Author Topic: current US income tax system explained  (Read 1721 times)

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2003, 05:54:34 AM »
actually I would rather folks pay a fair equal percentage accross the board.  I don't know if could agree with a flat tax, but certainly I would like to see brackets disolve.  Based on income level,  EVERYONE should pay an equal percentage of their income.  And since when should the US model it's tax laws after any other country??  I copuld care less how much more Brit's have to pay on their income tax'es.

Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2003, 06:14:46 AM »
It's a nice thought, but I think the US treasury would be bankrupt if you introduced flat taxes.
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline crowMAW

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1179
A sales tax is better than a flat tax
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2003, 08:22:33 AM »
A flat tax is a truly regressive tax...it harms low income folks more than high income folks. Consider a 10% flat tax...a person earning $100,000 would end up with $90,000 after taxes. That $10,000 difference is really not going to change their life style all that much. They may have to buy a Cadillac instead of a Lexus.

Now consider a person earning $10,000 who would end up with $9,000 after the tax. A thousand dollar difference to that person is significant. It might mean the difference between being able to afford a used Toyota or taking the bus.

Replacing the current income tax system with a national sales tax is more preferable. I know many economists consider a sales tax a regressive tax as well, however this economist disagrees. Here is why: The rich tend to buy more expensive products than those less well off. The sales tax on a Lexus is going to be a lot more than on a used Toyota, but they still provide the same utility, i.e. transportation. The rich person does not have to choose to buy the Lexus, but they prefer it and therefore voluntarily choose to pay a greater amount of tax. So in the end the rich person ends up paying a greater amount of tax than the lower income individual.

Now the sales tax also has several side benefits

1) It encourages savings, which frees more money for investment and economic growth. Of course economic growth in turn stimulates further spending and greater tax revenues.

2) It simplifies the tax code incredibly.

3) It would allow for the elimination of the IRS as every state has a sales tax collection agency which can collect the Federal Government's share as they currently collect each county's share. Eliminating the IRS reduces the cost of running the government.

Anyway...just my $0.02.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2003, 08:59:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by whgates3
you're quite misguded in your attempt to put words into my virtual mouth.


I'm not trying to put words in your virtual mouth. I'm trying to understand the concept you are attempting to express.

Quote
it wasn't mentioned that #10 was servered champagne & caiviar.
2-4's stale toast was cold because they got there late (they had to walk - couldn't take the bus. they were too smelly after getting off their jobs in waste mgmt)


From this I do indeed take it that you think #10 is wealthy. I take that 2-4 1) can't afford a car, 2) have a low-level job in waste management.

And this applies to the allegory.... how? Obviously, this is a vast spread in income between the 1st quintile and the last (bottom) two quintiles. How does that invalidate the comparison?

Or is it wrong that folks with more money can afford better things?

In short, what point were you trying to make with that statement?

It isn't about "trickle down" per se, either.

The question before us is: If everyone gets the same tax cut, people who pay the most in taxes will get a larger sum than those who pay the least in taxes. It's a "well, DUH!" mathematical equation that the Democrats hold up as proof of "unfairness" when it's just simple math.

You never see the Dems just coming out and saying "we need to redistribute the wealth" although that is EXACTLY what they are aiming at with the approach they take.

My position is if that's what you're after, say so. Might as well have an honest debate about it.

But 1% of a million is always going to be more than 1% of 10,000 quantitatively. "Fair" doesn't enter into the math.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2003, 09:02:51 AM »
I think probably a combo Flat Tax/National Sales Tax would work though.

You could exempt folks below a certain income level from the Flat Tax... we do that now under the present system... and you can exempt "necessities" from the National Sales Tax, like food and medicines, etc.

It would be a goat rope for a while and need tweaking to be sure... but I don't see how it could be worse than the Championship Goatrope tax system we have now.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2003, 09:08:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
NOT. Politicians DO NOT cut spending.

So, if they get less bucks to waste... that's a good thing.

If politicians do not cut spending, how is it a good thing that they will get less money to spend?  We know the gov't spends money regardless if they have it or not.  Or should we just not worry about the national debt, as we never really have to pay it off.  ;)
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18204
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2003, 09:09:52 AM »
typical examples of class envy .. no wonder the dems get as far as they do

it is nice that BOTH sides are now talking about tax CUTS of one sort or another :)
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2003, 09:20:19 AM »
Do we really need a tax cut right now? I know everyone wants one, but even the Republicans are not as shy about doling out pork as their reputation would suggest, and it looks like we're going to be spending plenty in coming years. Maybe it's just my personal perspective on savings vs. spending. I have as much in the bank as research shows the average person has in credit card debt.

Nor do I think it particularly provides a boost to the economy, since the upper brackets are already probably spending as much as they're going to spend on non essential items, and the lower brackets should be putting it in the bank in case they lose their job in the coming months. To me it's just a "feel good/payback" kinda thing.

Had an interesting discussion the other night with an oral surgeon in the .05 bracket. He went into great detail explaining his spending habits, $2 million house and even pointing out how much he pays in taxes ($150,000). He's even going to buy the same car I plan on buying (a Mini Cooper S) only he's going to autocross race it, since he already has several Jags. He's all for the tax cut.

It did help point out a couple of differences between what a tax cut means though. In his bracket, the money would buy his Mini Cooper S. In a lower bracket, a tax cut can be used to help pay for a child's college tuition, which will never be one of his concerns. He's worked hard to get where he's at (but having wealthy parents and a quality education provided by living in the right neighborhoods also helped). At this point, all his needs in life are covered 2-3 times over -- food, housing, college for the kids, transportation, healthcare, retirement. To him a tax cut is a new toy. To someone in a lower bracket it might mean a little easier time sending the kid to college. You reach a certain point with wealth where it works for you.

His kids will have a lot easier time living the American dream because they will start out ahead of the game. People born without those advantages can overcome the situation, far easier than in most places, but they will have to work harder to get there all other things being equal. Now could I be just a tiny bit jealous? Sure. But, I wasn't exactly born into poverty myself and can see the advantages you get in America seem to multiply as you acquire more wealth, particularly after you can cover your basic needs. Of course he also believes that we are here as a result of space aliens (man, I thought he was trolling, it's a good thing I didn't start joking around too soon ) and that we are using Star Wars to fight aliens in orbit today, so I don't feel all that jealous in the end.

As also pointed out, the upper brackets can pay for good accountants, and the IRS confirmed in that testimony a few years back that the tax cheats they go after are usually in the lowest brackets, since they lack the resources to fight back.

Regardless, I'm more for less spending (poorly-executed social programs and blatant corporate welfare) as opposed to continued higher spending and a tax cut. And again, I will be surprised if the Republicans show any more restraint, even where blatant pork is concerned, than the Democrats.

Charon
« Last Edit: January 15, 2003, 09:28:32 AM by Charon »

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2003, 09:50:29 AM »
oh, I'd like a tax break/refund.  It'd go into my widescreen TV fund!  :D

See?  I'd use the tax break to stimulate the economy by injecting $$$$ to some online TV dealer.  :)
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2003, 09:57:40 AM »
Nifty, you are talking about one of the Needs in life, vs. one of the luxuries :)

Charon

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
Re: Blah, Blah, Blah......
« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2003, 11:25:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by weazel
Lets compare the plans.



Look at Bush's plan for America.

The super-poor get a whopping one percent from Christian Bush, while the super rich got 17 percent.
 
To the super-poor, who spend the stimulus money, the Dems offer 13 percent to the GOP's  1 percent..

There's no argument here.

Bush and Rush are proud of the fact that the super-rich got the biggest checks.

But what will it do for the economy?


Fine line between socialism and communism, the dems plan crosses it I believe.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Lazerus1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: A sales tax is better than a flat tax
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2003, 12:12:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by crowMAW
A flat tax is a truly regressive tax...it harms low income folks more than high income folks. Consider a 10% flat tax...a person earning $100,000 would end up with $90,000 after taxes. That $10,000 difference is really not going to change their life style all that much. They may have to buy a Cadillac instead of a Lexus.

Now consider a person earning $10,000 who would end up with $9,000 after the tax. A thousand dollar difference to that person is significant. It might mean the difference between being able to afford a used Toyota or taking the bus.

Replacing the current income tax system with a national sales tax is more preferable. I know many economists consider a sales tax a regressive tax as well, however this economist disagrees. Here is why: The rich tend to buy more expensive products than those less well off. The sales tax on a Lexus is going to be a lot more than on a used Toyota, but they still provide the same utility, i.e. transportation. The rich person does not have to choose to buy the Lexus, but they prefer it and therefore voluntarily choose to pay a greater amount of tax. So in the end the rich person ends up paying a greater amount of tax than the lower income individual.

Now the sales tax also has several side benefits

1) It encourages savings, which frees more money for investment and economic growth. Of course economic growth in turn stimulates further spending and greater tax revenues.

2) It simplifies the tax code incredibly.

3) It would allow for the elimination of the IRS as every state has a sales tax collection agency which can collect the Federal Government's share as they currently collect each county's share. Eliminating the IRS reduces the cost of running the government.

Anyway...just my $0.02.


After taxes thats $0.0102 :D



A national sales/flat tax would be, in my opinion, a great alternative to the system we have now.

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
Re: Re: Blah, Blah, Blah......
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2003, 12:16:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by miko2d
How would that work as stimulus? How much of that money would poor invest into new capital equipment and new job creation?


Why in the world would you expect that the wealthy would invest in new capital equipment and job creation in the current economic environment?  Noblesse oblige?

If the current economic downturn is the result of low consumer demand, which it appears to be, then explain to me how increasing the supply of goods and services likewise increases demand.  The whole reason we're seeing massive job cuts is because businesses have overproduced given current demand levels, forcing them to lower prices while production costs remain the same.  There was actually some fear, a year ago, that there was strong deflationary pressure as the result of massive overproduction; in the aggregate, it was offset by rising gasoline and new home prices.

The solution?  Cut production and all unnecessary personnel associated with the overproduction in order to remain profitable given current market demand.  Why, then, would cutting taxes to wealthy individuals and businesses lead them to increase production and lower prices given a constant demand?  They'd probably hold onto the money and earn interest on it, but there's certainly no incentive to invest it in expansion or job creation.  It just doesn't make sound business sense.

If you cut taxes on those earning the least amount of money, who live paycheck to paycheck, you're going to increase demand.  Any extra money provided to them is going to find its way back into the market, which in turn will lead to job creation and capital investment.

I'm not attacking a tax cut on the wealthy, mind you.  However, believing that cutting taxes for the wealthy alone will lead to economic improvement (i.e. increasing supply rather than demand, hence supply-side economics) requires a real leap of logic.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
current US income tax system explained
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2003, 12:21:28 PM »
"I think probably a combo Flat Tax/National Sales Tax would work though.

You could exempt folks below a certain income level from the Flat Tax... we do that now under the present system... and you can exempt "necessities" from the National Sales Tax, like food and medicines, etc.

It would be a goat rope for a while and need tweaking to be sure... but I don't see how it could be worse than the Championship Goatrope tax system we have now.

__________________
Toad
XO
13th TAS
No Mercy Asked....None Given!
"

This is what I have allways advocated and comes the closest to being fair without all the complication.   I also believe that if we cut the amount government had to spend by half.... we would see what their true priorities are.
lazs

Offline Montezuma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
Re: current US income tax system explained
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2003, 01:02:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by -ammo-
T. Davies Professor of Accounting & Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota



He didn't write it.  Why is spreading lies through spam so popular with conservatives?