• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

teamosil said:
The definition of a flat tax is one where all income brackets pay the same percentage as theplaydrive showed above.

I suspect that what you mean is that you support progressive taxation with no deductions or loopholes. Right?
Click to expand...

I support people paying a flat percentage of their income.
 
1Perry said:
I support people paying a flat percentage of their income.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you mean. The way it works currently is that everybody pays x% on the first $a they make, then everybody pays y% on the next $b they make, and z% on the $c after that, and so on. So, if you make $8,500 you pay 10%. If you make $9,500 you pay 10% on $8,500 of that and 15% on $1,000 of that. Those amounts are reduced by various deductions and loopholes. So, you could be saying you want to go to a system where if you make $9,500 (assuming the rates stayed the same) you pay 15% on all $9,500. Or you could be saying eliminate deductions and loopholes, but I already suggested that and you didn't confirm that was what you meant. Maybe explain more?
 
teamosil said:
Not sure how you mean. The way it works currently is that everybody pays x% on the first $a they make, then everybody pays y% on the next $b they make, and z% on the $c after that, and so on. So, if you make $8,500 you pay 10%. If you make $9,500 you pay 10% on $8,500 of that and 15% on $1,000 of that. Those amounts are reduced by various deductions and loopholes. So, you could be saying you want to go to a system where if you make $9,500 (assuming the rates stayed the same) you pay 15% on all $9,500. Or you could be saying eliminate deductions and loopholes, but I already suggested that and you didn't confirm that was what you meant. Maybe explain more?
Click to expand...

I support everyone pay a flat percentage of their income. As simple as that. There is nothing else to it.
 
1Perry said:
I support everyone pay a flat percentage of their income. As simple as that. There is nothing else to it.
Click to expand...

So using your earlier numbers, if I make $24,999 I would pay $500 tax. If I make $25,001 I would pay $3,000 tax. Am I understanding correctly?
 
upsideguy said:
Allow me to help you further peel back the veneer; they are not.
Click to expand...

Exactly! The supposedly "new and improved" GOP plan for less taxes and less regulations on the "job creators" is simply putting lipstick on the 30 year old trickle down economics pig.

To American voters - If a dog bites you once, the dog is to blame. If a dog continues to bite you for 30 years, and you continue to let him bite you, then you are to blame.
 
1Perry said:
I support everyone pay a flat percentage of their income. As simple as that. There is nothing else to it.
Click to expand...

So, if you made $9,500 you would pay 15% on all $9,500? And have no deductions for anything. Right?
 
teamosil said:
It's an awfully big coincidence that your graph happens to stop right before the whole reaganomics house of cards came so obviously and devastatingly crashing down eh?
Click to expand...

no, the graph stops in 2005 because that's when it stops. however, if we are looking at revenue as a % of GDP, and what causes it to move up and down, then the answer is actually rather simple. It is the relative size of government. Government, you see, does not tax itself quite like it taxes production, labor, and investment - so, as government expands as a share of GDP, revenue is being drawn from a smaller slice of the pie, and so it shrinks as a share of GDP. Observe:

heritage-spending-revenue-gap-6-2010.jpg


1963: Spending drops slightly, revenue increases slightly
1967: Spending increases, revenue drops
1968: Spending drops, revenue increases
1970: Spending increases, revenue drops
1973: Spending drops, revenue increase
1974: Spending increases, revenue drops
1976: Spending drops, revenue increases
1979-80: Spending increases, Revenue drops
1983: Spending begins to decrease, Revenue begins to increase
2000: Spending begins to increase again, Revenue begins to decrease again
2004: Spending slightly decreases, revenue increases
2008: Spending explodes, revenues plummet


Obviously tax rates are a huge determinate of revenue
Click to expand...

yes and no - they are an indirect determinate of revenue. mostly inasmuch as they alter GDP by altering the amount of time people spend doing productive things v spending trying to minimize their tax exposure.

When you tax the top of the spectrum heavily, and the bottom not enough, you get high consumer spending, low investment. That is bad for the economy.
Click to expand...

that is also what we have seen for the past couple of decades. In 2006, for example, our savings rate hit the lowest point it has been since 1933. Are you saying that in 2006 the tax rates on the top of the spectrum were too high, and the ones on the bottom too low?

I tend to suspect that an easy-money-cheap-debt monetary policy and the assumption that everyones' houses and government programs would be our permanent perfect nest eggs had more to do with it.

That's what we had under Carter and Reagan wisely adjusted it so that it was more balance. But people got caught up in the hype and made overly simplistic conclusions from that experience. They assumed that all cuts of taxes on the rich were therefore good for the economy. That, of course, is not true. Clinton and Bush2 both continued cutting taxes on the super rich to a much greater degree and we saw what happened.
Click to expand...

a long period of historically low unemployment?
 
vvx said:
So using your earlier numbers, if I make $24,999 I would pay $500 tax. If I make $25,001 I would pay $3,000 tax. Am I understanding correctly?
Click to expand...

If you actually read my post you would note that my percentages were only used as an example. That I didn't know exactly what percentages would be used.
 
teamosil said:
So, if you made $9,500 you would pay 15% on all $9,500? And have no deductions for anything. Right?
Click to expand...

There would be no deductions.
 
vvx said:
So using your earlier numbers, if I make $24,999 I would pay $500 tax. If I make $25,001 I would pay $3,000 tax. Am I understanding correctly?
Click to expand...

LOL that is stupid to say the least.... no one would want to earn more than 24,999..
 
cpwill said:
no, the graph stops in 2005 because that's when it stops. however, if we are looking at revenue as a % of GDP, and what causes it to move up and down, then the answer is actually rather simple. It is the relative size of government. Government, you see, does not tax itself quite like it taxes production, labor, and investment - so, as government expands as a share of GDP, revenue is being drawn from a smaller slice of the pie, and so it shrinks as a share of GDP.
Click to expand...

Right, and airbags deploying cause car accidents. They must, because just look at the correlation. :lol:
 
PeteEU said:
LOL that is stupid to say the least.... no one would want to earn more than 24,999..
Click to expand...

not at all - simply make it all marginal.
 
AdamT said:
Right, and airbags deploying cause car accidents.
Click to expand...

sadly, the prevalence of airbags (and other safety devices) can be demonstrated to contribute to car crashes; as we feel safer, we take more chances.

the trend is clear - grow government as a % of GDP, and watch Revenue fall as a % of GDP. Shrink Government as a share of GDP, and watch Revenue Rise.
 
cpwill said:
sadly, the prevalence of airbags (and other safety devices) can be demonstrated to contribute to car crashes; as we feel safer, we take more chances.the trend is clear - grow government as a % of GDP, and watch Revenue fall as a % of GDP. Shrink Government as a share of GDP, and watch Revenue Rise.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can't agree with this at all. I work in this field. I also own cars with and without airbags. I don't change my driving based on the car I'm in.
 
good for you. sadly, you are not representative (as I understand it) of Americans as a whole over the past half-century. Seat-belts did the same thing.


mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.

...John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London... interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk...

drivers who feel safe may actually increase the risk that they pose to other drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and their own passengers (while an average of 80% of drivers buckle up, only 68% of their rear-seat passengers do). And risk compensation is hardly confined to the act of driving a car. Think of a trapeze artist, suggests Adams, or a rock climber, motorcyclist or college kid on a hot date. Add some safety equipment to the equation — a net, rope, helmet or a condom respectively — and the person may try maneuvers that he or she would otherwise consider foolish. In the case of seat belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities....
Click to expand...

and so on. we're a funny ole species, humans.
 
Last edited:
The GOP has just proven again it is not serious about fixing the problem.

If either side is to be serious about this NOTHING should be off the table and everything on the table needs to be justified as to why we need it and the ramifications of getting rid of it if we had to.
 
nothing should be off the table? if the democrats propose nuking china so as to cancel our debt to them, should Republicans seek to compromise on only taking out their eastern seaboard?


I'm just curious at what point you would agree that really stupid ideas that will actually destroy wealth, growth, and employment should, indeed, actually "be off the table".
 
cpwill said:
heritage-spending-revenue-gap-6-2010.jpg
Click to expand...
I love charts :)

First we see the explosion in reckless, world-destabilizing military-industrial complex spending by Reagan-Bush (1980-1992).

Then we see the sensible increase in revenues, combined with a responsible reduction in spending, during the Clinton administration (1992-2000).

Then we see Bush Jr. embark on the clearly irresponsible path of the GOP God (Reagan), cutting taxes and starting wars (2000-2008). Of course, revenues plummet and spending spikes. Then, towards the end of his administration, the easy-money / loose-regulation ideology of the GOP implodes the economy, causing revenues to again plummet (from a modest recovery) and causing spending to skyrocket as multi-national Wall Street corporations must be bailed out in order to prevent absolute economic ruin.

And the GOP has the audacity to even run a candidate for president :shock:
 
cpwill said:
nothing should be off the table? if the democrats propose nuking china so as to cancel our debt to them, should Republicans seek to compromise on only taking out their eastern seaboard?
Click to expand...

What a moronic comment from you that proves just why the GOP are idiots. Anything to try and deflect from the main idea and score political points that mean jack ****.

I'm just curious at what point you would agree that really stupid ideas that will actually destroy wealth, growth, and employment should, indeed, actually "be off the table".
Click to expand...

Comparing nuking China with raising taxes. Again your comments are idiotic and only prove you and the GOP just want YOUR sacred cows protected at all costs, even at the countries demise.

The GOP is not taking this seriously at all. If the Dems go in demanding things should be off the table, I'll say the sane thing about them that they aren't serious.
 
1Perry said:
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, you have either just proposed a progressive tax system, such as we have with new rates and new brackets and fewer deductions.... or you have proposed a very, very bad plan where the $1,000 that takes you from $49,500 to $50,500 is taxed at 165% (tax at $49,500 would be $5,940; tax at $50,500 would be $7,575, hence the tax on the $1000 increment would be $1,635).

If you are proposing the progressive, your brackets make no sense (I realize you made no such representation that they did)... as people grossing $50K do not have an extra $5000 to pay income taxes. What about married couples? Do they file joint returns had have all of the income incremental at a much higher bracket? Are we considering family situations exactly the equivalent of singles, meaning it pays big time to stay single and big time to not have children. Realize also, that in the current form, when people talk about taxing those making $250K, they are really talking about TAXABLE income of $250K.... their real income (because of exemptions, deductions and credits) to get to $250K of taxable income is likely north of $325K or $350K as a large % of everyone's income is currently exempt from income taxes.

If what you are proposing is step-up rates, but flat taxes... what a mess! Someone, per my example above, would refuse to work (at least on the books) that overtime that would take him from $49,500 to $50,500 as it would cost him money. You would have people behaving badly, economically speaking, because of the affects of certain desired activities on their personal tax situation...

As much as people have this notion that families making less than $50K per year should pay income tax, they just don't have any money. Sorry, there is something economically wrong (you will further contract the economy, as they spend all their money... you would create reverse stimulus if their dollar went to Washington rather than the neighborhood Safeway) and morally wrong. This group already pays more then their share of payroll taxes, sales taxes and use taxes (as a percentage of their income) then their more affluent neighbor. Cut them some slack here.

... some quick "what's wrong with that" thoughts...
 
cpwill said:
good for you. sadly, you are not representative (as I understand it) of Americans as a whole over the past half-century. Seat-belts did the same thing.




and so on. we're a funny ole species, humans.
Click to expand...
Probably the wrong place to have this conversation.
 
upsideguy said:
Well, for one, you have either just proposed a progressive tax system, such as we have with new rates and new brackets and fewer deductions.... or you have proposed a very, very bad plan where the $1,000 that takes you from $49,500 to $50,500 is taxed at 165% (tax at $49,500 would be $5,940; tax at $50,500 would be $7,575, hence the tax on the $1000 increment would be $1,635).
Click to expand...

numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly

If what you are proposing is step-up rates, but flat taxes... what a mess! Someone, per my example above, would refuse to work (at least on the books) that overtime that would take him from $49,500 to $50,500 as it would cost him money. You would have people behaving badly, economically speaking, because of the affects of certain desired activities on their personal tax situation...
Click to expand...

Because we don't have brackets today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom