TakeYouToTasker Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, TPS said: All taxes collected? You mean INCOME taxes, which are just under half of ALL Federal taxes. Give that this is a conversation about income taxes, I assumed the reader would know I was talking about income taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 Most people know the wealthy have most of the money and most believe the top 5-10% should pay most of the taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Most people know the wealthy have most of the money... Thats deep. How long did it take you to figure out that the wealthy are ... wealthy? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Give that this is a conversation about income taxes, I assumed the reader would know I was talking about income taxes. Ever since the Greenspan Commission raised payroll taxes in 1983, the government has used the SS surplus to fund general expenditures. To suggest people aren't paying their fair share for social programs (or any other fed expend) is historically inaccurate if you focus solely on income taxes versus ALL federal taxes. Now, in another couple years, you might have a case.... 57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Thats deep. How long did it take you to figure out that the wealthy are ... wealthy? It's not much different than claiming the wealthy pay most taxes. Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 anyone on TV telling you how the tax change will work has at least 125 assumptions behind their findings, and if 1 fails then the whole thing is a waste of time it's always a pleasure to tear apart these people, at an hourly rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Thats deep. How long did it take you to figure out that the wealthy are ... wealthy? I'm rather surprised he did. Give him ten more years and maybe he'll figure out the Federal Reserve. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'm rather surprised he did. Give him ten more years and maybe he'll figure out the Federal Reserve. First from USAGOV: https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/federal-reserve-system AND!!!! DEAR ABBY: I have been friends with "Martha" for 40 years. We live a few hundred miles apart, so I like to call her and chat. The problem is, her husband always answers the phone, and he likes to give me a hard time. When I identify myself and ask to speak to Martha, he says he doesn't know anyone by my name, or says there's no Martha living there. Once he told Martha to ask me how my ex-husband was. (I have not seen my ex for 40 years, since our divorce.) The last time it happened, I told Martha her husband was annoying and that she should call me from now on. She said he was just trying to be funny. I haven't heard from her since, not even a birthday card. Was I wrong to speak up? Should I apologize or just lose this friendship? -- PROBLEM HUSBAND IN FLORIDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Nanker said: Please define "rich". That's difficult to do because if I say those making over $500k a year are rich you then make the assumption that those making $499,999 a year aren't. It depends on family size, debt owed, property taxes (location), etc.. I'd say those in the top tax bracket who can both live an extravagant lifestyle and invest/save a lot of money would be considered rich. I think 39.6% isn't an excessive income tax rate for the top bracket considering we have a defense budget that while necessary, is massively disproportionate compared to other countries. We also have an aging baby boomer population who will require more medical attention and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid won't help. I'm all for cutting the corporate tax and closing the loopholes as small businesses paying more in corporate taxes than fortune 500 companies is insane to me. I'd have to see the final bill to see if they actually close those loopholes though. I just find it funny that my income taxes will go up and spending for many social programs will get cut if this bill goes through with Republicans controlling all three branches. The whole point of voting for a Republican for many people is the hope that your taxes will go down. How do Republican Congressman in blue states sell this? Edited November 18, 2017 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 18, 2017 Author Share Posted November 18, 2017 Ended by the mandate for health insurance will save the government money so the deficit will not be as bad. But, middle class people will pay for that with higher premiums. This is a class warfare tax bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 9 hours ago, Doc Brown said: That's difficult to do because if I say those making over $500k a year are rich you then make the assumption that those making $499,999 a year aren't. It depends on family size, debt owed, property taxes (location), etc.. I'd say those in the top tax bracket who can both live an extravagant lifestyle and invest/save a lot of money would be considered rich. I think 39.6% isn't an excessive income tax rate for the top bracket considering we have a defense budget that while necessary, is massively disproportionate compared to other countries. We also have an aging baby boomer population who will require more medical attention and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid won't help. I'm all for cutting the corporate tax and closing the loopholes as small businesses paying more in corporate taxes than fortune 500 companies is insane to me. I'd have to see the final bill to see if they actually close those loopholes though. I just find it funny that my income taxes will go up and spending for many social programs will get cut if this bill goes through with Republicans controlling all three branches. The whole point of voting for a Republican for many people is the hope that your taxes will go down. How do Republican Congressman in blue states sell this? Now you understand why many people favor a flat tax. Eliminate distortive deductions, set a low flat rate and have a 3 line tax return for individuals. Ron Johnson's stand against the tax differential between corporations and small businesses is asinine and pandering. That's a ridiculous stand to take if it derails reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2017 Author Share Posted November 20, 2017 14 hours ago, B-Man said: Why are you not posting things like that when Trump tries to undermine our competitivness with his attacks on trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Fact check: Two big attacks against the GOP tax bill (it "takes away" healthcare & gives private jet owners a "tax break") are false. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/11/20/fact-check-no-the-senate-gops-tax-bill-would-not-take-healthcare-away-from-millions-n2411594 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 They all should be working for us. Give us term limits and real tax cuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, mead107 said: They all should be working for us. Amen. They should be working for us. But they ain't. It's up to us to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Vote them all out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 I'd probably like this personally, but would wonder how well it would work in practice. Quote The Progressive Consumption Tax Act creates a Progressive Consumption Tax, or “PCT,” that changes the way the federal government raises revenue. Rather than taxing income, the PCT generates reasonable revenue by taxing the purchase of goods and services. This revenue is used to exempt most households from any federal individual income tax liability and significantly lowers the corporate income tax rate. Low- and middle-income families would be protected from unfair consumption taxation through a PCT rebate, and important benefits would be retained in a much simpler income tax code. Every other developed country in the world, including all other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, have a consumption tax. A progressive consumption tax would improve America’s international competitiveness by putting American-based businesses on a level playing field with foreign businesses and by lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate below the OECD average. Although consumption taxes are already imposed by many countries around the world, the Act’s reforms would be new to the U.S. tax code. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/21/its-time-for-moderates-to-moderate-the-tax-bill/?utm_term=.a5dd4de56585 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I'd probably like this personally, but would wonder how well it would work in practice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/21/its-time-for-moderates-to-moderate-the-tax-bill/?utm_term=.a5dd4de56585 That's also called a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax. The VAT is not a new idea as it has been discussed in the past by libertarians and conservatives but liberal and progressives have shouted it down as regressive If Progressives want to adopt the idea as one of their own so be it. I would not be opposed to a VAT as a replacement to the income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 Just now, /dev/null said: That's also called a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax. The VAT is not a new idea as it has been discussed in the past by libertarians and conservatives but liberal and progressives have shouted it down as regressive If Progressives want to adopt the idea as one of their own so be it. I would not be opposed to a VAT as a replacement to the income tax. Yes, I know it is. I'm not a big spender so like I said I'd probably make out well under it. Just not sure it would work in funding the government (I know, that makes it more appealing to you) and then there would be the issue of a black market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Yes, I know it is. I'm not a big spender so like I said I'd probably make out well under it. Just not sure it would work in funding the government (I know, that makes it more appealing to you) and then there would be the issue of a black market As opposed to the practice of paying somebody under the table to avoid income and social security taxes? You want an increase in Federal revenue? Implement the VAT and legalize marijuana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts