Tax The Poor: Forget Occupy Wall Street, Conservatives Have A Different Idea
157 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33062044]Just because you think it doesn't matter doesn't mean that you aren't saying they for deserve their money as much as a poor person.
And 250k is the democrat's number for "rich"[/QUOTE]
Shit son, I'm just gonna let you take this one.
(PROTIP: FUCKING RUN FROM THIS BOARD)
I like my plan better:
50% flat tax for people making less than 500k per year, 75% for 500k and up. 50% break for people with jobs, 75% for business owners. up to 6% break for having children at 3% per child.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065913]I like my plan better:
50% flat tax for people making less than one million per year, 75% for millionaires., 50% break for people with jobs, 75% for business owners. up to 6% break for having children at 3% per child.[/QUOTE]
I'm interested, but I'm having trouble understanding it.
Wait shit it changed when I quoted it, hang on.
Goddamnit it changed again.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33065905]Shit son, I'm just gonna let you take this one.
(PROTIP: FUCKING RUN FROM THIS BOARD)[/QUOTE]
The difference between you and SomeRandomGuy is that he doesn't consider people disagreeing with him to be a personal attack, also why he's able to post his views without much hoopla
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065913]I like my plan better:
50% flat tax for people making less than 500k per year, 75% for 500k and up. 50% break for people with jobs, 75% for business owners. up to 6% break for having children at 3% per child.[/QUOTE]
So a single person below the poverty line with no kids, under your plan, will be taxed at 25%, unless their source of income isn't from a job but from contract work, in which case he'll be taxed 50%.
lol
this is a bigger pile of regressive shit than Cain's 999 plan
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33064285]Um yea 250k is not that much to someone running a small business.[/QUOTE]uh wow have you ever owned a business in your life?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33065933]The difference between you and SomeRandomGuy is that he doesn't consider people disagreeing with him to be a personal attack, also why he's able to post his views without much hoopla[/QUOTE]
At least I get showered with less dumbs sometimes.
Regardless, we both need to just leave this board if we wanna argue.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33065933]So a single person below the poverty line with no kids, under your plan, will be taxed at 25%.
lol[/QUOTE]it's pretty easy to live off that sort of income.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
trust me I've done it
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065913]I like my plan better:
50% flat tax for people making less than 500k per year, 75% for 500k and up. 50% break for people with jobs, 75% for business owners. up to 6% break for having children at 3% per child.[/QUOTE]
I'm still having a hard time understanding. Examples?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065954]it's pretty easy to live off that sort of income.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
trust me I've done it[/QUOTE]
If someone is making below the poverty line they should be taxed 0%.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33065922]I'm interested, but I'm having trouble understanding it.
Wait shit it changed when I quoted it, hang on.
Goddamnit it changed again.[/QUOTE]I had revised the idea months ago but I originally put in my old numbers.
also I only changed it once fool
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065974]I had revised the idea months ago but I originally put in my old numbers.
also I only changed it once fool[/QUOTE]
Ahhh nope, you changed it twice. Once right before I quoted it, then once right afterwards.
First one was like... "50% flat tax, 50% break for those with jobs, 75% break for businesses, and up to 6% breaks for those with kids at 3% per kid." or something.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065974]I had revised the idea months ago but I originally put in my old numbers.
also I only changed it once fool[/QUOTE]
With your plan there's a HUGE gap where a millionaire business owner pays LESS than a lower class worker
Worker in poverty - pays 50% of 50% (because of the 50% reduction for having a job), or 25%
Millionaire business owner - pays 25% of 75% (because of the 75% reduction for owning a business), or 19%
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33065957]I'm still having a hard time understanding. Examples?[/QUOTE]
household with 3 children and a job pulling in 120,000 per year
they are taxed 60,000 to start with, but because of the job it's cut down to 30,000. another 6% gets cut off for 2 of the 3 kids, leaving the family paying 28,200 per year.
1 child household owns a business and making 750,000 per year
their taxes start at 562500 but their business cuts it down to 140625. another 3% is cut off for his kid, leaving the family paying 136406.25 per year.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33065999]With your plan there's a HUGE gap where a millionaire business owner pays LESS than a lower class worker
Worker in poverty - pays 50% of 50% (because of the 50% reduction for having a job), or 25%
Millionaire business owner - pays 25% of 75% (because of the 75% reduction for owning a business), or 19%[/QUOTE]the goal is to tax people living off fame or inheritance, the people that contribute to society pay less, the more you contribute, the less you pay.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33061917]They conned you out of your money. Successful business, and if you didn't see it coming that's your fault[/QUOTE]
sorry to burst your bubble mr. free market capitalist but that's called fraud and that's illegal
Nobody on Wall Street deserves the money that they get. Know why? They make their money off manipulating the market. They don't provide a good or service. They don't produce [I]anything[/I]. They do no service to society and for that reason deserve none of the income that they make.
Even then, how can you honestly say that the ratio between workload and annual income is anywhere near reasonable in comparison between a Wall Street exec and a construction worker?
to be fair taxes should really be decided on a case-by-case basis but there are so many people here that that would just be impossible
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066053]household with 3 children and a job pulling in 120,000 per year
they are taxed 60,000 to start with, but because of the job it's cut down to 30,000. another 6% gets cut off for 2 of the 3 kids, leaving the family paying 28,200 per year.
1 child household owns a business and making 750,000 per year
their taxes start at 562500 but their business cuts it down to 140625. another 3% is cut off for his kid, leaving the family paying 136406.25 per year.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
the goal is to tax people living off fame or inheritance, the people that contribute to society pay less, the more you contribute, the less you pay.[/QUOTE]
It... looks... tasty. Opinions from the rest of SH?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066053]
the goal is to tax people living off fame or inheritance, the people that contribute to society pay less, the more you contribute, the less you pay.[/QUOTE]
And in your opinion a struggling janitor contributes less than someone who owns a business selling farm equipment and deserves to be taxed higher as a punishment?
Your worldview is backwards and offensive
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066053]household with 3 children and a job pulling in 120,000 per year
they are taxed 60,000 to start with, but because of the job it's cut down to 30,000. another 6% gets cut off for 2 of the 3 kids, leaving the family paying 28,200 per year.
1 child household owns a business and making 750,000 per year
their taxes start at 562500 but their business cuts it down to 140625. another 3% is cut off for his kid, leaving the family paying 136406.25 per year.[/QUOTE]
Look at the actual percentages not the values, it's regressive
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33066109]And in your opinion a struggling janitor contributes less than someone who owns a business selling farm equipment and deserves to be taxed higher as a punishment?
Your worldview is backwards and offensive
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
Look at the actual percentages not the values, it's regressive[/QUOTE]
But he's basing it off of the values, not the percentages. Value wise, the business still pays more.
The idea is cool and all, but it seems to rely on us not needing so much fucking money from tax revenue. Unfortunately, we need a [I]lot.[/I]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33066106]It... looks... tasty. Opinions from the rest of SH?[/QUOTE]
Run the numbers. The family of three is paying 23.5%. The other family is paying 18.1%. It's disgusting. Richer people should absolutely not pay less tax.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33066144]But he's basing it off of the values, not the percentages. Value wise, the business still pays more.[/QUOTE]
That's not how things fucking work lol
In his scenario, the family making less money is being taxed more.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33065899]If the owner of a small business is able to take home 250k a year cash after all operating expenses, he is doing [b]very[/b] well for himself.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lalelalala;33065479]No one said anything about any business? Or did I miss something Nikota said? I gathered he was talking about private income.[/QUOTE]
If you own a small business then profit is private income whether it has to go back into the business or not. At least that is my understanding.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33065946]uh wow have you ever owned a business in your life?[/QUOTE]
Have you?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33066148]Run the numbers. The family of three is paying 23.5%. The other family is paying 18.1%. It's disgusting. Richer people should absolutely not pay less tax.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
That's not how things fucking work lol
In his scenario, the family making less money is being taxed more.[/QUOTE]but the rich people that are just rich (aka congress, movie stars, high-level almost CEO type businessmen, etc.) are paying almost 40%
lmao no the effective tax rate for the rich is much lower than 40%
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33066196]If you own a small business then profit is private income whether it has to go back into the business or not. At least that is my understanding.[/QUOTE]
I know here you can write off business operating expenses which results in an income tax deduction
I highly doubt you can't do that in the US
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33066196]If you own a small business then profit is private income whether it has to go back into the business or not. At least that is my understanding.
Have you?[/QUOTE]
I own a quarter of a local bakery. it's not my own business per se but it's close enough that I have more authority than you do on the subject
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lazor;33066207]lmao no the effective tax rate for the rich is much lower than 40%[/QUOTE]I mean on my system
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066200]but the rich people that are just rich (aka congress, movie stars, high-level almost CEO type businessmen, etc.) are paying almost 40%[/QUOTE]
Can you please stop talking about economics
You came up with a tax plan where someone making 120k pays a quarter of their income and someone making 750k pays less than a fifth
you have no idea about anything related to money
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066200]but the rich people that are just rich (aka congress, movie stars, high-level almost CEO type businessmen, etc.) are paying almost 40%[/QUOTE]
That's the tax rate. When you look at taxes, to see real numbers you have to look at "effective tax rate". Effective tax rate is how much a person pays in actuality, versus their supposed rate.
For example Warren Buffet made $62 million last year. Most of that money should be taxed at 35% since it is greater than $375,000. However, he says he effectively paid 17%.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33066224]Can you please stop talking about economics
You came up with a tax plan where someone making 120k pays a quarter of their income and someone making 750k pays less than a fifth
you have no idea about anything related to money[/QUOTE]no, a business owner making 750k pays a fifth. they'd be paying more than a third if they were in the same position as the person making 120k
and likewise, if the person making 120k was a business owner he'd be paying such a small number that it wouldn't even be worth mentioning
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33066240]That's the tax rate. When you look at taxes, to see real numbers you have to look at "effective tax rate". Effective tax rate is how much a person pays in actuality, versus their supposed rate.
For example Warren Buffet made $62 million last year. Most of that money should be taxed at 35% since it is greater than $375,000. However, he says he effectively paid 17%.[/QUOTE]
no effective would be 40%, actual rate would be 75%
[quote]no, a business owner making 750k pays a fifth. they'd be paying more than a third if they were in the same position as the person making 120k
and likewise, if the person making 120k was a business owner he'd be paying such a small number that it wouldn't even be worth mentioning
[/quote]
you act as if you just cleared up all the problems with your tax plan but it's still regressive and awful
[QUOTE=Lazor;33066293]you act as if you just cleared up all the problems with your tax plan but it's still regressive and awful[/QUOTE]I never said it fixed everything but I think it would certainly be better than whats in place now
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066257]
no effective would be 40%, actual rate would be 75%[/QUOTE]
Um no it wouldn't be?
Actual rate is 35% and effective rate is 17%.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.