What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Progressive Taxes for Individuals | Change or No Change?

Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.

Petitions in the Process:

On Change.org: Support the Balance of Progressive Taxes for Prosperity!
On the White House's "We the People: Balance the Progressive Income Taxes for Prosperity
 
Last edited:

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
First thing is ALL personal income should be treated the same as far as taxes go.

also I am for a pure flat personal income tax with NO deductions.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Well, to be honest I don't like it a bit. One thing I don't like is that I'm an incrementalist, and this is a major change. I would want to see extensive studies of impact on revenue, etc.

However, even without extensive study, there do seem to be serious issues with the plan. Why would we want to pay Bill Gates $14 Billion to get married? I'm a little uncomfortable with the government giving tax credits for marriage in general, and this seems excessive for rich couples. And of course I don't like the fact that in a plan based otherwise only on total income, marital status, and dependent children there's a need to single out gay people as undeserving of the tax breaks of their heterosexual counterparts.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Well, to be honest I don't like it a bit. One thing I don't like is that I'm an incrementalist, and this is a major change. I would want to see extensive studies of impact on revenue, etc.

However, even without extensive study, there do seem to be serious issues with the plan. Why would we want to pay Bill Gates $14 Billion to get married? I'm a little uncomfortable with the government giving tax credits for marriage in general, and this seems excessive for rich couples. And of course I don't like the fact that in a plan based otherwise only on total income, marital status, and dependent children there's a need to single out gay people as undeserving of the tax breaks of their heterosexual counterparts.

Are you referring to my plan or the current tax system?
 

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.

You've got some pretty astronomical rates there.
I also notice that you jump from 12% up to 24% ( a doubling of the tax rate) for a single dollar increase in salary. Who do you think would be stupid enough to accept a 5% raise knowing that their tax rate would double, thus causing them a loss of net income?
Take it back to the drawing board, maybe even consider the same rate for everybody.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
First thing is ALL personal income should be treated the same as far as taxes go.

also I am for a pure flat personal income tax with NO deductions.

Flat Rate Taxes = A Joke.

What? A person who makes 10,000 to 100,000 a year pays 10% while a 100,001 to 1,000,000 pays 20%? Are you like Hermit Cain? 9,9,9,?
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.

You've got some pretty astronomical rates there.
I also notice that you jump from 12% up to 24% ( a doubling of the tax rate) for a single dollar increase in salary. Who do you think would be stupid enough to accept a 5% raise knowing that their tax rate would double, thus causing them a loss of net income?
Take it back to the drawing board, maybe even consider the same rate for everybody.

Astronomical? Take a Look at the 50s Progressive Tax Rate for Individuals under Eisenhower. The Rates from 1910 to 2010.
 

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Hey Fellow Man:

I've been pondering on this for a while and have decided to go through a decent tax policy in terms of progressive taxes for individuals and what I figured out that our current policy for the last twenty years is so half-assed and plain ole' illogical. Have you guys felt this too? You know as an up and coming politician I've decided to create my own tax policy on the likes of progressive taxes for individuals. Take a Look at My Proposal: Progressive Change: A Federalist's Approach on Progressive Taxes. Anyway, I would like to continue this conversation with you guys and hopefully you'll take a read when you have the time.

You've got some pretty astronomical rates there.
I also notice that you jump from 12% up to 24% ( a doubling of the tax rate) for a single dollar increase in salary. Who do you think would be stupid enough to accept a 5% raise knowing that their tax rate would double, thus causing them a loss of net income?
Take it back to the drawing board, maybe even consider the same rate for everybody.

Astronomical? Take a Look at the 50s Progressive Tax Rate for Individuals under Eisenhower. The Rates from 1910 to 2010.

Yes, astronomical. I don't really care that it may have been more astronomical in the past.

Now, do you want to address the jump from 12% to 24% in one fell swoop?
Let me run the numbers for you on just one of your tax brackets.
$70,000 income minus 12% taxes equals $61,600 net income.
$70,000 income plus 5% raise minus 24% taxes equals $55,860 net income.

Is your goal to keep people from ever raising their income beyond $70,000?
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
You've got some pretty astronomical rates there.
I also notice that you jump from 12% up to 24% ( a doubling of the tax rate) for a single dollar increase in salary. Who do you think would be stupid enough to accept a 5% raise knowing that their tax rate would double, thus causing them a loss of net income?
Take it back to the drawing board, maybe even consider the same rate for everybody.

Astronomical? Take a Look at the 50s Progressive Tax Rate for Individuals under Eisenhower. The Rates from 1910 to 2010.

Yes, astronomical. I don't really care that it may have been more astronomical in the past.

Now, do you want to address the jump from 12% to 24% in one fell swoop?
Let me run the numbers for you on just one of your tax brackets.
$70,000 income minus 12% taxes equals $61,600 net income.
$70,000 income plus 5% raise minus 24% taxes equals $55,860 net income.

Is your goal to keep people from ever raising their income beyond $70,000?

Depends on which bracket they're part in; for instance if it's a single parent who has children who makes $70,000 then let's do the math:

$70,000 times 8% = $5,600 (That's How Much the Government Gets)

$5,600 minus $70,000 = $64, 400 (That's How Much the Single Parent Keeps)

You're miscalculations are wrong, bro because that's not how you calculate taxes.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Want another example?

Let's say you're a homosexual couple and your state doesn't recognize same-sex marriages which means that each one of you are considered to be as Single (No Children) if you guys aren't allowed to adopt.

Man 1 Makes 35,000 as a Teacher.
Man 2 Makes 71,000 as a Claims Examiner for the Department of Labor.

Man 1 Pays $2800 of their income to the Federal Government. He has $32,200 left.
Man 1 Pays $17,040 of their income to the Federal Government. He has $53,960 left.

Now, since they're in a relationship that's not recognized they both pitch to pay bills and such.

Total Amount They Have: $86,160
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
To add,

There's a reason why I excluded those who make $0 to $9,999 because technically that's beyond poverty level and I can't believe that our current tax system taxes these people 10% of their income! That's absurd. They are excluded when it comes to income tax.
 

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Astronomical? Take a Look at the 50s Progressive Tax Rate for Individuals under Eisenhower. The Rates from 1910 to 2010.

Yes, astronomical. I don't really care that it may have been more astronomical in the past.

Now, do you want to address the jump from 12% to 24% in one fell swoop?
Let me run the numbers for you on just one of your tax brackets.
$70,000 income minus 12% taxes equals $61,600 net income.
$70,000 income plus 5% raise minus 24% taxes equals $55,860 net income.

Is your goal to keep people from ever raising their income beyond $70,000?

Depends on which bracket they're part in; for instance if it's a single parent who has children who makes $70,000 then let's do the math:

$70,000 times 8% = $5,600 (That's How Much the Government Gets)

$5,600 minus $70,000 = $64, 400 (That's How Much the Single Parent Keeps)

You're miscalculations are wrong, bro because that's not how you calculate taxes.

I took the single no kids tax bracket you have in your link. $70,000 income, 12% tax bracket according to you. $70,001 is 24% tax bracket
My math is spot on, try again.
 
Last edited:

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Here is your tax code.
 

Attachments

  • $Capture.PNG
    $Capture.PNG
    12 KB · Views: 59

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Astronomical? Take a Look at the 50s Progressive Tax Rate for Individuals under Eisenhower. The Rates from 1910 to 2010.

Yes, astronomical. I don't really care that it may have been more astronomical in the past.

Now, do you want to address the jump from 12% to 24% in one fell swoop?
Let me run the numbers for you on just one of your tax brackets.
$70,000 income minus 12% taxes equals $61,600 net income.
$70,000 income plus 5% raise minus 24% taxes equals $55,860 net income.

Is your goal to keep people from ever raising their income beyond $70,000?

Depends on which bracket they're part in; for instance if it's a single parent who has children who makes $70,000 then let's do the math:

$70,000 times 8% = $5,600 (That's How Much the Government Gets)

$5,600 minus $70,000 = $64, 400 (That's How Much the Single Parent Keeps)

You're miscalculations are wrong, bro because that's not how you calculate taxes.
Do you want me to run the numbers between the 12% and 24% tax bracket for your Single parent with kids to show how that doubling of of tax rate is just as whacked out the moment one crosses the threshold from 12% to 24%?
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Yes, astronomical. I don't really care that it may have been more astronomical in the past.

Now, do you want to address the jump from 12% to 24% in one fell swoop?
Let me run the numbers for you on just one of your tax brackets.
$70,000 income minus 12% taxes equals $61,600 net income.
$70,000 income plus 5% raise minus 24% taxes equals $55,860 net income.

Is your goal to keep people from ever raising their income beyond $70,000?

Depends on which bracket they're part in; for instance if it's a single parent who has children who makes $70,000 then let's do the math:

$70,000 times 8% = $5,600 (That's How Much the Government Gets)

$5,600 minus $70,000 = $64, 400 (That's How Much the Single Parent Keeps)

You're miscalculations are wrong, bro because that's not how you calculate taxes.

I took the single no kids tax bracket you have in your link. $70,000 income, 12% tax bracket according to you. $70,001 is 24% tax bracket
My math is spot on, try again.

I think you're misunderstanding the formula that the original poster is proposing. My understanding is that the idea is that income in the $70,000-$90,000 range is taxed at 24%, so someone who made $70,001 would pay 24 cents more than someone who made $70,000, but their income up to $70,000 would be taxed at the same rate.

That's essentially the way the current income tax system works. The tax rate goes up as income increases, but the higher rate only applies to the income in that bracket. Thus, you can't make earn *more* money pre-tax and somehow end up with *less* money post-tax (unless maybe there's some weird deduction or something).
 

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Depends on which bracket they're part in; for instance if it's a single parent who has children who makes $70,000 then let's do the math:

$70,000 times 8% = $5,600 (That's How Much the Government Gets)

$5,600 minus $70,000 = $64, 400 (That's How Much the Single Parent Keeps)

You're miscalculations are wrong, bro because that's not how you calculate taxes.

I took the single no kids tax bracket you have in your link. $70,000 income, 12% tax bracket according to you. $70,001 is 24% tax bracket
My math is spot on, try again.

I think you're misunderstanding the formula that the original poster is proposing. My understanding is that the idea is that income in the $70,000-$90,000 range is taxed at 24%, so someone who made $70,001 would pay 24 cents more than someone who made $70,000, but their income up to $70,000 would be taxed at the same rate.

That's essentially the way the current income tax system works. The tax rate goes up as income increases, but the higher rate only applies to the income in that bracket. Thus, you can't make earn *more* money pre-tax and somehow end up with *less* money post-tax (unless maybe there's some weird deduction or something).

All I did was use his tax table in his link.
 
Last edited:

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Well, to be honest I don't like it a bit. One thing I don't like is that I'm an incrementalist, and this is a major change. I would want to see extensive studies of impact on revenue, etc.

However, even without extensive study, there do seem to be serious issues with the plan. Why would we want to pay Bill Gates $14 Billion to get married? I'm a little uncomfortable with the government giving tax credits for marriage in general, and this seems excessive for rich couples. And of course I don't like the fact that in a plan based otherwise only on total income, marital status, and dependent children there's a need to single out gay people as undeserving of the tax breaks of their heterosexual counterparts.

Are you referring to my plan or the current tax system?

I'm referring to your plan. To be clear:

Well, to be honest I don't like *your plan* a bit. One thing I don't like is that I'm an incrementalist, and *your plan* is a major change *from current tax policy*. I would want to see extensive studies of *the* impact *of your plan* on revenue, etc.

However, even without extensive study, there do seem to be serious issues with *your* plan. Why would we want to pay Bill Gates $14 Billion to get married *as your plan seems to do*? I'm a little uncomfortable with the government giving tax credits for marriage in general *as it does currently and as it would under your plan*, and *the marriage benefit under your plan* seems excessive for rich couples. And of course I don't like the fact that in a plan *such as yours* based otherwise only on total income, marital status, and dependent children there's a need to single out gay people as undeserving of the tax breaks of their heterosexual counterparts.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
I took the single no kids tax bracket you have in your link. $70,000 income, 12% tax bracket according to you. $70,001 is 24% tax bracket
My math is spot on, try again.

I think you're misunderstanding the formula that the original poster is proposing. My understanding is that the idea is that income in the $70,000-$90,000 range is taxed at 24%, so someone who made $70,001 would pay 24 cents more than someone who made $70,000, but their income up to $70,000 would be taxed at the same rate.

That's essentially the way the current income tax system works. The tax rate goes up as income increases, but the higher rate only applies to the income in that bracket. Thus, you can't make earn *more* money pre-tax and somehow end up with *less* money post-tax (unless maybe there's some weird deduction or something).

All I did was use his tax table in his link.

I understand how you're using his tax table, but I don't think the algorithm you're using is the one he intends to communicate. This is my understanding:

Income $70,000:
$20,000 at 4% ($10,000-$30,000),
$20,000 at 8% ($30,000-$50,000),
$20,000 at 12% ($50,000-$70,000),
Total tax: $4,800
Post-Tax Income: $65,200

Income $73,500 ($70,000 plus a 5% raise)
$20,000 at 4% ($10,000-$30,000),
$20,000 at 8% ($30,000-$50,000),
$20,000 at 12% ($50,000-$70,000),
$3,500 at 24% ($70,000-$90,000)
Total tax: $5,640
Post-Tax Income: $67,860

So that post-tax, the $3,500 raise would net an additional $2,660.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Depends on which bracket they're part in; for instance if it's a single parent who has children who makes $70,000 then let's do the math:

$70,000 times 8% = $5,600 (That's How Much the Government Gets)

$5,600 minus $70,000 = $64, 400 (That's How Much the Single Parent Keeps)

You're miscalculations are wrong, bro because that's not how you calculate taxes.

I took the single no kids tax bracket you have in your link. $70,000 income, 12% tax bracket according to you. $70,001 is 24% tax bracket
My math is spot on, try again.

I think you're misunderstanding the formula that the original poster is proposing. My understanding is that the idea is that income in the $70,000-$90,000 range is taxed at 24%, so someone who made $70,001 would pay 24 cents more than someone who made $70,000, but their income up to $70,000 would be taxed at the same rate.

That's essentially the way the current income tax system works. The tax rate goes up as income increases, but the higher rate only applies to the income in that bracket. Thus, you can't make earn *more* money pre-tax and somehow end up with *less* money post-tax (unless maybe there's some weird deduction or something).

Well, to be honest I don't like it a bit. One thing I don't like is that I'm an incrementalist, and this is a major change. I would want to see extensive studies of impact on revenue, etc.

However, even without extensive study, there do seem to be serious issues with the plan. Why would we want to pay Bill Gates $14 Billion to get married? I'm a little uncomfortable with the government giving tax credits for marriage in general, and this seems excessive for rich couples. And of course I don't like the fact that in a plan based otherwise only on total income, marital status, and dependent children there's a need to single out gay people as undeserving of the tax breaks of their heterosexual counterparts.

Are you referring to my plan or the current tax system?

I'm referring to your plan. To be clear:

Well, to be honest I don't like *your plan* a bit. One thing I don't like is that I'm an incrementalist, and *your plan* is a major change *from current tax policy*. I would want to see extensive studies of *the* impact *of your plan* on revenue, etc.

However, even without extensive study, there do seem to be serious issues with *your* plan. Why would we want to pay Bill Gates $14 Billion to get married *as your plan seems to do*? I'm a little uncomfortable with the government giving tax credits for marriage in general *as it does currently and as it would under your plan*, and *the marriage benefit under your plan* seems excessive for rich couples. And of course I don't like the fact that in a plan *such as yours* based otherwise only on total income, marital status, and dependent children there's a need to single out gay people as undeserving of the tax breaks of their heterosexual counterparts.

To Mountain Man:

Yes, he's clearly miscalculating the way income taxes are calculated and thank you for clarifying to him or her because the tax rates that I've proposed is fairly good better and provides opportunity for those who earn less. Thanks for the input and if you don't feel like signing the White House.gov Petition then head to the Change.org Petition, you get to sign it instantly without an account.

The Change.org Petition for Anonymous and Instant Signatures

To Lady Liberal:

A married couple is likely to contribute to a society more than a person who remains single for most of their life; this has been known for centuries especially when you bring children to the mix. Domestic partnerships is a complete joke and messes up our current tax code, I've completely demolished it with the children = up to twenty-five years old who's filed dependent on their parents deal. This means that once a child is independent at what ever age, the parent is considered to be part of the "Single (No Children) bracket unless they have more and update their status or become part of the married bracket. I grew up in a single parent home with a single mother who struggled and as I looked through the tax code through the years from what I was born, 1990, I'm disgusted in the greed of our Federal Government. I decided to give the single parents who file that they have children a bit of a break unless they make a certain amount.
 
OP
CentristFiasco
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
240
Reaction score
16
Points
16
I think you're misunderstanding the formula that the original poster is proposing. My understanding is that the idea is that income in the $70,000-$90,000 range is taxed at 24%, so someone who made $70,001 would pay 24 cents more than someone who made $70,000, but their income up to $70,000 would be taxed at the same rate.

That's essentially the way the current income tax system works. The tax rate goes up as income increases, but the higher rate only applies to the income in that bracket. Thus, you can't make earn *more* money pre-tax and somehow end up with *less* money post-tax (unless maybe there's some weird deduction or something).

All I did was use his tax table in his link.

I understand how you're using his tax table, but I don't think the algorithm you're using is the one he intends to communicate. This is my understanding:

Income $70,000:
$20,000 at 4% ($10,000-$30,000),
$20,000 at 8% ($30,000-$50,000),
$20,000 at 12% ($50,000-$70,000),
Total tax: $4,800
Post-Tax Income: $65,200

Income $73,500 ($70,000 plus a 5% raise)
$20,000 at 4% ($10,000-$30,000),
$20,000 at 8% ($30,000-$50,000),
$20,000 at 12% ($50,000-$70,000),
$3,500 at 24% ($70,000-$90,000)
Total tax: $5,640
Post-Tax Income: $67,860

So that post-tax, the $3,500 raise would net an additional $2,660.

You're adding other taxes to the mix which isn't my intent at all. Also, I would welcome them to remove any extra deductions but this broadly varies on the individual, yo.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top