Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Flat tax. One more way the rich have hoodwinked the poor into thinking it’s fair. What you don’t know is it’s screwing you too.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Flat tax. One more way the rich have hoodwinked the poor into thinking it’s fair. What you don’t know is it’s screwing you too.

At least my percentage would be the same as Romney.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

That’s a bad reason to do it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Or, do what Kep and I advocate and abolish all filing statuses except single.

I can't tell if you're Modest Proposaling it, but I'm actually serious about it.

Also: GMI for everybody as soon as they're born. If you don't make any money you get a check. Even if you married Mrs. Money Bags and live in the big house on top of the hill. Even if you're a 6-year old (your parents process it but the money comes for you). That takes away any need for tax breaks for dependents.

Then the GOP can try to extend GMI to fetuses to make political points -- that will be fun.

Poly wont matter since marriage no longer has any meaning for taxes.

I'm all in so if this is a trap spring it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Maybe we just treat everyone equally: everyone files as an individual, and pays the same 9%* rate on anything over $50k.

Progressive tax does treat everybody equally. EVERYBODY pays 90% for every dollar above $10M.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Flat tax. One more way the rich have hoodwinked the poor into thinking it’s fair. What you don’t know is it’s screwing you too.

Are we taxing income or wealth?
I'm asking because I'm not sure what some here are advocating.
(We just lost all the folks that don't understand the deficit versus the debt.)

When I see what Romney and Warren Buffet actually pay, a flat tax on income from any source, would actually get them out of the writeoffs-loopholes-deductions game and actually paying on the dollars that come into their hands annually. It's more than they're doing now.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Income tax is taxing income. Estate tax is taxing wealth. You can and should do both.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Just remove loopholes and make all income equal. Keep the progressive rates.

 

[joecct]

I can't tell if you're Modest Proposaling it, but I'm actually serious about it.

Also: GMI for everybody as soon as they're born. If you don't make any money you get a check. Even if you married Mrs. Money Bags and live in the big house on top of the hill. Even if you're a 6-year old (your parents process it but the money comes for you). That takes away any need for tax breaks for dependents.

Then the GOP can try to extend GMI to fetuses to make political points -- that will be fun.

Poly wont matter since marriage no longer has any meaning for taxes.

I'm all in so if this is a trap spring it.

BINGO!!! We're on the same page. Take the politics out of living arrangements and life styles. If you're "living in sin", monogamous, polyandrous, polygamous, wife/husband and mistress/mrtress. Big house, mansion, apartment, lots of kids/no kids/some kids - it won't matter as everyone gets the same standard deduction ($45K?).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Are we taxing income or wealth?
I'm asking because I'm not sure what some here are advocating.
(We just lost all the folks that don't understand the deficit versus the debt.)

When I see what Romney and Warren Buffet actually pay, a flat tax on income from any source, would actually get them out of the writeoffs-loopholes-deductions game and actually paying on the dollars that come into their hands annually. It's more than they're doing now.

It's a left-wing communist. They want anything they can get their hands on. They think that if you have wealth, you're evil.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

BINGO!!! We're on the same page. Take the politics out of living arrangements and life styles. If you're "living in sin", monogamous, polyandrous, polygamous, wife/husband and mistress/mrtress. Big house, mansion, apartment, lots of kids/no kids/some kids - it won't matter as everyone gets the same standard deduction ($45K?).

The ones who truly benefit from this are the tax preparers; they get probably at least 1.5x more money. Not to mention, makes processing much more inefficient. Perhaps we need to bring back the concept of "common law", and apply it regardless of gender.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Just remove loopholes and make all income equal. Keep the progressive rates.

We're advocating the same as far as eliminating loopholes and making income source (W2, cap gain, interest) irrelevant.
We're merely arguing on the progressive rate scale.

My scale:
$0-49,999: 0%
$50,000 and up: 9%

You want more divisions and rates.
I disagree because that's opportunity for tax policy gerrymandering.


And what we have now with our gerrymandered tax policy makes NC Congressional districts look sane.

 

[joecct]

The ones who truly benefit from this are the tax preparers; they get probably at least 1.5x more money. Not to mention, makes processing much more inefficient. Perhaps we need to bring back the concept of "common law", and apply it regardless of gender.

Disagree. My tax plan is take your gross income subtract the standard deduction, and tax the rest at 15% from 0 -> $1,000,000. Anything over $1M is taxed at 25%.

No hidden stuff. Corporations and LLCs use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

We're advocating the same as far as eliminating loopholes and making income source (W2, cap gain, interest) irrelevant.
We're merely arguing on the progressive rate scale.

My scale:
$0-49,999: 0%
$50,000 and up: 9%

You want more divisions and rates.
I disagree because that's opportunity for tax policy gerrymandering.


And what we have now with our gerrymandered tax policy makes NC Congressional districts look sane.

Your plan is not a progressive plan. It’s a regressive flat tax. The only scenario I’d be for a flat tax is if you set the standard deduction closer to $150,000 for individuals.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re calling tax gerrymandering. Remove all deductions. There you go. If that isn’t enough, make the tax code a formula where every dollar is taxed progressively more. No more brackets.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I’m not entirely sure what you’re calling tax gerrymandering.

Certain income types* getting special rates: gerrymandering.
Certain income types being exempt: gerrymandering.
Certain income types being deductible: gerrymandering.

Every time you create a "certain income type" category it's ripe for a lobby to gerrymander.


*Be it cap gain, interest, W2, yadda-yadda ...

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Your plan is not a progressive plan.

I don't want progressive.
I don't want win-win.

I'd like fair-fair. Fair-fair implies everyone has stuff they like and dislike.

But in a country where "all are created equal" taxing some at a higher rate implies they are Orwell's "pigs" (meaning "more equal").

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I don't want progressive.
I don't want win-win.

I'd like fair-fair. Fair-fair implies everyone has stuff they like and dislike.

But in a country where "all are created equal" taxing some at a higher rate implies they are Orwell's "pigs" (meaning "more equal").

You're talking about someone who used an oxymoron in order to try to push their idiotics. The person says a flat tax is regressive, when by definition it is not.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I don't want progressive.
I don't want win-win.

I'd like fair-fair. Fair-fair implies everyone has stuff they like and dislike.

But in a country where "all are created equal" taxing some at a higher rate implies they are Orwell's "pigs" (meaning "more equal").

If you want your definition of "fair" why are you exempting the first $50k?

We want a fair distribution of pain. Being taxed on the 9,999,950th dollar is far less painful than being taxed on the 1st dollar or the 50,000th dollar. There is a marginal return of pain.

It is much more fair to take 500 million dollars from a billionaire than 100 dollars from 5 millions paupers.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

If you want your definition of "fair" why are you exempting the first $50k?

We want a fair distribution of pain. Being taxed on the 9,999,950th dollar is far less painful than being taxed on the 1st dollar or the 50,000th dollar. There is a marginal return of pain.

It is much more fair to take 500 million dollars from a billionaire than 100 dollars from 5 millions paupers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

And why this is so difficult to understand boggles my mind.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

If you want your definition of "fair" why are you exempting the first $50k?

Call it the "basic human cost", the base cost of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."
If you have a pulse, congrats, first $50k is overhead and without tax.

Being alive is a $50k exemption. That's fair to the alive. (Now the dead lobby will come after me ... )