Should it be the policy of the government to enforce "fairness" by penalizing those who are lucky/workharder/whatever and have more then the average?
I say no.
If you are worried about the person who makes $20,000 paying 33% and not having enough to live on then set the tax law up so that below a certain poverty line they don't pay any income tax. Make the cut off sensible ($23k or something like that) and then charge eveyone else whatever percentage is needed to balance the budget. No deductions for anything. I think that your will find both the rich and the poor on the same side of the argument when it turns out that that spiffy new bomber added.2% to everyones tax rate all by itself.
I can agree with that... it is really a matter of semantics, using the "sensible" cut-off of $23k and say a 40% rate above that (instead of the 30% i had before) and my previous example:
Person A: $30000 - After tax: $27200 - After living expenses: $10400
vs
Person B: $60000 - After tax: $45200 - After living expenses: $28400
Which is really twice as "fair" as it was before.
I'd actually be suprised if there were democrats who didn't like the idea of no taxes on your first $xxx and a flat tax rate afterwards, as it would greatly reduce the tax burden on the poor.
Let me get this straight, you're saying that the person who makes more money should not have more money to spend? Mmmmmkay...
I reread my post, and I'm quite sure that no where did I even come close to saying "the person who makes more money should not have more money to spend".
In my example, the person earning $60k had 6 times as much money to spend as a person earning $30k. I said this was "unfair" - ( x2 != x6 ).
So I'm not too sure how you got your interpretation....
They will complain though. I know several liberals and through some kind of fuzzy headed, rationalizing, nonsensical, logic they believe that if you make $100,000 a year and pay $33,000 in taxes you are not paying as much as if you make $50,000 a year and pay $16,500.
News flash. It costs money to live. Food, rent, transportation, insurance (car, health if you are lucky), utilities, all are things that realistically you have to pay for.
So let's take an example. Lets say that living a very modest existence you can get away with paying $1400 a month (gotta love rent in southern California).
Now take two people, one earning $30000 a year, and one earning $60000 year. And let's change the tax system to a nice, fair, flat tax of say 30% (probably a generous amount if you have to roll up SS tax into this.)
Person A: $30000 : After tax - $21000 : Yearly Expenses: $16800
Money left for whatever you want: $4200
Person B: $60000 : After tax - $42000 : Yearly Expenses: $16800
Money left for whatever you want: $25200
Hmm... So person B, making twice as much money, actually gets SIX times more money that they can use as arbitrary spending money. Of course, it is very likely that a good amount of this money will go towards a better house, a better car, etc... which will increase their fixed expenses.
This is why, in a very logical sense, a flat tax system is NOT fair.
Nevermind that nowadays anyone with a few brains and the willingness to work really, really hard can have that $100,000.
Let's think about that for a second... so, if everyone with a few brains did work really really hard... then we would be a country where the majority of people made over $100,000?
Well, all I can say about that is that your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
Some pointy headed nitwit has spouted some politicaly correct nonsense to them and they swallow it and spew it back out without processing it at all. They are true believers and get downright hostile if you challange their beliefs with logic.
If you could actually present some logic, I'd be happy to respond to it with only a hint of hostility...
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as it is at best flamebait...
Slashdot Mirror
Should it be the policy of the government to enforce "fairness" by penalizing those who are lucky/workharder/whatever and have more then the average? I say no. If you are worried about the person who makes $20,000 paying 33% and not having enough to live on then set the tax law up so that below a certain poverty line they don't pay any income tax. Make the cut off sensible ($23k or something like that) and then charge eveyone else whatever percentage is needed to balance the budget. No deductions for anything. I think that your will find both the rich and the poor on the same side of the argument when it turns out that that spiffy new bomber added .2% to everyones tax rate all by itself.
I can agree with that... it is really a matter of semantics, using the "sensible" cut-off of $23k and say a 40% rate above that (instead of the 30% i had before) and my previous example:
Person A: $30000 - After tax: $27200 - After living expenses: $10400
vs
Person B: $60000 - After tax: $45200 - After living expenses: $28400
Which is really twice as "fair" as it was before.
I'd actually be suprised if there were democrats who didn't like the idea of no taxes on your first $xxx and a flat tax rate afterwards, as it would greatly reduce the tax burden on the poor.
Then everyone should be happy... right?
Let me get this straight, you're saying that the person who makes more money should not have more money to spend? Mmmmmkay...
I reread my post, and I'm quite sure that no where did I even come close to saying "the person who makes more money should not have more money to spend".
In my example, the person earning $60k had 6 times as much money to spend as a person earning $30k. I said this was "unfair" - ( x2 != x6 ).
So I'm not too sure how you got your interpretation....
They will complain though. I know several liberals and through some kind of fuzzy headed, rationalizing, nonsensical, logic they believe that if you make $100,000 a year and pay $33,000 in taxes you are not paying as much as if you make $50,000 a year and pay $16,500.
News flash. It costs money to live. Food, rent, transportation, insurance (car, health if you are lucky), utilities, all are things that realistically you have to pay for.
So let's take an example. Lets say that living a very modest existence you can get away with paying $1400 a month (gotta love rent in southern California).
Now take two people, one earning $30000 a year, and one earning $60000 year. And let's change the tax system to a nice, fair, flat tax of say 30% (probably a generous amount if you have to roll up SS tax into this.)
Person A: $30000 : After tax - $21000 : Yearly Expenses: $16800
Money left for whatever you want: $4200
Person B: $60000 : After tax - $42000 : Yearly Expenses: $16800
Money left for whatever you want: $25200
Hmm... So person B, making twice as much money, actually gets SIX times more money that they can use as arbitrary spending money. Of course, it is very likely that a good amount of this money will go towards a better house, a better car, etc... which will increase their fixed expenses.
This is why, in a very logical sense, a flat tax system is NOT fair.
Nevermind that nowadays anyone with a few brains and the willingness to work really, really hard can have that $100,000.
Let's think about that for a second... so, if everyone with a few brains did work really really hard... then we would be a country where the majority of people made over $100,000?
Well, all I can say about that is that your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
Some pointy headed nitwit has spouted some politicaly correct nonsense to them and they swallow it and spew it back out without processing it at all. They are true believers and get downright hostile if you challange their beliefs with logic.
If you could actually present some logic, I'd be happy to respond to it with only a hint of hostility...
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as it is at best flamebait...