Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[jc456]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage proscribed by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

huh? What the fk does that mean? so if a flat tax was 10% what is 10% of 1 million? can you do the math? Wouldn't that be the person's fair share?

'Still can't figure out what the hell you libturds want.

Maybe it would be better to ask you if you know what income even is.

If the tax rate on $1 million, then his fair share is $100,000 not 24,000 because of a bunch of loopholes.

My post was about simplifying the tax code. Apparently you're against that, lib.

Come on dude, again, do you know what income is?

 

[bendog]

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

 

[jc456]

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

are you then willing to taxing charities?

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

why do you need deductions on a flat tax? Do you get a deduction on sales tax?

 

[jc456]

I'm not the one advocating this radical flattax. You're asking the wrong person.

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

 

[Davros]

The progressive income tax allows for the government to rake in more money while not over burdening the lower and middle class beyond their means. These classes drive our economy by spending.

A flat tax would require also cutting government spending to ensure the deficit wouldn't skyrocket. However, by eliminating the complexity of the tax code, and hence eliminating the means the rich use to avoid paying their fair share, plus the potential boon to the economy of cutting tax rates, revenue may not take as big a hit as initially calculated. This could result in surplus and debt reduction. Overall a win win.

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage proscribed by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

huh? What the fk does that mean? so if a flat tax was 10% what is 10% of 1 million? can you do the math? Wouldn't that be the person's fair share?

'Still can't figure out what the hell you libturds want.

Maybe it would be better to ask you if you know what income even is.

If the tax rate on $1 million, then his fair share is $100,000 not 24,000 because of a bunch of loopholes.

My post was about simplifying the tax code. Apparently you're against that, lib.

Come on dude, again, do you know what income is?

Are you against simplifying the tax code with a flat tax on all income including stocks and capital gains?

 

[jc456]

Because I'm smarter than you are.

That's true, but probably not something to brag about. A pair of old gym socks are smarter than him.

So you won't answer the question either

This is called a debate so tell me why progressive taxes are good for income but not for example sales taxes?

No. This is not a debate. This is a forum where I can laugh at stupid right wing claims. If you understood and accepted the nature of facts, we could debate, but sadly the right has shown that is not possible.

So you're incapable of answering the question
Got it.

No, I'm not interested in wasting time answering questions from you.

bye

 

[jc456]

Capital gains are taxed differently.

Not under the flat tax I have been proposing they aren't

I used capital gains because you were whining that the rich would get a tax cut if we used a flat tax I showed you how they wouldn't

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

no they can't, they don't understand math and percentages.

 

[bendog]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

 

[Care4all]

the Federal government is supposedly only allowed to income tax us on our profit income...

just like with businesses and corporations, they are not taxed on their total revenues, they are only taxed on the PROFIT they make, so that means what they pay their employees out of their revenues is not taxable, what they pay for Rent and utilities, and travel are not taxable, and pretty much everything that they spend their yearly revenues on that involve their business, is NOT taxable income/taxable revenues....

If we individuals were given the same benefit of only being income taxed on our true profit that we made after deducting rent, our cars used for work, and gasoline back and forth to work, and food that we needed to sustain us, and so on and so forth....we'd have the same benefits as those that are in business for themselves and corporations.

Instead, we are given a measly Standard $6000 as a deduction for our living expenses and all else is considered taxable income....

Unless of course you own a home, then they let you deduct your Mortgage expense...along with a lot of other things....but not for renters...

they are stuck with only the Standard deduction as being exempt from taxes....and IF AND ONLY IF, the Standard deduction would have kept up with the cost of Living, as mentioned, it would be $68 K a person in today's dollars, BEFORE the government could come and tax you on any of your income above that....

they also allow the deduction for dependents and credits for children.

IN THE BEGINNING

I don't believe they gave a Standard deduction for children....at all.

 

[jc456]

what is fair share, please give me your definition.

Fair share is to pay close to the percentage proscribed by law for your income bracket. If you make 1 million, you should pay close to what the rate on millionaires is.

huh? What the fk does that mean? so if a flat tax was 10% what is 10% of 1 million? can you do the math? Wouldn't that be the person's fair share?

'Still can't figure out what the hell you libturds want.

Maybe it would be better to ask you if you know what income even is.

If the tax rate on $1 million, then his fair share is $100,000 not 24,000 because of a bunch of loopholes.

My post was about simplifying the tax code. Apparently you're against that, lib.

Come on dude, again, do you know what income is?

Are you against simplifying the tax code with a flat tax on all income including stocks and capital gains?

I am for a flat tax. bring it on. I already purchase all goods under that system.

 

[jc456]

the Federal government is supposedly only allowed to income tax us on our profit income...

just like with businesses and corporations, they are not taxed on their total revenues, they are only taxed on the PROFIT they make, so that means what they pay their employees out of their revenues is not taxable, what they pay for Rent and utilities, and travel are not taxable, and pretty much everything that they spend their yearly revenues on that involve their business, is NOT taxable income/taxable revenues....

If we individuals were given the same benefit of only being income taxed on our true profit that we made after deducting rent, our cars used for work, and gasoline back and forth to work, and food that we needed to sustain us, and so on and so forth....we'd have the same benefits as those that are in business for themselves and corporations.

Instead, we are given a measly Standard $6000 as a deduction for our living expenses and all else is considered taxable income....

Unless of course you own a home, then they let you deduct your Mortgage expense...along with a lot of other things....but not for renters...

they are stuck with only the Standard deduction as being exempt from taxes....and IF AND ONLY IF, the Standard deduction would have kept up with the cost of Living, as mentioned, it would be $68 K a person in today's dollars, BEFORE the government could come and tax you on any of your income above that....

they also allow the deduction for dependents and credits for children.

IN THE BEGINNING

I don't believe they gave a Standard deduction for children....at all.

the tax code I believe was always built allowing for dependents in the household. In the US that is.

 

[Davros]

no you said it wasn't fair. I want you to give me an example of why paying 1,000 dollars or 100,000 dollars isn't fair? The rich dude pays 100 times the money. How isn't that fair? What is fair?

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

Ny was talking about government 'of the People', which is a reference to unlimited democracy.

How do you limit democracy?

By establishing a republic

 

[jc456]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

well first you need to know what money is available to tax don't you think that that would be important? If someone has 1 million dollars in a bank that person pays no tax on that money. You know this right? So when you say a millionaire you only get to tax that dude on profits you should really learn what income is to discuss the subject, it's obvious you don't know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You say the rich use attorneys to wring "every advantage" out of a progressive tax. What advantage does a progressive tax have for the rich that a flat tax does not?

In a flat tax system you cannot buy political favoritism to incorporate loop holes that benefit you directly, one would think that would be self evident given the monstrosity that the "progressive" tax system in the U.S. has become. It also doesn't allow for rampant experimentation in social engineering by the morons in Washington that can't even figure out how to balance their check book.

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

What the tax accountants do is exploit the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures in the tax code.

And those tax expenditures have NOTHING to do with the fact we have a progressive tax. Those very same tax expenditures would be carried right over into the flat tax system.

Even with a progressive income tax, you could fill out your taxes on a post card today if there were no such thing as tax expenditures.

It's tax expenditures which make our system so inequitable, not progressive taxation.

And without tax expenditures, almost every tax attorney and accountant in the country would be out of business. As would legions and legions of lobbyists.

There is no such thing as a "tax expenditure" it's a fairy tale invented by people that think government has rightful claim to the entirety of every citizens income, thus your entire premise is invalid.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

Yes churches are nothing but businesses I'll add charities to that list too

I thought you'd all giggly about getting rid of deductions for charity after all it's how all those rich assholes pay less in taxes

 

[jc456]

The OP is pretending the flat tax is fair, but it's merely an arbitrary declaration of what fair is.

Would it be 'fair' if all purchases of goods and services were based on a percentage of your income, instead of the same price for everyone?

We really lost this argument (as Americans) when W bribed the very rich with the tax cut to kill off Forbes in 2000. The concept is intriguing, but unless you think the Big Quack is some kind of benevolent small govt reformer bent on taking back the gop ... it's probably not going anywhere. OF course there's very real possibility the Big Quack will fracture the gop, and that might not be a bad thing, long term.

But, to have any viability, a flat tax would have to have standard deduction for the lower earners, as well as somehow preserving the EITC, which really has been a good thing for society. And, there's no way to do it without axing pretty much all deductions, beyond some limited amount that could be given to non-profits like churches or schools. And, even then, the math has got to work out to show the vast maj of middle earners are better off with the flat tax and not mortgage deduction.

Personally, I don't see how the math can work out. And the aging out of the boomers makes Forbes' math even harder. Possibly we could move this direction if we included some "surcharge" income tax on the very rich in exchange for a zero corporate tax.

you should learn what income is. It isn't money in a bank or money in stocks.

you should learn to read.

you should learn first what income is and then you should learn math and percentages.

You are an arrogant, pedantic, condescending fool.

The reason a flat tax should have a deduction is so that taxes on the poor and middle class are not increased beyond their means.

what the fk does that mean? If the poor person buys cigarettes you know they spend more on taxes for those then they do on income today?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side.

The progressive income tax started... on imaginary scenario, and you lefties still trying to expand your dreams.

The progressive income is real, here and now.

And is patently unfair

Gee it's a good thing no one like you was around when the framers were rebelling against ENgland

I can hear you now

"We have a king that's real ,here and now"

 

[jc456]

In a flat tax system you cannot buy political favoritism to incorporate loop holes that benefit you directly, one would think that would be self evident given the monstrosity that the "progressive" tax system in the U.S. has become. It also doesn't allow for rampant experimentation in social engineering by the morons in Washington that can't even figure out how to balance their check book.

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

There is no such thing as a "tax expenditure" it's a fairy tale invented by people that think government has rightful claim to the entirety of every citizens income, thus your entire premise is invalid.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

Just because some guy on the internet says that all dollars should be taxed the same...

how does that prove anything?

Oh, btw, are you going to tax church income the same, in your imaginary world?

Yes churches are nothing but businesses I'll add charities to that list too

I thought you'd all giggly about getting rid of deductions for charity after all it's how all those rich assholes pay less in taxes

well that will really kill off the poor and needy.

 

[Davros]

I really don't know, or care, what JC's definition of income is, or isn't, but he's clearly not got a clue as to what the govt can legally tax. But, we were clearly only discussing income, and his entire diatribe is nothing but a distraction from the discussion, and best off ignored. imo.

Unless, he wants to grab onto a clue.

well first you need to know what money is available to tax don't you think that that would be important? If someone has 1 million dollars in a bank that person pays no tax on that money. You know this right? So when you say a millionaire you only get to tax that dude on profits you should really learn what income is to discuss the subject, it's obvious you don't know.

Nobody is proposing an annual tax on all assets. You're arguing against a strawman.

 

[jc456]

Not under the flat tax I have been proposing they aren't

I used capital gains because you were whining that the rich would get a tax cut if we used a flat tax I showed you how they wouldn't

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

and someone making 160,000 will pay 24,000, ten times as much.