Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[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.

So what?

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

So shut up with the insults when I've proven to you that you want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

 

[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

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

With massive tax increases on people with children also.

 

[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

So shut up with the insults when I've proven to you that you want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

I don't want to do anything but implement a fair income tax

You seem to think that means my end goal is to make poor people poorer you are wrong as usual

 

[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.

That doesn't make any sense.

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

 

[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

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

With massive tax increases on people with children also.

SO what?

Why should a person with no kids and the exact same income as a person with kids pay more in taxes?

 

[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

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

Nope. You won't touch the *actual* tax distribution numbers with a 10 foot pole, running terrified every time I present them to you. Here's your cue to run again:

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

You know that when you use the *actual* taxes paid by each quintile, your 8.4% rate falls apart. Which is why you can't and won't apply your imaginary rate to the actual numbers.

 

[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.

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

 

[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

Nope. You won't touch the *actual* tax distribution numbers with a 10 foot pole, running terrified every time I present them to you. Here's your cue to run again:

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

You know that when you use the *actual* taxes paid by each quintile, your 8.4% rate falls apart. Which is why you can't and won't apply your imaginary rate to the actual numbers.

You are using a different year than I did in my example

for your example the revenue neutral flat rate would have been 9%

 

[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.

That doesn't make any sense.

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

With massive tax increases on people with children also.

SO what?

Why should a person with no kids and the exact same income as a person with kids pay more in taxes?

Well, I've been on the wrong end of that all my adult life so I have every personal reason imaginable to agree but I would say that as an argument for it, to some extent at least,

a household of, say, five, with one income coming in, with 4 legal dependents, could logically classify as one income divided by 5.
50,000 a year for 5 people translates to 10,000 each, which puts each in the lowest bracket.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

Making money go round in a circle isn't going to prove anything.

 

[Redfish]

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.

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

Making money go round in a circle isn't going to prove anything.

It already does, you and I get paid, taxes are taken from our paychecks, some of that money goes to people on food stamps and welfare, much is consumed by the govt beaurocracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That doesn't make any sense.

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

Making money go round in a circle isn't going to prove anything.

It already does, you and I get paid, taxes are taken from our paychecks, some of that money goes to people on food stamps and welfare, much is consumed by the govt beaurocracy.

And lots and lots of it is used to convince the simpleminded that the welfare system does any thing but maintain poverty encourage the habits that produce poverty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

of course it does, do you get a tax refund? do you pay more than you owe?

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

Making money go round in a circle isn't going to prove anything.

It already does, you and I get paid, taxes are taken from our paychecks, some of that money goes to people on food stamps and welfare, much is consumed by the govt beaurocracy.

And lots and lots of it is used to convince the simpleminded that the welfare system does any thing but maintain poverty encourage the habits that produce poverty.

Is that why you want to end Medicaid and food stamps and housing assistance and energy assistance?

What do you think the recipients of that help will do after it's gone?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It makes no sense to say every citizen needs to have 'skin in the game'. That is platitudinous drivel.

Just say you want the poor to get fewer benefits from the government and leave it at that.

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

Making money go round in a circle isn't going to prove anything.

It already does, you and I get paid, taxes are taken from our paychecks, some of that money goes to people on food stamps and welfare, much is consumed by the govt beaurocracy.

And lots and lots of it is used to convince the simpleminded that the welfare system does any thing but maintain poverty encourage the habits that produce poverty.

Is that why you want to end Medicaid and food stamps and housing assistance and energy assistance?

What do you think the recipients of that help will do after it's gone?

Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?


Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want the poor taken care of, I want the handicapped taken care of, I want the mentally ill taken care of. BUT, those people need to understand that someone has to send the money to the govt before the govt can give it to them. If they pay a token amount up front, they will understand that society as a whole is paying for their benefits.

I also want able bodied people to perform community service in order to get welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc----------------and to be drug tested before getting any benefits.

Making money go round in a circle isn't going to prove anything.

It already does, you and I get paid, taxes are taken from our paychecks, some of that money goes to people on food stamps and welfare, much is consumed by the govt beaurocracy.

And lots and lots of it is used to convince the simpleminded that the welfare system does any thing but maintain poverty encourage the habits that produce poverty.

Is that why you want to end Medicaid and food stamps and housing assistance and energy assistance?

What do you think the recipients of that help will do after it's gone?

Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?


Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.

I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?

How will that magically make their lives better?

 

[Timmy]

Let me ask. What's so bad about the current system ?

If you haven't figured that out yet then I can't help you

That's a non answer .

I'm being serious . What's wrong with the system now .? Cause everyone loves to float alternate versions that are quickly exposed as inadequate .

 

[Ame®icano]

So? He also believed in public schools.

And that too is a Marxism.

Great. So you believe that anyone who doesn't want to abolish the public school system is a Marxist.

Interesting. I guess that means Marx won...

...because practically every place on earth supports having public schools.

Marx has accomplished word domination!!!!!!!!!!

lol, retard.

"So you believe..."

Where have I said that? You sure like to put words in other people mouth. Shitstain at his best.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So? He also believed in public schools.

And that too is a Marxism.

Great. So you believe that anyone who doesn't want to abolish the public school system is a Marxist.

Interesting. I guess that means Marx won...

...because practically every place on earth supports having public schools.

Marx has accomplished word domination!!!!!!!!!!

lol, retard.

"So you believe..."

Where have I said that? You sure like to put words in other people mouth. Shitstain at his best.

You said it when you said that public education is Marxism.

 

[Skylar]

So? He also believed in public schools.

And that too is a Marxism.

Great. So you believe that anyone who doesn't want to abolish the public school system is a Marxist.

Interesting. I guess that means Marx won...

...because practically every place on earth supports having public schools.

Marx has accomplished word domination!!!!!!!!!!

lol, retard.

"So you believe..."

Where have I said that? You sure like to put words in other people mouth. Shitstain at his best.

You said it when you said that public education is Marxism.

Technically, public education is a tenet of the communist manifesto. But then, so is an end to child labor.

So if you don't support child labor, you're a marxist?