FuzzNJ
14 years ago

For every million dollars in taxes paid the person making 20k paying 16% contributes $3200 or .32%

For every million dollars in taxes paid the person making 150k paying 16% contributes $24000 or 2.4% or approximately 8 times the percentage of the 20k contributor. The person making 150k earns 7.5 times the revenue and pays approximately 8 times the percentage of taxes. Lets call that a flat tax model and roughly equal. 7.5 times the revunue 8 times the percentage of taxes. I think thats fair.

MikeyRavioli wrote:



16% of any number is the same as 16% of any other number percentage wise. That's why people call the flat tax 'fair'. So I'm not sure how you are trying to calculate this.



[quote=MikeyRavioli]
For every million dollars in taxes paid the person making 150k paying 34% contributes $51000 or 5.1% or approximately 17 times the percentage of the 20k contributor. The person making 150k earns 7.5 times the revenue and pays approximately 17 times the percentage of taxes. Lets call that the progressive tax model. I think thats unfair. 7 times the revenue 17 times the taxes.

Just because I am lucky enough to make a decent wage and can afford to pay more while still keeping a roof over my families head and food on my families table does not make it fair that I do pay it.

MikeyRavioli wrote:



Well fair enough. Do you think just saying it's 'unfair' to a wealthier person is enough of an argument against progressive taxation when the wealthier are arguing that 'fairness' isn't the issue when discussed by OWS protesters and it would actually be a heavier burden on the working poor than those making over 6 or 7 figures?
HockeyDad
14 years ago
Go ahead FuzzNJ, explain to Mikey why he should pay a higher percentage of taxes because he is successful. You didn't like my explanation.
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

I'll wait for you to say it.

HockeyDad wrote:



I will when you show me a flat tax plan that proposes to get more tax revenue from other groups of individuals that would make up for the decrease in tax revenue lost when the upper tax brackets are lowered.

I'll give you some time to research.
HockeyDad
14 years ago

I will when you show me a flat tax plan that proposes to get more tax revenue from other groups of individuals that would make up for the decrease in tax revenue lost when the upper tax brackets are lowered.

I'll give you some time to research.

FuzzNJ wrote:




I never said I was in favor of a flat tax plan. I just laid out why I'm going to screw the rich a little more than Mikey and a little more than the poor.
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

That is not the definition of a regressive tax.

HockeyDad wrote:



I don't know WHAT I was thinking!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp#axzz1bMH2aPgG 

What Does Regressive Tax Mean?
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains Regressive Tax
Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it.

A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.

http://www.investorwords.com/4138/regressive_tax.html#ixzz1bMHmOVS8 

Taxation that takes a larger percentage of a lower-income and a smaller percentage of a higher income. For example, a tax on the basic necessities (which form a larger percentage of the expenditure of the lower income population) is a regressive tax. See also progressive tax.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/regressive-tax.html 

tax where rate falls as income increases

http://www.qfinance.com/dictionary/regressive-tax 

A tax system that provides that average tax rates decrease with increases in individuals' income brackets.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Regressive+Tax 
HockeyDad
14 years ago
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

I never said I was in favor of a flat tax plan. I just laid out why I'm going to screw the rich a little more than Mikey and a little more than the poor.

HockeyDad wrote:



I didn't say you were for or against it, so quit trying to change the subject because you are wrong.

I will admit I am wrong when you show me a flat tax plan that proposes to get more tax revenue from other groups of individuals that would make up for the decrease in tax revenue lost when the upper tax brackets are lowered.

This is something you said would happen with a flat tax. It is bullsh*t. You are full of bullsh*t.

I am going to eat dinner.
pdxstogieman
14 years ago

The poor pay their fair share on most Federal taxes. The poor do not pay their fair share on Federal income tax.

This is so that the government has funds for free cheese to keep the poor from going hungry and rioting. There is a desire to modify this unfairness even further to cover ground beef and Hamburger Helper.

In the grand scheme of things, this is a necessary injustice to prevent the unsuccessful from rising up and killing the successful.

HockeyDad wrote:




There now. That wasn't so hard to get over. Once you convince the rest of the Bilderbergers of the necessity of this injustice, can all go about your grousing about injustice with less fear of recrimination from the masses. Much better than meeting your fate at the hands of Madam LaFarge.
HockeyDad
14 years ago


I will admit I am wrong when you show me a flat tax plan that proposes to get more tax revenue from other groups of individuals that would make up for the decrease in tax revenue lost when the upper tax brackets are lowered.

This is something you said would happen with a flat tax. It is bullsh*t. You are full of bullsh*t.

FuzzNJ wrote:





What a minute....did you say that would happen. Did I say it would? You're trying to build a strawman to deflect from the fact that you cannot explain why Mikey should be taxed at higher rates as he becomes more successful.

Cain's plan might do what you seek but I have not dissected it and don't take it seriously. It is supposed to eliminate deductions from corporate and Federal taxes and that clearly does not affect the poor. Is a 9% corporate tax without deductions a larger or smaller tax burden today on corporations. I don't know. Is a 9% income tax without deductions a larger or smaller tax burden today on the rich and middle class. I don't know.

Personally, I smell a rat.

What I do know is you can't explain why Mikey should be taxed at higher rates as he becomes more successful. I even tried to lay it out for you in terms of pitchforks and I thought you might catch on but now I've lost faith that you will.
HockeyDad
14 years ago

There now. That wasn't so hard to get over. Once you convince the rest of the Bilderbergers of the necessity of this injustice, can all go about your grousing about injustice with less fear of recrimination from the masses. Much better than meeting your fate at the hands of Madam LaFarge.

pdxstogieman wrote:




I have no problem with and have always accepted this injustice but that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked a bit. I've been saying all along that people need to get over the word "fair". Really, who knows how much more we can turn up the screws on the poor before they actually get off the couch and pick up a torch and a pitchfork. When it comes to revolting, you can't carry a torch and pitchfork when you're also playing Xbox and texting on a cell phone. I don't think for one minute that we need to relax the screws.
pdxstogieman
14 years ago

Actually it lasts decades.....centuries.

Have the OWSers even picked up a single rock and broken a store window yet? They got a lot more cake eating still to do.

HockeyDad wrote:



I'm thinking that in a culture more acclimated to instant gratification, no almighty religion keeping them passivated, instantaneous communication, and far more transparency into, and awareness by the 99% of the 1%er's disingenuous manipulation of them, that they'll eat cake for awhile longer but not decades. I think the mainstream media has taken the traditional place of religion in feeding the masses pap to keep them passivated, but they're wising up to the pervasive manipulation of the messages coming out of the media.

More cake will be eaten no doubt. How much and for how long? The question to the 1% is...

Do ya feel lucky?
HockeyDad
14 years ago


More cake will be eaten no doubt. How much and for how long? The question to the 1% is...

Do ya feel lucky?

pdxstogieman wrote:




I think even better questions are do you have vast assets that are liquid and do you have means of flight. I think they're perfectly safe until the national bankruptcy. At that point the top 30%ers are going to be in trouble.
teedubbya
14 years ago
poor people suck
HockeyDad
14 years ago

poor people suck

teedubbya wrote:




I've never figured out why they choose to be poor. I guess they're rich in other ways and we clearly don't tax that enough either.
teedubbya
14 years ago
some poor chicks are hot though. they have to be cause they are trying to marry rich and stuff
HockeyDad
14 years ago

some poor chicks are hot though. they have to be cause they are trying to marry rich and stuff

teedubbya wrote:




Plus food can be expensive with ethanol driving up the price of corn so they got that whole skinny look going on.
teedubbya
14 years ago

Plus food can be expensive with ethanol driving up the price of corn so they got that whole skinny look going on.

HockeyDad wrote:



yea. once you realize they are just trying to trick you into getting them preggo and stuff it becomes sort of boring though.
HockeyDad
14 years ago
The hottest line in the clubs right now for picking them up is" "I'm a 1%er." Or so I heard.
teedubbya
14 years ago
I always just use "want a sammich?"
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

What a minute....did you say that would happen. Did I say it would?

HockeyDad wrote:



Yes, you said that. Post 149

Here is how you failed. You made an assumption overall tax revenue will shrink. Based on the current fiscal situation, that will not happen. Any reduction on tax revenue from one group will be made up from another group.

HockeyDad wrote:



You are acting foolish and/or intellectually bewildered.
Users browsing this topic