Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

 

[jc456]

Because I'm smarter than you are.

So it's not a good tax scheme

It's a better tax system than a flat tax because in relative terms the flat tax reduces taxes on the rich and raises taxes on the not rich.

Flat tax would be perfect if our government wasn't so fuckin big.

flat tax is perfect. makes no difference the size of the government.

I don't necessarily agree. Unless its high as ****

again, what does the size of government have to do with a flat tax?

 

[jc456]

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

well I'm debating what you said. Or are you a wimp and can't debate a fundamental statement you made?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The rich 'dude' pays that under a flat tax. Are you now telling the OP his flat tax isn't fair?

 

[Davros]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

 

[jc456]

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

BTW, what the OP actually was trying to articulate was taking the policy of a progressive tax into all materials one has, If someone has four bedrooms, uses two, two are free, fill them. That was the intent of the OP

Drive a five passenger car with only one person, you're not allowed on the road until you fill the car with four other riders. That was what he was eluding to.

You sir went to an argument against a flat tax and it wasn't fair. Yet you won't explain why you feel it isn't fair. why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

BTW, what the OP actually was trying to articulate was taking the policy of a progressive tax into all materials one has, If someone has four bedrooms, uses two, two are free, fill them. That was the intent of the OP

Drive a five passenger car with only one person, you're not allowed on the road until you fill the car with four other riders. That was what he was eluding to.

You sir went to an argument against a flat tax and it wasn't fair. Yet you won't explain why you feel it isn't fair. why not?

The OP built a strawman. That's all he did.

 

[jc456]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

 

[Davros]

The progressive income is real, here and now.

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

BTW, what the OP actually was trying to articulate was taking the policy of a progressive tax into all materials one has, If someone has four bedrooms, uses two, two are free, fill them. That was the intent of the OP

Drive a five passenger car with only one person, you're not allowed on the road until you fill the car with four other riders. That was what he was eluding to.

You sir went to an argument against a flat tax and it wasn't fair. Yet you won't explain why you feel it isn't fair. why not?

None of those proposals would serve the purpose that the progressive tax has: sustaining our bloated government on the backs of those who can afford it by forgoing luxuries rather than necessities.

 

[jc456]

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

sales tax is a flat tax. you buy goods at 100 bucks you pay 7% let's say, costs you 7 bucks in tax. 1,000 goods at 7% gives the state 70 bucks, ten times the money. Please explain how that isn't fair?

 

[Davros]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage intended by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

 

[jc456]

and stupid

I'm guessing you're not rich, so I hope you understand that a flat tax will probably raise your taxes.

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

BTW, what the OP actually was trying to articulate was taking the policy of a progressive tax into all materials one has, If someone has four bedrooms, uses two, two are free, fill them. That was the intent of the OP

Drive a five passenger car with only one person, you're not allowed on the road until you fill the car with four other riders. That was what he was eluding to.

You sir went to an argument against a flat tax and it wasn't fair. Yet you won't explain why you feel it isn't fair. why not?

None of those proposals would serve the purpose that the progressive tax has: sustaining our bloated government on the backs of those who can afford it by forgoing luxuries rather than necessities.

isn't what I asked or discussed, I merely asked you what is a fair share definition. You can't answer I see.

 

[jc456]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage proscribed by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

huh? What the fk does that mean? so if a flat tax was 10% what is 10% of 1 million? can you do the math? Wouldn't that be the person's fair share?

'Still can't figure out what the hell you libturds want.

Maybe it would be better to ask you if you know what income even is.

 

[Care4all]

the Federal government is supposedly only allowed to income tax us on our profit income...

just like with businesses and corporations, they are not taxed on their total revenues, they are only taxed on the PROFIT they make, so that means what they pay their employees out of their revenues is not taxable, what they pay for Rent and utilities, and travel are not taxable, and pretty much everything that they spend their yearly revenues on that involve their business, is NOT taxable income/taxable revenues....

If we individuals were given the same benefit of only being income taxed on our true profit that we made after deducting rent, our cars used for work, and gasoline back and forth to work, and food that we needed to sustain us, and so on and so forth....we'd have the same benefits as those that are in business for themselves and corporations.

Instead, we are given a measly Standard $6000 as a deduction for our living expenses and all else is considered taxable income....

Unless of course you own a home, then they let you deduct your Mortgage expense...along with a lot of other things....but not for renters...

they are stuck with only the Standard deduction as being exempt from taxes....and IF AND ONLY IF, the Standard deduction would have kept up with the cost of Living, as mentioned, it would be $68 K a person in today's dollars, BEFORE the government could come and tax you on any of your income above that....

 

[jc456]

So it's not a good tax scheme

It's a better tax system than a flat tax because in relative terms the flat tax reduces taxes on the rich and raises taxes on the not rich.

I'm not comparing it to a flat tax system Moron

I'm asking that if it's good enough for income why not everything else

And I can give you an example of how a flat tax won't reduce the taxes the rich pay

Say you make 10 Million off in investments a year (hilarious I know but bear with me)

Now you can give all kids of money to charity and get a deduction, you can take a mortgage interest deduction etc lowering your income to 7 million a year and you only pay 15% of 7M or 1.05M in taxes

If you paid a flat 12% on ALL the money you earned you would have paid 1.2M in taxes

Capital gains are taxed differently.

Not under the flat tax I have been proposing they aren't

I used capital gains because you were whining that the rich would get a tax cut if we used a flat tax I showed you how they wouldn't

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

it's the same as what happens today with a progressive system, you realize that right? What the fk is wrong with you libturds and math? Do you know what income even is?

 

[bendog]

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

 

[jc456]

the Federal government is supposedly only allowed to income tax us on our profit income...

just like with businesses and corporations, they are not taxed on their total revenues, they are only taxed on the PROFIT they make, so that means what they pay their employees out of their revenues is not taxable, what they pay for Rent and utilities, and travel are not taxable, and pretty much everything that they spend their yearly revenues on that involve their business, is NOT taxable income/taxable revenues....

If we individuals were given the same benefit of only being income taxed on our true profit that we made after deducting rent, our cars used for work, and gasoline back and forth to work, and food that we needed to sustain us, and so on and so forth....we'd have the same benefits as those that are in business for themselves and corporations.

Instead, we are given a measly Standard $6000 as a deduction for our living expenses and all else is considered taxable income....

Unless of course you own a home, then they let you deduct your Mortgage expense...along with a lot of other things....but not for renters...

they are stuck with only the Standard deduction as being exempt from taxes....and IF AND ONLY IF, the Standard deduction would have kept up with the cost of Living, as mentioned, it would be $68 K a person in today's dollars, BEFORE the government could come and tax you on any of your income above that....

they also allow the deduction for dependents and credits for children.

 

[Davros]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage proscribed by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

huh? What the fk does that mean? so if a flat tax was 10% what is 10% of 1 million? can you do the math? Wouldn't that be the person's fair share?

'Still can't figure out what the hell you libturds want.

Maybe it would be better to ask you if you know what income even is.

If the tax rate on $1 million is 10%, then his fair share is $100,000 not 24,000 because of a bunch of loopholes.

My post was about simplifying the tax code. Apparently you're against that, lib.

 

[jc456]

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.