Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Barry Hufker]

DarinK wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 17:55

More debunking of how the 47% number is being used to mis-represent what's really going on regarding federal taxes: http://crooksandliars.com/node/36340 Enjoy.

That's a great video with Jon Stewart.  I'm glad you posted it as I was just about to.


Barry

[Jon Hodgson]

I've been looking at what the numbers would look like if you had a "flat" tax system (as the term is used to describe systems with one rate and an allowance, so not truly flat as such).

I may have made an error in my working, so don't take this as gospel without checking it yourselves, but what I'm generally getting is...

if I try to make the situation revenue neutral, using the figures from the IRS I linked to before, the poorest 50% only start to pay more when you get to a rate of about 15.8% with an allowance of just over 12k.

And they're not the big winners at this point, in fact compared to a flat tax system with those figures, they'd be paying almost exactly the same percentage as now, the top 5% would pay less, and everyone else would pay more, with the 25-50% group hardest hit.

I don't have any moral conclusion about this, I just found it interesting to see what happened when you played with the numbers.

[Berolzheimer]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 09:11

DarinK wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 17:55 More debunking of how the 47% number is being used to mis-represent what's really going on regarding federal taxes: http://crooksandliars.com/node/36340 Enjoy. That's a great video with Jon Stewart.  I'm glad you posted it as I was just about to. Barry

Here here.

[Barry Hufker]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 13:58

I've been looking at what the numbers would look like if you had a "flat" tax system (as the term is used to describe systems with one rate and an allowance, so not truly flat as such). I may have made an error in my working, so don't take this as gospel without checking it yourselves, but what I'm generally getting is... if I try to make the situation revenue neutral, using the figures from the IRS I linked to before, the poorest 50% only start to pay more when you get to a rate of about 15.8% with an allowance of just over 12k. And they're not the big winners at this point, in fact compared to a flat tax system with those figures, they'd be paying almost exactly the same percentage as now, the top 5% would pay less, and everyone else would pay more, with the 25-50% group hardest hit. I don't have any moral conclusion about this, I just found it interesting to see what happened when you played with the numbers.

I've never done the math but in all I have read, I've been led to believe a flat tax would result in me paying more than I do so on a gut level I agree with your calculations.

In Singapore... the government determines what you must pay as a tax and sends you a bill...


Barry

[Jon Hodgson]

Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 00:47

Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 13:58 I've been looking at what the numbers would look like if you had a "flat" tax system (as the term is used to describe systems with one rate and an allowance, so not truly flat as such). I may have made an error in my working, so don't take this as gospel without checking it yourselves, but what I'm generally getting is... if I try to make the situation revenue neutral, using the figures from the IRS I linked to before, the poorest 50% only start to pay more when you get to a rate of about 15.8% with an allowance of just over 12k. And they're not the big winners at this point, in fact compared to a flat tax system with those figures, they'd be paying almost exactly the same percentage as now, the top 5% would pay less, and everyone else would pay more, with the 25-50% group hardest hit. I don't have any moral conclusion about this, I just found it interesting to see what happened when you played with the numbers. I've never done the math but in all I have read, I've been led to believe a flat tax would result in me paying more than I do so on a gut level I agree with your calculations. In Singapore... the government determines what you must pay as a tax and sends you a bill... Barry

Though as far as the rich paying less under a flat tax as per my workings, one of the theories is that a flat tax system gives fewer places for people to "hide" their earnings to avoid tax (which the rich tend to be better at), and indeed less incentive to do so (because the rates tend to be lower). If this is correct then declared incomes at the higher end would tend to increase, and therefore you might not see the reductions that I calculated.

[danickstr]

I like the idea of a flat tax that ramps up for the very rich.  So it's kinda flat, with a kicker at the high end.  Flat if you just don't earn too much.  

[Jon Hodgson]

danickstr wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 04:22

I like the idea of a flat tax that ramps up for the very rich.  So it's kinda flat, with a kicker at the high end.  Flat if you just don't earn too much.

Punitive tax never strikes me as a particularly good way to get money out of the really rich (though I guess that depends on where you draw the line between rich and really rich)... they have too aany ways to move their money around, and they could always just leave the country and go and live somewhere else.

Get them to spend their money, make a hospital wing with their name on it more fashionable than a Gulf Stream jet, convince them that finding a cure for cancer is a more interesting challenge than another takeover.

[Jay Kadis]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 11:56

danickstr wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 04:22 I like the idea of a flat tax that ramps up for the very rich.  So it's kinda flat, with a kicker at the high end.  Flat if you just don't earn too much.   Punitive tax never strikes me as a particularly good way to get money out of the really rich (though I guess that depends on where you draw the line between rich and really rich)... they have too aany ways to move their money around, and they could always just leave the country and go and live somewhere else. Get them to spend their money, make a hospital wing with their name on it more fashionable than a Gulf Stream jet, convince them that finding a cure for cancer is a more interesting challenge than another takeover.

It's not a takeover to slant the tax rate so that as your success goes up, your percentage follows.  It doesn't have to be punitive.

[Berolzheimer]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 11:56

Punitive tax never strikes me as a particularly good way to get money out of the really rich (though I guess that depends on where you draw the line between rich and really rich)... they have too aany ways to move their money around, and they could always just leave the country and go and live somewhere else.

This brings up what I think is one of the great fallacies that comes into these discussions.  I don't believe that a percentage or 2 or 3 of tax differences affect how the "really rich" decide to live their lives.  Folks with tens or hundreds of millions or billions can afford to live where they want to, regardless.  with that much money there's really no way to spend it, so it just doesn't matter.  No billionaire is going to leave a place that he loves because it costs a a few thousand dollars more to live there than somewhere else.

[Jon Hodgson]

Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 20:28

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 11:56 Punitive tax never strikes me as a particularly good way to get money out of the really rich (though I guess that depends on where you draw the line between rich and really rich)... they have too aany ways to move their money around, and they could always just leave the country and go and live somewhere else. This brings up what I think is one of the great fallacies that comes into these discussions.  I don't believe that a percentage or 2 or 3 of tax differences affect how the "really rich" decide to live their lives.  Folks with tens or hundreds of millions or billions can afford to live where they want to, regardless.  with that much money there's really no way to spend it, so it just doesn't matter.  No billionaire is going to leave a place that he loves because it costs a a few thousand dollars more to live there than somewhere else.

But we're rarely talking about a percentage or 2 or 3 of difference when people talk about taxing the rich more. I've never seen anyone suggest a 2% step in a tax bracket at the high end, it's always 10% or 20% or more.

Also it tends to not just be the "really rich", there simply aren't enough of them, the average income of the top 1% in the USA is under 1.5 million, which for most of us is a shedload of money, but it's actually still low enough that tax can make a notable difference to your lifestyle (do you buy the standard ferrari or the special edition Enzo?)... and the majority will be earning less than that.

The "brain drain" is a famous phenomenon that the UK suffered at one point when its highest tax bracket was 90%, the people who could earn the money to fall into that bracket realized they could do so anywhere in the world... so they did, and they took their productivity with them. It's even easier for people to do that sort of thing now with the internet, teleconferencing etc.

Yes, those with hundreds of millions can afford to live where they want to anyway, so they're not going to move, but it's also cheaper for them to hire tax experts to move their money around than to simply pay more tax, so you're not going to get them either.

Right now the top 1% are paying about 5% more federal income tax than the 2-5% bracket, how far do you think you can push it? History shows that there is a limit.

[danickstr]

capital gains is only 15%.  So the dividend earning rich have it more than twice better than the upper middle class now (who pay 36% on 150,000.00 earned income).

[John Ivan]

grantis wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:04

danickstr wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 21:41 so if I make 10 mil a year, I am paying 2.2 mil in taxes, but I have 7.8 mil to blow on yachts, pretty girls and cocaine.  heyahooooo!  Sign me up for that guy's high tax burden. Where'd you get those numbers?  that's not anywhere near correct. Under new tax law (IE, the new healthcare law, etc), if you made 10mil, you'd be paying 5.9mil in tax. Unless you came up with a bunch of write offs. My problem with all of this is....the average american work week has been hovering about 34 hours a week for the last decade or so (down as low as 31 during recession). If 50% of america really is "poor" by definition, it's nobody's fault but their own.  Get up off your lazy but and do something about it instead of working a pathetic 31 hours a week.  this country's sense of entitlement is sickening, and it's the lawyer who spends 90 hours a week in his office EARNING 500k a year who has to pay for all of that sheer laziness. i'm PAYING my dues by working my ass off for poverty level pay in hopes that it will someday lead to something bigger and better, (and more lucrative).  how sad that i will be continuing to pay dues when that day comes, just in a much more pocket burning kind of way. although it all makes sense.  why work your ass off when you've already got a free meal ticket?  i guess 50% of america is ok with mediocrity. there, i said it, and my tongue was only halfway in my cheek.

Yeah Man. I hear ya!!All these lazy fucks.. Man, they lost their homes, their cars, they can barely pay for food for their kids, and it's just because they're all lazy.

See, there's a group of folks in this country who believe that ONLY THEY work hard enough.. They just can't see why everyone else can't have what they have.. "hey!! I worked hard for my $40,000 pile of shit SUV and my over bloated house, and my wife's plastic cloths.. Anyone who can't do this, is just lazy!!"..

We call these people republicans where I come from.. I find it truly amazing that the original poster is "speechless" over something that is common knowledge, not in any way surprising and in the final analysis, not so unfair..

People live under a rock. They see the people they work with, and what's in their yard. Nothing else is their problem.. If things are hard for someone, it's their fault. Period.

It's fine with me, I guess. I'm just pointing out that there is less sense of community now than ever before. It's every man for him self.. I'm just sorry I didn't get on board with this thinking earlier. I could have doubled my money easily had I thought mostly about ME ME ME!!

I'm more concerned with us. Us. Us. How sad for me..

Speechless??  How funny..

Ivan...........................

[DarinK]

Grant is working his ass off for poverty-level pay, but he knows everybody else in poverty is just lazy.  Why, there are lots of jobs out there, tons of work for everyone who is willing to work more hours.  
Yeah, right.  That's why hundreds or even thousands of people show up to apply whenever a few job openings are announced.