The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Woobie]

No, I think your 46% is off a bit. Besides even if you get a refund that doesn’t mean Uncle Sam didn’t keep some. In fact even if you get back what you paid in Uncle Sam prevented you from earning interest on that sum. But as I said just because you get a refund doesn’t mean Uncle Sam didn’t retain a portion.

Hey, by everything I’ve heard I would be in favor of some of the other means of collecting taxes. But at some point a some have said and it’s way over due our spending has to be curtailed or eliminated in some cases. I’m all for tax reform, I just don’t see reasonable or actually any tax reform taking place, especially now.

Most recent I could find was for 2015. Just over 45% pay no federal income tax. It's been over 46% a couple of times in the last 10 years. About 40% pay a negative federal income tax.

https://secure.marke****ch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

^^^Link^^^


edit: lol, that filtered portion of the link is "market watch" without a space

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't like the idea a flat tax, unless it curtails govt spending (it won't).... a flat tax would have to by quite high in order to be worth implementing it... affecting the poorest Americans in a very negative way. I favor a consumption tax, on all things except food.

 

[Woobie]

I don't like the idea a flat tax, unless it curtails govt spending (it won't).... a flat tax would have to by quite high in order to be worth implementing it... affecting the poorest Americans in a very negative way. I favor a consumption tax, on all things except food.

A consumption tax is the most moral option. But the flat tax is much more moral than what we have. All we have is codified classism effectively denying a small portion of our citizens equal treatment under the law.

I think you and I can agree there is a lot of ways that small groups of our population are denied equal treatment under the law, either institutionally or culturally. I'm for slaying or at least wounding those dragons whenever we get the chance.

 

[indiucky]

I favor a consumption tax, on all things except food, Zima, and sequined thongs.

FIFY Kut

 

[Expat]

As long as we all agree with, from each according to his means, to each according to his needs...

 

[Tombs]

I don't like the idea a flat tax, unless it curtails govt spending (it won't).... a flat tax would have to by quite high in order to be worth implementing it... affecting the poorest Americans in a very negative way. I favor a consumption tax, on all things except food.

I think all of these tax systems fall off into ideological wonderland, including our current system.

A modestly progressive exponential tax system would be the most optimal. Brackets are retarded and exploitable.

A simple mathematic equation would tell you your taxes at your household income level without any guess work. It'd maintain very low to non-existent taxes on the poorest, gradually raising. If you're making $10,000 an hour, you're probably banking or investing the majority of your money in stocks since you can't possibly spend it all. Not like getting hit a little harder than the middle class is going to break you.

Of course a tax system might not be the best way to handle taxes on the rich, you don't get rich by being stupid, taxing wall street would be a much better way to manage that.

 

[Expat]

A consumption tax is the most moral option. But the flat tax is much more moral than what we have. All we have is codified classism effectively denying a small portion of our citizens equal treatment under the law.

I think you and I can agree there is a lot of ways that small groups of our population are denied equal treatment under the law, either institutionally or culturally. I'm for slaying or at least wounding those dragons whenever we get the chance.

But have you seen how the political masters want to implement the consumption based taxes, sending large rebates ahead of time to people based upon their income. So it is still a big redistribution of wealth scheme.

 

[indiucky]

As long as we all agree with, from each according to his means, to each according to his needs...

 

[Expat]

There he goes, Dennying me again...

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Just another day....someone has been sharpening their hooks.

 

[CindyE]

I think the bottom 46% pay zero income tax. Most actually earn money on tax day.

Your last sentence is the exact explanation of why any tax cut is labeled a "tax cut for the wealthy that doesn't help the low income". How can a tax cut help those who don't pay?

the only fair way to go is tax consumption. Keep what you earn and pay a sales tax on your purchases. Wealthy spend a lot more than the poor. Wonderful system.

I have always wanted consumption tax. It makes a lot more sense....oh, wait., that means it won't ever happen!

 

[Woobie]

But have you seen how the political masters want to implement the consumption based taxes, sending large rebates ahead of time to people based upon their income. So it is still a big redistribution of wealth scheme.

Don't blame the immorality of those who implement upon the merit of what is being implemented. Just keep slaying dragons. Or do nothing and wish there weren't so many dragons.

 

[Woobie]

I think all of these tax systems fall off into ideological wonderland, including our current system.

A modestly progressive exponential tax system would be the most optimal. Brackets are retarded and exploitable.

A simple mathematic equation would tell you your taxes at your household income level without any guess work. It'd maintain very low to non-existent taxes on the poorest, gradually raising. If you're making $10,000 an hour, you're probably banking or investing the majority of your money in stocks since you can't possibly spend it all. Not like getting hit a little harder than the middle class is going to break you.

Of course a tax system might not be the best way to handle taxes on the rich, you don't get rich by being stupid, taxing wall street would be a much better way to manage that.

Yes, Wall Street, that great pit of debauchery where the energy of humble minions is gobbled up by the great monsters of wealth.

I know they are everyone's favorite boogeyman, but how exactly would you go about taxing this one place in America?

 

[jamil]

How about fair share, and no I don’t mean going as far as redistributiong wealth. But I do think there is such a thing as “fair share” and that does mean those with more should pay a bit more. Just not so much that it discouraginges working hard to get ahead or paying so much that others don’t have too.

What is a fair share?

If the tax rate is 10% flat rate, and a person makes 100K, and pays 10K in taxes, and another person makes 1M and pays 100K in taxes, didn't the person who paid 100K in taxes pay more tax than the person who paid 10K?

If that's not "fair" enough more taxes paid, please do provide the exact formula for determining what fair is.

 

[printcraft]

What is a fair share?

What the benevolent government decides.

 

[Woobie]

What the benevolent government decides.

Da, comrade

 

[hoosierdoc]

on all things except food.

did you read the FairTax book? The proposal is to tax everything. If you start making carve outs then you get back to where we are today. They wanted to give a pre-bate for poverty level spending to every household monthly to reimburse for taxes paid on essentials such as food.

 

[HoughMade]

No, I think your 46% is off a bit. Besides even if you get a refund that doesn’t mean Uncle Sam didn’t keep some...

Google "Earned Income Tax Credit" then report back to the class.

Top 50% of taxpayers pay 97.3% of taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2.7%.
The top 1% pays 39.5% of taxes while the bottom 90% pays 29.1%
Doc was wrong about 46% paying no income tax. Shame on him. It is 45.3%.

 

[Tombs]

Yes, Wall Street, that great pit of debauchery where the energy of humble minions is gobbled up by the great monsters of wealth.

I know they are everyone's favorite boogeyman, but how exactly would you go about taxing this one place in America?

I'm not an economist, I have no idea how you would practically tax that. That's for people with degrees to figure out.

I mean in an ideal world I'd have 0% effective corporate/business tax rates, with sizable personal income taxes and some method of taxing speculation.

I'd like to see this country operate economically in a similar manner to Lichtenstein, they're the corporate capital of the world.

 

[Alpo]

Any productive discussion of income tax really needs to take into account all of the taxes an individual pays. For example, a person making $20 an hour may not pay federal income tax, but he will pay social security taxes and let's not forget his employer share of social security is "baked into" the wages the employer is paying him. Add in, unemployment insurance, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (whether he's a "homeowner" or renter), etc etc., and you might stop accusing that "46% er" or paying no taxes. He pays a crap load of taxes!

The top earner stops paying those social security taxes at $127, 200, so that's a tax "break" of 15%.

No one earning wages within our system gets away without paying taxes.