User Tag List

First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 264

  1. #151
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    A lot of graduated systems start at 0% to a certain income level. I didn't express that well Forgot that Americans don't.
    You don't pay any income tax on your first $8750 in the US (for single individuals, in 2007). Moving to a flat tax would not necessarily eliminate this deduction.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #152
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    (x) remains true no matter what amount of income is required. The impact scales - 50% flat tax on minimum wage workers is going to be revolt, while 10% probably would be ok.

    But then, the services provided to the poor tend to be government related. So if you take those away, you can assume that they won't be able to afford them (since they were effectively subsidised by higher income people.) So, if you account for that, it really makes no differences, except as far as allocation and efficiencies goes (that is, the market will either provide/not provide and/or do it better/worse).
    That is a gigantic (and, in my opinion, incorrect) assumption. Lower-income people would have more money to spend, as well (as they would be paying lesser taxes, or none at all). Also, a reduction in government services would necessitate a return to/entry into the job market (which would be expanded, as businesses have far more money to reinvest) by people who were unemployed and government-dependent before. It would be a difficult adjustment, but it could absolutely work.



    Flat tax means no marginal increases in income tax - there would be more people paying because there should be no income held back from taxation.

    Regardless, it doesn't matter even if we introduce a generous tax break. Less people paying income tax means more money being taken from fewer, and it will always affect the lowest income people the most.
    That is completely false. You could have a flat tax of 10% on the top 60% of earners, and 0% on the bottom 40%. That would result in slightly fewer people not paying any income tax at all, AND everyone else getting a tax cut.


    It simply shifts the burden onto those less capable of handling it.
    No, it doesn't, if the amount (x) is much smaller than the government currently claims it to be (and, may I add, which it does not even take in, given our budget deficit).
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #153
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That is a gigantic (and, in my opinion, incorrect) assumption. Lower-income people would have more money to spend, as well (as they would be paying lesser taxes, or none at all). Also, a reduction in government services would necessitate a return to/entry into the job market (which would be expanded, as businesses have far more money to reinvest) by people who were unemployed and government-dependent before. It would be a difficult adjustment, but it could absolutely work.
    You are comparing two different states of taxation. In one, you have the full (current) taxation at marginal rates, and in the other, you have flat tax at reduced taxation (cut spending).

    Lower income would absolutely lose for two main reasons;

    1) Government services that would be covered by taxation are no longer covered. The services are directly related to tax revenue. The further you cut, the more the poorer people lose their services, the more they have to pay at full market rates, the less they get to 'save' in their tax cuts. Or they opt out (of things like medical care/dental care and such).

    2) If you compare it within any similar state - that is, if you cut services and keep a progressive tax system, the people at the lower end of the curve will pay less. There is always a point between progressive and flat where taxees gain and lose. In general, the poorer ones will be less able handle increased tax amounts relative to their peers that earn more, no matter where you draw the line (and of course, the smaller that group is, the more pronounced it becomes).

    (re #2 - In aggragate - Cost of Living plays a big part in this equation.)

    That is completely false. You could have a flat tax of 10% on the top 60% of earners, and 0% on the bottom 40%. That would result in slightly fewer people not paying any income tax at all, AND everyone else getting a tax cut.
    Sure, why don't we set it to 99% don't pay, and 1% does, then? Or just find the richest man and tax only him. Then nearly no one pays taxes.

    The less people you tax, the higher the burden on the rest. The only way this works is if there are nearly no services provided (progressively less, as the distortions on the market increase the smaller the group and the higher the tax is).

    And again, the less services you have, the more direct the impact on the poorest people. They don't gain much from lowering their tax rate from 10% to 0, especially after deductions. Not when they lose those deductions, plus things like social care, medicine, transportation...

  4. #154
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You don't pay any income tax on your first $8750 in the US (for single individuals, in 2007). Moving to a flat tax would not necessarily eliminate this deduction.
    Hmmm, didn't know that.

    By definition, flat tax = constant rate of tax. No reason you couldn't have a default level of exemptions, but it isn't included in the definition - it would be an exception. Progressive taxation can hold the 0% taxation fairly easily.

    Either way, I suppose, it doesn't matter.

  5. #155
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You don't pay any income tax on your first $8750 in the US (for single individuals, in 2007). Moving to a flat tax would not necessarily eliminate this deduction.
    And approximately 38% of American tax returns have a 0% tax liability. The poorest Americans pay nothing.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    And approximately 38% of American tax returns have a 0% tax liability. The poorest Americans pay nothing.
    Well said. Americans in general have it pretty easy still, with all our "problems."

  7. #157
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Well said. Americans in general have it pretty easy still, with all our "problems."
    Well, to be fair, money isn't the entire picture. Gotta ask about QOL in general to know how well the big the problems are being dealt with.

  8. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    I'm inclined to agree with McCain. Obama wants to put a pretty expensive social program into play: universal health care. I have a hard time seeing that actually come to fruition without raising taxes.
    Expensive? Just the interest rate on the debt incurred by the absurd invasion of Iraq dwarfs any social programs any democrat has ever proposed. Your moaning about pennies while they literally break the bank bombing people, under false pretenses.

    The war will cost us over 3 trillion dollars when all is said and done and you call yourself a fiscal conservative?

    One of the causes of the sub prime fall out was because MBNA (Bush's largest campaign contributor) re-wrote lending regulations IMMEDIATELY after he was elected. These same lobbyists actually WROTE the legislation that helped trigger the current financial crises and you think the right is stronger on the economy while they rack up record deficits and will spend at least another trillion bailing out companies (which is the ultimate in socialist economic policy). The regulation that was in place to stop the exact situation were in, was eradicated under the guise of de-regulation and free markets, that is until the bailouts. After they destroyed our financial services sector, now all of a sudden - they're anti-free market and pro-bailout.

    Free Trade doesn't mean propping up failing companies that deserve to fail and small governments doesn't mean attacking countries (which is financed by printing increasingly valueless money). The world will soon go off the dollar as the int'l standard because of this, and our currency will plummet even further.

  9. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Trade policy is really, really important.
    I agree, that's why economists overwhelmingly support Obama.
    Economists for Obama: 66% of Economists are Economists for Obama

    You guys got all the bible thumpers, rednecks and gun freaks though. Which should mean you guys will win again. It's not a coincidence the red states have crap economies; while the blue states have most of the skilled and educated in this country.

    We let the dumb half of the country run this place into the ground. New York is the only place terrorists bother trying to attack, yet red staters are the ones scared of the Iraqi "terrorists". What a bunch of dumb fucking yokels.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #160
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    I agree, that's why economists overwhelmingly support Obama.
    Economists for Obama: 66% of Economists are Economists for Obama

    You guys got all the bible thumpers, rednecks and gun freaks though. Which should mean you guys will win again. It's not a coincidence the red states have crap economies; while the blue states have most of the skilled and educated in this country.

    We let the dumb half of the country run this place into the ground. New York is the only place terrorists bother trying to attack, yet red staters are the ones scared of the Iraqi "terrorists". What a bunch of dumb fucking yokels.

    Who is this "you," Kimo Sabe? I've never voted Republican in my life.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] entps: what's the worst thing to you of the things you hate ?
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-05-2014, 10:01 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Animals & MBTI (A thread brought to you via 'an attempt to satiate boredom')
    By FantailedWall in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 06:47 AM
  3. [ENTP] entps: what's the worst thing to you of the things you dread ?
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 12:47 AM
  4. These sensations brought to you by Alcohol
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 08:37 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 07:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO