View Poll Results: Question below

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lean Right and like it

    2 8.70%
  • Lean Right and dislike it

    1 4.35%
  • Lean Left and like it

    9 39.13%
  • Lean Left and dislike it

    5 21.74%
  • Set base between 0.1 and 2

    3 13.04%
  • Set base between 2 and 4

    4 17.39%
  • Set base between 4 and 6

    5 21.74%
  • Set base between 6 and 8

    3 13.04%
  • Set base between 8 and 10

    4 17.39%
  • I like pie

    9 39.13%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 134

Thread: Thought regarding a tax system

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    First, you can't cut all deductions except for children. There's now way people would be able to pay their taxes. It would be the same as cutting out all tax deductions for corporations and forcing them to pay taxes on 100% of their gross revenue. Individuals, like businesses would go in the hole every year and would be up to their necks in taxes for the rest of their lives.
    I disagree. There's no way under our current system that it'd function without deductions. However, if taxes became lowered than that should offset.

    Second, this is no different than the system we already have in place.
    Just patentedly false and shows you didn't read my post. I already detailed in this thread various ways this is distinctly different than our current system.

    Third, there's no way that Liberals will ever accept a tax code where the poor pay their share and the rich don't pay more than their share.
    That's funny, I thought only liberals talked about "shares" as if there was fair unquestionable pin point spot. Tell me, what is the poors "share" and what is the "richs" share. Many on the right demand specific hard numbers from those on the left when they talk about "fair share", how about you tell us a hard number specifically what is the correct "share" for the poor and the rich so that you can properly define what "more" or "less" is.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by A.Pearce View Post
    Heck, that's the best tax proposal I've heard from a conservative in, like ever. Yeah, we could probably work something similar to this out. Idk about all the details, but those can be worked out. I'd like the baseline to be at like 50k and the top bracket to be at like 1 mil though. I'd say 200-300k usually qualifies as "upper middle class".
    Absolutely not, and by doing that you remove the primary purpose of this plan which is to deal with some of the concerns both sides have. By moving the baseline up to 50k you:

    1. Return the concern of conservatives that there are a significant amount of the population that has zero skin in the game when it comes to income taxes

    2. Lowers the incentive for Democrats to attempt to massively jack up to astronomical levels the tax on the "wealthy" because it will in turn raise the taxes a fair bit on the poor and lower middle class when you start to get to that level.

    So your suggestions to "change" it effectively takes it away from being a compromise bill to just simply being a full on liberal one.

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I support any system that is better than the current system. This one is really good, because it unites the countr. The class warfare mantra is dividing the country.

    I agree, except that I think it should be addition and not multiplication. So the current american tax system is
    1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 5%
    2) $24k - $72k . . . . . .10%
    3) $72k - $144k . . . . .20%
    4) $144k - $240k . . . .30%
    5) $240k - $360k . . . .40%
    6) $360k + . . . . . . . . 50%

    And you need more revenue, then it will be nearly impossible to increase taxes, becuse the taxes for the rich will be too high. The solution is to add instead of multiply. So a 5% tax increase will be
    1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 10%
    2) $24k - $72k . . . . . .15%
    3) $72k - $144k . . . . .25%
    4) $144k - $240k . . . .35%
    5) $240k - $360k . . . .45%
    6) $360k + . . . . . . . . 55%
    The reason I went with multiple rather than addition (my original thought) is due to the principles of a progressive tax schedule and looking at taxes from the idea that its purpose is to provide necessary funds while providing the least amount of harm to the most amount of people. It can be argued that 5% going away from someone making 30k a year causes significant more harm than it does to someone making 300k a year. That is because it could be argued there is more "harm" in limiting a persons ability for general "essentials" (food, shelter, medicine, every day needed household items [toilet paper, soap, etc]) than there is in limiting someones ability for "luxuries" (anything non-essential). That's not saying losing the ability for luxuries isn't harm, and shouldn't be attempted to be avoided as best as possible, but when weighing the two one is "more" harm.

    So under a progressive code, the higher up in the scales you get the the less impact a single % has. With addition, that 5% is distributed equally across the board statistically, but not in terms of impact. With a multipication based system it adheres to the initial thought process behind the initial set up of the tax bracket.

    Additionally, you come to other issues with addition/subtraction methods. For example, if you reduce taxs by 4% instead of raising you bring the "poor" down to 1% while bringing the rich only down to 46%. By going multipication and starting the baseline at 1% there still is a small allowance for taxes to be a political issue, just not as manipulative of one. It can move up and down with significant effect to every bracket, where as under an addition plan the effect would be negligable...both good and bad...for the upper brackets rather than the lower.

    That's why I eventually went with Multiplication over addition.

  4. #34
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I disagree. There's no way under our current system that it'd function without deductions. However, if taxes became lowered than that should offset.
    It would have to be 5%, or less.



    Just patentedly false and shows you didn't read my post. I already detailed in this thread various ways this is distinctly different than our current system.
    In the sense that you want to do away with all deductions, sure it's different. But, as far as having tax brackets based on income, it's a carbon copy.



    That's funny, I thought only liberals talked about "shares" as if there was fair unquestionable pin point spot. Tell me, what is the poors "share" and what is the "richs" share. Many on the right demand specific hard numbers from those on the left when they talk about "fair share", how about you tell us a hard number specifically what is the correct "share" for the poor and the rich so that you can properly define what "more" or "less" is.
    I never said anything about anyone paying their, "fair share". I was only explaining to you how I interpret the Liberal ideology concering taxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #35
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    10-26-11 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    171

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post


    I would rather say 100 - 150K qualifies as upper middle class. If you earn more than that, then you are pretty rich.

    If I start working in New Zealand, I will earn about 40K USD per year in the begining. For me that is a lot of money, because I spend about 7000 USD per year . Prices in New Zealand are not lower than America.
    My family earns that much and we are upper middle class... though I suppose they are paying for 2 kids in college right now... But we never had a big house or fancy cars, we mostly just went on vacations. By "upper middle class" I mean that that is the amount many professional people make, though. I suppose it could be anywhere from 100-300k or so, depending on living costs, etc etc.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    In the sense that you want to do away with all deductions, sure it's different. But, as far as having tax brackets based on income, it's a carbon copy.
    1. Removes deductions
    2. Changes the tax rates for each bracket
    3. Mandates all tax rates be linked towards a common baseline so its not possible to change a single tax rate
    4. Mandates all tax brackets remain unchanged unless the entire system is scrapped

    Yes, you're exactly right, my plan is "no different" than the plan we have in place because it uses numbers and talks about taxes


    I never said anything about anyone paying their, "fair share". I was only explaining to you how I interpret the Liberal ideology concering taxes.
    I never said you said fair share, you just said share and suggested some people are able to pay "more" than their share and others "not" paying their share, which means you seem to have arbitrarily determined what is an appropiate "share" for the different groups since you've determined you can make judgements about quantity regarding said "shares".

  7. #37
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by A.Pearce View Post
    My family earns that much and we are upper middle class... though I suppose they are paying for 2 kids in college right now... But we never had a big house or fancy cars, we mostly just went on vacations. By "upper middle class" I mean that that is the amount many professional people make, though. I suppose it could be anywhere from 100-300k or so, depending on living costs, etc etc.
    we make over a hundred, and we are most certainly NOT upper middle class. i drive a 2004 malibu, my husband has a scooter, and we live on our boat at a marina.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #38
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    1. Removes deductions
    2. Changes the tax rates for each bracket
    3. Mandates all tax rates be linked towards a common baseline so its not possible to change a single tax rate
    4. Mandates all tax brackets remain unchanged unless the entire system is scrapped

    Yes, you're exactly right, my plan is "no different" than the plan we have in place because it uses numbers and talks about taxes
    Have you ever looked at the Bush tax cuts? I'm thinking, no.

    It's neither here, nor there, however. Your tax plan is a non-starter, because it does away with all deductions.




    I never said you said fair share, you just said share and suggested some people are able to pay "more" than their share and others "not" paying their share, which means you seem to have arbitrarily determined what is an appropiate "share" for the different groups since you've determined you can make judgements about quantity regarding said "shares".
    I never said anything of the sort. You're distorting my comments.
    Last edited by apdst; 10-18-11 at 12:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #39
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    we make over a hundred, and we are most certainly NOT upper middle class. i drive a 2004 malibu, my husband has a scooter, and we live on our boat at a marina.
    Sounds like the tough life to me!...lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #40
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Thought regarding a tax system

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Have you ever looked at the Bush tax cuts? I'm thinking, no.
    I have. What in the world does that have to do with anything in the quoted paragraph?

    Did Bush Tax Cuts set a baseline that is the only tax rate that can be altered and automatically affects the tax rate of every other bracket? Did the Bush Tax Cuts make it so that the income each bracket represented couldn't be changed? Did the Bush Tax Cuts assure that even those making the lowest of incomes are still going to be taxed at least 1% if they have no kids?

    I never said anything of the sort. You're distorting my comments.
    Third, there's no way that Liberals will ever accept a tax code where the poor pay their share and the rich don't pay more than their share.
    Emphasis on the part I'm referring to. You specifically state that the the rich don't pay "more than their share" which indicates yo useem to think there's a specific "share" they should have. Or, if you're trying to say the liberals view of a share, how exactly do you know that this plan wouldn't match up to their expectations?

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •