For some odd reason they didn't hire the same financial advisor, but heh, there's still hope!Originally Posted by Corrupt
Funny. I thought the principle of a flat tax is that everybody shoulders the same tax burden.
Serious question: what is the role of taxation? Something tells me, from your post, that there's something more to it than simple revenue raising.
The upper class get a tax cut, so they're happy. The working class pay more, but given a lot of tax money the welfare system they see more of a return on their investment. The middle class get the worst of both worlds
There was a lot of anger when child benefits in the UK was reduced from all parents, to all parents earning under X amout per year, because it meant that the middle class basically funded a benefits system that they got absolutely zero benefit from.
Imho, the role of taxation is to raise revenue for the various government services, however there is some argument about the fairest way of doing this. Flat tax is fair on paper, but hits the spending power of those least able to shoulder the burden. Progressive tax rates shift that burden towards the middle class, but cause resentment. There's no perfect method.
You do realize that most flat tax proposals in the US call for a rate that's under what the middle class are paying currently, right? It's rare to see a proposal above 15%; the 13% rate discussed earlier in the thread is actually one of the higher rates I've seen proposed. Of course, most people in the middle class receive some type of deduction which brings down their effective rates. I'm just curious how bringing in a lower tax rate for the middle class via a flat tax becomes "raping" them (his words, not yours).
The logic is that they're paying the same rate as the poor, who get more benefits from the welfare system, and the rich who can much more comfortably afford taxes without impacting on their quality of life in some way. How accurate that is I don't know.
So its a perception of loss rather than an actual loss.
Raise enough to shoulder your costs. ATM even the US interstate system is unsustainable since the infrastructure spending is way under international standards.
Your 13% or 15% tax proposals are worth nothing since they are not realistic. It's just populist bull****.
A rich man who has it's 2 consultants on investments profits much more than a poor man who has trouble to pay his healthcare bills. And both should pay 13%.
Right now, the bottom 50th percentile pays little or no income tax in America. Of course they are willing to demand every new government program under the sun because they are not paying for them. So one of the advantages of a flat tax is that everybody has 'skin in the game'. Taxes are raised on all, not just the wealthy, so people think twice before demanding more government spending from their elected representatives.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...es-looks-like/I believe that's correct. Also, the top 1% of earners take home 16.9 % of the nation's total income, but pay 36.7% of the nation's income taxes. 90% of Americans pay 30% of all income taxes.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-...income-tax.htm
Apparently thats an over simplified statement, with some google-fu it turns out that:
That said, why don't 49 percent of Americans owe any federal income tax on April 15th? There are two main reasons: income level and tax benefits. The tax system in the United States is designed to be progressive, meaning that higher incomes are asked to pay a larger percentage in taxes. If your income level is relatively low, standard deductions and exemptions can quickly lower your tax burden to zero. According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zeroi just dont understand why the poor and elderly people just dont get engineering jobs or finance jobs like my friends and i? *sarcasmSo who are the 49 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes? The vast majority are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families with children.
If 50% of all Americans are poor, then it's not the problem of the taxation. The real job must be to bring this people back to success, at least some of them. Taxing them is what it is - a tax increase.
But overall the taxes are not the problem in the US. It's low on international level.
Full stop, right there. You started your post with a false premise, thus all the subsequent stuff built upon that is likewise false and invalid. Wage earners at the 50th percentile are earning $50k per year. The poverty level, according to our federal government, varies with the number of people in your household.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml/
The bottom line is that most of the lower 50 percentile of wage earners are *not* in poverty. They pay little or no taxes because of tax deductions and credits.
Show me exactly where I advocated a 13% tax, or where I threw 15% as a tax rate by itself. Furthermore, you only seem to concern yourself with the revenue problem. Like it or not, your country has a fundamentally different view of what services the government should provide, as compared to mine. And given the amount of services that we receive in the US, our tax rate is obscenely high; you at least get some pretty significant returns on your tax "investment." But whatever. "International standards" and all.
Your last statement is, like you called (somebody else's -- not mine) the 13% tax proposal, populist bullsh*t. "Oh, they don't have the means to pay anything -- take their share from the rich." Define "rich." Quantify it. My parents, who make ~$240,000/year, but also have two children with significant ongoing medical costs, support my grandparents financially (mortgage, various expenses), a significant amount of student loan debt (~$150,000), as well as their own expenses -- are they rich?
You know what I mean. Not poor like most people think. But what are 50k for a family if you have to pay all your bills. Especially since you have to pay for college and whatever there.
Let's say you have 4 kids and 50k a year. How would you rate their quality of life? Or 50k without kids. Big difference.
No. I am not a friend of a big government. But I also see how private services fail.
But it's an interesting point. What is rich. Your parents have a very special burden with your grandparents. They work the same as other poeple who made 240.000 but have less out of it.
Wouldn't it be let's say fairer to tax the amount after you paid healthcare, education or care for grandparents? These are factors that shouldn't be a "burden"
Healthcare costs or care for older people are unpredictable, education is the basis for a successful nation.
Why should a hipster without kids and grandparents with 250k a year don't pay more taxes?
It depends. If they live in downtown San Francisco or NYC, they would be really scraping to get by, even without kids. If they were making the very same wage in Memphis, Tennessee, they would be doing pretty well, even with kids.
But your premise is still invalid. Wages are higher in areas with a high cost of living, like the Bay Area or the northeast. Yet with a 'progressive' tax rate, the family with four kids struggling to get by in NYC on $90k is going to get taxed like they are 'rich', while the family with two kids making $50k in Memphis is going to be taxed at a much lower rate, though they are doing far better.
There are so many variables that trying to account for the inequities is just not possible. There is income, how good your benefits are, geography, how many kids you have, whether your kids plan to go to college or not, and many, many more factors. This is another reason that a simple flat rate is best.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote