quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:

quote:

Originally posted by Kranky:

This statement above is false. -- Middle class people will always pay the bulk of the taxes since there are more of them. --

According to the IRS for 2016,

Top 1% paid 37% of taxes
Top 5% paid 58% of taxes
Top 10% paid 69.5% of tax

For the 140,000,000 returns, 14,100,000 returns/families paid about 70% of the tax burden. I am pretty sure no one would classify folks in this demographic as middle class.


https://taxfoundation.org/summ...ax-data-2018-update/

--k

Wouldn't the top 5% be considered wealthy rather than middle class?

quote:

I'm fine with some people not paying taxes, just as long as they don't get to vote how to spend my taxes. No representation, without taxation.

quote:

Originally posted by Kranky:
This statement above is false. -- Middle class people will always pay the bulk of the taxes since there are more of them. --

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Kranky:
This statement above is false. -- Middle class people will always pay the bulk of the taxes since there are more of them. --

'Only' if you accept the current paradigm cannot and will not change. A national sales tax with no personal carve outs would....

1 - Be moral and truly fair.
2 - Insure everyone has skin in the game.
3 - Insure illegals pay too.
4 - Simplify the tax system enormously.
5 - Make reducing the IRS to nothing more than a monitoring agency possible.
6 - Result in even higher national tax revenues.
7 - Make it much, much, harder for government to raise taxes.

And in this scenario, the rich still pay more in taxes than anyone else, so Soros and his cast of America hating filth should be happy. They of course wouldn't be, but they should be.

quote:

Originally posted by MaThGr82:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Kranky:
This statement above is false. -- Middle class people will always pay the bulk of the taxes since there are more of them. --

'Only' if you accept the current paradigm cannot and will not change. A national sales tax with no personal carve outs would....

1 - Be moral and truly fair.
2 - Insure everyone has skin in the game.
3 - Insure illegals pay too.
4 - Simplify the tax system enormously.
5 - Make reducing the IRS to nothing more than a monitoring agency possible.
6 - Result in even higher national tax revenues.
7 - Make it much, much, harder for government to raise taxes.

And in this scenario, the rich still pay more in taxes than anyone else, so Soros and his cast of America hating filth should be happy. They of course wouldn't be, but they should be.

The reason this one seems to have a marketing problem is that with lower incomes, you tend to spend a larger percent of your income. Assuming a 10% flat sales tax a family making $40K will likely spend at least $30K to survive, if not more. A family making $300K can survive on far less as a percent, say $150K. If family A spends 30K and gets a 10% flat rate, they have an effective tax rate of 7.5% Family B with the $150 spending gets an effective tax rate of 5%.

This is the marketing problem in my mind with the flat rate on spending. It isn't really a flat rate.

If instead we did a national flat tax on all income, that would allow the effective rate to be the same, no?

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

quote:

Originally posted by MaThGr82:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Kranky:
This statement above is false. -- Middle class people will always pay the bulk of the taxes since there are more of them. --

'Only' if you accept the current paradigm cannot and will not change. A national sales tax with no personal carve outs would....

1 - Be moral and truly fair.
2 - Insure everyone has skin in the game.
3 - Insure illegals pay too.
4 - Simplify the tax system enormously.
5 - Make reducing the IRS to nothing more than a monitoring agency possible.
6 - Result in even higher national tax revenues.
7 - Make it much, much, harder for government to raise taxes.

And in this scenario, the rich still pay more in taxes than anyone else, so Soros and his cast of America hating filth should be happy. They of course wouldn't be, but they should be.

The reason this one seems to have a marketing problem is that with lower incomes, you tend to spend a larger percent of your income. Assuming a 10% flat sales tax a family making $40K will likely spend at least $30K to survive, if not more. A family making $300K can survive on far less as a percent, say $150K. If family A spends 30K and gets a 10% flat rate, they have an effective tax rate of 7.5% Family B with the $150 spending gets an effective tax rate of 5%.

This is the marketing problem in my mind with the flat rate on spending. It isn't really a flat rate.

If instead we did a national flat tax on all income, that would allow the effective rate to be the same, no?

You could have a baseline number before you get taxed. For an example let’s say the no tax baseline is 30k. You don’t get taxed until you go over 30k which would help the poor. Then if you make 40k you pay taxes on the 10k that was over the baseline. And so on.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I'm fine with some people not paying taxes, just as long as they don't get to vote how to spend my taxes. No representation, without taxation.

Theoretically that's a fine idea. As a practical matter, there's no way you're going to change the constitution and take the vote away from anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
You could have a baseline number before you get taxed. For an example let’s say the no tax baseline is 30k. You don’t get taxed until you go over 30k which would help the poor. Then if you make 40k you pay taxes on the 10k that was over the baseline. And so on.

quote:

An Open Letter to Patriotic Billionaires
Raise our taxes, they plead. So why not start writing checks today?

By The Editorial Board
June 26, 2019 7:04 pm ET

Nineteen uberwealthy Americans posted an open letter Monday calling on “all candidates for President” to support a “moderate” wealth tax. Signatories include the investor George Soros, Berkshire Hathaway scion Molly Munger, Mickey Mouse heiress Abigail Disney, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and a couple of Hyatt Hotel progeny from the Pritzker family.

“America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more,” they say. Revenue squeezed from the top 0.1% could fund “smart investments,” such as “clean energy innovation,” “infrastructure modernization,” “student loan debt relief,” and “public health solutions.” A wealth tax could safeguard democracy, too, since countries with high economic inequality are more likely to “become plutocratic.”

The letter brushes by the arguments against a wealth tax, calling them “mostly technical and often overstated.” Would courts find it unconstitutional? How would assets like Picassos be valued? Why has Europe largely abandoned this kind of taxation? Doesn’t it diminish the incentive to save and invest? What’s to keep a wealth tax from expanding, like the income tax did, to cover more and more Americans?

Instead of seriously grappling with these objections, the letter tries to sweep readers along in sheer patriotic fervor. The rich “should be proud to pay a bit more,” the authors say. “Taking on this tax is the least we can do to strengthen the country we love.”

Well, what’s stopping them? If billionaires see themselves as a threat to “the stability and integrity of our republic,” they could cease being billionaires any day. If retiring student debt is vital, they could put out a call to graduates and start paying off loans. If the climate is a priority, they could fund a green Manhattan Project.

Maybe they’re intent on routing their largesse through the government, since it already does such a bang-up job of setting priorities and spending prudently. Again, though, why wait for legislation? They could start contributing more today. First, they could pledge to forgo all tax write-offs, including on charitable donations and foundations. As a side benefit, this would save them money on accountants.

Second, they could put their money where their convictions are by writing a big annual check—3% of assets each year, going by Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax—to local, state or federal government. The Treasury accepts “Gifts to the United States” at P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, W.Va. Donations usually go to the general budget, but state policies differ, and maybe an exception could be made to let benevolent billionaires specify an earmark in the “memo” line. A few ideas:

• California’s bullet train is stalled, which hurts everybody who will need to get to Fresno in a hurry sometime after 2025. The Trump Administration is trying to claw back $2.5 billion in federal funds, and these 19 generous donors could easily fill that gap.

• Or what about the Northeast’s vaunted Gateway Program? That’s surely “infrastructure modernization,” as anyone who’s sniffed Penn Station can attest. The funding is in limbo, and billionaires could rescue the project. Heck, build a new Penn Station and put a Hyatt on top.

• The New York City Housing Authority could use a bailout. In a recent Nycha upgrade, switching public-housing lights and fixtures to efficient LEDs cost $1,973 per apartment. Since Nycha has 170,000 units, doing the whole works at that rate would cost a mere $330 million.


• Public pensions are underwater everywhere, but Illinois’s are swimming the Marianas Trench. As of February the state pension debt was $134 billion. Perhaps the Pritzker clan could pitch in, especially since one of their own sits in the Illinois Governor’s mansion.

This list is hardly comprehensive. The billionaires could use their imaginations, or hire people to do that. The point is that if they think government will perform more good with more funds, they should put up the cash now, without waiting for Congress to make them.

If a wealth tax is patriotic, a self-imposed one would be doubly so. “It is not in our interest to advocate for this tax,” the letter says, “if our interests are quite narrowly understood. But the wealth tax is in our interest as Americans.” In that case, billionaire, tax thyself.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
Let’s say this tax goes into effect and the super rich don’t use any loopholes or shelters to reduce their tax burden. Let’s also say that government spending doesn’t increase one penny. How much of a dent will this new revenue steam put in our current debt? Yeah, but let’s not worry about the details since taxing the rich sounds so awesome.