Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Skull Pilot]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

When you say:

I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income...


A flat rate on gross income taxes income that was never taxed before, so it is not a 'lower rate on all income'.

 

[Redfish]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Yes, and they would get it back, and more, via federal welfare, food stamps, etc. Every citizen needs to have some skin in the game of funding the federal beaurocracy.

 

[Skylar]

n

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And by 'liberal tax plan', you mean the tax plan of virtually every nation on earth?

Everybody's doing it so we should too

Not a good reason to do anything

More accurately if 150 nations approach the same problem....and come up with an identical solution 150 of 150 times, there's likely some solid practical reasons behind that decision. Progressive taxation works. As when you want fish, you fish where the fish are.

Your proposal is based on several truck sized holes. First, your premise that subjective value judgments invalidate law. That's nonsense. Virtually every law we have involves subjective value judgments. In fact, our system of law couldn't exist without it. Negating your entire point.

And second, that there's no difference in need between a billionaire buying another super yacht.....and someone struggling to pay the rent. You insist that the needs are the same. A rational person could recognize a distinction.

And when rational people around the world are asked if they can recognize that distinction, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'. With virtually every nation on earth applying progressive taxation.

Sorry income is income some income isn't worth more than other income because it is spent on different things

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, virtually every nation on earth, including our own.....recognizes the utility of progressive taxation. As when you want fish, you fish where the fish are. With greater income comes a greater capacity to pay taxes.

You can't recognize a distinction in need between a billionaire buying a new super yacht and someone struggling to pay the rent. A rational person could.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

Not on gross income it isn't. The 10% bracket is on TAXABLE INCOME. After exemptions, deductions, and credits, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Yes, and they would get it back, and more, via federal welfare, food stamps, etc. Every citizen needs to have some skin in the game of funding the federal beaurocracy.

What's the point of giving poor people free healthcare if you're going to turn around and charge them for it?

jesus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Yes, and they would get it back, and more, via federal welfare, food stamps, etc. Every citizen needs to have some skin in the game of funding the federal beaurocracy.

So 'skin in the game' is supposed to do what? Get poor people to agree to give up their government assistance by showing them that the assistance costs money?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

It's a low rate that raises taxes on millions of low to moderate income Americans.

 

[Redfish]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Yes, and they would get it back, and more, via federal welfare, food stamps, etc. Every citizen needs to have some skin in the game of funding the federal beaurocracy.

What's the point of giving poor people free healthcare if you're going to turn around and charge them for it?

jesus.

poor people have always gotten free healthcare. No one was denied medical care before obozocare.

 

[Skylar]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

And 8.4% wouldn't be revenue neutral. The top quintile pays 84% of income taxes. And pay at a rate of 21% on average.

How then does cutting their rate to roughly 1/3 or its current rate result in a revenue neutral position?

Explain the math to us. Using the *actual* tax distribution. Not the imaginary one you made up.

 

[Redfish]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Yes, and they would get it back, and more, via federal welfare, food stamps, etc. Every citizen needs to have some skin in the game of funding the federal beaurocracy.

So 'skin in the game' is supposed to do what? Get poor people to agree to give up their government assistance by showing them that the assistance costs money?

lol

NO, they pay a minimum amount of tax on their income then they get all or more back in benefits. Everyone needs to understand that the government is not your momma. The government does not owe you a living, food, medical care, cheese, or anything else besides security from enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[Redfish]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

It's a low rate that raises taxes on millions of low to moderate income Americans.

from a ideological standpoint, why should any American citizen have no federal tax liability? What is your rationale for zero federal tax for half of americans?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

Not on gross income it isn't. The 10% bracket is on TAXABLE INCOME. After exemptions, deductions, and credits, etc.

So what?

People who have been getting a free ride will now have to pay a little bit

 

[Skylar]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

Not on gross income it isn't. The 10% bracket is on TAXABLE INCOME. After exemptions, deductions, and credits, etc.

So what?

People who have been getting a free ride will now have to pay a little bit

And by a 'little bit', you mean increasing their tax rate by 400% or more?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

And 8.4% wouldn't be revenue neutral. The top quintile pays 84% of income taxes. And pay at a rate of 21% on average.

How then does cutting their rate to roughly 1/3 or its current rate result in a revenue neutral position?

Explain the math to us. Using the *actual* tax distribution. Not the imaginary one you made up.

I didn't make up anything idiot I used the total income and the total tax collected under the current system to arrive at the rate on all income that would yield the same revenue as the current system did

it's not that complicated

for the year used in the graphic the total income was 13.7 Trillion the tax collected was 1.26 trillion or about 9% of all income

so for that year a flat tax of 9% would have resulted in the government collecting the exact same revenue as it did under the current system

IOW revenue neutral

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

Not on gross income it isn't. The 10% bracket is on TAXABLE INCOME. After exemptions, deductions, and credits, etc.

So what?

People who have been getting a free ride will now have to pay a little bit

And by a 'little bit', you mean increasing their tax rate by 400% or more?

anything more than 0 is an increase isn't it?

 

[Skylar]

I didn't make up anything idiot I used the total income and the total tax collected under the current system to arrive at the rate on all income that would yield the same revenue as the current system did

Then your 8.4% will work just as well with the *actual* taxes paid.

Show us, using the *actual* tax distribution how an 8.4% rate will work. Here are the numbers you have to work with.

There's a reason why virtually every economist to touch a 10% flat tax plan has concluded it won't be revenue neutral. And when you try to use the actual tax numbers, you'll understand why

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Yes, and they would get it back, and more, via federal welfare, food stamps, etc. Every citizen needs to have some skin in the game of funding the federal beaurocracy.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't make up anything idiot I used the total income and the total tax collected under the current system to arrive at the rate on all income that would yield the same revenue as the current system did

Then your 8.4% will work just as well with the *actual* taxes paid.

Show us, using the *actual* tax distribution how an 8.4% rate will work. Here are the numbers you have to work with.

There's a reason why virtually every economist to touch a 10% flat tax plan has concluded it won't be revenue neutral. And when you try to use the actual tax numbers, you'll understand why

I just did but you don't seem capable of understanding

 

[Redfish]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

and 8.4% is currently lower than the lowest 10% bracket

And 8.4% wouldn't be revenue neutral. The top quintile pays 84% of income taxes. And pay at a rate of 21% on average.

How then does cutting their rate to roughly 1/3 or its current rate result in a revenue neutral position?

Explain the math to us. Using the *actual* tax distribution. Not the imaginary one you made up.

I didn't make up anything idiot I used the total income and the total tax collected under the current system to arrive at the rate on all income that would yield the same revenue as the current system did

it's not that complicated

for the year used in the graphic the total income was 13.7 Trillion the tax collected was 1.26 trillion or about 9% of all income

so for that year a flat tax of 9% would have resulted in the government collecting the exact same revenue as it did under the current system

IOW revenue neutral

make it 15% and we could start paying down the debt, not just the interest on it.