super thinks this is a flat tax plan

evince said:
you look like a complete fool here dude


stop digging
Click to expand...

LMAO... no desh... it is you that once again proves you will lie in order to further the myth that you are correct. My plan clearly states IN ADDITION TO... meaning it is not a part of the flat tax... it is IN ADDITION TO IT.

But you are a dishonest piece of shit who never admits when she is wrong.
 
evince said:
A flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income. A flat tax falls under proportional tax as they allow certain deductions. There are various tax systems that are labeled "flat tax" even though they are significantly different.



"True" flat rate income tax[edit]

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no deductions or exemptions.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
Click to expand...

evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax


A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.[1][2][3][4][5] The term "progressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the marginal tax rate.[6][7] The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases.[5]
Click to expand...


And you don't understand either of them do you.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... no desh... it is you that once again proves you will lie in order to further the myth that you are correct. My plan clearly states IN ADDITION TO... meaning it is not a part of the flat tax... it is IN ADDITION TO IT.

But you are a dishonest piece of shit who never admits when she is wrong.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much time you just spent, in two separate threads, arguing with a rock?
What in the world was your purpose?
:)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Do you realize how much time you just spent, in two separate threads, arguing with a rock?
What in the world was your purpose?
:)
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for stupid people and feel compelled to try and get them to understand terminology and the fact that words mean things. I pity her too much I suppose.
 
Super's description of a flat tax is probably the broadest, most widely accepted definition. It is the one advocated by Steve Forbes and other supporters of flat taxation. The point is that it has ONE rate of taxation, hence the "flat."

I think the only debate within the flat tax movement is where to start the taxation, i.e. do you start it at 1 dollar or 30,000 dollars. If you start taxation at an amount other than 30,000, it is true that the effective rate will depend on one's gross income. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp. Why does this thread even exist?
 
evince said:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ins-America-s-Biggest-Problem-Perfectly/page4




Today 08:11 AM
#47 | Top


Superfreak's Avatar

Superfreak














Superfreak is offline
The Almighty



Join Date:Dec 2006Location:Denver, COPosts:45,024Thanks:1,391Thanked 5,555 Times in 4,245 Posts Groans:152 Groaned 569 Times in 529 Posts Blog Entries:1


Default



For Desh... AGAIN...

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.

There is no corporate tax. Eliminate it. We can tax the money earned via capital gains taxation and distributions to shareholders. The only other way the money can come out of the firm is via salary/benefits... which would also be taxed. Done.

We would eliminate 70k+ pages of loopholes/deductions/subsidies...


Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "


Quick reply to this message Reply
Click to expand...



that element make it not flat
 
evince said:
Now he can prove any of it is enough to revenue to run the country
Click to expand...

Well, here's some food for thought. Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 13%. This isn't uncommon. But under the tax system advocated by SF, he would pay more... a lot more.

I'd actually pay a bit more, too, but I'd be OK with that.
 
Rationalist said:
Okay, fair enough, somehow I missed that. But I think the key word there is "temporary." What you'd basically have is a flat tax system with a temporary tax on large incomes.
Click to expand...

it wasn't flat like he claimed though which was my point that made him lose what little mind he has left
 
Rationalist said:
Super's description of a flat tax is probably the broadest, most widely accepted definition. It is the one advocated by Steve Forbes and other supporters of flat taxation. The point is that it has ONE rate of taxation, hence the "flat."

I think the only debate within the flat tax movement is where to start the taxation, i.e. do you start it at 1 dollar or 30,000 dollars. If you start taxation at an amount other than 30,000, it is true that the effective rate will depend on one's gross income. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp. Why does this thread even exist?
Click to expand...


Because Desh is an idiot who thought that she would start a new thread on the topic even though we were discussing this in another thread already. My guess is she enjoys looking like a retard. Hence multiple threads on the same topic so she can look foolish time and time again.
 
Rationalist said:
Okay, fair enough, somehow I missed that. But I think the key word there is "temporary." What you'd basically have is a flat tax system with a temporary tax on large incomes.
Click to expand...

Yes... her problem is that because I included other ideas along with the flat tax proposal she thinks the flat tax proposal suddenly is not flat. She is obviously too stupid to comprehend what is going on, so she clings in desperation to her ignorance with the hope that somehow she can salvage a small portion of the dignity she lost when trotting around the board looking like a fucking idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top