Taxes 10% across@the board +/-

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Just because someone makes more shouldn't me they should pay a higher percentage.

why? Are you saying that someone who makes $20,000 and pays $2,000 in tax (as in this scenario) and therefore has $18,000 in income to spend on everything they need all year is the equivalent of someone who makes $200 million and pays $20 million in taxes which leaves them with a paltry $180 million for diapers and the water bill? Now maybe Im a bit naive as to the financial needs of our obscenely rich citizenry but Im guessing the person with the $18,000 kinda has more to worry about when it comes to taxes. But please correct me if Im wrong.

And as has been mentioned - under ALL the flat tax plans - the poor pay ZERO. So I don't know how that is going to affect the poor.

Jersey read the title. He said 10% across the board in this scenario. What are you babbling about?

So what do you do to help these people out? This seems to be a very similar argument I hear liberal hollywood people giving as they stand on stage in million dollar diamonds after they just got out of a chauffeur driven stretch limo from their multi-million dollar home to discuss their movie they just got multi-million dollars to make.

well take it up with the multi millionaires then. Im far from that. And what I propose to help “these people” out is to tax the rich obviously. Since I cant give them millions myself I can at least stand out of the crowd and say hey! You rich boogers with the yachts and the country clubs! Fork some over for your fellow man! There my humanitarian duty is done for the day.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
why? Are you saying that someone who makes $20,000 and pays $2,000 in tax (as in this scenario) and therefore has $18,000 in income to spend on everything they need all year is the equivalent of someone who makes $200 million and pays $20 million in taxes which leaves them with a paltry $180 million for diapers and the water bill? Now maybe Im a bit naive as to the financial needs of our obscenely rich citizenry but Im guessing the person with the $18,000 kinda has more to worry about when it comes to taxes. But please correct me if Im wrong.

That's not what I'm saying - but do you propose GIVING them 20 million dollars too? Why should I pay more of a percentage just because I make more? How is THAT fair? I worked for my money and if I make my webapp program a success - I hope I do make millions. Whether I donate any money is my business and no one elses - and I want to be the one to choose what I do with MY money. Who are you to judge what others have - I should have a right to work and get what I can - even if it is $200 million.

Jersey read the title. He said 10% across the board in this scenario. What are you babbling about?

If you look it's "Taxes 10% across@the board +/-" It doesn't say anything that 10% is the only percentage to be discussed - so maybe you should have read the thread title closer. Also - others were discussing various percentages and the ACTUAL proposals for a flat tax.

well take it up with the multi millionaires then. Im far from that. And what I propose to help “these people” out is to tax the rich obviously. Since I cant give them millions myself I can at least stand out of the crowd and say hey! You rich boogers with the yachts and the country clubs! Fork some over for your fellow man! There my humanitarian duty is done for the day.

Who are YOU to give other's money away? Did you work for it? is it your money? When you make millions then you live on $30,000 and give all the rest to charity then you can pat yourself on the back. Giving away OTHERS money takes no sacrifice on your part so you would have no reason to be proud.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
"in a position"? Dude, I worked my @$$ off for that "position", and so can anyone else in this country, if they sacrifice enough for it, no matter where or to whom you are born.

pardon me for being straight forward but that’s a pretty naïve position to take. Not EVERYONE can do whatever they want in this country or in this world. If that was true the schools in this country couldn’t handle the capacity they would have to deal with. And our proud capitalist financial system would crumble when everyone was making enough to live the way they always wanted to. Our economy is based on a small rich, a large middle class and a large lower class. If everyone is upper class the inflasionary safe guards would snap like a rubber band pulled too tight.

maybe enough left over for some yummmy ramen noodles (10 for $1) for that once a day meal I indulged in.

I was a mac and cheese guy myself. Usually at about 3 in the morning after stumbling home. We ate that stuff by the crate.

DONT MAKE THIS INTO A LABOR VERSES MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION, IT'S NOT! IT'S ABOUT TAXES!

where did I say anything about labor versus management?

When I was busting my @$$ through college, it would have been nice not to have had to pay any taxes at all.

you shouldn’t have. You were a student working strictly to support your education. That’s a write off isn’t it? Were you making a ton of money or something?

But if someone is making $360,000 and not paying the same percentage as me... making FAR FAR less than that... yeah, I got a problem with that!!!

wait wait… but this isn’t what you were saying before. You were saying the rich shouldn’t HAVE to pay a higher percentage then you. Or did I misinterpret what you said ruinel?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
pardon me for being straight forward but that’s a pretty naïve position to take. Not EVERYONE can do whatever they want in this country or in this world. If that was true the schools in this country couldn’t handle the capacity they would have to deal with. And our proud capitalist financial system would crumble when everyone was making enough to live the way they always wanted to. Our economy is based on a small rich, a large middle class and a large lower class. If everyone is upper class the inflasionary safe guards would snap like a rubber band pulled too tight.

That is true - but what most people want is for everyone to be middle class - or for there to be no poor. Having no poor is an impossibilty. It's not right to steal from the rich and give to the poor just because you think they shouldn't have what they have.

This society has become more give me give me give me. Too many people have the "what is yours I want" attitude in this country. The Constitution only guarantees the pursuit of happiness not whatever your neighbor has.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
pardon me for being straight forward but that’s a pretty naïve position to take. Not EVERYONE can do whatever they want in this country or in this world....

Are we discussing the entire world being taxed at 10%? Sorry, I didn't realize that. My apologies then. I withdraw my comment in that case. Because I assumed it would be ONE country taxing it's citizens, not the entire world.

I personally don't see the entire world's population agreeing to be taxed by one government body and having those taxes used for the entire world's needs.

I don't see that believing that citizens of the USA have the ability to go to college as naive at all. In fact, it might not be the college of their choice, but they CAN go to college. They might have to sacrifice, like I did, but they can get a higher education.

I was a mac and cheese guy myself. Usually at about 3 in the morning after stumbling home. We ate that stuff by the crate.

Wow, you lived an extravagant lifestyle.

where did I say anything about labor versus management?

it wasn't addressed to you.

you shouldn’t have. You were a student working strictly to support your education. That’s a write off isn’t it? Were you making a ton of money or something?

Not a write off to my knowledge. I didn't make but minimum wage, occasionally slightly higher. I still paid taxes out of my paycheck.

wait wait… but this isn’t what you were saying before. You were saying the rich shouldn’t HAVE to pay a higher percentage then you. Or did I misinterpret what you said ruinel?

where did I say that? I said I don't want to pay a higher percentage than them. I don't mind paying the same, I just don't want to pay MORE. They have the ability to buy things and take trips and write them off, because they have more disposable income. Why should they be allowed to write that off?

Yes, I said in the beginning that everyone should pay a flat rate. But I agree that there should be a minimum income that people should not be taxed if they make this or below. That way they can buy their diapers, etc.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
... If that was true the schools in this country couldn’t handle the capacity they would have to deal with....

Oh, one more thing about this. Not everyone has the ability to get into school. They have to make good grades, they have to pass tests, they have to pass high school. Not only that, but I saw a lot of fellow college students drop out of college. Why? Their parents paid for their education, they didn't need to work like I did. It was because they didn't have the motivation to study. So, even if they get in, and have that education paid for, they might not be able to stay in. That's true for anyone regardless of their socioeconomic background, color, religion, etc.

[afro-elf]

Ok, since I started this thread maybe I should clear things up.

I was speaking SOLEY of America.

The 10% was just a figure I threw out there.

I title could have been what is a better/fair way to pay taxes.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. It was the discussion that ensued that assisted me in seeing the problem with my question.

Is it fair to taxes someone because they make more?

[GrayMouser]

R. Glenn Hubbard wants a flat, or at least flatter, tax system than the one we've got now. But according to the Jan. 21 New York Times, we already have a flat tax. The relevant data can be found in a piece by Times reporter Daniel Altman. The story's main thrust is that dividends aren't the only thing in our economy to get taxed twice and that most other double taxation is more regressive. That's an excellent point, but Chatterbox is more interested in an accompanying chart that (drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditures Survey) attempts to tally up all taxes paid at the federal, state, and local levels. As Chatterbox has observed many times, the progressivity of the income tax is reversed somewhat by the regressive payroll tax, and even more so by regressive state and local taxes—so much so that, as Chatterbox pointed out earlier, "the [overall] tax bite is probably higher for many poor people, percentagewise, than it is for the rich." Now the Times has provided a more precise accounting that shows that those in the bottom quintile (people earning on average $7,946) pay almost exactly the same percentage of their income in taxes as people in the top quintile (people earning on average $116,666). The bottom fifth pays 18 percent, the top fifth pays 19 percent, and the three groups in between pay between 14 percent and 17 percent—which is to say, roughly the same. Obviously there's some individual variation, but on average Americans pay approximately 17 percent of their income in taxes, no matter what income they earn.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2077294/

Here's the chart

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...UBLE.chart.jpg

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Maybe because you are too stupid.

Ruinel is not stupid!

YOU, however, are in a snarky mood! I hope you feel better soon (I read your vent)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
http://slate.msn.com/id/2077294/

Here's the chart

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...UBLE.chart.jpg

Wow - I wish they could tell me how, because I don't pay just 17% in taxes.

Also - I question that - because in oregon - income tax is 8.5% with a 0% sales tax, in Washington State - it is 0% with a 8.5% sales tax. Indiana income tax is 3.5% with 5% sales tax. NJ has a graduated income tax between 3.5% and 6.5% with a 6% sales tax.

[Cirdan]

Changing the federal tax rate wouldn't have the impact it once did. Much of the cost of government has been shifted to state and local jurisdictions. If you combine the average Social Security, Medicare, State, Sales, and property taxes as well as various fees for telephone, etc it is far more than the federal tax.

Putting a cap on deductions would be fairer. The mortgage interest deduction was intended to help people get into a home, not to subsidize 10 million dollar homes. Increasing the personal deduction would be another way of leveling the playing field. If you assume it takes a certain income level to exist, then taxes should not impact that subsistence level. This avoids the "soak the rich" even though they pay more because everyone's basic nereds are unfettered and the rest is taxed at the same rate.

It would require a concetered effort though all levels of government so that one jurisdiction couldn't play against another. It would never happen, of course.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Ok, since I started this thread maybe I should clear things up.

I was speaking SOLEY of America.

The 10% was just a figure I threw out there.

I title could have been what is a better/fair way to pay taxes.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. It was the discussion that ensued that assisted me in seeing the problem with my question.

Is it fair to taxes someone because they make more?

No problem, AE.
Do I think it is fair to tax someone because they make more? yes and no.
It depends.
If it's because Citizen A makes below poverty and Citizen B makes above poverty, yes, it's fair. Why? Because the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc. is about the same for Citizen A as for Citizen B. However, because Citizen A has less income than Citizen B to pay for the necesities of life (food, shelter, clothing) then it seems fair to lessen the tax burden (if not eliminate it because Citizen A is below the poverty level).

HOWEVER.....
If we are talking about Citizen B and Citizen C, both of which are above the poverty level, then I say YES, they should be taxed the same. Right now, as I've already stated, there are many tax shelters which the Average Joe Citizen can not take advantage of, because of less income than Citizen C. I'm Average Joe Citizen. I can't take a trip to Jamaca and write it off as a conference for business, for my taxes. I don't see why Citizen C should get those advantages over Citizen B.

On the other hand, my step-father (who is SKILLED LABOR and works a physically demanding job) struggles with the taxes every year (actually his accountant does). If he makes too much, he's taxed at a higher rate, literally wiping away the hard earned money that he toiled for. I don't see that as fair either.

A flat tax with no or little deductions seems a fairer way to tax the citizens.

[brownjenkins]

i'm all for simplication too

unfortunately, in the u.s. these days the leaders are the rich for the most part (or they have been elected through money from the rich)... they have everything to gain by keeping the tax code complicated

Is it fair to taxes someone because they make more?

fair is a matter of opinion... however, i do think that it is in the self-interest of the rich to eliminate poverty, or near poverty (those that have to work 60+ hours a week to get along)... ultimately this means that those who are rich have to give more

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel

On the other hand, my step-father (who is SKILLED LABOR and works a physically demanding job) struggles with the taxes every year (actually his accountant does). If he makes too much, he's taxed at a higher rate, literally wiping away the hard earned money that he toiled for. I don't see that as fair either.

A flat tax with no or little deductions seems a fairer way to tax the citizens.

Ruinel - that doesn't sound quite right about your stepfather... when you're moved up to a higher tax bracket, only the money you make above that level is subject to a higher tax. That's deceptive on a particular paycheck that carries overtime, because for THAT CHECK, you're taxed as though you earn that amount for the entire year... it's all made up at tax time when you get your refund though (our nice little zero percent interest savings account held by the US government - at least zero percent one way - loads of penalties the other way! ).

Also Ruinel, check out what I wrote on P. 1 about home-owner deductions and see what you think. Are you a home-owner now? Once you get there, you get a lot more sympathetic. It may greatly increase your net worth on paper, but you FEEL a lot poorer - you have a constricted cash flow and have a big debt piled on your shoulders, with interest accruing each month! (while your *new home* is continually in need of more work in some place or another!)

Say - do you guys do your own taxes? I'd highly recommend it. For one, it clues you in to what steps you can take for legitimately reducing your own tax burden in future years. For another... when you go to a professional preparer, they like to really cut corners and squeeze out questionable deductions - because that lowers customers' taxes and keeps people coming back. HOWEVER, if the IRS comes around, the "professional" preparer has NO RESPONSIBILITY. YOU, as the tax-paying citizen bear full responsibility for the deductions you claim.

Well... this is my first time "quoting"... hope it worked!

*crosses fingers*

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Oh come on, don't take away my livelihood. It's so fun messing with Ruinel. *swats at Ruey whilst Valandil isn't looking*

I SAW that!!!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Ruinel - that doesn't sound quite right about your stepfather...

It's just the way it is for him. He works by contract and if the job is for 6 or 7 days a week, then he gets taxed as though that's what he makes all the time. I don't think he gets a lot of it back at the end of the year, if at all.

Also Ruinel, check out what I wrote on P. 1 about home-owner deductions and see what you think. Are you a home-owner now? Once you get there, you get a lot more sympathetic.

yes, I own a house. And yes, I take those deductions each year. I actually talked a friend into buying a townhome a year ago instead of renting an apartment.

But even if you aren't getting a deduction, a house is like an investment. Each month you pay the mortgage, instead of pay someone rent. And when you choose to sell that house, unless the market plummets, you should gain a profit.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
But even if you aren't getting a deduction, a house is like an investment. Each month you pay the mortgage, instead of pay someone rent. And when you choose to sell that house, unless the market plummets, you should gain a profit.

Yes, but initially, in this market around here anyway, you'll be paying more in principle+interest+escrow+whatever than you are in rent... and probably just pouring interest money into a hole, instead of rent money. So yes... it's generally a good investment long-term (unless the market goes south once you buy - always a chance) - but there's still a bit of a short-term crunch the first several years.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Yes, but initially, in this market around here anyway, you'll be paying more in principle+interest+escrow+whatever than you are in rent... and probably just pouring interest money into a hole, instead of rent money. So yes... it's generally a good investment long-term (unless the market goes south once you buy - always a chance) - but there's still a bit of a short-term crunch the first several years.

oops, I think we just spammed this thread.