Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[jc456]

Taking a wild guess, but isn't JC hijacking the thread to promote the concept of "double taxation?" If so, asshole.

I got the thread where it needed to get to.

 

[jc456]

after considerable discussion in this thread, a flat tax is not a good idea for many many reasons. Jobs, Charity and survival. It is not a good idea at all. I completely changed my position on this. Thanks NYCarbineer

I got myself an edumication I did.

 

[jc456]

I will still argue what is a fair share and still want someone on the left to present a definition from the libs playbook.

 

[Norman]

I will still argue what is a fair share and still want someone on the left to present a definition from the libs playbook.

Fair share = more than whatever you are paying. Even in Greece, the promised land of taxation (no wonder it was the first to fall), the regressives are complaining that the problem is that not enough taxes are paid, despite the tax rate being about 60% by now.

 

[Ravi]

why can't you give an example of your concern? What is it you're afraid of?

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

I haven't proposed a rate at all

I've said I'm not sure what the rate would be but yes those paying no tax would have to pay tax why do you have a problem with that?

So we have people hardly making ends meet. And you want to take more money away from them, increasing the demand for welfare and charity, decreasing consumer spending, creating more poverty. .. all in the name of fairness to the fat cats?

Absurd.

I'm thinking we could be revenue neutral with a flat tax of 10% sorry but no one is going to have a huge lifestyle change if they take home 90 cents on the dollar

10% on a 20,000/year income is a $2000 tax where probably there was none before.

That is a huge 'lifestyle' change.

Currently (2016) a single person making $20,000 a year income would pay $1,592.69 in income tax. That is with no deductions at all, and there's always something to deduct or an earned income tax credit lurking.

So yes, the 10% flat tax would hurt that person.

 

[Norman]

The OP has proposed raising taxes dramatically on people making as low as minimum wage, or even lower I guess. He wants to tax every dollar earned, anywhere, any way.

You can either agree with him or debate him. It's his thread.

I haven't proposed a rate at all

I've said I'm not sure what the rate would be but yes those paying no tax would have to pay tax why do you have a problem with that?

So we have people hardly making ends meet. And you want to take more money away from them, increasing the demand for welfare and charity, decreasing consumer spending, creating more poverty. .. all in the name of fairness to the fat cats?

Absurd.

I'm thinking we could be revenue neutral with a flat tax of 10% sorry but no one is going to have a huge lifestyle change if they take home 90 cents on the dollar

10% on a 20,000/year income is a $2000 tax where probably there was none before.

That is a huge 'lifestyle' change.

Currently (2016) a single person making $20,000 a year income would pay $1,592.69 in income tax. That is with no deductions at all, and there's always something to deduct or an earned income tax credit lurking.

So yes, the 10% flat tax would hurt that person.

If he planned on being welfare for the rest of his life..

 

[Ravi]

I haven't proposed a rate at all

I've said I'm not sure what the rate would be but yes those paying no tax would have to pay tax why do you have a problem with that?

So we have people hardly making ends meet. And you want to take more money away from them, increasing the demand for welfare and charity, decreasing consumer spending, creating more poverty. .. all in the name of fairness to the fat cats?

Absurd.

I'm thinking we could be revenue neutral with a flat tax of 10% sorry but no one is going to have a huge lifestyle change if they take home 90 cents on the dollar

10% on a 20,000/year income is a $2000 tax where probably there was none before.

That is a huge 'lifestyle' change.

Currently (2016) a single person making $20,000 a year income would pay $1,592.69 in income tax. That is with no deductions at all, and there's always something to deduct or an earned income tax credit lurking.

So yes, the 10% flat tax would hurt that person.

If he planned on being welfare for the rest of his life..

Non sequitor.

 

[Norman]

So we have people hardly making ends meet. And you want to take more money away from them, increasing the demand for welfare and charity, decreasing consumer spending, creating more poverty. .. all in the name of fairness to the fat cats?

Absurd.

I'm thinking we could be revenue neutral with a flat tax of 10% sorry but no one is going to have a huge lifestyle change if they take home 90 cents on the dollar

10% on a 20,000/year income is a $2000 tax where probably there was none before.

That is a huge 'lifestyle' change.

Currently (2016) a single person making $20,000 a year income would pay $1,592.69 in income tax. That is with no deductions at all, and there's always something to deduct or an earned income tax credit lurking.

So yes, the 10% flat tax would hurt that person.

If he planned on being welfare for the rest of his life..

Non sequitor.

Not really, generally people don't plan on earning less than 20K/year in earnings over lifetime... Unless they are regressives stuck on welfare, in which case it's a choice and should not be forecfully supported by others.

But of course, some people have an attention span of 15 minutes... I mean it's not like a retirement program that's completely unfunded and based on spending didn't pass the vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm thinking we could be revenue neutral with a flat tax of 10% sorry but no one is going to have a huge lifestyle change if they take home 90 cents on the dollar

10% on a 20,000/year income is a $2000 tax where probably there was none before.

That is a huge 'lifestyle' change.

Currently (2016) a single person making $20,000 a year income would pay $1,592.69 in income tax. That is with no deductions at all, and there's always something to deduct or an earned income tax credit lurking.

So yes, the 10% flat tax would hurt that person.

If he planned on being welfare for the rest of his life..

Non sequitor.

Not really, generally people don't plan on earning less than 20K/year in earnings over lifetime... Unless they are regressives stuck on welfare, in which case it's a choice and should not be forecfully supported by others.

But of course, some people have an attention span of 15 minutes... I mean it's not like a retirement program that's completely unfunded and based on spending didn't pass the vote.

Many spouses work low paying jobs as a second income for a household.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

Tax policies to influence behavior should be done away with

What about criminal and civil law to influence behaviour?

You mean making something illegal because some moron on capitol hill thinks it "bad" for people?

You won't be surprised to hear that I am in favor of legalizing all drugs, prostitution and other victim-less crimes and then giving the money saved back to the people inthe form of lower taxes

 

[Skull Pilot]

10% on a 20,000/year income is a $2000 tax where probably there was none before.

That is a huge 'lifestyle' change.

Currently (2016) a single person making $20,000 a year income would pay $1,592.69 in income tax. That is with no deductions at all, and there's always something to deduct or an earned income tax credit lurking.

So yes, the 10% flat tax would hurt that person.

If he planned on being welfare for the rest of his life..

Non sequitor.

Not really, generally people don't plan on earning less than 20K/year in earnings over lifetime... Unless they are regressives stuck on welfare, in which case it's a choice and should not be forecfully supported by others.

But of course, some people have an attention span of 15 minutes... I mean it's not like a retirement program that's completely unfunded and based on spending didn't pass the vote.

Many spouses work low paying jobs as a second income for a household.

Your argument that a flat tax will hurt a person making 20K a year falls apart with this example since married couples add their income together for tax purposes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

Tax policies to influence behavior should be done away with

I'll disagree with you on that.

So you want to leave in all the tax crap like tax credits for buying a certain car? Or for buying a certain water heater?

That is not the purpose of taxes

The sole purpose of taxation is to raise the revenue the government needs to perform its functions nothing else

 

[Skull Pilot]

well that will really kill off the poor and needy.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

yeah, I get that now that you and I have bantered it. Nope no good.

BTW, it is why the flat tax would actually hit the rich hardest.

well that will really kill off the poor and needy.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

Income to a business is the profit so yes you tax all the profit at a flat rate

Gross income is not just the profit.

Revenue is not income for a business
Income is the profit

If a charity is truly nonprofit then it will pay no income tax because every cent of revenue will be used for operational expenses and distribution to the stated cause of the charity and there will be no income to tax

 

[jc456]

well that will really kill off the poor and needy.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

Tax policies to influence behavior should be done away with

I'll disagree with you on that.

So you want to leave in all the tax crap like tax credits for buying a certain car? Or for buying a certain water heater?

That is not the purpose of taxes

The sole purpose of taxation is to raise the revenue the government needs to perform its functions nothing else

dude, I know what taxes are for. If society was starting out fresh, I'd say great idea. But it isn't. There are many established revenue rivers you'd be fking with to do that, and in my opinion you'll kill off the poor and stop job creation to implement something like that today. Look, I had to think logically about this through this thread. Good exercise for me. It enlightened me to the issues with the flat tax in today's world in the US.

 

[Timmy]

Do you consider peoples disposable income vs full income in your "fairness analysis ". Lower income people spend a lot of their income on bare necessities . Not so much higher income people .

By the way , this thread assumes that rich people are paying a higher % of taxes .

 

[jc456]

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

yeah, I get that now that you and I have bantered it. Nope no good.

BTW, it is why the flat tax would actually hit the rich hardest.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

Income to a business is the profit so yes you tax all the profit at a flat rate

Gross income is not just the profit.

Revenue is not income for a business
Income is the profit

If a charity is truly nonprofit then it will pay no income tax because every cent of revenue will be used for operational expenses and distribution to the stated cause of the charity and there will be no income to tax

and again, where do charities get money and why do you supposed they get as much as they do?

 

[Skull Pilot]

well that will really kill off the poor and needy.

I doubt that

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

Income to a business is the profit so yes you tax all the profit at a flat rate

So a business will retain all of its deductions but the average family won't.

lol

People aren't businesses never have been if they were treated like businesses you'd be able to write off everything from the food you buy to the rent you pay

 

[jc456]

Do you consider peoples disposable income vs full income in your "fairness analysis ". Lower income people spend a lot of their income on bare necessities . Not so much higher income people .

By the way , this thread assumes that rich people are paying a higher % of taxes .

so what taxes are you talking about?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you consider peoples disposable income vs full income in your "fairness analysis ". Lower income people spend a lot of their income on bare necessities . Not so much higher income people .

By the way , this thread assumes that rich people are paying a higher % of taxes .

Income is income just like a gallon of gas of a gallon of gas.

 

[Skull Pilot]

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

yeah, I get that now that you and I have bantered it. Nope no good.

BTW, it is why the flat tax would actually hit the rich hardest.

who will give to charities? The rich keep the money coming in on charities, you take away that loophole goodbye to money going there. I'm just sayin, where would the money come from?

All charity INCOME would be taxed as well under the OP's plan. He is taxing GROSS INCOME.

Income to a business is the profit so yes you tax all the profit at a flat rate

Gross income is not just the profit.

Revenue is not income for a business
Income is the profit

If a charity is truly nonprofit then it will pay no income tax because every cent of revenue will be used for operational expenses and distribution to the stated cause of the charity and there will be no income to tax

and again, where do charities get money and why do you supposed they get as much as they do?

I don't care. The work of private charities is not any business of the government

You assume people only give to charity for the tax write off