9
   

What should the progressive tax rate be?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
but sales of guns or ammunition shud be IMMUNE from any taxation, as a constitutional right that cannot be infringed


Do you agree that sales of Newspapers (as the press is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed) should be immune from any taxation.

(actually under this logic, pornography would be tax free)
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:17 am
@maporsche,
Very good with the explanation.
I'm not ready to propose my own bracketology or critique yours. I did a bunch of googling this morning. I found out these facts (or alleged facts depending on how you regard the source).
> There are currently 6 brackets, which is near the low historically. You propose 11 which is nowhere near the most.
> 47 million "households" paid no income tax or got money from the government.
> The self-described "non-partisan, non-profit" National Taxpayer Union claims that we spend $300 Bn a year filling out personal and corporate tax returns. That includes $45 Bn in out of pocket costs as well as the assigning of a cost to our time.

What I was looking for, but did not find, was the amount of taxes collected by the 6 brackets. I was hoping to devise a plan that would be revenue neutral in total.

Would it be fair to say that your plan has, as one of its core beliefs, the notion that everyone should pay at least a nominal amount? I am not totally opposed to that concept.

There will suggestions here for a flat tax or a VAT. Realistically, that is not going to happen in my lifetime or probably yours at age 30.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:35 am
@ebrown p,
David wrote:
but sales of guns or ammunition shud be IMMUNE from any taxation, as a constitutional right that cannot be infringed


ebrown p wrote:
Do you agree that sales of Newspapers
(as the press is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed)
should be immune from any taxation.

(actually under this logic, pornography would be tax free)
OF COURSE!!!
I am under the impression that newspapers ARE tax free.

That shoud extend to all freedom of the press including porn,
tho I doubt that porn is presently tax free.
I have not checked.





David
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:

That 's ridiculous!!! Y shoud anyone donate 70% of his income to the damned government ???


2 points,

1st, you are not donating it. You are supporting the country which has allowed you to rise to the top and be one of the richest and most powerful people in society.

2nd, you apparently don't understand Marginal tax rates. It's only 70% on imcome you make more in excess of 40 million a year.

I don't have specific brackets, but I believe that they should be never-ending, which is to say, as you approach a certain point, taxation approaches 100%.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:12 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

That 's ridiculous!!! Y shoud anyone donate 70% of his income to the damned government ???


2 points,

1st, you are not donating it. You are supporting the country which has allowed you to rise to the top and be one of the richest and most powerful people in society.

2nd, you apparently don't understand Marginal tax rates. It's only 70% on imcome you make more in excess of 40 million a year.

I don't have specific brackets, but I believe that they should be never-ending, which is to say, as you approach a certain point, taxation approaches 100%.

Cycloptichorn
U filthy commie!!!
We created the damned government.
The filthy thing works for US; we do not work for IT.

It does not "ALLOW" us to rise to the top;
it shoud be grovellingly grateful to us for allowing it to EXIST.

WE Individual Citizens are the owners and creators of government;
the damned thing is our little child, our servant.
U turned the concept around BACKWARD and upside down, TKO.

U are
TECHNICALLY
KNOCKED
OUT.





David
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:25 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:

U filthy commie!!!
We created the damned government.
The filthy thing works for US; we do not work for IT.


Yes, and we - the citizens of this country - have long supported Progressive taxation. You are on the wrong side of your fellow citizens on that argument.

Quote:

It does not "ALLOW" us to rise to the top;
it shoud be grovellingly grateful to us for allowing it to EXIST.


Bullshit. It protects your rise to the top. Without our government in place you couldn't GET rich, you couldn't own anything that you didn't have right in front of you, no contract would be enforceable, no policemen exist to keep you from being killed by other people. Without government in place you are as poor as anyone else, no matter what pretensions you have about 'what you own.' The government ALLOWS you to own things bigger then what you can physically protect yourself, because it protects your assets for you.

Quote:

WE Individual Citizens are the owners and creators of government;
the damned thing is our little child, our servant.
U turned the concept around BACKWARD and upside down, TKO.


1, I am not Diest TKO. You are buying into a long-standing joke, which really is quite funny Laughing

2, If the government is your servant, then why are you still paying progressive taxes? Why isn't it doing what you want?

The truth is that the word 'servant' is not appropriate for government, because it does not accurately describe the function of government or the power structure involved.

To sum up: without our government in place, David, I could hit you in the head with a brick tomorrow and kill you. Your guns wouldn't do any good, because I'd simply sneak up behind you. I could then seize all your stuff and become 'rich' myself. And there isn't **** that you or anyone else COULD or even WOULD do about it. You ought to be down on your knees every night thanking god that government exists, to ALLOW you to enjoy the things you enjoy and PROVIDE for the defense of your greed.

Back on topic,

Can anyone tell me what our society benefits by allowing essentially unlimited wealth acquisition?

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can anyone tell me what our society benefits by allowing essentially unlimited wealth acquisition?

Cycloptichorn


Good morning, U filthy commie!!!
We are not back on Maporsche's topic yet but...
I would suggest that some of those who accumulated "unlimited wealth" have been quite generous in creating our country's cultural gems: our museums and galleries. In recent years, people like Bill and Melinda Gates have contributed greatly financially to social issues.
There is a local non-profit group here in Charlottesville that administers charitable trusts that individuals or families have set up, including one set up by a well-known rock band that has some roots here. Most of the trusts are relatively small, perhaps a a few hundred thousand. Added up, though, some $40 million as of the end of 2009.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:03 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can anyone tell me what our society benefits by allowing essentially unlimited wealth acquisition?

Cycloptichorn


Good morning, U filthy commie!!!
We are not back on Maporsche's topic yet but...
I would suggest that some of those who accumulated "unlimited wealth" have been quite generous in creating our country's cultural gems: our museums and galleries. In recent years, people like Bill and Melinda Gates have contributed greatly financially to social issues.
There is a local non-profit group here in Charlottesville that administers charitable trusts that individuals or families have set up, including one set up by a well-known rock band that has some roots here. Most of the trusts are relatively small, perhaps a a few hundred thousand. Added up, though, some $40 million as of the end of 2009.


I suppose the question is, does the largess of a few rich people make up for the fact that so many resources are concentrated upon their whims and their persona?

The end point of the 'benevolent rich' argument results in an oligarchy - which, come to think of it, isn't all that different then what we currently have, as the top 6 banks currently own assets equivalent to 60% of our GNP.

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Interesting point regarding the largess of the benevolent rich and their whims.
When the Gates' sit at the kitchen table filling out their tax return they, like you,
fill in the blanks on the 1040:
Gross income
Less Deductions:
> Dependents
> Mortgage Interest
> Charitable Contributions
> Etc
= Taxable Income

You might disagree with having donations being above the line in determining taxable income. I can make a case for why home ownership (and the deduction of interest) is not necessarily a great idea.

I am trying hard to keep this focused on the question Maporsche posed. It will probably be a losing battle.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 12:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
Agreed re: home owner deduction. I don't know why it's there.

As for staying on topic, I repeat my earlier position: I don't have specific brackets, but I believe that they should be never-ending, which is to say, as you approach a certain point, taxation approaches 100%.

It removes the incentive for never-ending acquisition of wealth.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:47 am
Rate ----- Bracket
23.0% -- $2,000
25.0% -- $4,000
29.0% -- $6,000
33.0% -- $8,000
37.0% -- $10,000
41.0% -- $12,000
46.0% -- $14,000
50.0% -- $16,000
53.0% -- $18,000
56.0% -- $20,000
59.0% -- $22,000
62.0% -- $26,000
65.0% -- $32,000
68.0% -- $38,000
72.0% -- $44,000
75.0% -- $50,000
78.0% -- $60,000
81.0% -- $70,000
84.0% -- $80,000
87.0% -- $90,000
90.0% -- $100,000
92.0% -- $150,000
93.0% -- $200,000
94.0% -- > $200,000
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 12:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
Wow Joe....unless I'm reading this wrong.

Someone with an income of $70,000 would pay a little over $44,000 in taxes. Leaving them with $26,000 to spend.

Am I reading this wrong?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:45 pm
@maporsche,
I haven't begun to interpret Joe's table. Nobody with a taxable income of $2,000 is paying 23%, but if they were, a person with taxible income of $4,000 would pay 23% on the first $2,000, and 25% on everything from $2,000 up to $4,000. That is, the effect of going up a bracket does not subject total taxable income to the stated rate. The stated rate only applies to income above the threshold. The top rate for a person's income is called the marginal rate.

Without explanation, Joe's numbers are just numbers. At present, an income of $2,000 after itemized or standard deductions, and after a personal exemption would be taxed at 10%, if memory serves.

My best guess is you read correctly, but didn't consider the difference between total tax and marginal rates.

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:15 pm
I find taxation over 50% to be obscene. If you don't even own half your own action you are hardly a free man. I would vote for a constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from taxing anyone more than 49%. That's an obscene enough figure while at least giving the individual the symbolism of majority share in their own income.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:16 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Wow Joe....unless I'm reading this wrong.

Someone with an income of $70,000 would pay a little over $44,000 in taxes. Leaving them with $26,000 to spend.

Am I reading this wrong?

No, you're reading that correctly. Someone with an income of $70,000 would pay $44,220 in federal income taxes (before any deductions).

Admittedly, that seems to be quite a lot. And it is a lot, but if Americans are trying to win a war, and they're calling on the nation's soldiers to make sacrifices, then it is incumbent upon the taxpayers to make sacrifices as well.

Or, at least, that's what we believed in 1944, which is when we imposed the tax rates that I posted above. Nowadays, however, we tend to think that we can take on two wars without raising income taxes by a single dime. The only sacrifice that George W. Bush asked of the American people was to go out and shop more. To his credit, Obama hasn't said anything nearly that idiotic (GWB set the bar pretty high for future presidents), but then he hasn't said much of anything regarding the public's role in actually paying for the wars that he has inherited. And if the American public is genuinely interested in paying down the debt -- a debt that they're responsible for -- then they have to be the ones to pay it.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:22 pm
@joefromchicago,
Why not just cut the spending instead, as in not start wars, cut military spending by 70% and so on? I get your point about paying for what we spend but there's more than one way to go about that.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Why not just cut the spending instead, as in not start wars, cut military spending by 70% and so on? I get your point about paying for what we spend but there's more than one way to go about that.


There is no possible way to cut spending and pay off our deficits and debt while maintaining the integrity of the country. We must combine cuts in spending with raises in taxes - period.

I have consistently challenged Conservatives to show how we would settle our accounts without raising taxes, and to date not a single one has been able to do so.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think we had a thread on that (much credit to RJB for trying). Trying to figure out what could be cut and balance our budget...and then trying to figure out how to pay down the deficit.

I didn't see anyone come up with a figure that would accomplish both of those very needed goals, without raising taxes.

This thread was to try to determine what people would think is an appropriate taxation table.



My first stab at a table was just an approximation. At this point I'm only comfortable raising taxes to balance our annual budget, and have a plan to pay down our national debt in 25 years (I'd like to see spending cuts and increased taxes). If that means we can have lower tax rates then so be it.

I find it strange that someone making $30,000,000 per year pays the same marginal tax rate (in that bracket) as someone making $350,000 / year. I think there should be more variation than that.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 03:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
We agree completely on this point.

We must raise taxes, assuming it is one of our goals to pay off our debt and balance the budget.

If thats not a goal, well, then no need to do anything...just wait until we collapse under our own debt.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 05:10 pm
Okay. Thank yall for playing Maporsche's little game here. Remember that, for this discussion, we are talking about "taxable income" for a single taxpayer. At the lower end of the income scale, a person could claim 1 exemption ($3500) plus the standard deduction ($5500) for a total of $9000.
I would amend Maporsche's plan to start with a level of $5000 in taxable income (equating to about $14000 gross). A tax of 3%.
It seems to me that most everyone should pay something.
I would add another bracket at $40K and another above his top one. And I would probably add a percent or two to some of the brackets along the way.\

I stupidly said that, in doing this exercise, we should look towards redistributing the tax burden while keeping revenue "neutral." Wrong, wrong.
The deficits are adding to the debt and the notion that our economy can grow our way out of this is spurious.
> We need to reduce spending.
> Increase the tax rates.
> Eliminate sacred cow deductions.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 04:47:17