Progressive Taxation

[homesick_american 1]

i don't see why those can't still occur with a flat tax though.

In theory they could, but in practice they are extremely expensive...medicare, medicaid, and SS alone eat up a large portion of the US federal budget. Something approaching half if I recall correctly. Therefore...in order to keep them and other existing programs/entitlements/subsidies/responsibilities that would be irresponsible or politically impossible to do away with, the government would have to basically collect as much revenue through taxation then as it does now.

Ergo, a flat tax will reduce taxes for very high earners (we're talking over ca. $150k for single filers, maybe $300k for joint marrieds) and will significantly increase them for low earners. This is because a flat tax would likely be lower than the highest income bracket but would be probably double/triple the lower ones. People who earn under $15.1k right now do not pay any federal income tax at all; check your 2006 1040 booklet that you got from the IRS. The tax rate table is buried in there somewhere. Do the math, then you'll realize that a flat tax will cost you more money...even when you don't consider the fact that due to political realities you will NEVER be able to get rid of the deductions and loopholes that make US tax returns so complicated. Once you start allowing deductions...say for example a personal deduction of $8k a year...you're on a slippery slope towards deductionville and the perceived efficiency gains of a flat tax in terms of ease of filing/collection are wiped out.

So...why are you in favor of something that will give the rich a little bit extra while screwing over people who work hard for their money...but won't do anything for YOU but take money out of your wallet? Seems kind of stupid to me, to pay thousands of dollars extra per year simply for the sake of political orthodoxy.

[Ban Hammer 14,794]

i don't see why those can't still occur with a flat tax though.

In theory they could, but in practice they are extremely expensive...medicare, medicaid, and SS alone eat up a large portion of the US federal budget. Something approaching half if I recall correctly. Therefore...in order to keep them and other existing programs/entitlements/subsidies/responsibilities that would be irresponsible or politically impossible to do away with, the government would have to basically collect as much revenue through taxation then as it does now.

Ergo, a flat tax will reduce taxes for very high earners (we're talking over ca. $150k for single filers, maybe $300k for joint marrieds) and will significantly increase them for low earners. This is because a flat tax would likely be lower than the highest income bracket but would be probably double/triple the lower ones. People who earn under $15.1k right now do not pay any federal income tax at all; check your 2006 1040 booklet that you got from the IRS. The tax rate table is buried in there somewhere. Do the math, then you'll realize that a flat tax will cost you more money...even when you don't consider the fact that due to political realities you will NEVER be able to get rid of the deductions and loopholes that make US tax returns so complicated. Once you start allowing deductions...say for example a personal deduction of $8k a year...you're on a slippery slope towards deductionville and the perceived efficiency gains of a flat tax in terms of ease of filing/collection are wiped out.

So...why are you in favor of something that will give the rich a little bit extra while screwing over people who work hard for their money...but won't do anything for YOU but take money out of your wallet? Seems kind of stupid to me, to pay thousands of dollars extra per year simply for the sake of political orthodoxy.

ah you're covering the fica/medicare and etc. i was talking strictly about income tax only - excluding those nitnoid taxes that covers those. and they are significantly smaller anyways than what i pay in income tax anyways.

i know flat tax will never come about anyways in this country, too many special interests against it.

[homesick_american 1]

ah you're covering the fica/medicare and etc. i was talking strictly about income tax only - excluding those nitnoid taxes that covers those. and they are significantly smaller anyways than what i pay in income tax anyways.

i know flat tax will never come about anyways in this country, too many special interests against it.

It's also an incredibly stupid idea.

[mawilson 2,133]

'Entitlement' refers to federal entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.

What do these have to do with the income tax? Medicare and Social Security are funded by

the Medicare and Social Security taxes which are totally separate taxes (and employers

contribute 50%.)

[homesick_american 1]

'Entitlement' refers to federal entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.

What do these have to do with the income tax? Medicare and Social Security are funded by

the Medicare and Social Security taxes which are totally separate taxes (and employers

contribute 50%.)

Charles did not know what an entitlement program was. Those are three examples. There are others that are funded by federal income tax.

What does this have to do with the benefits of progressive taxation vs benefits of regressive taxation? (Hint: nothing.)

[mawilson 2,133]

'Entitlement' refers to federal entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.

What do these have to do with the income tax? Medicare and Social Security are funded by

the Medicare and Social Security taxes which are totally separate taxes (and employers

contribute 50%.)

Charles did not know what an entitlement program was. Those are three examples. There are others that are funded by federal income tax.

What does this have to do with the benefits of progressive taxation vs benefits of regressive taxation? (Hint: nothing.)

It's interesting to note that the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax are, in fact, both

flat "regressive" taxes. Each one is imposed at a single flat rate. The Social Security tax

rate (for employees) is 6.2% and the Medicare tax rate is 1.45%. Although the Social

Security tax maxes out at $94,200 (for 2006), there is no ceiling on the Medicare tax.

These taxes are unaffected by your deductions or exemptions, or the amount of money

you make.

[homesick_american 1]

It's interesting to note that the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax are, in fact, both

flat "regressive" taxes. Each one is imposed at a single flat rate. The Social Security tax

rate (for employees) is 6.2% and the Medicare tax rate is 1.45%. Although the Social

Security tax maxes out at $94,200 (for 2006), there is no ceiling on the Medicare tax.

These taxes are unaffected by your deductions or exemptions, or the amount of money

you make.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I think it's unfair.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's interesting to note that the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax are, in fact, both

flat "regressive" taxes. Each one is imposed at a single flat rate. The Social Security tax

rate (for employees) is 6.2% and the Medicare tax rate is 1.45%. Although the Social

Security tax maxes out at $94,200 (for 2006), there is no ceiling on the Medicare tax.

These taxes are unaffected by your deductions or exemptions, or the amount of money

you make.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I think it's unfair.

The only thing that's unfair is that there's a ceiling on the Social Security tax.

If the ceiling was removed, Social Security would remain solvent for another

hundred years or so, easily.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it's interesting that those who support the war in Iraq also support money spent on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure because they believe it is necessary to ensure democracy, but can't make that same connection with maintaining our infrastructure here.

Just what social programs should we cut?

[mawilson 2,133]

I think it's interesting that those who support the war in Iraq also support money spent on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure because they believe it is necessary to ensure democracy, but can't make that same connection with maintaining our infrastructure here.

Just what social programs should we cut?

I don't support the war in Iraq because it costs too much. That's the only reason.

If we had enough money to colonise the entire Middle East, I'd say go for it, but

we don't. We need the money at home.

[homesick_american 1]

I think it's interesting that those who support the war in Iraq also support money spent on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure because they believe it is necessary to ensure democracy, but can't make that same connection with maintaining our infrastructure here.

Just what social programs should we cut?

I don't support the war in Iraq because it costs too much. That's the only reason.

If we had enough money to colonise the entire Middle East, I'd say go for it, but

we don't. We need the money at home.

Shouldn't we ask the Middle Easterners first if they want to be colonized? I think we can all guess what their answer would be. :lol:

I wish we could solve the energy problem so we could stop meddling in the ME; maybe then they'd stop messing with us too.