Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by The_Major, Apr 6, 2018.
The effective tax rate at 22% level is much lower than 22%.
I'm aware. I know my numbers.
So for a flat tax, couldn’t we take the total gross income of the country, compare it to our tax revenue, and see what that percentage is?
Example: in 2015, total salary was $15.5 trillion (https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/#0). Federal revenues were $3.8 trillion (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/).
So that’s 24.5%, but then wouldn’t you subtract out corporate income taxes since that isn’t individual? Also don’t know how you’d handle payroll since it says paid jointly.
If you just looked at individual taxes, you’re at 9.5%. Add in payroll and it’s 16.1%
Doesn’t seem that far off to me, especially if it came with actual spending cuts
This is obviously the roughest estimate you can do. I put about 5 minutes of research into that
How are you going to have lower taxes if we are lowering the 37% bracket too? Yours would have to go up, along with a lot of folks.
I said I shouldn't waste my time with you and I went against my better judgment. Forget it.
Before you go...
You advocate a flat tax. We have a progressive tax system now...to flatten you have to raise taxes on the bottom and middle and lower than on the top. If you don't even understand what you are advocating for, perhaps you should reconsider.
Maybe we should flip sides. Because a flat tax system raises your taxes and lowers mine.
I know exactly what I am advocating for. You seem to think you know my numbers but don't understand simplistic things, which is par for the course. You're not worth getting my blood pressure up over trying to teach you. You can continue being stubborn and own up to your reputation.
You'd have to factor in the budget deficit to obtain the tax revenue needed for a balanced budget. For example, let's say we had $3.8 trillion in federal revenue which resulted in a deficit of $1 trillion so we'd need $4.8 trillion of revenue t balance the budget, assuming spending remains the same.
Also, remember the payroll tax isn't imposed on all sources of income, only wages and self employment income, and employers match the payroll tax so the tax is really 15.3% and not 7.65%.
Finally, there are other taxes that bring in revenue such as the estate and gift tax and excise taxes. These miscellaneous taxes don't generate a material amount of tax revenue, but should be considered in the calculation.
Halas, you don’t need to resort to being a prick just because I disagree with you.
The greater point is that you can get rid of special interest deductions and keep a progressive tax system.
It'd a ludicrous statement. Are there more corporations or more individuals?
Sure you could get rid of special interest deductions and keep a progressive tax system. If you want to cap gross income tax rate at 15% and progress from zero I am all for it.
Then tell people what you are cutting to get there. Military, parks, Medicaid, highways...go ahead.
Figured I was missing a ton from the equation haha, thanks for adding to it! Thought it would be interesting to actually look at the viability
You didn't read the article on Hong Kong I posted I am guessing.
Not that I didn't on purpose - just didn't see it.
Beyond the flat tax idea not being politically feasible, watch what happens when you take $4,500 in income taxes from a family of four making $30k. That's money they are pretty much all spending in the economy that doesn't get put back in. It's also something that those with means don't really need right now.
I have a feeling it's also something like Jesus would have called out: lower the taxes on the wealthy and increase them on the poor. That's exactly what a 15% flat income tax does.
So, yes, politically, economically, and morally, it doesn't sell. Now, do I think everyone should have some skin in the game? Sure. How much? $250 seems OK for the hypothetical family I mentioned above. I could do $500 as well if all it does is get people to settle down.
A total federal tax burden of $250-500 United States dollars?
I don’t think it works to compare Hong Kong, essentially just a city state with no military to America. I also dont think it would significantly reduce the size of the IRS. Even if it did the savings wouldn’t amount to much.
flat tax proponents seem to discount marginal propensity to consume and diminishing marginal returns.
Those ~50% of tax filers don't have any federal income tax burden right now. I think 15% is too much. So I through out some numbers.
Oh boy, you’re stepping in it. God asks us to tithe 10% of our income. He doesn’t promise any refund on it at the end of the year to make the effective rate 0%. Jesus also never talked about progressive tithing. He never said the poor give 0 and the rich give 35%. He made it pretty clear that giving is a matter of the heart and he shares that through several parables.
The only thing Jesus talks about in regards to government taxation is giving Caesar what is his and God what is God’s. Strangely enough, the line of conversation started with Pharisees trying to find something to accuse him of.
Next time you wish to invoke Jesus to try and make your political point actually open up the book and see what he has to say.
I agree that America isn’t a direct comparison to Hong Kong. They have a quasi-progressive flat tax system I thought was an intersting idea.
I’m not accusing you of this, but it’s peculiar when other countries are touted for their universal healthcare and that their system would work here by their proponents but when a system of lower taxation is offered up from another country it could never work in America.
I just don’t understand how our country can spend more per person in public money than other first world countries yet still not have universal health care.
Thread officially derailed.
You can't fool me and Halas with smoke and mirrors, we bg know our math.
That’s a loaded answer.
We really don't, except for defense.
Its really very simple, think the nitwits that run Congress, then think Pork Barrell economics.
You know, Jesus didn't talk about lots of things. Beyond what he spoke of we can infer, often to our own opinions, what Jesus would do, or what the Christian thing would be to do.
We're not talking about tithing, giving, etc, we're talking about government-mandated taxation that can get you thrown in jail if you don't pay up. I just don't think Jesus would have been cool with forcing relatively poor people from coughing up thousands of dollars so wealthy people, or pretty well of folks like me, can pay less.
You obviously don't have to agree. Even if you throw out the 'religious' and political reasoning, you can't deny (well, I suppose you can) the economic harm that would be caused by taking out billions from the economy. Like I said, it's great conversation, but we both agree a flat tax isn't happening. And never will.
Your inference is very weak. Jesus made clear what he thought of taxation. I invoked tithing because it’s a clear analogy.
You have a static view of flat tax but whatever. I’m not interested in continuing the argument.
The United States spends the most on health care per person — $9,237 – according to two new papers published in the journal The Lancet.
Health care is a special case.
The only thing special is the spectacular way we are at wasting money. No one tops us!
Just like education. We spend more than everyone else and have less less to show for it. I bet we waste more money on just about everything compared to the rest of the world.
Yet we continue to throw more money at these same issues in the form of taxation in order to fix them and it doesn’t work.
Taxation at the time was carried out by corrupted officials in dictatorships. We can only guess what he would have thought of our current system. My belief is that he wouldn’t think too kindly of a system that would jack up taxes on the poor so that the wealthy could pay less.
Nah, man. Jesus, Uncle Sam and The Monopoly Man...same guy.
F*** the poor! Maybe they should make more money and the government should quit rewarding the lowest income earners when it comes to taxes. This is partly joking, but there's something to it.
Yes. You described it so clearly,
Jacking up taxes and all rather than everyone paying the same thing, which is what is asked if tithing. Solid ground you stand on.
Do this, go find all the places that Jesus advocates for the government to do all the jobs the church is supposed to do with helping the poor and medical care and then you will be on solid ground for why we have to tax so much.
Try harder, little buddy. One day someone will laugh and you will have internet vindication.
Yes, some of the interest is used to buy more "IOUs" --- some of it (since 2010) is used to pay benefits and that portion is actual money collected from FIT receipts or money borrowed from China and others.
When I was setting up my 1st household, I had jars I would put money into according to my budget - one for food, one for car/gas, etc. As I got older and my budget became more complex, I discovered I could use 1 jar (a checking account) and create many virtual jars and track them in a ledger. OASI and DI are virtual jars with accounting entries to track how much money/IOUs those accounts have.
But being a business owner, you know about accounting and contra accounts and the difference between assets and liabilities.
End of life care.
My mother-in-law (86 yo) just moved into a senior facility --- about $8,000 / month. If it was a skilled nursing facility it would be more like $10-12,000 / month.
It used to be that she would be living out her life with a family member in a 3 or 4 generation household. Times have changed.
Again, stop trying to equate tithing, ie, giving freely to the church, with taxation. The two are not even close to being the same thing.
Separate names with a comma.