HockeyDad
14 years ago



As you said 16% of 20k is 3,200 leaving 16,800 take home.

16% of 150,000 is 24,000 leaving 126,000.

Sure it's the same percentage, but when considering what would happen to the above percentages regarding overall tax burden, it would put a much, much larger burden on the bottom percentage of income earners overall, as a group, as a percentage of overall taxes paid.

FuzzNJ wrote:




It would not put a much, much larger burden on the bottom percentage of income earners overall. That is the burden they already pay....still 16%. Nothing changed.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago

Then please explain your post 112 as it relates to 110. Help me out obi wan

FuzzNJ wrote:




Why don't you explain post 56 as it relates to 85.
View All Posts by User
MikeyRavioli
14 years ago
Fuzzy, is your name related to your math? Only kidding, honestly I have enjoyed our discussions over the last few days.

But as a percentage of overall taxes paid its still higher for me. 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.
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.

Maybe its just me but I cannot see a way that either through a flat tax or the current progressive "fair share" method that lower income people pay MORE no matter what criteria you use to quantify the numbers.
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

It would not put a much, much larger burden on the bottom percentage of income earners overall. That is the burden they already pay....still 16%. Nothing changed.

HockeyDad wrote:



So your position is that if we switch to a 16% flat tax the bottom 20% would be paying 16% of the overall tax burden? Because that's what is being talked about here. Either you are playing dumb just to be obstinate or you really are dumb. Which is it? Because if I remember right, and I'm not sure I am, I thought you said that a 9% sales tax would be regressive for the same reason I'm talking about here.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago
remember dum spelled backwards is mud
View All Posts by User
MikeyRavioli
14 years ago

So your position is that if we switch to a 16% flat tax the bottom 20% would be paying 16% of the overall tax burden? Because that's what is being talked about here. Either you are playing dumb just to be obstinate or you really are dumb. Which is it? Because if I remember right, and I'm not sure I am, I thought you said that a 9% sales tax would be regressive for the same reason I'm talking about here.

FuzzNJ wrote:




No, but they will be paying the lowest possible percentage of the tax burden in the calculation.

16% of a lower number is going to equate to a smaller dollar amount and hence a smaller percentage of the overall tax burden.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago

So your position is that if we switch to a 16% flat tax the bottom 20% would be paying 16% of the overall tax burden? Because that's what is being talked about here. Either you are playing dumb just to be obstinate or you really are dumb. Which is it? Because if I remember right, and I'm not sure I am, I thought you said that a 9% sales tax would be regressive for the same reason I'm talking about here.

FuzzNJ wrote:




Nobody is talking about switching to a 16% flat tax. You posted some numbers showing 16% as an overall percentage tax burden for the bottom quintile to try to make it look like they paid their fair share. Mikey said he would be glad to lower his percentage "fair share" to that amount.

You're just doing a really crappy job of trying to explain why Mikey should be taxed more because he is more successful.

A 9% sales tax would be regressive by definition but that does not mean that it is not fair.

Progressive taxes punish success. Regressive taxes do not punish success.
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

Fuzzy, is your name related to your math? Only kidding, honestly I have enjoyed our discussions over the last few days.

But as a percentage of overall taxes paid its still higher for me.

MikeyRavioli wrote:



YES! That is true. It's a progressive tax structure again, based on the fact that a higher income earner can afford a higher tax percentage than a lower income earner.


Maybe its just me but I cannot see a way that either through a flat tax or the current progressive "fair share" method that lower income people pay MORE no matter what criteria you use to quantify the numbers.

MikeyRavioli wrote:



Under the current model it's about even percentage wise, overall, when broken down by income earned as a percentage, ie top 20%, next 20% etc. Each of those groups pay around the same percentage of taxes overall as they earn in income overall as a group.

When looking at that as a 'fair share' it would seem about right, and if one were to accept Wheel's and other Republicans arguments as noted in the OP number 3, it's the logical completion of that thought when one doesn't leave out inconvenient data.

If you were to just look at it as a I pay a higher percentage, not just a higher amount, then sure, it doesn't seem fair. But then you are arguing against the progressive tax system. A non-progressive tax system is in and of itself regressive, meaning that it puts a higher burden on a lower income earner than it does on a higher income earner. So that would mean the top 20% would take home 64.3% of the overall income, but pay only around 30% or lower of all the taxes because you would be cutting their tax burden at least in half, if going with the 16% number, and much lower if going with Cain's 9 9 9 plan.

The bottom 20% would pay at least double what they are paying now as a percentage overall. HD looks at figure 6, sees that they pay 16% and thinks they will continue to just pay 16%, but of course he is not thinking it through.

If the overall tax revenue shrinks, as it would should the upper brackets would lower their personal tax rates to 16 or 9 or whatever flat percent, the overall percentage that everyone else puts in the pot would be higher. Smaller pot, higher percentage.

So, there is your answer HD. You failed.
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
14 years ago
I heard the income tax was illegal and we really don't have to pay it if we don't want to.... 😟
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago

The bottom 20% would pay at least double what they are paying now as a percentage overall. HD looks at figure 6, sees that they pay 16% and thinks they will continue to just pay 16%, but of course he is not thinking it through.

If the overall tax revenue shrinks, as it would should the upper brackets would lower their personal tax rates to 16 or 9 or whatever flat percent, the overall percentage that everyone else puts in the pot would be higher. Smaller pot, higher percentage.

So, there is your answer HD. You failed.

FuzzNJ wrote:




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. As long as this is the case and it is not from the poor, their burden is unchanged.

You still haven't explained why Mikey should be taxed more because he is more successful.


I'll explain it......

It has nothing to do with fair. It has everything to do with practicality.

If I raise the poor's tax burden to 30% from 16%, that might be enough to prompt them to pick up torches and pitchforks against the government and the rich.

If i raise the middle class tax burden from 30% to 40%, they still have a decent amount of money left over after taxes and will not pick up torches and pitchforks.

If I raise the uppper class/rich tax burden from 30% to 60%, they still have plenty of money left and we know they won't pick up torches and pitchforks. I also can promise the poor and the middle class that if I do this, I won't have to raise their taxes at all.

Slam dunk! That is progressive taxation in a nutshell.
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
14 years ago
🤔
I think if I were an upper class/rich guy I'd take my money to Costa Rica...
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago

:-k
I think if I were an upper class/rich guy I'd take my money to Costa Rica...

DrafterX wrote:




That is how you know you've topped out the progressive tax. The upper class/rich will take their money to Costa Rica and let the USA rot long before they ever pick up torches and pitchforks.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago
Regressive tax is another one of those terms tossed about to make flat taxes sound bad. A flat tax by definition is not regressive. A regressive tax has a tax rate that decreases as the taxable amount increases and is the exact opposite of a progressive tax which has a tax rate that increases as the taxable amount increases.

A flat tax is not regressive or progressive. It is fair.
View All Posts by User
MikeyRavioli
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.


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.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago


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:




That is correct. Now suck it up and deal with the unfairness because that is never going to change.
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

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:



And I'm making assumptions? Dude, who is proposing a flat tax that plans on 'making up tax revenue' from another group of taxpayers? Name one. The entire premise of a flat tax is based on the fact that everyone pays the SAME PERCENTAGE. So unless that percentage is 70% you are so far off base it's laughable.


As long as this is the case and it is not from the poor, their burden is unchanged.

HockeyDad wrote:



And it would never be the case.


You still haven't explained why Mikey should be taxed more because he is more successful.


I'll explain it......

It has nothing to do with fair. It has everything to do with practicality.

If I raise the poor's tax burden to 30% from 16%, that might be enough to prompt them to pick up torches and pitchforks against the government and the rich.

If i raise the middle class tax burden from 30% to 40%, they still have a decent amount of money left over after taxes and will not pick up torches and pitchforks.

If I raise the uppper class/rich tax burden from 30% to 60%, they still have plenty of money left and we know they won't pick up torches and pitchforks. I also can promise the poor and the middle class that if I do this, I won't have to raise their taxes at all.

Slam dunk! That is progressive taxation in a nutshell.

HockeyDad wrote:



As big a slam dunk as Tenet's to Bush.

A simple you're right, my bad would be fine.
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

Regressive tax is another one of those terms tossed about to make flat taxes sound bad. A flat tax by definition is not regressive. A regressive tax has a tax rate that decreases as the taxable amount increases and is the exact opposite of a progressive tax which has a tax rate that increases as the taxable amount increases.

A flat tax is not regressive or progressive. It is fair.

HockeyDad wrote:



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

Golly, I wonder why that sounds bad?
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

:-k
I think if I were an upper class/rich guy I'd take my money to Costa Rica...

DrafterX wrote:



You're thinking of Limbaugh breaking his promise by not moving there, huh?
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago

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

Golly, I wonder why that sounds bad?

FuzzNJ wrote:



That is not the definition of a regressive tax.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago


A simple you're right, my bad would be fine.

FuzzNJ wrote:




I'll wait for you to say it.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com