New Tax Reform thread

A flat tax is not like that. It is a flat percentage not a flat amount. Typically it is minus some amount. So an example is everyone pays 17% on everything they make over $25000 and nothing on the first $25000.

 

There's people who need that money (it's not insignificant - it's $18K/year less) a lot more than I do. If I can pay less taxes and there aren't people going hungry or in need then I'm all for it, but while there's still rampant poverty I'm okay paying what I consider to be (although obviously there's differing opinions here) "my fair share".

Where I have an issue is knowing that the benefits of this tax plan accrue to (extremely) high earners, and I rub elbows with enough of them to know that the marginal value of the tax cuts to them is nowhere near the marginal value to people less fortunate.

I'm aware of what a flat tax is, but if you look at his post (#46) he indicates that a flat (percentage) tax is not what he's recommending.

 

You think the super rich use more public resources than the poor do?

So even though we've had a 'war on poverty' and spent countless trillions to 'solve poverty', you're still OK giving the Govt more money to fix what they've shown to be incapable of fixing? Its like education, throw more money at it, it'll eventually get better right?

 

I am asserting that fair is taking the tax burden and dividing it by the population. I am fully aware that is not realistic, but fair is paying your portion of the total, not some arbitrary "fair share".

 

No, I was defining fair. I have never been a believer in someone else paying more just because they are more able.

 

I'm okay with not giving tax cuts to people who don't need them, yes. Even if there is rampant government inefficiency of say 30% of every dollar collected, I'm much more in favor of underprivileged families receiving $0.70 than I am in wealthy families keeping their dollar.

 

I would rather see the government cut spending.

 

I'm not sure what about the last 30 years (ushered in with Reagan-omics and the "trickle down theory") leads you to believe that there's been a "war on poverty" and not a "war on not enough wealth accruing to the wealthiest Americans". I can kick you in the face and call it a "war on possible zits on your nose", but in reality I'm just kicking you in the face.

 

Add another 20 years.

 

Good on you. What’s stopping you then. You realize that on your tax returns you can elect to pay in any additional amount you chose to. So the option for you to pay more is already in place for you to do so.

 

There's nothing stopping me, and my charitable contributions are going to increase significantly once this tax plan becomes official. I'm sure everyone on this thread is aware that if any of us think we have too much money that there's copious options for disposing of said money, so I'm unsure of your point.

 

Nice graph. What it doesn’t show is that the individual households that are grouped together to provide the data that make the bar graphs are not static and that individual households move in and out every year. Both up and down.
In other words most people are not stuck in poverty just like the super rich don’t always remain super rich. Money flows to those who make an effort to obtain it. Make yourself valuable to society and you will be rewarded accordingly.
The notion that the poor remain poor for perpetuity is a liberal fantasy. You need to look at the individual data and not the groupings.

 

My point is you made a statement that you are OK with paying more. (But we all know what you really want is for others to have to pay more as well, which I am not willing to do). So shut up about it and just do it if you want to pay more but don’t include others. Very simple point.

 

Yep. I went from food stamps to a private jet and back at least two or three times this year.

 

Link is broken. Please fix.

 

A reduction in spending and an enforced balanced budget requirement would go a long way towards solving a number of our fiscal problems. It's not a good thing when I write checks for more than what's in my account, why should our government be any different?

 

As long as we are ignoring the means by which a 1% earns their money versus how I earn my middle class income. Which, individual to individual, is correct. But when the 1% also gets around paying a fair corporate tax rate (where they do use more public services) in order to increase share value and bonuses, they have effectively used significantly more public services while increasing their individual wealth. It's pretty much how the chart SuddenBraking posted came into existence. It doesn't trickle down. Ever.