• 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!

No More Income Tax: Tax Discretionary Income

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Our current tax code is based on a person's gross income. That is, it looks at all of the income a person makes, without considering housing costs, food, health care, and other necessities. Why is this a bad thing?

Elizabeth Warren said:
The average two-income family earns far more today than did the single-breadwinner family of a generation ago. And yet, once they have paid the mortgage, the car payments, the taxes, the health insurance, and the day-care bills, today’s dual-income families have less discretionary income—and less money to put away for a rainy day—than the single-income family of a generation ago.
...
We offer two examples. We begin with Tom and Susan, representatives of the average middle-class family of a generation ago. ([T]o make the comparisons easy, all figures are adjusted for inflation [and] reported in 2000 dollars throughout this discussion.) Tom works full-time, earning $38,700, the median income for a fully employed man in 1973, while Susan stays at home to care for the house and children. Tom and Susan have the typical two children, one in grade school and a three-year old who stays home with Susan. The family buys health insurance through Tom’s job, to which they contribute $1,030 a year—the average amount spent by an insured family that made at least some contribution to the cost of a private insurance policy. They own an average home in an average family neighborhood—costing them $5,310 a year in mortgage payments. Shopping is within walking distance, so the family owns just one car, on which it spends $5,140 a year for car payments, maintenance, gas, and repairs. And, like all good citizens, they pay their taxes, which claim about 24 percent of Tom’s income. Once all the taxes, mortgage payments, and other fixed expenses are paid, Tom and Susan are left with $17,834 in discretionary income (inflation adjusted), or about 45 percent of Tom’s pretax paycheck. They aren’t rich, but they have nearly $1,500 a month to cover food, clothing, utilities, and anything else they might need.

So how does our 1973 couple compare with Justin and Kimberly, the modern-day version of the traditional family? Like Tom, Justin is an average earner, bringing home $39,000 in 2000—not even one percent more than his counterpart of a generation ago. But there is one big difference: Thanks to Kimberly’s full-time salary, the family’s combined income is $67,800—a whopping 75 percent higher than the household income for Tom and Susan. A quick look at their income statement shows how the modern dual-income couple has sailed past their single-income counterpart of a generation ago.

So where did all the money go? Like Tom and Susan, Justin and Kimberly bought an average home, but today that three-bedroom-two-bath ranch costs a lot more. Their annual mortgage payments are nearly $9,000. The older child still goes to the public elementary school, but after school and during summer vacations he goes to day care, at an average yearly cost of $4,350. The younger child attends a full-time preschool/day care program, which costs the family $5,320 a year. With Kimberly at work, the second car is a must, so the family spends more than $8,000 a year on its two vehicles. Health insurance is another must,... insurance takes $1,650 from the couple’s paychecks. Taxes also take their toll. ...the family has been bumped into a higher bracket, and the government takes 33 percent of the family’s money. So where does that leave Justin and Kimberly ...? With $17,045—about $800 less than Tom and Susan, who were getting by on just one income.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxr...ationofIncomeAvailableforDiscretionaryUse.doc

Deborah Geier said:
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that “[t]he share of average annual expenditures used to purchase food [including meals prepared at home, restaurant meals, fast food, carryout, and home delivery] declines from 14.9 percent to 11.6 percent as income increases from the third quintile to the fifth quintile." Moreover, “[e]xpenditure shares for housing clearly declines across income quintiles …. While consumer units in the highest income quintile devote 22 percent of their total spending to shelter and utility costs, those in the lowest income quintile spend almost 30 percent."

So when people tell you that the rich pay most of the taxes, realize that this is because they make most of the income. But more than this, realize that when considering housing and other essentials, it is the middle class that actually gets the highest tax burden. Any arguments that ignore this fact are nothing more than propaganda for the highest income earners.
 
Fair flat tax. 25%. No exception. End the divisiveness. The rich still pay more. Win win.
 
Fair flat tax. 25%. No exception. End the divisiveness. The rich still pay more. Win win.
Nope. The poor would end up paying a far higher percentage after necessities.
 
Nope. The poor would end up paying a far higher percentage after necessities.

Incorrect. Twenty five percent is twenty five percent.
 
Fair flat tax. 25%. No exception. End the divisiveness. The rich still pay more. Win win.

That might work for the rich and middle class - especially if there are better public services like free or subsidized healthcare or education; housing allowances, public pension schemes and so on. A lot of countries that offer those kinds of programs have a tax bracket in the 20-25% range.

But they also have higher minimum wages and lower taxes for the lower middle income, working poor, pensioners and others on benefits. There is a certain threshold below which a person or family cannot simply scrape by without a quarter of their income. Housing could be as much as 40%; other expenses another 40% - they don't even have 25% left out of that and that's not even counting savings.

Because basic prices only ever go up and if minimum wage remains low, then 25% is far too big a chunk.
 
That might work for the rich and middle class - especially if there are better public services like free or subsidized healthcare or education; housing allowances, public pension schemes and so on. A lot of countries that offer those kinds of programs have a tax bracket in the 20-25% range.

But they also have higher minimum wages and lower taxes for the lower middle income, working poor, pensioners and others on benefits. There is a certain threshold below which a person or family cannot simply scrape by without a quarter of their income. Housing could be as much as 40%; other expenses another 40% - they don't even have 25% left out of that and that's not even counting savings.

Because basic prices only ever go up and if minimum wage remains low, then 25% is far too big a chunk.
He's not interested in those inconvenient facts.
 
Our current tax code is based on a person's gross income. That is, it looks at all of the income a person makes, without considering housing costs, food, health care, and other necessities. Why is this a bad thing?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxr...ationofIncomeAvailableforDiscretionaryUse.doc



So when people tell you that the rich pay most of the taxes, realize that this is because they make most of the income. But more than this, realize that when considering housing and other essentials, it is the middle class that actually gets the highest tax burden. Any arguments that ignore this fact are nothing more than propaganda for the highest income earners.

So, essentially, she wants to raise the standard deduction. That's fine. At what point should taxable income kick in? Should someone in New York City have an income threshold of $250,000 before they start getting taxed while someone in rural Alabama gets taxed at $30,000? If so, wouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?
 
Incorrect. Twenty five percent is twenty five percent.

You are incorrect, you are not taking into account discretionary income. 25% to a poor person is not the same burden discretionary to a wealthy person. To call it fair is a lie.
 
Nope. The poor would end up paying a far higher percentage after necessities.

Yep. And the "fair" tax proponents always forget to mention that the 23 - 25 percent tax is actually 30 percent.
 
Fair flat tax. 25%. No exception. End the divisiveness. The rich still pay more. Win win.

In order to make a flat rate federal income tax "fair" would require a much larger (and truly) standard deduction of about the federal poverty level for a 4 person household ($25,700 in 2019). One must also remember that all wage earners are now paying 12.4% in federal payroll taxes on their gross income (and yes, I know that their employer pays half of that) so even the poorest workers are paying those federal (payroll) taxes.

The less one's (household) income is then the more of that (sometimes meager) income is required simply to cover basic (i.e. mandatory) living expenses thus taking 25% of that income (beyond the 12.4% already taken via payroll taxes) is not equally detrimental to those of all income levels. That was the completely valid point of the OP link.
 
Fair flat tax. 25%. No exception. End the divisiveness. The rich still pay more. Win win.

Here's an even fairer Flat Tax:

Zero %

Then nobody has to worry about who has to pay and who doesn't.
 
Fair flat tax. 25%. No exception. End the divisiveness. The rich still pay more. Win win.

The worst most and uneconomically sound suggestion so far.
 
Here's an even fairer Flat Tax:

Zero %

Then nobody has to worry about who has to pay and who doesn't.

Yep! I can keep all my money! That works.
 
Our current tax code is based on a person's gross income. That is, it looks at all of the income a person makes, without considering housing costs, food, health care, and other necessities. Why is this a bad thing?

So when people tell you that the rich pay most of the taxes, realize that this is because they make most of the income. But more than this, realize that when considering housing and other essentials, it is the middle class that actually gets the highest tax burden. Any arguments that ignore this fact are nothing more than propaganda for the highest income earners.

Warren's iffy facts and illogical comparison aside - how are you going to measure discretionary income in order to tax it? Seems completely impractical to me.

Mark me down as supporting a flat consumption tax. Consumers pay a flat rate regardless of income.

Benefits -

Everybody pays something to support our federal government

Tax returns become non existent

those who earn cash and/or unreported income will now pay tax on their purchases instead of hiding their income

the rich will pay more than the poor because they consume more

no tax loopholes. you buy, you pay just like thousands of cities, states, counties, and other municipalities around the country have demonstrated for decades
 
Please provide an example of Warren's "iffy facts"?

I probably didn't do a very good job of not appearing political here. I was trying to avoid the base data debate because it gets to be complex. I always question the presentation of data without seeing the root analysis. I firmly believe that every politician has an axe to grind and an agenda to promote and they try to conveniently use the "facts" that support their argument and ignore other relevant information.

That being said you ask a fair question -

Having no idea which analysis Warren used, and I cannot be confident that the assertion of median income has remained relatively flat. I am willing to bet Warren could show her data set, I am equally sure that I could counter it. Bottom line - I don't for a minute believe that the median income in the US is essentially flat from 1973 to 2000. Even if it is, why do we analyze back to 2000? No reason is given, seems a little odd to me to use that year.

I think the analysis is completely unfair based on comparing one income to two. Modern generations certainly tend to live on 2 incomes, but that is by choice, not be necessity. From an analysis standpoint comparing 2 to 1 is on very shaky ground.

No accounting/adjustment is provided or stated for the natural variation in products available at the different times. A house or a car in 1973 compared to today are completely different items once you get beyond the basic function. Government regulation, technological advancements, safety features, and creature comforts all directly affect the costs of these items, significantly so. A proper analysis would have used the same 1973 car and 1973 home, but I am not sure that was done.

Essentially, a proper analysis needs to compare like for like and isolate the variable you wish to analyze: stating along the way the assumptions/adjustments that are made. I am not sure if that was done here.
 
Nope. The poor would end up paying a far higher percentage after necessities.

The bottom 50% pays no income tax. 25% of nothing is still nothing.
 
The bottom 50% pays no income tax. 25% of nothing is still nothing.
That's because of the standard deduction and tax credits which would be eliminated with a flat tax.
 
In a middle class two worker family the lower paid worker is mainly working to pay the taxes for that family. Here the sales tax alone is just over 10%. Then there's all the dozens of taxes every middle class family has to pay. In NYC there is a special tax on sliced bagels. The Feds, states, and especially local jurisdictions have instituted all kinds of fees and taxes. ALL added up, it's almost half what a middle class family earns.
 
Back
Top Bottom