What must be done to Unite the Country

#1,152
#1,152
lawgator1 said:
Because as long as Trump refuses to do so it gives license to his cult followers to resist -- sometimes violently as we have seen -- the constitutional transfer of power.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't stop them.
And knock it off with the hyperbole. It was a s#!tshow at the capital, but it wasn't close to how you are making it out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Y9 Vol and SpaceCoastVol
#1,153
#1,153
Rasputin_Vol said:
You need to show how it assuming the first $30,000 is taxed at 0%.
Click to expand...
I did that analysis, too. I don't know if you saw my post earlier--basically, if you look at changes in tax rate as a percentage of total income, it's a bell curve where taxes decrease on the lowest and highest income population, but increase on the middle. It's pretty interesting, I'll definitely post it when I get a chance.
 
#1,154
#1,154
Serene said:
A significant amount of the population that doesn't pay federal income taxes are retirees who live off of Social Security income. People obviously already paid taxes to get Social Security--I guess you think we should tax that again?
Click to expand...

You are guessing. Not the same as the freeloader
 
#1,157
#1,157
Serene said:
I did that analysis, too. I don't know if you saw my post earlier--basically, if you look at changes in tax rate as a percentage of total income, it's a bell curve where taxes decrease on the lowest and highest income population, but increase on the middle. It's pretty interesting, I'll definitely post it when I get a chance.
Click to expand...
Meh, your analysis was trying to maintain the same revenue levels.

We were not concerned about maintaining the same level of revenue. Just a straight forward 10% tax on income above $30,000 for each taxpayer... not each tax return.
 
#1,158
#1,158
Serene said:
No, I'm saying that I don't want to give tax breaks to the top 6% of earners in the US by increasing taxes on the bottom 94% of people. If you think that people everyone making less than $200,000 are getting a free ride and not contributing, I don't exactly understand what sort of society you expect to live in.
Click to expand...
One where the government isnt relied on for food, housing, retirement by an ever growing number of its population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Y9 Vol, hog88 and 1 other person
#1,159
#1,159
Serene said:
Sorry, I'm not sure of your income level. Here you go:
"Help, my government is enslaving me and committing armed robbery against me because I should be making $500,000 but I only get $370,000!"
Click to expand...
Let's go with that for fun. You are projecting what YOU believe to be sufficient for ME (or anyone else) to live the life they have worked for. I'm guessing you make significantly less than that because that is usually the way it goes. (They can tax Lebron to 95% and he will still have a couple million in walking around money. Is that OK with you? After all, he doesn't 'need' that big ol house and all those cars and furs....) THAT in a nutshell is the problem with your perspective. You don't mind paying taxes. Fine. Pay all you want. Pay more. I. don't. care. I want to donate my money to places where I know it will be well utilized rather than an inept government black hole. You say that you are a staunch fiscal guy. I throw the BS flag on that, because you want to keep feeding the habit of the addicts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,162
#1,162
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Y9 Vol
#1,163
#1,163
Serene said:
Sorry, I'm not sure of your income level. Here you go:
"Help, my government is enslaving me and committing armed robbery against me because I should be making $500,000 but I only get $370,000!"
Click to expand...
And even in that example, you don't think that is a bit extreme? That is over 25%.
 
#1,166
#1,166
Serene said:
Sorry, I'm not sure of your income level. Here you go:
"Help, my government is enslaving me and committing armed robbery against me because I should be making $500,000 but I only get $370,000!"
Click to expand...
That would be robbery.

Just because it's the government doing it doesnt make it ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#1,167
#1,167
SpaceCoastVol said:
Let's go with that for fun. You are projecting what YOU believe to be sufficient for ME (or anyone else) to live the life they have worked for. I'm guessing you make significantly less than that because that is usually the way it goes. (They can tax Lebron to 95% and he will still have a couple million in walking around money. Is that OK with you? After all, he doesn't 'need' that big ol house and all those cars and furs....) THAT in a nutshell is the problem with your perspective. You don't mind paying taxes. Fine. Pay all you want. Pay more. I. don't. care. I want to donate my money to places where I know it will be well utilized rather than an inept government black hole. You say that you are a staunch fiscal guy. I throw the BS flag on that, because you want to keep feeding the habit of the addicts.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with you paying no taxes if you don't derive any benefit from anything that tax money is used on.
 
#1,169
#1,169
Serene said:
I'm fine with you paying no taxes if you don't derive any benefit from anything that tax money is used on.
Click to expand...
That's a self fulfilling prophecy there. Or at least some circular logic.

We would never apply that type of logic to anything else.

I have never bough anything from Amazon. But I have benefited in some form from the services offered by Amazon. By your logic I should be paying Amazon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#1,172
#1,172
Rasputin_Vol said:
Meh, your analysis was trying to maintain the same revenue levels.

We were not concerned about maintaining the same level of revenue. Just a straight forward 10% tax on income above $30,000 for each taxpayer... not each tax return.
Click to expand...
I also have the analysis showing the straight 10%, but it does only provide a $30,000 deduction on a per return basis, not per taxpayer. It's just extra work to do a per taxpayer basis because I'd have to extract out the info on a return type basis (i.e. single, married filing jointly, etc.) and then sum up everything rather than just doing the work on the combined data. If you really think you'd derive a benefit out of seeing that, I could go through the effort sometime.

Obviously, if you're not concerned about conserving revenue, then the tax rate decreases across the board.
 
#1,173
#1,173
Serene said:
I also have the analysis showing the straight 10%, but it does only provide a $30,000 deduction on a per return basis, not per taxpayer. It's just extra work to do a per taxpayer basis because I'd have to extract out the info on a return type basis (i.e. single, married filing jointly, etc.) and then sum up everything rather than just doing the work on the combined data. If you really think you'd derive a benefit out of seeing that, I could go through the effort sometime.

Obviously, if you're not concerned about conserving revenue, then the tax rate decreases across the board.
Click to expand...
Which is all we wanted. I'm not sure why you chose to just do $30,000 per return.
 
#1,175
#1,175
Rasputin_Vol said:
Which is all we wanted. I'm not sure why you chose to just do $30,000 per return.
Click to expand...
Right, and I've already pointed out that it's trivial to just decrease taxes across the board if you're fine with the government not making enough money to function and not having public education, a military, etc. There are plenty of people here arguing that no one should have to pay taxes at all. We don't need to do an analysis of a proposed tax policy if the policy is just "let's all pay less taxes, we'll figure out spending."

The reason it's on a per return basis is because the IRS compiles the data based on a total number of returns. You have to dig deeper to see how many of those returns at each income level include 1 or 2 taxpayers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top