At this point I feel like we should rename this thread to something like "Totally Random Shit". Somehow in eight pages we've gone from the topic of the thread to talking in-depth about the taxes of Presidential candidates. This is almost indistinguishable from the politics thread at this point, they are just running concurrently.
At this point I feel like we should rename this thread to something like "Totally Random Shit". Somehow in eight pages we've gone from the topic of the thread to talking in-depth about the taxes of Presidential candidates. This is almost indistinguishable from the politics thread at this point, they are just running concurrently.
Typical SJW thread-blaming. Why are you trying to suppress my right to free speech in a privately-owned web forum???
Btw back on the subject of would-be insults: "NPC" is kind of dumb. I mean I basically get the gist of it, but in actual use it doesn't really have the rhetorical oomph to get across what it tries to. So, I propose we take it a step further: let's ground it in an actual NPC! Like:
"There's nothing disrespectful about kneeling in front of the flag, it only means to call attention to injustices that are going unaddressed in our country!"
"Sure, disrespect the flag and then claim the high ground of victimhood. Delete your account, Nalia."
Yep, I've noticed this popping up in the last week as well. It's the newest alt-right buzzword, since the one this thread is named after has started to sound like a bad joke everytime it is used. It's simply the newest insult that has emanated from the swamps of internet message boards and 4chan. It is apparently meant to convey the idea that liberals are as "unthinking" as an NPC in a video game, simply going about pre-programmed tasks. This is brought to you by the same people who for a long period of time used "autistic" as their default pejorative, presumably because they were pissed it was no longer socially acceptable to call people "retarded". These phrases are all basically synonyms at this point.
Since the thread has moved far beyond any commentI could make on the topic previously discussed that I was commenting on, I'll just say that Football players didn't usually take to the field until *after* the anthem. They'd be in the locker room when it was being played.
Colin Kaepernick wasn't kneeling at first. He just didn't stand. Until he was told by a military vet that not standing was an insult. He added that when fallen soldiers came home from battle, the other soldiers would kneel in salute as the anthem was being played. That is why he kneels as opposed to simply not standing.
Since the thread has moved far beyond any commentI could make on the topic previously discussed that I was commenting on, I'll just say that Football players didn't usually take to the field until *after* the anthem. They'd be in the locker room when it was being played.
Colin Kaepernick wasn't kneeling at first. He just didn't stand. Until he was told by a military vet that not standing was an insult. He added that when fallen soldiers came home from battle, the other soldiers would kneel in salute as the anthem was being played. That is why he kneels as opposed to simply not standing.
I'd ask anyone pissed about football players kneeling during the anthem if, while sitting at home on their couch on Sunday afternoon, if they immediately stop eating their nachos, stand up, and place their hand over their hearts in the living room when the anthem is being played until it is over. I'm guessing almost NO ONE does so, and if they don't, then respect for the flag and the troops is not what they are upset about.
As an aside, what I would like to see is a drastic simplification of taxation. That could involve: - a significant nil rate band to avoid spending time and money assessing very small amounts of taxes. - a single rate of tax above the nil rate band rather than progressive rates - all forms of income (revenue / capital gains / trust funds / share distributions etc) to be taxed at that single rate. The aim would be to avoid people structuring income to avoid tax rather than doing whatever makes the most economic sense. - get rid of all exemptions and allowances. While looked at individually there may be good arguments for trying to benefit particular industries / areas etc, nearly all allowances quickly degenerate into ways to minimize tax payments rather than achieving their original aims. If you want to provide benefits for things like the film industry or an economic development area you can still do this by using grants rather than tax breaks (and this has the advantage of being much more transparent). I don't know how that would change the distribution of taxes. I suspect that, even though the tax rate the richest people would pay would reduce considerably, they would end up paying a lot more due to not being able to take advantage of exemptions. Whether or not that would happen though, I think the country as a whole would be better off with a far simpler tax system.
We have #1. It's the standard deduction+personal exemption. It used to be $6350+4050. Now they've axed personal exemptions, and dependent deductions (and a lot of other exemptions), and ~doubled the standard to $12,000 or something.
#2 is a non-starter. If anything, we need MORE tax rates going much, much, MUCH higher. Why should someone with $300,000 taxable income be taxed the same rate as someone with $30 million? Or $3 BILLION? And you're saying they should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $30,000?
I agree with #3, see below.
They cut a crapton of exemptions and deductions in #4 in the "tax cuts and jobs act", to the tune of ~$3.5 trillion over ten years.
Most deductions and exemptions have phaseouts so the rich can't get most of them for being too rich. The rich care about the RATES on their vast incomes, and how they are applied.
For example, two days ago in my accounting research class we briefly looked at Mitt Romney's 2011 tax return (Also Trump's published 2005 return. Both for the purpose of looking at the AMT). In a nutshell, Romney had $13.7 million in income, $4.7 million in deductions (3.75M was state income tax and charity), giving a taxable income of $9 million. His tax rate was effectively 14.89% ($1.34M, but see next paragraph). Several million dollars of his income were qualified dividends which are taxed at very low rates, starting at 0% for the first $69,000, then at 15% for the rest. Additionally, the marginal rates on ordinary income+dividends would bring him down a bit, I'm not going to look up what the rates were, but it was a 2011 return when the top rate was just 35%.
Things like the AMT are designed to catch people taking too much advantage of the tax system. His AMT above standard tax was $675k above his $1.34M, for a tad over $2 million dollars tax, which was reduced a little to about $1.9M that was his ACTUAL tax paid. Thanks to the "tax cut" act, those itemized deductions he took are DOA (like $1.3 million in state taxes that were exempted).
Trumpy on the other hand, had $48.6M in income, $17M in deductions, for $31.6M taxable income, and a tax of $5.3M (16.8%). But HIS AMT above standard tax was $31.6M. Along with self-employment tax, he wound up at $38.4M tax. And he was short paying the IRS $2.3M. Romney had actually overpaid his tax by $1.5M and told the IRS to keep it for next year's tax.
To reiterate, Romney had $13.7M income, but just $0.675M AMT. Trump had little more than double that at $31.6M, but his AMT was $31.6M.
@Quickblade I think your post is a good illustration of why a radically simplified system is needed .
I'm not sure why you feel a need for a strongly progressive tax system. To me it seems fairer for everyone to pay the same rate (which obviously means that the more income you get the more tax you pay). There can also be economic problems caused by rates set too high. I remember when the highest marginal rate of tax in the UK was set at 98% - that didn't yield much in the way of tax because people had such a strong interest in avoiding it legally (either by gaming the system, just not bothering to earn, or taking earnings overseas) or even evading it illegally. Personally I'd like to see rates below 50% to reduce that type of perverse incentive.
At this point I feel like we should rename this thread to something like "Totally Random Shit". Somehow in eight pages we've gone from the topic of the thread to talking in-depth about the taxes of Presidential candidates. This is almost indistinguishable from the politics thread at this point, they are just running concurrently.
Typical SJW thread-blaming. Why are you trying to suppress my right to free speech in a privately-owned web forum???
Btw back on the subject of would-be insults: "NPC" is kind of dumb. I mean I basically get the gist of it, but in actual use it doesn't really have the rhetorical oomph to get across what it tries to. So, I propose we take it a step further: let's ground it in an actual NPC! Like:
"There's nothing disrespectful about kneeling in front of the flag, it only means to call attention to injustices that are going unaddressed in our country!"
"Sure, disrespect the flag and then claim the high ground of victimhood. Delete your account, Nalia."
Fairly sure the point IS to be disrespectful, basically saying "Ain't my country" on the grounds that the police only protect and serve, uh, whatever percentage the white population of US is. Honestly though, I also think that is misrepresenting Colin, because guess what? White people also get murdered by police on loose grounds. I mean, nowhere near as much by percentage and perhaps even by sheer numbers, HOWEVER, white people are still really stupid for thinking it as a black issue because it could happen to them as well, even if the risk if lower. I think you should ALL kneel, until the police is reigned in, until you stop your senseless wars that only serves the war profiteers, until your government becomes less corrupt than the Chinese government. Really, that is your real problems, you are serviles. The French - that you like to call wussies - would be blocking all highways leading into Paris for months on end if their politicians pulled even half the shenanigans your politicians pull.
Which, again, show the stupidity of the right calling the left NPC:s. Which sides behavior more closely resemble this?
Hurr durr I am super duper rebellious because I support the military-industrial complex 100% even though I believe in small government.
As an aside, what I would like to see is a drastic simplification of taxation. That could involve: - a significant nil rate band to avoid spending time and money assessing very small amounts of taxes. - a single rate of tax above the nil rate band rather than progressive rates - all forms of income (revenue / capital gains / trust funds / share distributions etc) to be taxed at that single rate. The aim would be to avoid people structuring income to avoid tax rather than doing whatever makes the most economic sense. - get rid of all exemptions and allowances. While looked at individually there may be good arguments for trying to benefit particular industries / areas etc, nearly all allowances quickly degenerate into ways to minimize tax payments rather than achieving their original aims. If you want to provide benefits for things like the film industry or an economic development area you can still do this by using grants rather than tax breaks (and this has the advantage of being much more transparent). I don't know how that would change the distribution of taxes. I suspect that, even though the tax rate the richest people would pay would reduce considerably, they would end up paying a lot more due to not being able to take advantage of exemptions. Whether or not that would happen though, I think the country as a whole would be better off with a far simpler tax system.
We have #1. It's the standard deduction+personal exemption. It used to be $6350+4050. Now they've axed personal exemptions, and dependent deductions (and a lot of other exemptions), and ~doubled the standard to $12,000 or something.
#2 is a non-starter. If anything, we need MORE tax rates going much, much, MUCH higher. Why should someone with $300,000 taxable income be taxed the same rate as someone with $30 million? Or $3 BILLION? And you're saying they should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $30,000?
I agree with #3, see below.
They cut a crapton of exemptions and deductions in #4 in the "tax cuts and jobs act", to the tune of ~$3.5 trillion over ten years.
Most deductions and exemptions have phaseouts so the rich can't get most of them for being too rich. The rich care about the RATES on their vast incomes, and how they are applied.
For example, two days ago in my accounting research class we briefly looked at Mitt Romney's 2011 tax return (Also Trump's published 2005 return. Both for the purpose of looking at the AMT). In a nutshell, Romney had $13.7 million in income, $4.7 million in deductions (3.75M was state income tax and charity), giving a taxable income of $9 million. His tax rate was effectively 14.89% ($1.34M, but see next paragraph). Several million dollars of his income were qualified dividends which are taxed at very low rates, starting at 0% for the first $69,000, then at 15% for the rest. Additionally, the marginal rates on ordinary income+dividends would bring him down a bit, I'm not going to look up what the rates were, but it was a 2011 return when the top rate was just 35%.
Things like the AMT are designed to catch people taking too much advantage of the tax system. His AMT above standard tax was $675k above his $1.34M, for a tad over $2 million dollars tax, which was reduced a little to about $1.9M that was his ACTUAL tax paid. Thanks to the "tax cut" act, those itemized deductions he took are DOA (like $1.3 million in state taxes that were exempted).
Trumpy on the other hand, had $48.6M in income, $17M in deductions, for $31.6M taxable income, and a tax of $5.3M (16.8%). But HIS AMT above standard tax was $31.6M. Along with self-employment tax, he wound up at $38.4M tax. And he was short paying the IRS $2.3M. Romney had actually overpaid his tax by $1.5M and told the IRS to keep it for next year's tax.
To reiterate, Romney had $13.7M income, but just $0.675M AMT. Trump had little more than double that at $31.6M, but his AMT was $31.6M.
@Quickblade I think your post is a good illustration of why a radically simplified system is needed .
I'm not sure why you feel a need for a strongly progressive tax system. To me it seems fairer for everyone to pay the same rate (which obviously means that the more income you get the more tax you pay). There can also be economic problems caused by rates set too high. I remember when the highest marginal rate of tax in the UK was set at 98% - that didn't yield much in the way of tax because people had such a strong interest in avoiding it legally (either by gaming the system, just not bothering to earn, or taking earnings overseas) or even evading it illegally. Personally I'd like to see rates below 50% to reduce that type of perverse incentive.
I support a progressive tax system because people who don't make as much need that money to survive. Let's say we (in the US) institute a flat 15% tax. Now, someone making a million dollars a year is paying $150K a year. Someone making 100 million is paying 15 million. Sounds good, right? But what about the people at the bottom? Someone making $20K a year is paying $3K. Some months, that may make the difference between eating or paying the electric bill, or both.
I've been on the bottom. I know what it's like. It's not fun, and that's why a flat tax simply doesn't work. Someone on the top might not miss $15M. But on the bottom of the scale, you sure will miss that 15% of your income, be sure of it.
I don't have a solution nor am I proposing one. I'm just saying that when about 80% of all meaningful crime is committed by one sex, the idea that it would be viewed as more "toxic" doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.
*Wonders how many terrorist attacks are done by followers of one religion, but says nothing out of fear to be called bigot and fired*
I don't have a solution nor am I proposing one. I'm just saying that when about 80% of all meaningful crime is committed by one sex, the idea that it would be viewed as more "toxic" doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.
*Wonders how many terrorist attacks are done by followers of one religion, but says nothing out of fear to be called bigot and fired*
I'm guessing you're referring to Islam, but in the United States at least, it's Christianity. But again, we shouldn't be making generalizations about such massive groups of people and suggesting that one race, one sex, one religion, or one political group is evil.
I don't have a solution nor am I proposing one. I'm just saying that when about 80% of all meaningful crime is committed by one sex, the idea that it would be viewed as more "toxic" doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.
*Wonders how many terrorist attacks are done by followers of one religion, but says nothing out of fear to be called bigot and fired*
I'm guessing you're referring to Islam, but in the United States at least, it's Christianity. But again, we shouldn't be making generalizations about such massive groups of people and suggesting that one race, one sex, one religion, or one political group is evil.
It leads to gas chambers.
It's unbelievable that still people don't understand that identifying a group, especially if the identifyers are immutable, and attacking them, always ends up there.
It's utterly insane. Do they not realise that the Nazis justified their attacks in exactly the same way as some are doing now?
You're priviledged, you're rich, you're this race, you're toxic/deseased, you carry original sin, ect., it's straight out of the Nazi playbook.
As much as I dislike the idea of stereotyping people, I also have to object to the notion that it inevitably leads to the Holocaust. Not every bigot is a full-blown Nazi itching to murder someone.
As an aside, what I would like to see is a drastic simplification of taxation. That could involve: - a significant nil rate band to avoid spending time and money assessing very small amounts of taxes. - a single rate of tax above the nil rate band rather than progressive rates - all forms of income (revenue / capital gains / trust funds / share distributions etc) to be taxed at that single rate. The aim would be to avoid people structuring income to avoid tax rather than doing whatever makes the most economic sense. - get rid of all exemptions and allowances. While looked at individually there may be good arguments for trying to benefit particular industries / areas etc, nearly all allowances quickly degenerate into ways to minimize tax payments rather than achieving their original aims. If you want to provide benefits for things like the film industry or an economic development area you can still do this by using grants rather than tax breaks (and this has the advantage of being much more transparent). I don't know how that would change the distribution of taxes. I suspect that, even though the tax rate the richest people would pay would reduce considerably, they would end up paying a lot more due to not being able to take advantage of exemptions. Whether or not that would happen though, I think the country as a whole would be better off with a far simpler tax system.
We have #1. It's the standard deduction+personal exemption. It used to be $6350+4050. Now they've axed personal exemptions, and dependent deductions (and a lot of other exemptions), and ~doubled the standard to $12,000 or something.
#2 is a non-starter. If anything, we need MORE tax rates going much, much, MUCH higher. Why should someone with $300,000 taxable income be taxed the same rate as someone with $30 million? Or $3 BILLION? And you're saying they should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $30,000?
I agree with #3, see below.
They cut a crapton of exemptions and deductions in #4 in the "tax cuts and jobs act", to the tune of ~$3.5 trillion over ten years.
Most deductions and exemptions have phaseouts so the rich can't get most of them for being too rich. The rich care about the RATES on their vast incomes, and how they are applied.
For example, two days ago in my accounting research class we briefly looked at Mitt Romney's 2011 tax return (Also Trump's published 2005 return. Both for the purpose of looking at the AMT). In a nutshell, Romney had $13.7 million in income, $4.7 million in deductions (3.75M was state income tax and charity), giving a taxable income of $9 million. His tax rate was effectively 14.89% ($1.34M, but see next paragraph). Several million dollars of his income were qualified dividends which are taxed at very low rates, starting at 0% for the first $69,000, then at 15% for the rest. Additionally, the marginal rates on ordinary income+dividends would bring him down a bit, I'm not going to look up what the rates were, but it was a 2011 return when the top rate was just 35%.
Things like the AMT are designed to catch people taking too much advantage of the tax system. His AMT above standard tax was $675k above his $1.34M, for a tad over $2 million dollars tax, which was reduced a little to about $1.9M that was his ACTUAL tax paid. Thanks to the "tax cut" act, those itemized deductions he took are DOA (like $1.3 million in state taxes that were exempted).
Trumpy on the other hand, had $48.6M in income, $17M in deductions, for $31.6M taxable income, and a tax of $5.3M (16.8%). But HIS AMT above standard tax was $31.6M. Along with self-employment tax, he wound up at $38.4M tax. And he was short paying the IRS $2.3M. Romney had actually overpaid his tax by $1.5M and told the IRS to keep it for next year's tax.
To reiterate, Romney had $13.7M income, but just $0.675M AMT. Trump had little more than double that at $31.6M, but his AMT was $31.6M.
@Quickblade I think your post is a good illustration of why a radically simplified system is needed .
I'm not sure why you feel a need for a strongly progressive tax system. To me it seems fairer for everyone to pay the same rate (which obviously means that the more income you get the more tax you pay). There can also be economic problems caused by rates set too high. I remember when the highest marginal rate of tax in the UK was set at 98% - that didn't yield much in the way of tax because people had such a strong interest in avoiding it legally (either by gaming the system, just not bothering to earn, or taking earnings overseas) or even evading it illegally. Personally I'd like to see rates below 50% to reduce that type of perverse incentive.
I support a progressive tax system because people who don't make as much need that money to survive. Let's say we (in the US) institute a flat 15% tax. Now, someone making a million dollars a year is paying $150K a year. Someone making 100 million is paying 15 million. Sounds good, right? But what about the people at the bottom? Someone making $20K a year is paying $3K. Some months, that may make the difference between eating or paying the electric bill, or both.
I've been on the bottom. I know what it's like. It's not fun, and that's why a flat tax simply doesn't work. Someone on the top might not miss $15M. But on the bottom of the scale, you sure will miss that 15% of your income, be sure of it.
Remember that I said the system should start with a large nil rate band. As a minimum I would see that at $30,000 and it could be significantly higher than that - so the worst off people would be taken out of tax entirely. Those earning only slightly above the threshold would pay little tax, i.e. considerably less than at the moment. The logic of that progression of course is that if the worst off people are paying less, someone else would be paying more - and as I said originally I would expect the rich to pay more under this system even without the potential complexity, unfairness and economic distortions associated with using progressive rates.
As an aside, what I would like to see is a drastic simplification of taxation. That could involve: - a significant nil rate band to avoid spending time and money assessing very small amounts of taxes. - a single rate of tax above the nil rate band rather than progressive rates - all forms of income (revenue / capital gains / trust funds / share distributions etc) to be taxed at that single rate. The aim would be to avoid people structuring income to avoid tax rather than doing whatever makes the most economic sense. - get rid of all exemptions and allowances. While looked at individually there may be good arguments for trying to benefit particular industries / areas etc, nearly all allowances quickly degenerate into ways to minimize tax payments rather than achieving their original aims. If you want to provide benefits for things like the film industry or an economic development area you can still do this by using grants rather than tax breaks (and this has the advantage of being much more transparent). I don't know how that would change the distribution of taxes. I suspect that, even though the tax rate the richest people would pay would reduce considerably, they would end up paying a lot more due to not being able to take advantage of exemptions. Whether or not that would happen though, I think the country as a whole would be better off with a far simpler tax system.
We have #1. It's the standard deduction+personal exemption. It used to be $6350+4050. Now they've axed personal exemptions, and dependent deductions (and a lot of other exemptions), and ~doubled the standard to $12,000 or something.
#2 is a non-starter. If anything, we need MORE tax rates going much, much, MUCH higher. Why should someone with $300,000 taxable income be taxed the same rate as someone with $30 million? Or $3 BILLION? And you're saying they should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $30,000?
I agree with #3, see below.
They cut a crapton of exemptions and deductions in #4 in the "tax cuts and jobs act", to the tune of ~$3.5 trillion over ten years.
Most deductions and exemptions have phaseouts so the rich can't get most of them for being too rich. The rich care about the RATES on their vast incomes, and how they are applied.
For example, two days ago in my accounting research class we briefly looked at Mitt Romney's 2011 tax return (Also Trump's published 2005 return. Both for the purpose of looking at the AMT). In a nutshell, Romney had $13.7 million in income, $4.7 million in deductions (3.75M was state income tax and charity), giving a taxable income of $9 million. His tax rate was effectively 14.89% ($1.34M, but see next paragraph). Several million dollars of his income were qualified dividends which are taxed at very low rates, starting at 0% for the first $69,000, then at 15% for the rest. Additionally, the marginal rates on ordinary income+dividends would bring him down a bit, I'm not going to look up what the rates were, but it was a 2011 return when the top rate was just 35%.
Things like the AMT are designed to catch people taking too much advantage of the tax system. His AMT above standard tax was $675k above his $1.34M, for a tad over $2 million dollars tax, which was reduced a little to about $1.9M that was his ACTUAL tax paid. Thanks to the "tax cut" act, those itemized deductions he took are DOA (like $1.3 million in state taxes that were exempted).
Trumpy on the other hand, had $48.6M in income, $17M in deductions, for $31.6M taxable income, and a tax of $5.3M (16.8%). But HIS AMT above standard tax was $31.6M. Along with self-employment tax, he wound up at $38.4M tax. And he was short paying the IRS $2.3M. Romney had actually overpaid his tax by $1.5M and told the IRS to keep it for next year's tax.
To reiterate, Romney had $13.7M income, but just $0.675M AMT. Trump had little more than double that at $31.6M, but his AMT was $31.6M.
@Quickblade I think your post is a good illustration of why a radically simplified system is needed .
I'm not sure why you feel a need for a strongly progressive tax system. To me it seems fairer for everyone to pay the same rate (which obviously means that the more income you get the more tax you pay). There can also be economic problems caused by rates set too high. I remember when the highest marginal rate of tax in the UK was set at 98% - that didn't yield much in the way of tax because people had such a strong interest in avoiding it legally (either by gaming the system, just not bothering to earn, or taking earnings overseas) or even evading it illegally. Personally I'd like to see rates below 50% to reduce that type of perverse incentive.
1. A radically simplified system doesn't give you a lot of tools to use. Do people who lose money in business NOT get to write off their losses (a deduction) now? They LOST money, you want to tax them on money they don't have? That'll help encourage business. How about providing an incentive to go to college (education credits), or make it a little easier to get a house (first-time homeowner credit)? People are gung-ho on avoiding double-taxation, that's a major deduction Romney took because he was out 1.3 million dollars on state income tax. Now he should be taxed on money he paid in taxes?
2. I feel the need for a strongly progressive tax system because the system, in the end after you get through the exemptions, deductions, and credits, doesn't flex enough, and the math of calculating the actual taxation once you arrive at the taxable amount is easy. We could add another 20 tax brackets at that point and it'd still be easy ("If you make $0-$1000, you pay .06*amount, if you make 1001, subtract 1001 from 1000, muliply by .08, and add 60", and so forth).
I say it doesn't flex enough, because the people at the top of the heap ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. If the top 2% is raking in 90% of the income, how is it FAIR that they are only paying ~60% of the taxes collected. I'm not sure at what point it IS fair, but I estimate the highest rate needs to go to about 75%-80% at upwards of $50 million dollars. The more rates, the better, because the more rates you have, the more tools you have to make taxation more equitable across the vast range of incomes.
There used to be 20-30 tax brackets, even 50 or more at times. Only with the first 3 years of the income tax (1913-1916), and since Reagan have there been less than 10 tax brackets. Adding another 5 brackets or so isn't going to blow people's brain fuses out from the extra calculation necessary.
Never forget, the rate is marginal, you don't pay a flat 36% on a million dollars. You pay 6% on the first 15k, 8% on the next 40k, 12% on the next 60k, whatever, until you pay 36% between 200k and 1M (numbers made up, but the 36% IIRC is the newest highest marginal rate).
Remember that I said the system should start with a large nil rate band. As a minimum I would see that at $30,000 and it could be significantly higher than that - so the worst off people would be taken out of tax entirely. Those earning only slightly above the threshold would pay little tax, i.e. considerably less than at the moment. The logic of that progression of course is that if the worst off people are paying less, someone else would be paying more - and as I said originally I would expect the rich to pay more under this system even without the potential complexity, unfairness and economic distortions associated with using progressive rates.
And as I said, it already does. And now it starts at about $12,000 under the new rules. Problem is, you get screwed royally if you try itemizing deductions unless you have a LOT of deductions that are NOT DOA.
I don't have a solution nor am I proposing one. I'm just saying that when about 80% of all meaningful crime is committed by one sex, the idea that it would be viewed as more "toxic" doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.
*Wonders how many terrorist attacks are done by followers of one religion, but says nothing out of fear to be called bigot and fired*
I'm guessing you're referring to Islam, but in the United States at least, it's Christianity. But again, we shouldn't be making generalizations about such massive groups of people and suggesting that one race, one sex, one religion, or one political group is evil.
I'm curious, so much spilled over one group or another being demonized, but at the same time, we shouldn't make assumptions that one group of people are inherently good.
Were priests considered inherently good? What became of THAT logic?
As an aside, what I would like to see is a drastic simplification of taxation. That could involve: - a significant nil rate band to avoid spending time and money assessing very small amounts of taxes. - a single rate of tax above the nil rate band rather than progressive rates - all forms of income (revenue / capital gains / trust funds / share distributions etc) to be taxed at that single rate. The aim would be to avoid people structuring income to avoid tax rather than doing whatever makes the most economic sense. - get rid of all exemptions and allowances. While looked at individually there may be good arguments for trying to benefit particular industries / areas etc, nearly all allowances quickly degenerate into ways to minimize tax payments rather than achieving their original aims. If you want to provide benefits for things like the film industry or an economic development area you can still do this by using grants rather than tax breaks (and this has the advantage of being much more transparent). I don't know how that would change the distribution of taxes. I suspect that, even though the tax rate the richest people would pay would reduce considerably, they would end up paying a lot more due to not being able to take advantage of exemptions. Whether or not that would happen though, I think the country as a whole would be better off with a far simpler tax system.
We have #1. It's the standard deduction+personal exemption. It used to be $6350+4050. Now they've axed personal exemptions, and dependent deductions (and a lot of other exemptions), and ~doubled the standard to $12,000 or something.
#2 is a non-starter. If anything, we need MORE tax rates going much, much, MUCH higher. Why should someone with $300,000 taxable income be taxed the same rate as someone with $30 million? Or $3 BILLION? And you're saying they should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $30,000?
I agree with #3, see below.
They cut a crapton of exemptions and deductions in #4 in the "tax cuts and jobs act", to the tune of ~$3.5 trillion over ten years.
Most deductions and exemptions have phaseouts so the rich can't get most of them for being too rich. The rich care about the RATES on their vast incomes, and how they are applied.
For example, two days ago in my accounting research class we briefly looked at Mitt Romney's 2011 tax return (Also Trump's published 2005 return. Both for the purpose of looking at the AMT). In a nutshell, Romney had $13.7 million in income, $4.7 million in deductions (3.75M was state income tax and charity), giving a taxable income of $9 million. His tax rate was effectively 14.89% ($1.34M, but see next paragraph). Several million dollars of his income were qualified dividends which are taxed at very low rates, starting at 0% for the first $69,000, then at 15% for the rest. Additionally, the marginal rates on ordinary income+dividends would bring him down a bit, I'm not going to look up what the rates were, but it was a 2011 return when the top rate was just 35%.
Things like the AMT are designed to catch people taking too much advantage of the tax system. His AMT above standard tax was $675k above his $1.34M, for a tad over $2 million dollars tax, which was reduced a little to about $1.9M that was his ACTUAL tax paid. Thanks to the "tax cut" act, those itemized deductions he took are DOA (like $1.3 million in state taxes that were exempted).
Trumpy on the other hand, had $48.6M in income, $17M in deductions, for $31.6M taxable income, and a tax of $5.3M (16.8%). But HIS AMT above standard tax was $31.6M. Along with self-employment tax, he wound up at $38.4M tax. And he was short paying the IRS $2.3M. Romney had actually overpaid his tax by $1.5M and told the IRS to keep it for next year's tax.
To reiterate, Romney had $13.7M income, but just $0.675M AMT. Trump had little more than double that at $31.6M, but his AMT was $31.6M.
@Quickblade I think your post is a good illustration of why a radically simplified system is needed .
I'm not sure why you feel a need for a strongly progressive tax system. To me it seems fairer for everyone to pay the same rate (which obviously means that the more income you get the more tax you pay). There can also be economic problems caused by rates set too high. I remember when the highest marginal rate of tax in the UK was set at 98% - that didn't yield much in the way of tax because people had such a strong interest in avoiding it legally (either by gaming the system, just not bothering to earn, or taking earnings overseas) or even evading it illegally. Personally I'd like to see rates below 50% to reduce that type of perverse incentive.
1. A radically simplified system doesn't give you a lot of tools to use. Do people who lose money in business NOT get to write off their losses (a deduction) now? They LOST money, you want to tax them on money they don't have? That'll help encourage business. How about providing an incentive to go to college (education credits), or make it a little easier to get a house (first-time homeowner credit)? People are gung-ho on avoiding double-taxation, that's a major deduction Romney took because he was out 1.3 million dollars on state income tax. Now he should be taxed on money he paid in taxes?
I haven't said anything about how income would be recognized, but yes I would expect businesses to be able to write off their losses. As for incentives for college or home ownership I did refer to that earlier - incentives are simpler and more transparent if done directly rather than indirectly through the tax system, e.g. you can give a grant or a discount on college fees rather than a tax credit.
3. I feel the need for a strongly progressive tax system because the system, in the end after you get through the exemptions, deductions, and credits, doesn't flex enough, and the math of calculating the actual taxation once you arrive at the taxable amount is easy. We could add another 20 tax brackets at that point and it'd still be easy ("If you make $0-$1000, you pay .06*amount, if you make 1001, subtract 1001 from 1000, muliply by .08, and add 60", and so forth).
I say it doesn't flex enough, because the people at the top of the heap ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. If the top 2% is raking in 90% of the income, how is it FAIR that they are only paying ~60% of the taxes collected. I'm not sure at what point it IS fair, but I estimate the highest rate needs to go to about 75%-80% at upwards of $50 million dollars. The more rates, the better, because the more rates you have, the more tools you have to make taxation more equitable across the vast range of incomes.
There used to be 20-30 tax brackets, even 50 or more at times. Only with the first 3 years of the income tax (1913-1916), and since Reagan have there been less than 10 tax brackets. Adding another 5 brackets or so isn't going to blow people's brain fuses out from the extra calculation necessary.
Never forget, the rate is marginal, you don't pay a flat 36% on a million dollars. You pay 6% on the first 15k, 8% on the next 40k, 12% on the next 60k, whatever, until you pay 36% between 200k and 1M (numbers made up, but the 36% IIRC is the newest highest marginal rate).
Your argument is that people at the top pay less than their fair share. I agree with that - despite the progressive tax bands the overall income tax system in the US is indeed regressive at the top end as a result of the complex system of exemptions and allowances. I think the solution to that is clear though: rather than make the system more complex by introducing further bands and trying to target exemptions better, get rid of all the exemptions. Everyone would then pay their fair share.
Remember that I said the system should start with a large nil rate band. As a minimum I would see that at $30,000 and it could be significantly higher than that - so the worst off people would be taken out of tax entirely. Those earning only slightly above the threshold would pay little tax, i.e. considerably less than at the moment. The logic of that progression of course is that if the worst off people are paying less, someone else would be paying more - and as I said originally I would expect the rich to pay more under this system even without the potential complexity, unfairness and economic distortions associated with using progressive rates.
And as I said, it already does. And now it starts at about $12,000 under the new rules. Problem is, you get screwed royally if you try itemizing deductions unless you have a LOT of deductions that are NOT DOA.
A $12,000 dollar nil rate band is not the same as a $30,000 or $40,000 one, e.g. in relation to the numbers of people that need to complete a tax return (even if they end up not owing any taxes). In my proposed system there would be no deductions, so you wouldn't need a tax adviser to work out what you owed.
Just to give an illustration that the figures for a flat rate tax system can stack up, I've done a quick Excel spreadsheet. The figures ignore the impact of exemptions and deductions, which will have a significant impact on the pattern of winners and losers. As said above I agree that at the moment the highest earners are paying rather less tax than the tax rates would suggest they should, so they would certainly lose more from a flat rate than suggested by these figures. The point though is just to illustrate that this isn't some sort of extreme suggestion. There are already plenty of tax specialists in the US calling for a major simplification of the current system.
Just to give an illustration that the figures for a flat rate tax system can stack up, I've done a quick Excel spreadsheet. The figures ignore the impact of exemptions and deductions, which will have a significant impact on the pattern of winners and losers. As said above I agree that at the moment the highest earners are paying rather less tax than the tax rates would suggest they should, so they would certainly lose more from a flat rate than suggested by these figures. The point though is just to illustrate that this isn't some sort of extreme suggestion. There are already plenty of tax specialists in the US calling for a major simplification of the current system.
"But the system starts to lose its progressivity at the very highest levels: In 2015, the effective rate peaked at 29.3% for taxpayers in the $2 million-to-under-$5 million group, then fell to 28.8% for the $5 million-to-under-$10 million group and 25.9% for those making $10 million or more."
The moderating team has decided to close the thread. After 9 pages, the topic has long since been lost, and since the topic itself is already rather incendiary for multiple reasons, there's little reason to get it back on topic.
These discussions can be continued in other threads.
Comments
Yep, I've noticed this popping up in the last week as well. It's the newest alt-right buzzword, since the one this thread is named after has started to sound like a bad joke everytime it is used. It's simply the newest insult that has emanated from the swamps of internet message boards and 4chan. It is apparently meant to convey the idea that liberals are as "unthinking" as an NPC in a video game, simply going about pre-programmed tasks. This is brought to you by the same people who for a long period of time used "autistic" as their default pejorative, presumably because they were pissed it was no longer socially acceptable to call people "retarded". These phrases are all basically synonyms at this point.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nfl-sideline-anthem/
Colin Kaepernick wasn't kneeling at first. He just didn't stand. Until he was told by a military vet that not standing was an insult. He added that when fallen soldiers came home from battle, the other soldiers would kneel in salute as the anthem was being played. That is why he kneels as opposed to simply not standing.
I'm not sure why you feel a need for a strongly progressive tax system. To me it seems fairer for everyone to pay the same rate (which obviously means that the more income you get the more tax you pay). There can also be economic problems caused by rates set too high. I remember when the highest marginal rate of tax in the UK was set at 98% - that didn't yield much in the way of tax because people had such a strong interest in avoiding it legally (either by gaming the system, just not bothering to earn, or taking earnings overseas) or even evading it illegally. Personally I'd like to see rates below 50% to reduce that type of perverse incentive.
Which, again, show the stupidity of the right calling the left NPC:s. Which sides behavior more closely resemble this?
Hurr durr I am super duper rebellious because I support the military-industrial complex 100% even though I believe in small government.
I've been on the bottom. I know what it's like. It's not fun, and that's why a flat tax simply doesn't work. Someone on the top might not miss $15M. But on the bottom of the scale, you sure will miss that 15% of your income, be sure of it.
It leads to gas chambers.
It's unbelievable that still people don't understand that identifying a group, especially if the identifyers are immutable, and attacking them, always ends up there.
It's utterly insane.
Do they not realise that the Nazis justified their attacks in exactly the same way as some are doing now?
You're priviledged, you're rich, you're this race, you're toxic/deseased, you carry original sin, ect., it's straight out of the Nazi playbook.
2. I feel the need for a strongly progressive tax system because the system, in the end after you get through the exemptions, deductions, and credits, doesn't flex enough, and the math of calculating the actual taxation once you arrive at the taxable amount is easy. We could add another 20 tax brackets at that point and it'd still be easy ("If you make $0-$1000, you pay .06*amount, if you make 1001, subtract 1001 from 1000, muliply by .08, and add 60", and so forth).
I say it doesn't flex enough, because the people at the top of the heap ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. If the top 2% is raking in 90% of the income, how is it FAIR that they are only paying ~60% of the taxes collected. I'm not sure at what point it IS fair, but I estimate the highest rate needs to go to about 75%-80% at upwards of $50 million dollars. The more rates, the better, because the more rates you have, the more tools you have to make taxation more equitable across the vast range of incomes.
There used to be 20-30 tax brackets, even 50 or more at times. Only with the first 3 years of the income tax (1913-1916), and since Reagan have there been less than 10 tax brackets. Adding another 5 brackets or so isn't going to blow people's brain fuses out from the extra calculation necessary.
Never forget, the rate is marginal, you don't pay a flat 36% on a million dollars. You pay 6% on the first 15k, 8% on the next 40k, 12% on the next 60k, whatever, until you pay 36% between 200k and 1M (numbers made up, but the 36% IIRC is the newest highest marginal rate). And as I said, it already does. And now it starts at about $12,000 under the new rules. Problem is, you get screwed royally if you try itemizing deductions unless you have a LOT of deductions that are NOT DOA.
Were priests considered inherently good? What became of THAT logic?
Your argument is that people at the top pay less than their fair share. I agree with that - despite the progressive tax bands the overall income tax system in the US is indeed regressive at the top end as a result of the complex system of exemptions and allowances. I think the solution to that is clear though: rather than make the system more complex by introducing further bands and trying to target exemptions better, get rid of all the exemptions. Everyone would then pay their fair share.
A $12,000 dollar nil rate band is not the same as a $30,000 or $40,000 one, e.g. in relation to the numbers of people that need to complete a tax return (even if they end up not owing any taxes). In my proposed system there would be no deductions, so you wouldn't need a tax adviser to work out what you owed.
Just to give an illustration that the figures for a flat rate tax system can stack up, I've done a quick Excel spreadsheet. The figures ignore the impact of exemptions and deductions, which will have a significant impact on the pattern of winners and losers. As said above I agree that at the moment the highest earners are paying rather less tax than the tax rates would suggest they should, so they would certainly lose more from a flat rate than suggested by these figures. The point though is just to illustrate that this isn't some sort of extreme suggestion. There are already plenty of tax specialists in the US calling for a major simplification of the current system.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/
"But the system starts to lose its progressivity at the very highest levels: In 2015, the effective rate peaked at 29.3% for taxpayers in the $2 million-to-under-$5 million group, then fell to 28.8% for the $5 million-to-under-$10 million group and 25.9% for those making $10 million or more."
These discussions can be continued in other threads.
-Site Staff