"Fair Share"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I had said that people that make under $40k would pay no income tax. That means the only tax they pay would be the national sales tax. So a person that makes $25k a year would probably pay less than $750 total in taxes for the whole year.

For a person that makes $200,000 a year, I had suggested they would be in the 10% tax bracket, which would be on any income above $40,000. So that person would be taxed 10% of $160,000. So they would pay $16,000 in income taxes. If they spent an additional $70,000 a year on items that were part of the national sales tax, then they would have spent an additional $3,500 on the sales tax. That means the person's total federal taxes (income + sales tax) would be $19,500 for the year. I think that is reasonable for a person who clears $200,000 a year after expenses.

I agree with you that we should eliminate most of the loopholes that some of the very wealthy use.

Like all flat tax proposals, it sounds good. But now you have to figure out how much money that will bring in, and compare it to our current income level.

I've seen estimates that a flat tax would have to be at a rate of 23-25% to replace our current income. Rick Perry wanted 20%, and his budget busted immediately as there wasn't enough income to pay for what we need.

We can't figure income first or separately from our expenditures. We have certain fixed expenses as a country. We have to pay those. We use taxes to pay our group expenses. Bush gave massive tax cuts (cut our income markedly) without cutting spending, then added on unfunded wars on top of that. That's why we have a massive deficit. Obama worsened it by not allowing Bush tax cuts to expire. They must. Bush gave away our income, and we need it back. Especially as he added those unfunded wars on top of what he suddenly stopped paying for.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Like all flat tax proposals, it sounds good. But now you have to figure out how much money that will bring in, and compare it to our current income level.

I've seen estimates that a flat tax would have to be at a rate of 23-25% to replace our current income. Rick Perry wanted 20%, and his budget busted immediately as there wasn't enough income to pay for what we need.

We can't figure income first or separately from our expenditures. We have certain fixed expenses as a country. We have to pay those. We use taxes to pay our group expenses. Bush gave massive tax cuts (cut our income markedly) without cutting spending, then added on unfunded wars on top of that. That's why we have a massive deficit. Obama worsened it by not allowing Bush tax cuts to expire. They must. Bush gave away our income, and we need it back. Especially as he added those unfunded wars on top of what he suddenly stopped paying for.

I obviously haven't seen the numbers so I don't know how much a national sales tax would bring in. I know that a 5% national sales tax would not be enough to eliminate income tax but I think it would be enough to lower income taxes substantially.

How much do you think someone should pay in federal income tax if they make over $1 million a year? I think 30% is reasonable.

[joeydb]

No one wants a sales tax in addition to income tax more like in lieu of income tax.

The "progressive" tax model is inherently unfair and akin to being socialistic. Why? Because your last bag of $10000 should not be taxed at any higher rate than your first bag of $10000.

If it is higher for a given group of people "because they can afford it", then that is discriminitory in a socialistic way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No one wants a sales tax in addition to income tax more like in lieu of income tax.

The "progressive" tax model is inherently unfair and akin to being socialistic. Why? Because your last bag of $10000 should not be taxed at any higher rate than your first bag of $10000.

If it is higher for a given group of people "because they can afford it", then that is discriminitory in a socialistic way.

I think you have it backwards. They give tax breaks on the lower portions of income. Taking 10 percent off a hundred affects the person left with ninety far more than taking a hundred and leaving someone with nine hundred. So, those on the low end pay less, because they have less...and need a greater portion of what they do have to survive...

[bigrun]

These people need to pay their fair share, no one is exempt..


House GOP proposes food-stamp cuts.

WASHINGTON --Republicans controlling the House are eying big cuts to food stamps as they piece together legislation to trim $261 billion from the federal budget over the next decade, hoping to forestall major Pentagon cutbacks.

The cuts to food stamps would reduce the monthly benefit for a family of four by almost $60,** repealing increases that were enacted three years ago as part of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus. The changes would also force up to 3 million people out of the program by tightening eligibility rules, the administration estimates.

**That's a pittance...



http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...ts-ar-1849906/

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I obviously haven't seen the numbers so I don't know how much a national sales tax would bring in. I know that a 5% national sales tax would not be enough to eliminate income tax but I think it would be enough to lower income taxes substantially.

How much do you think someone should pay in federal income tax if they make over $1 million a year? I think 30% is reasonable.

I asked how much is enough, the answer will never come because there is never going to be enough.
30% might be reasonable as a total but just federal? That person will likely be well over 50% after all other taxes are figured, especially if you remove any write-offs/'loophoples'.

[Riot]

The Republicans are all about War on the Poor, and Tax the Poor.

Somebody has to pay for new tax cuts for the wealthy.

Geesh, much of that party has changed to be heartless, cold bastards. It's true - Reagan would be far too "liberal" for the John Birchers inhabiting the current GOP Grandee base.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I asked how much is enough, the answer will never come because there is never going to be enough.
30% might be reasonable as a total but just federal? That person will likely be well over 50% after all other taxes are figured, especially if you remove any write-offs/'loophoples'.

If you live in a state where they have state income tax, you would probably end up paying around 40%. I think most state income taxes are about 9% for the highest bracket. So you would pay 30% in federal, then 9% to the state.

I wasn't saying that they should eliminate all write-offs. A person should be entitled to write off legitimate expenses.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No one wants a sales tax in addition to income tax more like in lieu of income tax.

The "progressive" tax model is inherently unfair and akin to being socialistic. Why? Because your last bag of $10000 should not be taxed at any higher rate than your first bag of $10000.

If it is higher for a given group of people "because they can afford it", then that is discriminitory in a socialistic way.

If they did a federal sales tax in lieu of income taxes, I think they would have to make the federal sales tax really high to make up for all the lost revenue. If the federal sales tax was in lieu, my guess is that it would probably be around 25% or higher. I think that is way too high. That is why I suggested a combination where they have a small federal sales tax and then they could lower federal income tax, but not eliminate it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Republicans are all about War on the Poor, and Tax the Poor.

Somebody has to pay for new tax cuts for the wealthy.

Geesh, much of that party has changed to be heartless, cold bastards. It's true - Reagan would be far too "liberal" for the John Birchers inhabiting the current GOP Grandee base.

That's bull. The fraction of Americans not paying any income tax has been climbing year after year. 49.5% now, so you're getting what you prefer - many people not paying anything.

Tax cuts for the rich? Better get a new set of talking points, since the "rich" are paying more and more. Who's going to get the tax cuts, the people not paying anything?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If they did a federal sales tax in lieu of income taxes, I think they would have to make the federal sales tax really high to make up for all the lost revenue. If the federal sales tax was in lieu, my guess is that it would probably be around 25% or higher. I think that is way too high. That is why I suggested a combination where they have a small federal sales tax and then they could lower federal income tax, but not eliminate it.

Well, if they actually cut spending, they wouldn't "need" more revenue.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well, if they actually cut spending, they wouldn't "need" more revenue.

They definitely need to cut spending way down!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's bull. The fraction of Americans not paying any income tax has been climbing year after year. 49.5% now, so you're getting what you prefer - many people not paying anything.

Tax cuts for the rich? Better get a new set of talking points, since the "rich" are paying more and more. Who's going to get the tax cuts, the people not paying anything?

No. The facts show the rich have been paying less and less in taxes over the years, and your taxes are darn low, too. Your taxes are the lowest in 60 years. Have you thanked Obama yet? Thought not.

You still are ignoring the fact - I've brought it up twice, with proof - that the vast majority of people not paying taxes are deemed too poor to pay much in federal taxes.

Look at the Ryan-Romney budget. There it is, in black and white: Tax the Poor, Tax Cuts for the Rich.

You can have your own opinion, but tax rates are measurable fact.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. The facts show the rich have been paying less and less in taxes over the years, and your taxes are darn low, too. Your taxes are the lowest in 60 years. Have you thanked Obama yet? Thought not.

You still are ignoring the fact - I've brought it up twice, with proof - that the vast majority of people not paying taxes are deemed too poor to pay much in federal taxes.

Look at the Ryan-Romney budget. There it is, in black and white: Tax the Poor, Tax Cuts for the Rich.

You can have your own opinion, but tax rates are measurable fact.

I'll thank Obama by helping to give him a permanent vacation, starting January 20, 2013, for a job arrogantly and inadequately done.

No kidding, the same government that doesn't collect from almost 50% of the people categorizes them as too poor to pay? What a shock. How about the lucky guy in the 51st percentile who gets to work 3 jobs to pay his "fair" share? Its so fair he gets to pay for some of the 49% who don't pay.

The Ryan budget CUTS spending. That is why it will work in reining in the deficit and accumulated debt.

[Danzig]

just cutting spending won't have a large enough effect; i've read that numerous times. there needs to be serious reform in a variety of areas.


but who will bell the cat?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

just cutting spending won't have a large enough effect; i've read that numerous times. there needs to be serious reform in a variety of areas.


but who will bell the cat?

That's true - not just spending reduction in all the places that the government spends today, but an elimination of many failed and redundant programs.

Logically, we must reverse the cycle - have spending driven by what we collect in taxes, not vice-versa. That's the way every other business in the world does it - unless they go out of business. Debt, if necessary at all, has to be bounded, at a level that is not too burdensome, and retired at the earliest opportunity.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'll thank Obama by helping to give him a permanent vacation, starting January 20, 2013, for a job arrogantly and inadequately done.

No kidding, the same government that doesn't collect from almost 50% of the people categorizes them as too poor to pay? What a shock. How about the lucky guy in the 51st percentile who gets to work 3 jobs to pay his "fair" share? Its so fair he gets to pay for some of the 49% who don't pay.

The Ryan budget CUTS spending. That is why it will work in reining in the deficit and accumulated debt.

Blame the Poor, Tax the Poor, in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy and eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Have you even read the Ryan Budget Plan? That is precisely what it does. It will ruin this country and is estimated to triple our deficit.

Again: the facts of the Republican Blame and Tax The Poor War are these:

[quote]
7/27/2011 Forbes Magazine
Why Do Some People Pay No Federal Income Tax?

Much has been made of the Tax Policy Center’s estimate that fully 46 percent of Americans will pay no federal individual income tax this year.

Commentators have often misinterpreted that percentage as indicating that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes.

In fact, however, many of those who don’t pay income tax do pay other taxes—federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes.

The large percentage of people not paying income tax is often blamed on tax breaks that zero out many households’ income tax bills and can even result in net payments from the government.

While that’s the case for many households, a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes.

The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.

What about the rest of the untaxed households, the 23 percent of households who don’t pay income tax because of particular tax breaks? We divided tax expenditures (special provisions in the tax code that benefit particular taxpayers or activities) into eight categories and asked which ones made the most people nontaxable.

The conclusion: Three-fourths of those households pay no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children.

Those provisions include the exclusion of some Social Security benefits from taxable income,the tax credit and extra standard deduction for the elderly, and the child, earned income, and childcare tax credits that primarily help low-income workers with children (see graph).