Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 151
Thanks Tree38Thanks

Thread: The "fair and resonable" tax proposal

  1. #41
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,331
    Thanks
    5298

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    I am a chemist not an economist. Without knowing some hard numbers I can't speculate with hard numbers, that would be kinda stupid. Like I said, start with returning to the tax rates we had in 1975, is that hard enough?
    well, have you run the numbers based on the proposal? should be somewhat less difficult than the current system.

  2. #42
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13568

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    well, have you run the numbers based on the proposal? should be somewhat less difficult than the current system.
    Run what numbers? I am not at liberty to have all the numbers necessary and anyone proposing a fucking flat tax can't possibly have them. One thing I do know is that all the idiots out there that contend the problem all lies in spending and revenue has nothing to do with it are blithering idiots.
    Thanks from libertariat720

  3. #43
    Established Member libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,128
    Thanks
    2240

    From
    ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Run what numbers? I am not at liberty to have all the numbers necessary and anyone proposing a fucking flat tax can't possibly have them. One thing I do know is that all the idiots out there that contend the problem all lies in spending and revenue has nothing to do with it are blithering idiots.
    In other words, "I have no idea what I'm talking about but those other people are the stupid ones."

    Too rich, thank you!
    Thanks from bonehead

  4. #44
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,331
    Thanks
    5298

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Run what numbers? I am not at liberty to have all the numbers necessary and anyone proposing a fucking flat tax can't possibly have them. One thing I do know is that all the idiots out there that contend the problem all lies in spending and revenue has nothing to do with it are blithering idiots.
    the numbers are quite evident from the initial proposal. see below for the breakdown:

    married couple

    income - 30,000
    income tax = 3000 (All SSA and Medicare)

    income - 60,000
    income tax = 6000 (All SSA and Medicare)

    income - 100,000
    income tax = 10,000 (SSA and Medicare) + 6000 (Federal Income Tax)

    income - 500,000
    income tax = 10,000 (SSA and Medicare) + 6,000 (Federal Income Tax) + 100,000 (Federal

    Income Tax)


    income - 1,000,000
    income tax = 10,000 + 6,000 + 225,000

    income - 10,000,000
    income tax = 10,000 + 6,000 + 4,250,000

  5. #45
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13568

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    the numbers are quite evident from the initial proposal. see below for the breakdown:

    married couple

    income - 30,000
    income tax = 3000 (All SSA and Medicare)

    income - 60,000
    income tax = 6000 (All SSA and Medicare)

    income - 100,000
    income tax = 10,000 (SSA and Medicare) + 6000 (Federal Income Tax)

    income - 500,000
    income tax = 10,000 (SSA and Medicare) + 6,000 (Federal Income Tax) + 100,000 (Federal

    Income Tax)


    income - 1,000,000
    income tax = 10,000 + 6,000 + 225,000

    income - 10,000,000
    income tax = 10,000 + 6,000 + 4,250,000
    The numbers I am talking about are what is our total spending and what is our total revenue. If the spending number is higher than the revenue number your taxes aren't high enough. If the revenue is higher than the spending that's probably good, we need to make up for the idiots who thought cutting taxes to the bone was a good idea. You seem to think if you post some numbers I can decide if it will work? How can you tell that unless you tell me what our spending is and what will be the total revenue generated by having such a tax code? Tell me, if we were to adopt the numbers you suggest here what will be our total revenue and also factor in the fact those rates I assume are prior to any deductions? Not so easy is it?

    And the guy making 500k pays the same SS and Medicare as the guy making 100k? That shouldn't be and probably why they say it's going broke.
    Last edited by Pragmatist; 6th November 2016 at 04:46 AM.

  6. #46
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,331
    Thanks
    5298

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    The numbers I am talking about are what is our total spending and what is our total revenue. If the spending number is higher than the revenue number your taxes aren't high enough. If the revenue is higher than the spending that's probably good, we need to make up for the idiots who thought cutting taxes to the bone was a good idea. You seem to think if you post some numbers I can decide if it will work? How can you tell that unless you tell me what our spending is and what will be the total revenue generated by having such a tax code? Tell me, if we were to adopt the numbers you suggest here what will be our total revenue and also factor in the fact those rates I assume are prior to any deductions? Not so easy is it?

    And the guy making 500k pays the same SS and Medicare as the guy making 100k? That shouldn't be and probably why they say it's going broke.
    I rounded the numbers for SSA and Medicare to 100,000 limit to simplify - the current cap is around 108,000 (tied to the benefits). all you have to do is multiply the figures by the current numbers of people in those income brackets to get the total revenue for individuals. business will be similar with the exemptions listed in the proposal. it ain't rocket science.

  7. #47
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks
    3035

    From
    UK/Australia
    I don't think any of us are in possession of the data with which to work out a balance between revenues and expenditure which will be at least neutral - in respect of any of our societies. However, it might prove useful to examine the purposes of taxation.

    It appears to me that the primary purpose of taxation is to provide sufficient revenue with which to run a society in the manner we see fit. As you can see, we are already operating in the realms of ambiguity, as different ideologies have different blueprints for their ideal society. Perhaps the only things we may all agree upon in respect of our conceptually ideal society, might be a secure, non-violent place, in which inequity is kept to the minimum required to avoid individual suffering - particularly where the dis-empowered and disenfranchised are concerned (children being a prime example thereof).

    Therefore, any discussion devolving about taxation systems should perhaps concern itself with practical consideration of that potential harm, rather than any conceptual unfairness to the already socially and financially advantaged. To use a somewhat hyperbolic example, a man on five million a year could easily afford to pay an effective 60% in income taxes, and neither he nor his family would struggle to exist on a nett two million dollars/pounds/euros. Whereas a family trying to get by on twenty thousand might easily suffer if subjected to even a modest 20% effective tax rate. And this is before considering VAT or any other form of consumption taxes - which are unequivocally regressive, but beloved of governments.

    The current systems of progressive taxation rates extant in most civilised societies are at fault only insofar as the rates are kept too low to balance the books - largely by the efforts of politicians whose only foresight encompasses their chances at the next general election. A fist full of dollars should not be the premium enticement from those who would seek to govern our children's future.

  8. #48
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13568

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    I don't think any of us are in possession of the data with which to work out a balance between revenues and expenditure which will be at least neutral - in respect of any of our societies. However, it might prove useful to examine the purposes of taxation.

    It appears to me that the primary purpose of taxation is to provide sufficient revenue with which to run a society in the manner we see fit. As you can see, we are already operating in the realms of ambiguity, as different ideologies have different blueprints for their ideal society. Perhaps the only things we may all agree upon in respect of our conceptually ideal society, might be a secure, non-violent place, in which inequity is kept to the minimum required to avoid individual suffering - particularly where the dis-empowered and disenfranchised are concerned (children being a prime example thereof).

    Therefore, any discussion devolving about taxation systems should perhaps concern itself with practical consideration of that potential harm, rather than any conceptual unfairness to the already socially and financially advantaged. To use a somewhat hyperbolic example, a man on five million a year could easily afford to pay an effective 60% in income taxes, and neither he nor his family would struggle to exist on a nett two million dollars/pounds/euros. Whereas a family trying to get by on twenty thousand might easily suffer if subjected to even a modest 20% effective tax rate. And this is before considering VAT or any other form of consumption taxes - which are unequivocally regressive, but beloved of governments.

    The current systems of progressive taxation rates extant in most civilised societies are at fault only insofar as the rates are kept too low to balance the books - largely by the efforts of politicians whose only foresight encompasses their chances at the next general election. A fist full of dollars should not be the premium enticement from those who would seek to govern our children's future.
    Apparently somebody gets it!

  9. #49
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,331
    Thanks
    5298

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Apparently somebody gets it!
    I would use the current expenditures to make an estimate. any cuts in that would make an improvement. there is a history of expenditures we can use. but, my goal is to provide the revenues to fund the programs we are all discussing for the citizens, so my numbers are high based on the current ones.
    Thanks from Leo2

  10. #50
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13568

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    I rounded the numbers for SSA and Medicare to 100,000 limit to simplify - the current cap is around 108,000 (tied to the benefits). all you have to do is multiply the figures by the current numbers of people in those income brackets to get the total revenue for individuals. business will be similar with the exemptions listed in the proposal. it ain't rocket science.
    All you have to do is multiply the numbers? How many are in each group and what are the deductions? How many in each of those groups get what deductions and how much are they going to be? If all you have to do is multiply the numbers then what will be our total revenue with your tax code? Now, what is our total spending?

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. do u think bill clinton's affairs are "fair game" in this election.
    By the watchman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: 4th October 2016, 01:01 PM
  2. Replies: 79
    Last Post: 16th July 2016, 05:30 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 14th December 2014, 02:01 PM
  4. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 6th December 2012, 06:17 AM
  5. A new "Modest Proposal" for American politicsl
    By Rasselas in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5th February 2012, 02:19 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed