Tax The Poor: Forget Occupy Wall Street, Conservatives Have A Different Idea
157 replies, posted
[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]
I see that. Precentage wise, this is true. I'm saying this could work if we didn't need so much money from tax revenue.
If we "flat tax", we potentially hurt the lower incomes and help the higher ones and increase the income gap, and we end up with a revolution.
If we "progressive tax", we have to be careful about the ratios. Too little and whats the point, too much and we're punishing the successful for being successful.
If we "regressive tax", we still have to be careful about ratios, but then we still punish the lower incomes because they weren't successful, especially with the wrong ratios, income gap increases, and we end up with a revolution.
If we "fair tax", then it allows people to be in more control over their tax burden, but things need to be designed in such a way that the minimum that people need doesn't eat one's entire check. The issue with this though is even in that case, a rich person doesn't necessarily consume more, so its almost like a flat tax with flexibility depending on one's consumption.
looking at that, we need to do a progressive tax in order to keep people happy and keep from running out of money as a country. We need a ratio that at least has some contribution from everyone, but those with extra should front a little bit more just because its there. At the same time though, we need to stop giving as much money to people simply because they're "low income" and more importantly than that, we need to stop spending so much on stupid shit that isn't needed to run a government. The prices of things need to be designed in such a way that people can still get what they need. Simplifying things to this degree must also simplify business related taxes so that they can produce goods at that price. The means of business needs to be over here in the US so that less money is leaving the country and we can generate more revenue around the system and keep it in [I]our[/I] system.
As for fixing our budget problem, I do believe Mr Buffet said it pretty well.
[img]http://www.allproudamericans.com/Warren-Buffett-Slams-Congress-on-the-Deficit.jpg[/img]
Reading this thread, I think we need to restate [I]facts[/I] to remind uninformed persons why this tax debate started, namely on things like what people are paying for taxes now.
If I remember my history correctly, the French Revolution was caused when the ultra-rich 1% of the population placed heavier and heavier taxes on the impovershed majority.
We're not there yet, but we do seem to be heading down that path.
[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]
Where do you draw the line for small businesses? In Sweden you can sign a company with, uhm, limited liability (or whatever it's called in English) for about 8k$ which isn't much. And even so what does small businesses have to do with anything? We're talking about the income you can spend (before taxes I assume) like you have a small business where you take out 250k$ each year as salary.
Why are you making it complicated?
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;33066342]If I remember my history correctly, the French Revolution was caused when the ultra-rich 1% of the population placed heavier and heavier taxes on the impovershed majority.
We're not there yet, but we do seem to be heading down that path.[/QUOTE]
If the Conservative party fulfills all of their wishes, which includes quelling nonviolent protesting, there's going to be some kind of violent revolution without any kind of question.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33066317]Um no it wouldn't be?
Actual rate is 35% and effective rate is 17%.[/QUOTE]
again I meant in my system
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;33066359]If the Conservative party fulfills their wishes, there's going to be some kind of violent revolution without any kind of question.[/QUOTE]
I hope that if it comes to that, the situation can be resolved without too much violence.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;33066359]If the Conservative party fulfills all of their wishes, which includes quelling nonviolent protesting, there's going to be some kind of violent revolution without any kind of question.[/QUOTE]
conservative isn't a party bro
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066385]conservative isn't a party bro[/QUOTE]
I'm a silly Australian, we actually have a Conservative party, I assumed it was the same for you folks.
Replace "Conservative party" with "Republican party" for the sake of clarity.
It's not even necessarily the republican party that wants it. Republican fiscal conservatives is the term you're looking for.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
actually if anything it's just the greedy rich that want it.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066417]It's not even necessarily the republican party that wants it. Republican fiscal conservatives is the term you're looking for.[/QUOTE]
nuance
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33066318]
If we "flat tax", we potentially hurt the lower incomes and help the higher ones and increase the income gap, and we end up with a revolution.
If we "progressive tax", we have to be careful about the ratios. Too little and whats the point, too much and we're punishing the successful for being successful.
If we "regressive tax", we still have to be careful about ratios, but then we still punish the lower incomes because they weren't successful, especially with the wrong ratios, income gap increases, and we end up with a revolution.
If we "fair tax", then it allows people to be in more control over their tax burden, but things need to be designed in such a way that the minimum that people need doesn't eat one's entire check. The issue with this though is even in that case, a rich person doesn't necessarily consume more, so its almost like a flat tax with flexibility depending on one's consumption.[/QUOTE]
All you have to do is look at the most successful countries in terms of economy and standard of living and notice that they're all using progressive income tax systems
So we should all be copying that
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33066450]All you have to do is look at the most successful countries in terms of economy and standard of living and notice that they're all using progressive income tax systems
So we should all be copying that[/QUOTE]
And now we just need congress to pass that.
Well shit.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066417]It's not even necessarily the republican party that wants it. Republican fiscal conservatives is the term you're looking for.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
actually if anything it's just the greedy rich that want it.[/QUOTE]
the republican party isn't some loosely defined group. it's got official party stances. those official party stances are fiscally conservative.
[QUOTE=Lazor;33066474]the republican party isn't some loosely defined group. it's got official party stances. those official party stances are fiscally conservative.[/QUOTE]
Which is a stupid ass system, the whole idea of "voting on party lines" doesn't help anybody, all it does is create that idiotic "team" attitude that seems to be dominating our politics right now and stopping anything productive from getting done. Everybody's too concerned about the Democrats' view or the Republicans' view and getting re-elected to get off their fat asses and work together to achieve anything important.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33066461]And now we just need congress to pass that.
Well shit.[/QUOTE]
But America already has a progressive tax system.
Adjust the brackets to increase revenue and close loopholes, and you're done.
Combine with an overhaul of healthcare to make it more efficient (if other countries can have universal healthcare with lower per capita cost then you can too), and maybe some defense budget cuts (definitely halt unnecessary wars)
no more deficit
[QUOTE=Lazor;33066474]the republican party isn't some loosely defined group. it's got official party stances. those official party stances are fiscally conservative.[/QUOTE]
fiscal conservatism is not required to be republican
If the GOP assholes really love this country, they'd put their wallets where their mouths are. Let's also not forget that in the 1950's taxes on the top earners were high 70's +, and today's rich are MUCH better off than those of the 50's.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066552]fiscal conservatism is not required to be republican[/QUOTE]
Fiscal conservatism isn't required to label yourself a republican but if you want to be one of their politicians you better fall in line with the party principles
and that is a big part of the problem
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066760]and that is a big part of the problem[/QUOTE]
the problem is their principles themselves, not the fact that they have some
if actual republicans and not hyperextremist barry goldwater turned up to 11 (and the democrat's equivalent) were in office we might get some work done.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33066771]if actual republicans and not hyperextremist barry goldwater turned up to 11 (and the democrat's equivalent) were in office we might get some work done.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, probably, since Obama and the democrats just keep introducing republican bills to congress and they refuse them anyway
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33065905](PROTIP: FUCKING RUN FROM THIS BOARD)[/QUOTE]
Or just use common sense.
[quote]
"A majority of American households paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada. [b]No income tax was paid by 51 percent of the households in America in 2009[/b]," Cornyn said with derision in a Senate floor speech.
[/quote]
What? Horse shit, either someone wasn't crunching numbers right or an idiot got work as a bureaucrat.