force, for example.

[logamus]

i support a national sales tax. that way those of you who dont want to give money to the government dont have to. those with less money obviously spend less so they are therefore taxed less and vice versa. the added benifit is that those who do not pay taxes now, will. i believe it can be done, it just needs the support of the people.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Ya thats bogus. Why does it seem that helping our poor is so low on the list."

Our poor generally tend not to strap C4 to their chest to blow up buses, or gather automatic weapons to make attacks on civilians. Foriegn aid is nothing more than a bribe. Its unfortunate, such situations should be delt with differently. Sufficient use of deadly force, for example.


For once I have to agree with Rooster, though perhaps less directly. Foreign aid in the billions to the Taliban gained us what? We give all this equipment to Israel and then tell them don't use it. We need to decide if we support states or not, and leanr that those we don't should not get our support.

[Emily]

I've been reading this for a couple of days and there are some thing i agree with and some things i don't.

Some say it's bad that the rich pay so much in taxes. Income tax was formed so you pay a % of your income to run this country.

In whole, a flat tax would screw the tax payers that are middle income (which is the majority of americans) and the low income. Why should someone making 35,000 a year pay the same amount of taxes as someone making 1 million?

Each year that tax laws change or are redifined due to people finding loop holes or the gay areas. Usually this is the rich finding these. And this arguement over the top 5% paying 50% of the taxes doesn't seem right to me. The rich spend a lot of money to finds ways not to pay taxes. There are so many tax defered programs out there that they are using. Do you really think Bill Gates or Donald Trump pays taxes on everything they make? They don't. Their money is invested and put into programs where they dont have to pay taxes on it and they live off of interest or pay out from stocks and bonds. Lets say someone made 50 million in one year and they lived off of 500,000 that year, they will only pay taxes on the 500,000 because the rest went into tax defered programs or bought stocks and bonds, etc. Bill Gates does this. And then there are the losses that can be taken off the taxes due and credits and so much other stuff. The rich are the ones that benifit.

I agree that each person should not have to pay more to the gov't than what they get to keep. But making everyone pay the same amount hurts the middle income. The rich are not hurting in any way paying 50% or more. Believe me Bill Gates, Donald Trump or the other rich people have plenty of it and they prolly dont even miss it.

Heck if i were to have the much money, I wouldn't miss it.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by impostal22
yes, but why are the incomes from $0/year to $150,000/year taxed in separate brackets yet from $150,001/year to $1billion+ /year are taxed in the same bracket? not to mention the top 1% of the population possesses over 50% of the total population's wealth.

How much higher to you want the rates?

Flat rate. That's the only way to fly.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by impostal22


i just find it disturbing that someone who makes $152,000 a year is paying the same % of taxes as someone who makes $1.52million.

Why?

That sounds fair to me. Why shouldn't the percentages be the same? It should be that everyone past $20,000 (or so) pays the same percent (less the original 20,000). That's how I would set it up. Flat tax, starts at 20,000, exludes the first 20,000, and no additional exemptions.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by vf-xx
Regardless of how you see our tax dollars being spent, I can't complain about it overall. Look at all the benifits that you're gaining from taxes: 1) Roadway system, 2) State Colleges, 3) k-12 education, 4) Police Force.... The list does go on.

Health care and Social Security I'm not praticularly fond of tho.

I'm for a flat tax percentage.

Right, I'm all for my tax dollars for infrastructure and defense needs, and not much else.

[logamus]

emily, why is it more fair for someone who happens to make 150k to pay a higher % rate in taxes than someone who makes 30k? to me the fairer thing would be to say everyone pays x% on their income regardless of what your income is. the trick to income taxes is getting people to actually pay. like you said people put money in offshore accouts and such to avoid taxes. thats why a national sales tax would work. then it wouldnt matter how much you made, what bank you use, where you live, or even your nationality. everyone would pay tax on what they buy, even forigners on holiday would help pay. in that system it works like a charm.

[Rooster]

"I agree that each person should not have to pay more to the gov't than what they get to keep. But making everyone pay the same amount hurts the middle income. The rich are not hurting in any way paying 50% or more. Believe me Bill Gates, Donald Trump or the other rich people have plenty of it and they prolly dont even miss it."


Close the loop-holes and make the tax rate percentage based. Who are you to say who misses what? Why should someone who makes more, pay a greater pecentage? Should they pay more becuase they are smarter? Should they pay more becuase they have a better work ethic? Should they pay more becuase they didn't waste their money? Why should people be punished for success, while we reward the incompetent for failure.

[Albinonewt]

A national sales tax would not work. That tax would discourage consumption. Consumption is what makes our economy function. Bad idea to mess with that.

[Emily]

ok a flat tax. lets say 15%. lets say i make 35,000 a year and you make 100,000 a year. i would pay 5,250 in taxes, not counting deductable or credits. Now with you making 100,000, you have plenty of money to invest. so on your tax return you only are taxed on (we'll say half) 50,000, so you pay 7,500. you have make over half of what i made for the year but you are able to put money in programs that are not taxable, so you are paying 2,250 more in taxes than i am. How is this going to help the country if the majority of it's citizens are being screwed? Maybe a sales tax would work. I haven't looked into that fully at this point. but income tax is based solely on income and if you find ways to invest that income you don't have ot pay and that's what the rich are doing. On paper, the way it is suppose to work is correct in my opinion. You pay on the amount you earn with some deductions and credits but others have found ways to lower the amount they earn and that's where the problem lies. that's why the laws change all the dang time and have made filling you income taxes such a hassle. why do you think ppl hate tax season? I'm an accontant and will not do taxes. I refuse. I'll do mine and some easy one but i will not get into the mess that has been made out of it.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Emily
I agree that each person should not have to pay more to the gov't than what they get to keep. But making everyone pay the same amount hurts the middle income. The rich are not hurting in any way paying 50% or more. Believe me Bill Gates, Donald Trump or the other rich people have plenty of it and they prolly dont even miss it.

Of course they miss it. They worked hard for it. They were the best at what they do to earn that money. The so called progressive tax structures punish success and reward failure and mediocrity. That is not the recipe for a rich future.

Flat tax that exempts the povery level. That's the answer.

[Emily]

Rooster I'm not even going to waste my time on you.

[Emily]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
A national sales tax would not work. That tax would discourage consumption. Consumption is what makes our economy function. Bad idea to mess with that.

Agreed

[Emily]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Of course they miss it. They worked hard for it. They were the best at what they do to earn that money. The so called progressive tax structures punish success and reward failure and mediocrity. That is not the recipe for a rich future.

Flat tax that exempts the povery level. That's the answer.

Ok so i'm rewared with failure becasue I don't make hundred of thousands of dollars a year? Some people are best at what they do but don't get paid the big bucks for it. Some have lied, cheated and stole to get where they are. Do was call that success?

[Emily]

Newt, I have a great deal of respect for you. Convince me that a flat tax would work.

[Rooster]

"Now with you making 100,000, you have plenty of money to invest. "

Investments are taxed. Normal investments are taxed twice. 401K, IRA, et. al. are taxed when the money is taken out.

And obviously, if the money is gotten illegally, its not going to be taxed at all. So that is a completely invalid point.

[Emily]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Now with you making 100,000, you have plenty of money to invest. "

Investments are taxed. Normal investments are taxed twice. 401K, IRA, et. al. are taxed when the money is taken out.

And obviously, if the money is gotten illegally, its not going to be taxed at all. So that is a completely invalid point.

When it's taken out yes it's taxed, but there are 401K's that are not pre-taxed. so my point is valid.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Emily
ok a flat tax. lets say 15%. lets say i make 35,000 a year and you make 100,000 a year. i would pay 5,250 in taxes, not counting deductable or credits.

Yeah, but those deductions make a big difference. Since I would exempt the fist $20,000 of income you end up paying only about $2,250.

Now with you making 100,000, you have plenty of money to invest. so on your tax return you only are taxed on (we'll say half) 50,000, so you pay 7,500.

You ignoring two big things. First, the money I invest goes directly into the economy to create jobs, produce goods, and generate taxable revenues. So the government isn't losing that money, it's just getting it from someone else. And second, my investments can make money that will be taxable later (or they'll lose money in which case I no longer have the full 100,000 to be taxed on).

you have make over half of what i made for the year but you are able to put money in programs that are not taxable, so you are paying 2,250 more in taxes than i am.

In that example (using the 20,000 exemption) I pay DOUBLE your taxes AND put 142% of your gross income back into the economy.

Also, in that example I made more then double what you did. If I made half that would have been 17,500.

How is this going to help the country if the majority of it's citizens are being screwed?

Where do you think your 35,000 is coming from? It's coming from the 50,000 that I invested in the company that's paying you for your services. That's the benefit.

Maybe a sales tax would work. I haven't looked into that fully at this point. but income tax is based solely on income and if you find ways to invest that income you don't have ot pay and that's what the rich are doing.

No, a sales tax would not work. And investing money is the thing that makes our economy function. DO you have any idea what happens to the corporate structure if you take away investment?

On paper, the way it is suppose to work is correct in my opinion. You pay on the amount you earn with some deductions and credits but others have found ways to lower the amount they earn and that's where the problem lies.

And that's because of the progressive rates. Once you switch to flat tax then tax compliance issues will rapidly disappear.

that's why the laws change all the dang time and have made filling you income taxes such a hassle.

That's because the people that create the tax codes are complete morons and don't understand that the more complexity you add the worse compliance will be. Simple is better. Flat tax is better.

why do you think ppl hate tax season?

I love tax season. It pays for all my toys.

I'm an accontant and will not do taxes.

So am I. I do taxes for a living.

I refuse. I'll do mine and some easy one but i will not get into the mess that has been made out of it.

Well, it has been made into a complete disaster over the years. Every single "tax reform" just makes the system worse and worse.

I can't stress enough, Complexity bad, simplicity good.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Emily
Newt, I have a great deal of respect for you. Convince me that a flat tax would work.

Here's what makes a flat tax work, it's completely class neatral. It doesn't matter if you're a janitor or a million dollar a year broker. You pay the same percentage of your income that everyone else does (less the poverty level). What this does is as follows:

First, it makes filing taxes the easiest thing in the world. The billions of dollars a year spent on guys like me is overnight returned to tax payers.

Second, its good for compliance reasons. The reason there are so many ways to hide money from the government is because the code is so complex and there's so much incentive to try to do so. Once you take away the loop holes (by simply saying ALL income is taxed at x%, where x is a very low number) then compliance increased. There's simply no reason to risk the harsh penalties for being caught because the tax itself is less burdensome.

Third, it's neutral. It's not possible to complain about anyone's fair share when everyone pays the same share. With no more tax shelters and other fancy tricks everyone's tax burden is in direct correlation to their income.

Flat tax is absolutly the way to go. A simple and low tax structure is the most economically stimulative measure the government can take. Look at the Dow. Since the dividend tax cut the market is up to 10,500. That's an amazing jump in a short time.

[Albinonewt]

Yeah, I changed my quote, primarily due to your next post that showed that your posistion was not as intractible as I originally belived it to be. Once you showed a very profound open mindedness I honestly felt bad about taking a swing at you, so I changed it.

But, I think you posistion on investment and on taxes shows a profound misguidance on a very fundamental bedrock principle of our economy. So ask questions, and I'll try to get you over from the dark side of the force :)

And I don't do this often (ask CB), but I apologize for the shots I took in that post, which is why I changed it.

[Emily]

Thank you Newt. I deleted my reaction before you apologized. I'm not a tax accountant and never want to be. Tax Accountants are a special breed and I'm not made up of that.

[Rooster]

"When it's taken out yes it's taxed, but there are 401K's that are not pre-taxed. so my point is valid."

So you are saying my retirement fund should be taxed twice? What sense does that make? You don't pay taxes when it goes in, becuase you pay taxes on it when it comes out. Its like having taxes defered on that money for 30 years, but it still gets paid. And I shouldn't have to pay taxes twice becuase I have the forsight to save some money so I won't be a drain on the government in my old age.

[logamus]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
A national sales tax would not work. That tax would discourage consumption. Consumption is what makes our economy function. Bad idea to mess with that.

how so? state and local governments use sales tax and somehow things are still consumed.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by logamus
how so? state and local governments use sales tax and somehow things are still consumed.

A great example. Look at what happens in places with a high state or local sales tax, like New York City. Mayor Michael "The Death of New York" Boomburg has taxes on various things so high that the people of New York just don't buy them there anymore (like ciggarettes, eveyone buys them over the border or online). Taxing consumable discourages consumption. It also punishes folks of lower income, since there is no way to discrimiate on a sales tax (fo instance, on a flat tax you can exempt certain levels of income, but how do you do that at the mall?).

A national sales tax would do one of two things (possibly both). Either discourage consumption or encourage non-compliance (ordering online, from Canada, etc).

[Emily]

Originally posted by Rooster
"When it's taken out yes it's taxed, but there are 401K's that are not pre-taxed. so my point is valid."

So you are saying my retirement fund should be taxed twice? What sense does that make? You don't pay taxes when it goes in, becuase you pay taxes on it when it comes out. Its like having taxes defered on that money for 30 years, but it still gets paid. And I shouldn't have to pay taxes twice becuase I have the forsight to save some money so I won't be a drain on the government in my old age.

NO it should not be taxed twice. That is totally wrong for it to be. It should either be taxed when it comes out or as income on your tax return. I jsut so disagree with taxing it twice.

[Emily]

The Income tax program is just so screwed up, it's not funny. And we know who's all getting rich off of it....the tax accountant...lol Newt :p . Maybe Newt sould run for a position in the gov't and straighten our butts out...lol

Newt for President

[logamus]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


A great example. Look at what happens in places with a high state or local sales tax, like New York City. Mayor Michael "The Death of New York" Boomburg has taxes on various things so high that the people of New York just don't buy them there anymore (like ciggarettes, eveyone buys them over the border or online). Taxing consumable discourages consumption. It also punishes folks of lower income, since there is no way to discrimiate on a sales tax (fo instance, on a flat tax you can exempt certain levels of income, but how do you do that at the mall?).

A national sales tax would do one of two things (possibly both). Either discourage consumption or encourage non-compliance (ordering online, from Canada, etc).

well there again just as with the flat tax it cannot be an outragious amount. there are also possibilities for a poverty exemption. in texas they have the star card. the is like a food stamp atm card. there was such a problem with people selling their food stamps for pennies on the dollar just to have cash that they went to a system that was far more difficult to fraud. im sure most of the grocery stores in your neck of the woods have a shopper card where you get discounts on items you buy when you have said card. well the same could hold true here. if you are in the state welfare program you just give the checkout person your card and then your tax is waived on your purchases up to x amount. but again this is based on a tax that is not sky high to begin with. if its applied across the board i dont really think there would be much opposition to it, espically when you take into account that your paycheck wont have any of those unsightly deductions anymore.

[logamus]

i will also add that i am not against the flat tax. i just think that while the flat tax fixes a large number of problems there are still those that would slip through the cracks. supply and demand works in taxation too, the more people paying tax (supply) the lesser the taxing for those who pay (demand). flat taxes work, but how many waiters, bartenders, strip dancers actually file anything above the minimum requied anyway? the sales tax doesnt change the taxing, just how its collected.

[vf-xx]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
As for k-12 education, here in Jersey, it costs more then 1/2 of my property taxes. Plus I send my children to private schools, so I pay it twice!
:rolleyes:

Not to be rude but that's bs, it's your CHOICE to use a private school and therefore pay twice. It's your choice on where you live and therefore what public schools are available.

My family is middle income and I went to public school, but my folks moved to where they live now specifically to get into a good public school system (along with a few other reasons)

[Restola]

Originally posted by Emily
Why should someone making 35,000 a year pay the same amount of taxes as someone making 1 million?
$35,000 x 17% = $5,950
$1,000,000 x 17% = $170,000

And for a few people that seem confused, this discussion is generally about federal taxes only.

[Emily]

Originally posted by Restola

$35,000 x 17% = $5,950
$1,000,000 x 17% = $170,000

And for a few people that seem confused, this discussion is generally about federal taxes only.

well yeah, what do you think we were talking about? and i was talking about the same %.

[Kevmaster]

why shouldn't they? They're obviously paying more in monetary value, but why should it cost them even more for the same things you're getting? They're getting the same national defense, same national highways, same trade regulations, same everything. Why should person A have to pay 30% of what he makes for it when person B pays 10% of what he makes for it?

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Newt, I am surprised (and impressed) that you would advocate a flat-tax system you admit might put you out of work as a tax accountant.

I DO think the tax system needs to be simplified, to the point where the anyone can do their own taxes without the help of lawyers and accountants. I also agree that government should be streamlined, and do its best to not waste taxpayer money. And I agree that a national sales tax reduces consumerism. But I will respectfully disagree that a flat-tax income tax system is best.

I think we are looking at the tax figure X from the wrong point of view. We can't say X is fair for everyone, and go from there. The equation has to start at the other end, with "the government needs Y dollars" or else you end up in the deficit situation both our governments have run for too long. That only ends up cheating your children and grandchildren, who will see their tax dollars go to pay interest on money we spend today. But if we start at Y dollars needed by the government, we obtain tax rate X by figuring Y into Z (national taxable income). It is entirely likely that X will be a rate that seems very high to people in the lower income groups. Everyone still pays the same prices for food, fuel, utility bills, after all. $3k off my $40k hurts me more than $12k off your $100k, which hurts more than the $749.7k a baseball player pays off his $5M.

I think Marx was off base with his "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", but not far off. Being wealthier in North America doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter or work harder, but it does mean that you are benefiting more form the economic system. If you pay a little more (percentage-wise) to the political system that safeguards that economy, I think that's reasonable.

Maybe it's just because I remember my Sunday school lessons, and the parable about the poor woman and the rich man giving to the poor box.

[Rooster]

"I think Marx was off base with his "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", but not far off. Being wealthier in North America doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter or work harder, but it does mean that you are benefiting more form the economic system. If you pay a little more (percentage-wise) to the political system that safeguards that economy, I think that's reasonable."

While your system would work great in a utopia, we do not live in one, nor will we ever. Sure a person who makes more can pay more. Thats common sense. Thats why the rich drive in BMWs, and the poor drive in Kias. They can afford to pay more. Now it is obvious what benfit a more expensive car brings, and what more, it that person's own choice whether or not to purchase it. However, the benifit of paying a greater percentage of one's income to the government is not obvious, in fact, it is ludicrus. The government does not protect our economic situation, or economy works in spite of the government's inceasent medling. And whats more, the rich have no choice but to pay a higher percentage.

A flat percentage is deffinately preferable to what we have now. The percentage is based on the GDP for the previous year, and the government's budget. If the percentage gets too high, the budget must be cut. There would be a percentage break at the poverty line. Credits for children would stop at four. If you have any more children, you are are responsible for bearing the whole burden.

[impostal22]

i'm gonna make this quick cuz i have stuff to do...

the big flaw that i see with a flat percentage is that the government won't get nearly as much money as it is currently getting. the only way to ensure it gets enough money is to keep the % high enough that the upper tax bracket is paying about the same. meaning..the lower brackets are paying even more than they already are. i'm no expert, so this is what ihave come up with through just brief thought. i just wanna know if this isn't the case..what is the casE?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Emily
Some say it's bad that the rich pay so much in taxes. Income tax was formed so you pay a % of your income to run this country.

No, I think ALL of us pay too much in taxes!

In whole, a flat tax would screw the tax payers that are middle income (which is the majority of americans) and the low income. Why should someone making 35,000 a year pay the same amount of taxes as someone making 1 million?

But they wouldn't. The percentage may be the same, but sure not the dollar amount!

Each year that tax laws change or are redifined due to people finding loop holes or the gay areas. Usually this is the rich finding these.

That is why we have the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Once you reach a certain level of income, you pretty much get no deductions!

And this arguement over the top 5% paying 50% of the taxes doesn't seem right to me. The rich spend a lot of money to finds ways not to pay taxes. There are so many tax defered programs out there that they are using. Do you really think Bill Gates or Donald Trump pays taxes on everything they make? They don't. Their money is invested and put into programs where they dont have to pay taxes on it and they live off of interest or pay out from stocks and bonds. Lets say someone made 50 million in one year and they lived off of 500,000 that year, they will only pay taxes on the 500,000 because the rest went into tax defered programs or bought stocks and bonds, etc. Bill Gates does this. And then there are the losses that can be taken off the taxes due and credits and so much other stuff. The rich are the ones that benifit.

You are wrong. If you earn, $50m you will pay tax on it unless it is deferred compensation. If deferred, you will still pay taxes on it sooner or later, it is not tax free. I would bet Bill Gates pays more in taxes per year then you and I will make in a lifetime.

I agree that each person should not have to pay more to the gov't than what they get to keep. But making everyone pay the same amount hurts the middle income. The rich are not hurting in any way paying 50% or more. Believe me Bill Gates, Donald Trump or the other rich people have plenty of it and they prolly dont even miss it.

You are very wrong here. You can only tax people so far. Yes Bill Gates makes a ton of money. How many people does he employ? How many people earn a living in some way shape or form off of his back? Disincent him to work hard with confiscatory taxes and maybe not all those people will be working.

As for them having plenty, that is a myth. These people don't sit around with piles of money. It is usually tied up in illiquid investments.

Finally, make the taxes too high and guess what, they will leave! Prime example. John Kent Cooke, son of Jack Kent Cooke earned $400m on the sale of the Washington Redskins. His family had owned the team for decades! Due to the capital gains tax at the time, Mr. Cooke renounced his US Citizenship and became a citizen of the Bahamas. Because of wanting too much, Uncle Sam saw not one penny of the $400m! Mr. Cooke splits his time between his virginia estate and Bahamian home! Enough of the wealthy do this, and we are all screwed.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Emily


When it's taken out yes it's taxed, but there are 401K's that are not pre-taxed. so my point is valid.

The tax is still paid later. Also the 401K is capped by law at 16% of your salary, i.e. earned income. There is also a dollar cap established by law to prevent just what you mentioned.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by Rooster
"I think Marx was off base with his "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", but not far off. Being wealthier in North America doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter or work harder, but it does mean that you are benefiting more form the economic system. If you pay a little more (percentage-wise) to the political system that safeguards that economy, I think that's reasonable."

While your system would work great in a utopia, we do not live in one, nor will we ever. Sure a person who makes more can pay more. Thats common sense. Thats why the rich drive in BMWs, and the poor drive in Kias. They can afford to pay more. Now it is obvious what benfit a more expensive car brings, and what more, it that person's own choice whether or not to purchase it. However, the benifit of paying a greater percentage of one's income to the government is not obvious, in fact, it is ludicrus. The government does not protect our economic situation, or economy works in spite of the government's inceasent medling. And whats more, the rich have no choice but to pay a higher percentage.


I never said it was a 'benefit' to pay more to the government. I said that the wealthy enjoy a greater benefit from the way our society is structured, economically and politically. ALL governments interfere in the economies of their countries. In North America, our economies work reasonably well because our governments do relatively little meddling, not "in spite of their incessant meddling". And our governments behave that way not because they are swell guys, or geniuses, but because monied individuals and corporations have considerable influence with our politicians.

On 1DE's original topic:

The sad truth is that although our poor are much better off materially than those in any other country, most of them are relatively worse off than their parents were. The dollars don't go as far as they used to, and over the past two decades, in both our countries, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. And the middle class is shrinking.

[Rooster]

"ALL governments interfere in the economies of their countries. In North America, our economies work reasonably well because our governments do relatively little meddling, not "in spite of their incessant meddling". And our governments behave that way not because they are swell guys, or geniuses, but because monied individuals and corporations have considerable influence with our politicians."

This is an unfortunate bit of propoganda. One of the chief reasons for our business cycle always being out of whack is the minimum wage law. Becuase companies can not pay people less in lean times, they are forced to lay people off. They produces less. Their capital is reduced, and we go into a ressesion. (Overly simplified for typing ease). This lag time is what is cuasing the business cycle, amoung other government controls. A free market tends to grow linearly, not in a fluctuating pattern. We have grown used to the patern becuase of the government's interferance. Artificial controls throttle the economy, and keep businesses from growing (or dying) as they should.