[ncrider]

We all know that changes in the tax rate can create vastly differet incentives for both business and private sector while simultaneously boosting or retarding economic growth.
So what's the best tax plan?
Tax the rich and save the poor?
Lower taxes and boost investment?
Raise taxes and pray the government uses the money effeciently? (effeciently and gov. probly should never be in the same sentence)
Teirred Tax?

Personally I believe a flat tax rate across the board would be most would create the best results. What do you think?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Personally I believe a flat tax rate across the board would be most would create the best results. What do you think?

 

[Changleen]

Most western countries do well out of taxing the poor least, and the rich the most, with some arrangement of sliding scales or cut off points to differentiate what rate is applied to what component of your income. I agree that the rich should be taxed more heavily than the poor. If you earn tens of millions of dollars each year, (top 0.0005% or whatever) then a tax rate of even 80% really isn't gonna be cutting into your lifestyle too much...

 

[LordOpie]

flat tax means nothing. The issue is determining taxable income... with insane deductions, shelters, personal "corporations"... the wealthy hide their money well.

"pray the government uses the money effeciently?"
-- irrelevant. Money the gov't. spends domestically goes into our economy as a multiplier effect and spurs growth, even if spent by morons. However, services need to be funded, so call me a socialist.

 

[BurlyShirley]

If you earn tens of millions of dollars each year, (top 0.0005% or whatever) then a tax rate of even 80% really isn't gonna be cutting into your lifestyle too much...

**** that! You are just a freak.

A flat tax though...meh...I think that people with alot more money can honestly give up a bit more than a single mom who makes $25k.

 

[LordOpie]

A flat tax though...meh...I think that people with alot more money can honestly give up a bit more than a single mom who makes $25k.

I still think personal deductions should be closer to $20k

 

[Silver]

flat tax means nothing. The issue is determining taxable income... with insane deductions, shelters, personal "corporations"... the wealthy hide their money well.

"pray the government uses the money effeciently?"
-- irrelevant. Money the gov't. spends domestically goes into our economy as a multiplier effect and spurs growth, even if spent by morons. However, services need to be funded, so call me a socialist.

Thank You! Rhino (the accountant and conservative) agrees with this as well, if I remember correctly.

A flat tax means fvck all, and you'll usually hear it proposed by someone who doesn't understand how taxes work.

 

[ncrider]

**** that! You are just a freak.

A flat tax though...meh...I think that people with alot more money can honestly give up a bit more than a single mom who makes $25k.

I agree, but your all missing the point. Yes, the rich can afford paying more in taxes, but what incentive does that imply. Tax at 80% and nobody will earn (on paper anyway) an income into that tax bracket. Keep the tax flat and the incentive to bust your but for an additional dollar is the same as the last dollar. Hence, people have more incentives to work harder to earn more money legally.

 

[genpowell71]

Let's do it like they do it in New Zealand.

How do they do it in NZ? Do they even have a government?

 

[LordOpie]

Thank You! Rhino (the accountant and conservative) agrees with this as well, if I remember correctly.

A flat tax means fvck all, and you'll usually hear it proposed by someone who doesn't understand how taxes work.

actually, I had never given it much thought until you or Rhino had pointed that out to me some months ago. And where the fvck is Kevin?

 

[BurlyShirley]

I agree, but your all missing the point. Yes, the rich can afford paying more in taxes, but what incentive does that imply. Tax at 80% and nobody will earn (on paper anyway) an income into that tax bracket. Keep the tax flat and the incentive to bust your but for an additional dollar is the same as the last dollar. Hence, people have more incentives to work harder to earn more money legally.

People will always have the incentive to make more money regardless of how much they get taxed. To suggest otherwise is to be pretty naive of how humans in general operate.

 

[ncrider]

flat tax means nothing. The issue is determining taxable income... with insane deductions, shelters, personal "corporations"... the wealthy hide their money well.

"pray the government uses the money effeciently?"
-- irrelevant. Money the gov't. spends domestically goes into our economy as a multiplier effect and spurs growth, even if spent by morons. However, services need to be funded, so call me a socialist.

Your right about the multiplyer effect, but be carefull when you say effeciency is irrelevant. Government spending in excess of tax revenue runs a deficit, we all know this, but how a deficit is financed is what matters. When government spending is financed by issueing bonds (standard) the interst rate will consequential rise and investment spending will fall. The end result can be on of three. Growth may increase, remain constant or decrease. Bottom line, efficiency matters.

 

[ncrider]

People will always have the incentive to make more money regardless of how much they get taxed. To suggest otherwise is to be pretty naive of how humans in general operate.

That was a joke right??

 

[Toshi]

That was a joke right??

if you make, say, $1 million a year, and your company gives you a bonus of $500k, would you turn it down even if it were taxed at 50%? (hint: what is greater, $250k or 0?)

 

[ncrider]

Your talking about a bonus. Thats a different story. What I'm talking about is after tax income. To be simple, if you make 100/hr and suddenly you get to the level of 80% taxation on your next $100. Would you still work that next hour for $20 or don't you think you might find something better to do at that point, like go riding? Surely if you made $100/hr you would value your riding time at or close to that.

 

[LordOpie]

Your right about the multiplyer effect, but be carefull when you say effeciency is irrelevant. Government spending in excess of tax revenue runs a deficit, we all know this, but how a deficit is financed is what matters. When government spending is financed by issueing bonds (standard) the interst rate will consequential rise and investment spending will fall. The end result can be on of three. Growth may increase, remain constant or decrease. Bottom line, efficiency matters.

you're new here, so I'll let that lecture slide

you sound like you know what you're talking about so don't be a one-week poster... stick around.

 

[Silver]

Your talking about a bonus. Thats a different story. What I'm talking about is after tax income. To be simple, if you make 100/hr and suddenly you get to the level of 80% taxation on your next $100. Would you still work that next hour for $20 or don't you think you might find something better to do at that point, like go riding? Surely if you made $100/hr you would value your riding time at or close to that.

How many really wealthy people do you know?

I personally have never met one that was happy with the amount of money or goods that they had.

I'm the type of person who works to be comfortable. Once I'm there, I'd rather go riding, or read, or do something I find enjoyable...and work isn't it. I have not met many rich people like that...the ones I know tend to live to work, and they NEVER have enough. You could tax them at 99%, and they'd bitch about it, but they wouldn't quit, because they could eke out that extra 1% to their personal bottom line.

 

[ncrider]

Hey LordOpie, I'm not trying to lecture, it's just good fun. I'll be sticking around, I love a good debate.

And to Silver, your lifestyle tells me you've got it all figured out. As for the workaholics, well maybe they'll die of an early heart attack the next time they pay taxes and leave a sliver of hope that I'll be able to get some social security when I'm an old bastard.

Anyway, nobody has a better tax plan?

 

[LordOpie]

sorry man, gonna go rub one out and fall asleep, maybe I'll come up with something tomorrow.

 

[Andyman_1970]

My sister-in-law's mom is an accountant and really talks up the "consuption tax". I kind of like the idea of if you consume more you pay more.

Anyway, just an idea.......................

 

[N8 v2.0]

How many really wealthy people do you know?

I personally have never met one that was happy with the amount of money or goods that they had.

I'm the type of person who works to be comfortable. Once I'm there, I'd rather go riding, or read, or do something I find enjoyable...and work isn't it. I have not met many rich people like that...the ones I know tend to live to work, and they NEVER have enough. You could tax them at 99%, and they'd bitch about it, but they wouldn't quit, because they could eke out that extra 1% to their personal bottom line.

That's because most wealthy people are doing things that employ people like you. It's that drive that makes the US an economic powerhouse that it is. Most people I know who own business turn just about every dollar they make back inth their business the make it better. The less tax I pay the more widgets I can make or the more 40-hr-a-week widget makers I can employ.

 

[Silver]

That's because most wealthy people are doing things that employ people like you. It's that drive that makes the US an economic powerhouse that it is. Most people I know who own business turn just about every dollar they make back inth their business the make it better. The less tax I pay the more widgets I can make or the more 40-hr-a-week widget makers I can employ.

Uh, I'm self-employed...

 

[fluff]

That's because most wealthy people are doing things that employ people like you. It's that drive that makes the US an economic powerhouse that it is. Most people I know who own business turn just about every dollar they make back inth their business the make it better. The less tax I pay the more widgets I can make or the more 40-hr-a-week widget makers I can employ.

Are they really wealthy then N8?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Uh, I'm self-employed...

So you don't have employees who rely on you for their livelihood then?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Are they really wealthy then N8?

Not as much as I'd like to be that's for sure...

 

[Silver]

So you don't have employees who rely on you for their livelihood then?

I don't understand the question.

 

[fluff]

Not as much as I'd like to be that's for sure...

I don't understand the answer?

 

[N8 v2.0]

never mind...


:devil:

 

[LordOpie]

I like consumption tax, but since I'm a real prick. I think potato chips, ice cream, alcohol, cigarettes and the like should all have high taxes and vegetables and such should all have a negative tax -- where you get a few cents back on the dollar for buying 'em.

I'll still eat junk food on occassion, but junk tax should go directly to socialized healthcare.

 

[fluff]

I like consumption tax, but since I'm a real prick. I think potato chips, ice cream, alcohol, cigarettes and the like should all have high taxes and vegetables and such should all have a negative tax -- where you get a few cents back on the dollar for buying 'em.

I'll still eat junk food on occassion, but junk tax should go directly to socialized healthcare.

Tax breaks for Broccoli!

 

[ncrider]

tax deduction for trail maintenance

 

[narlus]

buy some tofu and kale, get a free watch.

 

[mack]

i totally agree that the tax system is too complicated and wastes allot of time/money for the government, there should be a flat tax with no breaks for marriage or any crap like that. god, wouldnt that be nice and simple.

 

[Silver]

i totally agree that the tax system is too complicated and wastes allot of time/money for the government, there should be a flat tax with no breaks for marriage or any crap like that. god, wouldnt that be nice and simple.

Ok, Mr. Simple, explain to me how a non W-2 worker or small business owner gets to income?

That's the tricky part. A flax tax saves you one or two calculations at the end, nothing more.

 

[LordOpie]

y'all realize that calculating how much tax you pay makes no difference whether it's a flat tax or sliding scale... how hard is it to look up the amount in a chart?

 

[mack]

that did not make any sense, 'onwer gets to income" maybe if i knew what you were trying to say....

 

[Changleen]

I like consumption tax, but since I'm a real prick. I think potato chips, ice cream, alcohol, cigarettes and the like should all have high taxes and vegetables and such should all have a negative tax -- where you get a few cents back on the dollar for buying 'em.

I'll still eat junk food on occassion, but junk tax should go directly to socialized healthcare.

Wow, even though we don't see eye to eye on pretty much anything else, you are some kind of crazy tax genius. Obviously actual negative tax would be out of the question, but it's a good principal.

 

[mack]

Wow, even though we don't see eye to eye on pretty much anything else, you are some kind of crazy tax genius. Obviously actual negative tax would be out of the question, but it's a good principal.

wheres new zealand?

 

[Silver]

that did not make any sense, 'onwer gets to income" maybe if i knew what you were trying to say....

The tax number, whether progressive, regressive, or flat, is easy to get to. The net income number is the hard one to figure out.

A flat tax does nothing at all to make getting to the net income number easier or cheaper.

 

[LordOpie]

Wow, even though we don't see eye to eye on pretty much anything else, you are some kind of crazy tax genius.

without getting too much of a tangent, we actually agree on a lot -- specifically what's best for humanity and individuals, but you're too hung up on assigning blame.

Obviously actual negative tax would be out of the question...

Why?
"negative tax", it could work quite easily... simply deduct it from the purchase price at the time of purchase. It's obviously a form of subsidity, but we're too fvcking fat -- scratch that and make it... too unhealthy. I would support any legislation that encouraged people to be more healthy. Including my favorite... turning one lane on every mulit-lane road into a bike lane, boo-fvcking-yah!