Why Can't Everyone Pay the Same Tax Rate?

[The Federalist]

and as a general question one which I have asked here in this forum 3 times and have not yet received an answer that i can find- define 'rich'.


200k? 250K a million, 5, 10? what?(oops, In fairness I think someone said half a mil)l....if I recall correctly, so what say you?

next q-

what % of that do you think is fair for them to have to pay as measured against the populace at large?

Who thinks its fair that 10 % of the populace pays over 80% of all taxes collected? Remember that close to 40% of the populace don't pay net taxes.

is that to low? to high, just right?

I think that is fair, they have it to pay and use the economy to make more at everyone else's expense, I do not see them offering serious profit sharing to their employees on top of the meager wages they pay.

 

[Trajan]

On defense, which is the largest discretionary item on the budget?

Here's where the outlays go, bub:

While we could save money on defense spending, it's not where most of the money is wasted.

It's the largest discretionary item. That's what I stated.

uh huh, " most"? not quite, you should look at that chart again.

so anyway, as a I said several times here, they have cut defense, paraphrased from an earlier post on another thread;

Gates has cut the building of the Gerald Ford class of super carriers from 4 to 2 and maybe one, .....these cuts realize savings NOW , though the ships will not start being delivered to the fleet till 2015 and every 2 years there after...the cuts were made now because we pay huge up front costs mean savings NOW, the first piece of the G R Ford a beveled 15-ton piece of steel for the hull was cut 5 years ago, BUT the ship is only 25% built.

The steel and start up costs were 2.5 Billion, It was paid 3 years BEFORE that in 2002, we pay AS the ship is built, but they have a up front cost payments of close to 20%...and a huge ballloon payment at the end, Gates has canceled the payments for the next 2 for now.

in addition, they cut back on the number of f-22's from a high of 650 to 400 to 187......

so, what else is there to cut?

 

[Trajan]

and as a general question one which I have asked here in this forum 3 times and have not yet received an answer that i can find- define 'rich'.


200k? 250K a million, 5, 10? what?(oops, In fairness I think someone said half a mil)l....if I recall correctly, so what say you?

next q-

what % of that do you think is fair for them to have to pay as measured against the populace at large?

Who thinks its fair that 10 % of the populace pays over 80% of all taxes collected? Remember that close to 40% of the populace don't pay net taxes.

is that to low? to high, just right?

I think that is fair, they have it to pay and use the economy to make more at everyone else's expense, I do not see them offering serious profit sharing to their employees on top of the meager wages they pay.

thx for answering...


so they use money...so what? you have money to use to, use it. If you don't its out there, help yourself.

And I got profit sharing .......some do, some don't based on their worth to their employer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a thought - SPEND LESS!!!!!

That's the dodge I want posters to avoid.

If you cut taxes for the rich, you lose revenue. Therefore, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up that revenue? Your own?

What part of spend less do you not understand?

Since the Republicans want to extend the tax cut for the rich WITHOUT spending less, I'll ask the question again:

If you cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for that lost revenue?

...now, unless of course you're taking the stand that we should NOT cut taxes on the rich unless they are accompanied by spending cuts? Is that your position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's the dodge I want posters to avoid.

If you cut taxes for the rich, you lose revenue. Therefore, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up that revenue? Your own?

More to the point - this thread is about reforming the tax system to a flat rate, NOT about shifting the burden.

The flat tax does shift the burden. So you're supporting a flat tax that lowers the rate for upper income taxpayers and you make up the lost revenue from the middle class.

 

[uscitizen]

LMAO! so you are saying the rich pay MORE then the poor if they are covering 60.63% of the federal tax.

Are you jealous that they have money? Or is it that YOU just want a bigger piece of the rich?

Again flat tax the rich,the poor and everyone in between, no exceptions. Then everyone bleeds the same. 20% is 20%.

The point is that the top 5% are the ones not paying their fair share. The point is the top 5% utilizes public service to leverage wealth at a higher rate than the other 95%.

Now if your suggestion is a real flat tax on any income, whether it's individual, inherited, capital gains, or corporate profit, I might just buy into that. But there ought be no exceptions.

And the people who sucking on the public teet are NOT paying their fair share either. I am also sure they consist of more then 5% and they too ALSO use public services.

I want a flat tax for EVERYONE. If you make a billion a year i want them paying 20% of that billion. If you make $10 a year i want 20% of that $10. Get it FLAT tax for EVERYONE. No exceptions.

Yep and not let any social issues like Family size or anything like that impact it.

 

[Charles_Main]

in addition, they cut back on the number of f-22's from a high of 650 to 400 to 187......

so, what else is there to cut?

Which just goes to show how stupid they are.

1 f22 can replace 5 Of our best Current fighters. the F22 is quiet possibly the most amazing Aircraft every constructed. The leap forward in fuel efficiency alone is amazing.

Why cut the future of American Air supremacy.

IMO I rather sell off a bunch of our old shit and build as many f-22's as we can.

 

[uscitizen]

That's the dodge I want posters to avoid.

If you cut taxes for the rich, you lose revenue. Therefore, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up that revenue? Your own?

More to the point - this thread is about reforming the tax system to a flat rate, NOT about shifting the burden.

The flat tax does shift the burden. So you're supporting a flat tax that lowers the rate for upper income taxpayers and you make up the lost revenue from the middle class.

a pure flat tax is based on the transaction of a person getting a dollar and XX% of that goes to the govt. vs a method that takes social situations into consideration. How many children you have, did you insulate, give to charity, etc into account for figuring.

 

[Toro]

Anyone got a valid reason for this?

Because there is a fair amount of randomness and luck in life, and those who are better off are usually the beneficiaries of this randomness and luck.

As Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote, "Work hard and you can own a BMW. Work and hard and have luck and you can own a Gulfstream."

BTW, that doesn't mean I'm against a flat tax. A flat tax with an exemption for the first amount of income is a progressive tax. For example, exempting the first, say, $40,000 on income then taxing all income thereafter at some rate, say 30%, is a progressive application of a flat tax.

 

[uscitizen]

I am for pure flat tax. No exemptions/deductions at all.
The govt should not be performing socio engineering thru their tax structure.
A tax should be a tax and nothing more.

 

[Bern80]

The wealthy disproportionately benefit from government spending, and disproportionately have the ability to make large amounts of their income in low tax or no tax investments,

therefore it is only fair that the high end of their earned income should be taxed at a higher rate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

Here is the 2010 federal budget. Please tell us all what sections of that chart benefit the rich more than other groups. Maybe an argument can be made for transportation at a little over 2% so I'll throw ya that one.

p.s. can someone tell me what I need to do to make that image show up right?

 

[KMAN]

That's the dodge I want posters to avoid.

If you cut taxes for the rich, you lose revenue. Therefore, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up that revenue? Your own?

What part of spend less do you not understand?

Since the Republicans want to extend the tax cut for the rich WITHOUT spending less, I'll ask the question again:

If you cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for that lost revenue?

...now, unless of course you're taking the stand that we should NOT cut taxes on the rich unless they are accompanied by spending cuts? Is that your position?

Who says the Republicans don't want to cut spending??????

 

[KMAN]

Anyone got a valid reason for this?

Because there is a fair amount of randomness and luck in life, and those who are better off are usually the beneficiaries of this randomness and luck.

As Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote, "Work hard and you can own a BMW. Work and hard and have luck and you can own a Gulfstream."

BTW, that doesn't mean I'm against a flat tax. A flat tax with an exemption for the first amount of income is a progressive tax. For example, exempting the first, say, $40,000 on income then taxing all income thereafter at some rate, say 30%, is a progressive application of a flat tax.

So because some people are lucky we should let the first $40,00 go un-taxed? Is that what you are saying?

 

[jillian]

Anyone got a valid reason for this?

you aren't in the top tax bracket, why do you care?

 

[DiamondDave]

The point is that the top 5% are the ones not paying their fair share. The point is the top 5% utilizes public service to leverage wealth at a higher rate than the other 95%.

Now if your suggestion is a real flat tax on any income, whether it's individual, inherited, capital gains, or corporate profit, I might just buy into that. But there ought be no exceptions.

The top 5% paid over 60% of income taxes. There is no way on earth that they are using 60% of what Government redistributes.

Show me a link of what income the top 5% earned. I've already shown that the top 1o% hold more than 80% of our national wealth. Yeah, there's redistribution, and it's from the middle class to the top. I know how much the right wing likes to crap on poor people, but that's just bullshit when you look at the numbers.

accumulated wealth is not income, you ignorant fucking troll... not to mention that all wealth or earnings is not the property of the state, nor a communal pot that you have a right to because you want it and your jealousy

 

[boedicca]

Here you go.

And wealth is not income, bub.

In 2009, the top 5% reported 37% of the total AGI, and paid over 60% of the income taxes - that is hardly representative getting MORE from the government than they pay.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Ok, no dodge here, answer this.

If you think the rich are overtaxed, and we lower their taxes...

...whose taxes do you want to raise to make up the revenue shortfall?

Static pie thinking bub.

Discretionary spending by the Federal Government has increased 28% in under TWO YEARS. We have a spending problem, not an under taxing problem.

You are also neglecting the REALITY that lower taxes fuel economic growth. Higher growth means a BIGGER PIE, which plenty of tax receipts for government at a lower percentage of GDP. We have a GROWTH problem, not an under taxing problem.

 

[loosecannon]

Politicians make their careers by taking the golden eggs away from the more productive to pay off the less productive.

the internet has served it's purpose.

 

[KMAN]

Anyone got a valid reason for this?

you aren't in the top tax bracket, why do you care?

That is why people hate liberals.... look at your attitude.... "Go F everyone else, all I care about is me..."

 

[Greenbeard]

Anyone got a valid reason for this?

I'm not going to bother reading through this whole thread, so if someone already made this obvious point, apologies: tax rates aren't on people, they're on income brackets. Someone making a million dollars pays the same tax rate(s) on his first $50,000 of income as someone who's making $50,000 total.

As for why different brackets have different rates, there are numerous fiscal (e.g. different marginal propensities to consume dollars in different brackets, greater total revenues brought in to the government) and philosophical (e.g. vertical equity, arguments against inequality, etc) arguments for progressive taxation. Take your pick.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone got a valid reason for this?

you aren't in the top tax bracket, why do you care?

And here is the core problem with America today: if it is not me why should I care.

BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT OUR AMERICA.