Recommended Posts
In my highest salary year (1999), given that I was single and had no kids, and was forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax, my total taxation was 53.5%. I have the paperwork to prove it too. I got shafted like you wouldn't believe; even after witholding at the maximum amount I had to write a check to the federal government that was in the (very) high 5-figures. 
And that was with a VERY agressive tax advisor. In fact, he was so aggressive, he's now doing Federal time. Good thing I didn't take ALL the shortcuts he recommended!!
Edit: Which is why I'm now a card-carrying life member of the Libertarian party.
And that was with a VERY agressive tax advisor. In fact, he was so aggressive, he's now doing Federal time. Good thing I didn't take ALL the shortcuts he recommended!!
Edit: Which is why I'm now a card-carrying life member of the Libertarian party.
7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth
billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>In my highest salary year (1999), given that I was single and had no
> kids, and was forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax, my total
> taxation was 53.5%.
Wow! Taxes that high - must be Clinton's fault.
> kids, and was forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax, my total
> taxation was 53.5%.
Wow! Taxes that high - must be Clinton's fault.
Should the rich pay more, on a percentage basis, than the poor?
How would you describe rich? Poor?
never pull low......unless you are
vonSanta 0
Newfound respect for billvon, PhillyKey and others.
One problem with a flat tax system is disproportionate amount of disposable income.
Say everyone pays 20%. Person A makes 100k and lives in a nice rented apartment, paying 4k a month or 48k a year. He's left with 32k for food and other stuff.
Now Person B earns 10k and lives in a relatively cheap apartment - say $500 a month (arbitrary number). That's 6k a year, which leaves 'im with 2k to live for
A loaf of breadc osts only a small percentage of total income for the richer dude. For the poorer dude it's a much larger percentage of his total income - so the poor dude gets trampled on, again.
Oh and you Yanks should stop complaining about taxes. Pay 73%, then I'll listen to your whines. Living in a 'socialistic capitalistic utopia' has some serious drawbacks. Can come up with some absurd (but unfortunately very true) examples if someone needs 'em.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
One problem with a flat tax system is disproportionate amount of disposable income.
Say everyone pays 20%. Person A makes 100k and lives in a nice rented apartment, paying 4k a month or 48k a year. He's left with 32k for food and other stuff.
Now Person B earns 10k and lives in a relatively cheap apartment - say $500 a month (arbitrary number). That's 6k a year, which leaves 'im with 2k to live for
A loaf of breadc osts only a small percentage of total income for the richer dude. For the poorer dude it's a much larger percentage of his total income - so the poor dude gets trampled on, again.
Oh and you Yanks should stop complaining about taxes. Pay 73%, then I'll listen to your whines. Living in a 'socialistic capitalistic utopia' has some serious drawbacks. Can come up with some absurd (but unfortunately very true) examples if someone needs 'em.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
QuoteNewfound respect for billvon, PhillyKey and others.
One problem with a flat tax system is disproportionate amount of disposable income.
Say everyone pays 20%. Person A makes 100k and lives in a nice rented apartment, paying 4k a month or 48k a year. He's left with 32k for food and other stuff.
Now Person B earns 10k and lives in a relatively cheap apartment - say $500 a month (arbitrary number). That's 6k a year, which leaves 'im with 2k to live for
A loaf of breadc osts only a small percentage of total income for the richer dude. For the poorer dude it's a much larger percentage of his total income - so the poor dude gets trampled on, again.
Oh and you Yanks should stop complaining about taxes. Pay 73%, then I'll listen to your whines. Living in a 'socialistic capitalistic utopia' has some serious drawbacks. Can come up with some absurd (but unfortunately very true) examples if someone needs 'em.
Sounds like "person B" needs to get a better job.
never pull low......unless you are
billvon 3,008
>How would you describe rich? Poor?
Well, there's the rub. Income and net worth are the two things that, to me, define rich vs poor. A guy who's net worth is negative because he owes $400K on a house, but is making $150k a year, is pretty well off. A guy who makes nothing every year through wages, but is living off the interest on his 2.5 million trust fund, is also pretty well off. Someone with neither savings nor job is poor.
If you are talking pure ability to pay, both are equally able. But how do you reconcile capital vs income? Real estate tax in the US is essentially a capital tax; you pay based on what the land's worth, so it's not inconceivable that a scheme that factored what the _person_ is worth into taxes could work. But the rich would raise holy hell over that, and no doubt the end result would be just new tax dodges (i.e. municipal bonds would be exempt or something, so people would "hide" money there.)
It's problems like the above that make me think the flat tax percentage on _all_ income, regardless of source, is the way to go. Almost as good is a national sales tax; easier to administer and 'fairer' because everyone pays it, but anyone can avoid it by not buying stuff. Exempt essentials like food.
Well, there's the rub. Income and net worth are the two things that, to me, define rich vs poor. A guy who's net worth is negative because he owes $400K on a house, but is making $150k a year, is pretty well off. A guy who makes nothing every year through wages, but is living off the interest on his 2.5 million trust fund, is also pretty well off. Someone with neither savings nor job is poor.
If you are talking pure ability to pay, both are equally able. But how do you reconcile capital vs income? Real estate tax in the US is essentially a capital tax; you pay based on what the land's worth, so it's not inconceivable that a scheme that factored what the _person_ is worth into taxes could work. But the rich would raise holy hell over that, and no doubt the end result would be just new tax dodges (i.e. municipal bonds would be exempt or something, so people would "hide" money there.)
It's problems like the above that make me think the flat tax percentage on _all_ income, regardless of source, is the way to go. Almost as good is a national sales tax; easier to administer and 'fairer' because everyone pays it, but anyone can avoid it by not buying stuff. Exempt essentials like food.
I agree with billvon here. A National Sales Tax would be fair, since it taxes consumption. Thus, the rich guy, who spends $8,000 on a couple of new suits and an additional $75k on his midlife crisis (sports car) will have to fork over the additional sales taxes that come from that.
"But Jerry, the poor will also have to pay taxes on clothes and cars and such." True. If a poor guy wants to spend $150 on his new Nike's, he better pay up on the taxes. But, if he, like me, decides that those $12.99 shoes at Walmart are just fine, then the amounto f sales tax will be far less.
"Ah, but they shouldn't be paying taxes at all. They are poor and need to keep everything they have." Well, if they are truly poor and can't afford this stuff, they can be like my ex-girlfriend's sister and shop at the thrift store. Plenty of good clothes that you can get cheap! You may even luck out and find Bill Clinton's used underwear, which provided a nice tax write off!
"But the rich will just travel out of the country and buy their things elsewhere." Yep! And that's why we have an import tariff on these items shipped in. Customs can take care of a lot of that stuff. Import tariffs are already there for a number of things, and funded this country at its beginnings.
"But that's just protectionism and Isolationism." Well, you could frame it that way if you like. We'll call it making a buck.
"Sounds like you are letting the rich off the hook to stop them from paying taxes." Yeah, and what's the good of being rich if you can't spend the money. Keep it in the bank, and let joe sixpack use the money to finance his first house.
Well, at least that a synopsis of a couple of conversations I've had...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
"But Jerry, the poor will also have to pay taxes on clothes and cars and such." True. If a poor guy wants to spend $150 on his new Nike's, he better pay up on the taxes. But, if he, like me, decides that those $12.99 shoes at Walmart are just fine, then the amounto f sales tax will be far less.
"Ah, but they shouldn't be paying taxes at all. They are poor and need to keep everything they have." Well, if they are truly poor and can't afford this stuff, they can be like my ex-girlfriend's sister and shop at the thrift store. Plenty of good clothes that you can get cheap! You may even luck out and find Bill Clinton's used underwear, which provided a nice tax write off!
"But the rich will just travel out of the country and buy their things elsewhere." Yep! And that's why we have an import tariff on these items shipped in. Customs can take care of a lot of that stuff. Import tariffs are already there for a number of things, and funded this country at its beginnings.
"But that's just protectionism and Isolationism." Well, you could frame it that way if you like. We'll call it making a buck.
"Sounds like you are letting the rich off the hook to stop them from paying taxes." Yeah, and what's the good of being rich if you can't spend the money. Keep it in the bank, and let joe sixpack use the money to finance his first house.
Well, at least that a synopsis of a couple of conversations I've had...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,028
QuoteQuoteQuoteDon't even get me started
hey, dont get me wrong, i have absolutely no problem with morons. they make good cannon fodder. i just dont think they should be at the head of the class.
--------------------------------------
I guess you would have rathered have Gore up there hugging a tree while he made his Speech. Perhaps you miss Clinton standing by idolly while the U.S.S. Cole was bombed or the World trade center, for the first time in 1993. Or maybe you miss the national embarassment that we had when Jimmy Carter was in office causing the true Gas Crisis because of his stupidity and inability to deal with the Middle East. And, oh lets not forget about the hostages that proved the middle east knew what an idiot they were dealing with. Remember the 66, 52 of which were held for 444 days until we finally got a predident that was NOT and idiot (Reagan) in office.
All of the above, and don't forget Reagan increasing the national debt by some $4 trillion, burdening us and our children with a debt that will last forever.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,028
1300 SAT - that's not high. In fact, you'd only get into an Ivy League school with a 1300 SAT if you had affirmative action on your side, such as daddy being a major contributor. OH - my bad, that IS what happened.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,028
QuoteNo what is absurd is 1% of the populace carrying over 20% of the tax burden. Expand that to the top 5% or 10% and it really is disgusting.
Two words - Leona Helmsley.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So when a democratic president relaxes restrictions and monitoring of corporations it's irresponsible. When a republican president does it, it's pro-business.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites