We Already Have a Flat Tax

Rune said:
In reality, even under your fantasy scheme, the rich would end up paying even less than they do now, which is why Simplefreak approves.
Click to expand...

Wow, only an idiot would be able to get that from the clearly sliding scale that a standardized deduction provides.
 
bravo said:
State and local taxes are as flat as you can get.....I'm for flat with little or no room for the social engineering rules, rates, and regulations that the Democrats love to use to force their agenda on the people, and to buy votes and voters with breaks or give 'special' consideration to those that support them or make people rely on them for goodies.

To deny thats what the tax code is used for today is to admit you have you eyes closed.....
When you're paying $5 for gas and your neighbor is getting it for free because hes "poor" , you might have your epiphany....

Success, brains or just good luck should not be penalized.....and I'm not against a helping to those that show they are doing all they can to be productive citizens....but if it goes on for generations, its time for change
Click to expand...

With regards to what? Again, the analysis I posted clearly shows that even the most "progressive" of state tax systems (such as California's) are basically flat. In a typical one, the top 1% will pay about half of what the bottom 20% does in income.
 
Damocles said:
Wow, only an idiot would be able to get that from the clearly sliding scale that a standardized deduction provides.
Click to expand...

Wow, only an idiot would make an assumption and then call someone an idiot based on that assumption.

Under every flat scheme proposed so far, the 1% pay less, hence the push.

Research first, insult second.
 
Rune said:
Wow, only an idiot would make an assumption and then call someone an idiot based on that assumption.

Under every flat scheme proposed so far, the 1% pay less, hence the push.

Research first, insult second.
Click to expand...

No, they do not.

They pay more as their tax loopholes and deductions are gone.
 
I prefer the Fair Tax. That way, the rich pay more, because they make bigger purchases. Even crybaby leftists should be cool with that...
 
Superfreak said:
No, they do not.

They pay more as their tax loopholes and deductions are gone.
Click to expand...


I don't know if it's true that they pay more or not. I haven't run the numbers. But for the 2010 tax year the average rate for the top 1% was about 24%, which was higher than the average rate for other groups.
 
Rune said:
Wow, only an idiot would make an assumption and then call someone an idiot based on that assumption.

Under every flat scheme proposed so far, the 1% pay less, hence the push.

Research first, insult second.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely incorrect. Flat wrong.

Let me work the numbers for you...

Let's say the standard deduction was set at 65K... (just for the sake of the example).

Those who make less than 65K simply do not pay taxes.

Those who make more pay only on the money above 60K...

So, let's do the figures. For this example we'll set the tax rate at 20%...

I can use the figures from above but most of it would be nonsense, so I'll work it this way.

$0 to $65K will pay no tax.
$70K pays the flat tax on $5,000 So they pay $1000 or 1.5% of their total income.
$100K pays the flat tax on $35K so they would pay $7000 or 7% of their total income.
$150K pays the flat tax on $85K so they would pay $17,000 or 11.3% of their total income.

Notice how the bill and the percentage of their income increases with each step?

The reality is a flat tax with a standard deduction would ensure a progressive tax system that was much simpler, and allowed for less shenanigans.

You simply set the rate where it is needed, and set the standard deduction where it is needed and blammo... A relatively fair and easy tax system that doesn't take 70,000 pages of Sanskrit...
 
Damocles said:
You are absolutely incorrect. Flat wrong.

Let me work the numbers for you...

Let's say the standard deduction was set at 65K... (just for the sake of the example).

Those who make less than 65K simply do not pay taxes.

Those who make more pay only on the money above 65K...

So, let's do the figures. For this example we'll set the tax rate at 20%...

I can use the figures from above but most of it would be nonsense, so I'll work it this way.

$0 to $65K will pay no tax.
$70K pays the flat tax on $5,000 So they pay $1000 or 1.5% of their total income.
$100K pays the flat tax on $35K so they would pay $7000 or 7% of their total income.
$150K pays the flat tax on $85K so they would pay $17,000 or 11.3% of their total income.

Notice how the bill and the percentage of their income increases with each step?

The reality is a flat tax with a standard deduction would ensure a progressive tax system that was much simpler, and allowed for less shenanigans.

You simply set the rate where it is needed, and set the standard deduction where it is needed and blammo... A relatively fair and easy tax system that doesn't take 70,000 pages of Sanskrit...
Click to expand...

You proved nothing, but made it sound good. Do you write for Fox news?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
General Buck Turgidson said:
State and local taxes are regressive. You can choose not to admit that if you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


To YOU they are regressive.....to ME they are fair......20% for Tom, Dick AND Harry............no ifs and or buts.....

They don't price your bread by how much your paycheck is.....you live within you means and thats the bottom line.....

and paying by percentage is more progressive than that fixed price of bread....


Local tax is what.....1%......that $500 if you make $50,000
Thats $1000 if you make $100,000.....................same percentage....
 
Meet Rune.....the pinhead I described in post 8......soaked and saturated in koolade, a braindead robot
 
Hear that, PRune?.....Thats the sound of nobody caring wtf you think.

Now,
Wipe you mouth, theres still a tiny bit of bullshit around your lips....or is it semen....

well, whatever..................
 
i wanted to comment on this earlier in the day, but i was busy.

the logic of the post is asinine. the OP doesn't even support the notion that we "already" have a flat tax. an 8th grader could figure out the math and realize how dumb the OP is.
 
Rune said:
You proved nothing, but made it sound good. Do you write for Fox news?
Click to expand...

What? All I did was simple math. You are projecting stupid onto this and attacking me personally. I don't think you are stupid, just your opinion on this matter is so riddled with idiocy that you've "heard". So much so that you can't even look at math as something that can "prove" something that you don't want to believe.
 
none said:
i wanted to comment on this earlier in the day, but i was busy.

the logic of the post is asinine. the OP doesn't even support the notion that we "already" have a flat tax. an 8th grader could figure out the math and realize how dumb the OP is.
Click to expand...


I missed this one. Lolers.
 
Damocles said:
You are absolutely incorrect. Flat wrong.

Let me work the numbers for you...

Let's say the standard deduction was set at 65K... (just for the sake of the example).

Those who make less than 65K simply do not pay taxes.

Those who make more pay only on the money above 60K...

So, let's do the figures. For this example we'll set the tax rate at 20%...

I can use the figures from above but most of it would be nonsense, so I'll work it this way.

$0 to $65K will pay no tax.
$70K pays the flat tax on $5,000 So they pay $1000 or 1.5% of their total income.
$100K pays the flat tax on $35K so they would pay $7000 or 7% of their total income.
$150K pays the flat tax on $85K so they would pay $17,000 or 11.3% of their total income.

Notice how the bill and the percentage of their income increases with each step?

The reality is a flat tax with a standard deduction would ensure a progressive tax system that was much simpler, and allowed for less shenanigans.

You simply set the rate where it is needed, and set the standard deduction where it is needed and blammo... A relatively fair and easy tax system that doesn't take 70,000 pages of Sanskrit...
Click to expand...

They would theoretically pay less than the current scheme. However, the rich as it is typically pay less than it the upper middle class as % of income, because of, I assume, tax breaks and the lower capital gains rate.
 
bravo said:
To YOU they are regressive.....to ME they are fair......20% for Tom, Dick AND Harry............no ifs and or buts.....

They don't price your bread by how much your paycheck is.....you live within you means and thats the bottom line.....

and paying by percentage is more progressive than that fixed price of bread....


Local tax is what.....1%......that $500 if you make $50,000
Thats $1000 if you make $100,000.....................same percentage....
Click to expand...

Really?

You are apparently OK with a flat tax of 20% on income above 40k (or so) a year. Let's say we had a flat tax of, say 35% on income above 350k a year. Would that be any different in form? No, it's the exact same thing with a higher threshold and rate. Now let's say that, rather than discounting 100% of the tax rate on income below between 200k and 350k a year, we, say, discount only 20% of it, for a total rate of 30%. That doesn't sound incredibly different; surely if we can have a total deduction, we can have a partial deduction.

Oh dear! Now that I look at things, it seems that I have reinvented the evil progressive tax system!
 
none said:
i wanted to comment on this earlier in the day, but i was busy.

the logic of the post is asinine. the OP doesn't even support the notion that we "already" have a flat tax. an 8th grader could figure out the math and realize how dumb the OP is.
Click to expand...

What? I don't read that in the article.
 
Alexander Hamilton said:
They would theoretically pay less than the current scheme. However, the rich as it is typically pay less than it the upper middle class as % of income, because of, I assume, tax breaks and the lower capital gains rate.
Click to expand...


It's nto necessarily true that tich typically pay less than the upper middle class (depending hoe you define those terms). The top 1% pay on average a 24% effective rate. Of course, those with mostly capital gains income pay less. At the extreme high end rates decline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top