Household income

[iamwhatiseem]

The tax rate for people earning less than $50,000 should be 1%.

That might generate $12,568,425,000.00.

The tax rate for people earning $50,000 - $149,999.99 should be 14%.

That might generate $699,160,350,000.00.

The tax rate for people earning $150,000 or more should be 44%.

That might generate $4,130,451,600,000.00.

That is a grand total of $4,829,624,518,425.00 in revenue.

I guess just borrow the remaining $1,270,375,481,575.00 to pay the remaining part of the budget. I think I see why over half of the lowest income tax payers do not pay taxes. It is a drop in the bucket. This business is crazy. Our budget is too big or something another.

People earning over $150,000 should be 44%...
So a fella that earns $160k would have to pay $70k+ is taxes.
But another fella that makes 145,000 would only have to pay $20k.
So tell me again how this is fair?

 

[presonorek]

People earning over $150,000 should be 44%...
So a fella that earns $160k would have to pay $70k+ is taxes.
But another fella that makes 145,000 would only have to pay $20k.
So tell me again how this is fair?

A phase out could be added. It would be too boring for this venue to spell out how a phase out works.

 

[Concerned American]

They usually have a phase out process for what you are describing.

Read your post #4. These are the numbers YOU presented in your hypothetical. You made no mention of itemized deduction or carve outs. Please be specific when speaking of money.
The tax rate for people earning $50,000 - $149,999.99 should be 14%.

That might generate $699,160,350,000.00.

The tax rate for people earning $150,000 or more should be 44%.

That might generate $4,130,451,600,000.00.

 

[presonorek]

People earning over $150,000 should be 44%...
So a fella that earns $160k would have to pay $70k+ is taxes.
But another fella that makes 145,000 would only have to pay $20k.
So tell me again how this is fair?

I'm very interested in seeing your superior plan. I'm guessing I won't though so I'll take what you say with a grain of salt. Basically I'll ignore your criticisms until you offer something valuable.

 

[presonorek]

Read your post #4. These are the numbers YOU presented in your hypothetical. You made no mention of itemized deduction or carve outs. Please be specific when speaking of money.
The tax rate for people earning $50,000 - $149,999.99 should be 14%.

That might generate $699,160,350,000.00.

The tax rate for people earning $150,000 or more should be 44%.

That might generate $4,130,451,600,000.00.

Yeah. I found what you were talking about. Phase-outs would be too boring to describe here. I'd have to type like 20 pages of mess for people to ignore. I'm not going to do that.

Basically a person making $150,000 would have a take-home pay of more than a person making $149,000.

 

[presonorek]

Read your post #4. These are the numbers YOU presented in your hypothetical. You made no mention of itemized deduction or carve outs. Please be specific when speaking of money.
The tax rate for people earning $50,000 - $149,999.99 should be 14%.

That might generate $699,160,350,000.00.

The tax rate for people earning $150,000 or more should be 44%.

That might generate $4,130,451,600,000.00.

There have been tax situations like you are describing in the past. Back in the 80's rich people were advertising to give away money to charities to correct an unfair tax code. I think they have phase outs in the tax code now so that doesn't happen. Maybe they left the phase outs out on purpose to motivate people to donate to charities. lol You are right though. It is unfair. That doesn't mean it won't happen just because it is unfair.

 

[Concerned American]

So far the only plan I have been able to come up with was a flat tax of 23.3%. I don't have the sufficient data to create a progressive tax plan like you are discussing. However, as your tax planner I'd recommend you make $149,000 so that your take home pay would be larger.

Your employer should accommodate you by paying you less. If you own your own business you should be able to distribute the difference in profits to your employees to save you tax dollars. If you come out better making less then make less. That doesn't require a babysitter.

Naw it would require a psychiatrist.

 

[Concerned American]

Yeah. I found what you were talking about. Phase-outs would be too boring to describe here. I'd have to type like 20 pages of mess for people to ignore. I'm not going to do that.

Basically a person making $150,000 would have a take-home pay of more than a person making $149,000.

You created a thread that attempts to simplify a complex subject without taking into account the issues that are reality in your over simplification. Your hypothetical is nonsense.

 

[presonorek]

You created a thread that attempts to simplify a complex subject without taking into account the issues that are reality in your over simplification. Your hypothetical is nonsense.

Yours is....... wait...... You don't have one.

 

[Concerned American]

I'm very interested in seeing your superior plan. I'm guessing I won't though so I'll take what you say with a grain of salt. Basically I'll ignore your criticisms until you offer something valuable.

Myself and another poster showed you the fallacy of your plan which you choose to discount. You wouldn't accept any plan that goes contrary to what you've dreamed up in your 5 minute study.

 

[presonorek]

Naw it would require a psychiatrist.

It might. If making too much money causes you psychological problems then it is just a price you are going to have to pay. Don't expect much sympathy though. Just hire that psychiatrist.

 

[presonorek]

Myself and another poster showed you the fallacy of your plan which you choose to discount. You wouldn't accept any plan that goes contrary to what you've dreamed up in your 5 minute study.

I acknowledged the flaw. Why do you think we are here discussing with others? Planning on your own always sucks. We need the input of others. I see the flaw and I think it could be easily remedied with a phase out. Any other suggestions?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'm very interested in seeing your superior plan. I'm guessing I won't though so I'll take what you say with a grain of salt. Basically I'll ignore your criticisms until you offer something valuable.

The value is that there is more holes in your plan than my screened in porch.
Not trying to be an ass, but people who haven't done a lot of math come up with these kind of things.
And I just showed you one absurdity of this plan.

You have to break that way-way further down. Each $1000 even.
And then add to that consumption taxes that make sense.
If a person makes $70k and only spends 5% of that on fun stuff ($3,750 a yr) but a person who earns $35,000 and still lives at home with mommy and daddy and spends, literally, 95% of their income on fun stuff - should they be taxed less????
So take a 30 year old that is still living at home with their parents, no children.... and a 30 year old that is married with a child... tax them the same??

 

[presonorek]

The value is that there is more holes in your plan than my screened in porch.
Not trying to be an ass, but people who haven't done a lot of math come up with these kind of things.
And I just showed you one absurdity of this plan.

You have to break that way-way further down. Each $1000 even.
And then add to that consumption taxes that make sense.
If a person makes $70k and only spends 5% of that on fun stuff ($3,750 a yr) but a person who earns $35,000 and still lives at home with mommy and daddy and spends, literally, 95% of their income on fun stuff - should they be taxed less????
So take a 30 year old that is still living at home with their parents, no children.... and a 30 year old that is married with a child... tax them the same??

Write it up!!

 

[Concerned American]

Yours is....... wait...... You don't have one.

Current tax policy is far superior to the elementary school hypothetical that you presented. How's that?

 

[presonorek]

Current tax policy is far superior to the elementary school hypothetical that you presented. How's that?

I totallly agree. What is the point you are trying to make? Insults are cool but they don't add to the discussion. They actually make it obvious that you have nothing to contribute. Do you?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Write it up!!

I would spend more of your time being concerned with government spending than taxation friend.
I live in an area that has one massive military installation.
And it is surrounded by 100 or more government contractor businesses.
I won't elaborate beyond that, other than to say - the shear volume of over billing and wasted taxpayer dollars is a level of insanity that you can only imagine. However bad you can think it is... it is exponentially worse than that.
I would say within 100 miles of my home amounts to easily $50-$100 billion a year of over billing.
Easy.

 

[Concerned American]

I totallly agree. What is the point you are trying to make? Insults are cool but they don't add to the discussion. They actually make it obvious that you have nothing to contribute. Do you?

I presented a fallacy in your presentation, quite clearly and politely and you responded with a snide remark and dismissal. You reap what you sew. If you are going to snipe at posters that point out things that apparently escaped your attention, you should expect a like response.

 

[presonorek]

I would spend more of your time being concerned with government spending than taxation friend.
I live in an area that has one massive military installation.
And it is surrounded by 100 or more government contractor businesses.
I won't elaborate beyond that, other than to say - the shear volume of over billing and wasted taxpayer dollars is a level of insanity that you can only imagine. However bad you can think it is... it is exponentially worse than that.
I would say within 100 miles of my home amounts to easily $50-$100 billion a year of over billing.
Easy.

Well. In my experience when someone proposes that a program should be eliminated or reduced they end up naming something else that should be added or increased. People like government goodies. There is a famous meme that says, "Keep Your Government Hands Off of My Social Security". That pretty much sums up the mentality of every single American. They all want goodies but don't want anybody else to have them. That reality is hard to work with. Local governments and state governments can do cuts sometimes and get away with it. That's hard for them too. I think if there was spending cuts a lot of congress would disappear in the next election.

I'm sorry. Benjamin Franklin predicted it when he said...............

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Well. In my experience when someone proposes that a program should be eliminated or reduced they end up naming something else that should be added or increased. People like government goodies. There is a famous meme that says, "Keep Your Government Hands Off of My Social Security". That pretty much sums up the mentality of every single American. They all want goodies but don't want anybody else to have them. That reality is hard to work with. Local governments and state governments can do cuts sometimes and get away with it. That's hard for them too. I think if there was spending cuts a lot of congress would disappear in the next election.

I'm sorry. Benjamin Franklin predicted it when he said...............

Conservatives wouldn't vote them out as much as you think, if they did, they aren't really conservatives.
Democrats would... all of them. 100%