namelesstavern.net

I'm all for a flat tax. Get everyone to pay 10% of income and be done

The problem with a flat tax is that in some ways it penalizes the people with the least income. Someone who makes 20,000 a year right now won't pay any income tax at all. Make it a flat tax, and suddenly he is out 2,000 a year. For someone that low on the economic scale, 2k is a HUGE loss. For someone who makes 1mil a year, they might not even notice 100k.

I am all for a more simplified tax structure, but I think abandoning the progressive style of tax tiers we have now puts an unfair burden on poor people. I think we should just wipe out most of the tax code, and tax all income, regardless of source equally. Working, capital gains, investment income, everything. Have a VERY small set of things you can do to get deductions, like giving to charitable organizations, and a few other items to incentivize things we as a society think are useful goals, like home ownership, having children and families, etc. You could write such a code on 1 piece of paper, everyone could understand it, and there wouldn't be any loopholes that allow the rich to weasel out of paying their share too.

-Arlos

I used to be for a flat tax, but I realized it hurts the poor more than anyone else.

A fair tiered scaling tax is properly better. If you make under 20k a year, you're not taxed. If you make under 30k, 5%. Under 40k, 8%. 40 and over 10%. No loopholes though, no deductions and everyone pays their share.

I'd be for that.

That's fairly close to a flat tax and shows its allure. However, since everyone is paying FICA, Medicaid, etc and even poor people are paying that they'll probably end up paying less. We need to get rid of the overhead and just use a simple 10% for everyone. No deductions, no loopholes, and everyone has skin in the game. I guarantee that'll hit the top 10% far more than the poor. Our current tax system really is terrible, since so many people pay far too much or too little due to the overt complexity. There's no way we'll ever fix it, though. There's a reason almost every congressman is wealthy, even those 'for the poor' types who wouldn't know how to create a job or balance a budget if it smacked them in the forehead. Keep food stamps. Keep other government programs for the poor, but get rid of the IRS and institute a flat tax. The world would immediately be a better place since we'd get rid of political games and IRS imprisonment for a system and organization that is everything that is wrong with our government.

The bigger problem is getting control of government programs and it's appetite for spending. Good luck with that, as people see situations like California where they've spent 100s of billions and have 2 years of success based on 40+% of that from tax returns from capital gains due to the Fed inflating the stock market by pumping money and declare tax and spend progressive policies the answer to everything.

What we really need is a balanced budget amendment at the Federal level. The fact we spend a trillion more than we make every year is not sustainable.

it all makes my head hurt ><

Gaazy wrote:it all makes my head hurt ><

Take some painkillers

yikes

Arlos wrote:The problem with a flat tax is that in some ways it penalizes the people with the least income. Someone who makes 20,000 a year right now won't pay any income tax at all. Make it a flat tax, and suddenly he is out 2,000 a year. For someone that low on the economic scale, 2k is a HUGE loss.

-Arlos

It's not hard to compensate for that, by making the first 10 to 20k earned exempt from Tax for everyone. But really I don't think that losing 100k out of 1 mil earned is any easier to swallow than 1k out of 10k earned.

Ganzo wrote:But really I don't think that losing 100k out of 1 mil earned is any easier to swallow than 1k out of 10k earned.

uhh it absolutely is

Kaemon wrote:I used to be for a flat tax, but I realized it hurts the poor more than anyone else.

A fair tiered scaling tax is properly better. If you make under 20k a year, you're not taxed. If you make under 30k, 5%. Under 40k, 8%. 40 and over 10%. No loopholes though, no deductions and everyone pays their share.

I'd be for that.

And so... for those of us with a 6-figure income, we get taxed out the ass? Is that fair? So all our lives (growing up), it kept getting pounded into our heads by our parents, our teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, the GOVERNMENT, etc etc etc that "You can be anything you want to be, and make as much money as you want to make!!!" and then when the few of us who actually took those words of encouragement seriously, and became successful through hard work, dedication, perseverance, etc and made that "American Dream" come true for ourselves... now the government says, "Hey fuck you. Give us more of your hard-earned money."

I will repeat what I have said before:

Look at the history of the income tax in the entirety of US history. It has *ALWAYS* been a progressive tax, with those making more paying a higher percentage of their income. In the 50s under Eisenhower, in the 80s under Reagan, in the roaring 20s, ALL of it.

Back in the 50s, the absolute top tax bracket hit over *NINTY* percent. That's right, for every 100 dollars you earned, you gave 90 cents of it to the government. Even under Reagan in his first term, the top rate was over 50%.

Given that, to claim that now the better off are somehow inordinately or extraordinarily burdened (with what, a 38% max rate?) by the current tax structure is absolutely laughable.

The "really" better off do not pay almost any taxes, unless they are Wesley Snipes level of moron. That is the problem with our tax system, in that it falls on the middle class to pay for everything, pushing those with decent incomes down to the point where they aren't that much better than those on the dole. If you take 10% of gross off the top for everyone then the wealthy actually will pay taxes, and the middle class might have a chance of remaining that way, instead of the current system which is pushing everyone towards poverty.

The other problem is every recovery since World War II has occurred with a larger and larger proportion of debt to income for government spending. It's not sustainable. We are spending a trillion more than we are earning. It's a ticking time bomb. We need to raise more revenue, but we also need to take a hatchet to many federal departments, jobs, and especially entitlements to get this under control. The problem is it's political suicide so we'll continue to spend trillions we don't have every year until our country implodes on debt and we eventually go the way of Greece.

This is from 2012!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-de ... nder-bush/

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Arlos wrote:I will repeat what I have said before:

Look at the history of the income tax in the entirety of US history. It has *ALWAYS* been a progressive tax, with those making more paying a higher percentage of their income. In the 50s under Eisenhower, in the 80s under Reagan, in the roaring 20s, ALL of it.

Back in the 50s, the absolute top tax bracket hit over *NINTY* percent. That's right, for every 100 dollars you earned, you gave 90 cents of it to the government. Even under Reagan in his first term, the top rate was over 50%.

Given that, to claim that now the better off are somehow inordinately or extraordinarily burdened (with what, a 38% max rate?) by the current tax structure is absolutely laughable.

I know that, and not arguing it. We just need a simplified income tax code that doesn't fuck any one socioeconomic class up the ass.

Narrock wrote:

Arlos wrote:I will repeat what I have said before:

Look at the history of the income tax in the entirety of US history. It has *ALWAYS* been a progressive tax, with those making more paying a higher percentage of their income. In the 50s under Eisenhower, in the 80s under Reagan, in the roaring 20s, ALL of it.

Back in the 50s, the absolute top tax bracket hit over *NINTY* percent. That's right, for every 100 dollars you earned, you gave 90 cents of it to the government. Even under Reagan in his first term, the top rate was over 50%.

Given that, to claim that now the better off are somehow inordinately or extraordinarily burdened (with what, a 38% max rate?) by the current tax structure is absolutely laughable.

I know that, and not arguing it. We just need a simplified income tax code that doesn't fuck any one socioeconomic class up the ass.

I'm all for a simplified income tax code. Absolutely, no question, period, end of statement. That's why I want to take our current tiered tax structure, and just get rid of all of the complications.

First, treat *ALL* income the same. Dividend, salary, trust fund, etc. Everyone is taxed the same, whether they're a janitor or hedge fund manager.

Second, allow a few, specific deductions for things the country wants to promote: mortgage interest for 1 home. (if you can afford 2, you don't need the tax break on the 2nd.) Charitable donations. Children. etc.

Lastly, since we're now taking in a lot more revenue, that extra revenue has to go first to balancing the budget (without allowing it to expand vastly before balancing it), and then second to paying down our overall debt total. I suspect even the GOP could get behind allowing extra tax revenues if that money is specifically earmarked to fixing our debt problem. Then, once the debt is down to a reasonable level, say < 1-2x our yearly GDP, then we drop rates to where the budget is still balanced.


As far as current rates go, I don't even begin to see rich people being taxed at 38/39% as being "fucked up the ass" at all. Not when rich people were still rich and prosperous when the tax rates were 50% or even 90%. There were still rich people from the 50s to the 80s, right? Double this because, as Lyion noted, most of the TRULY rich aren't paying anywhere near that. See Warren Buffet's comments about him having a lower tax burden than his secretary. That's just wrong.

-Arlos