Huckabee's fair tax

Superfreak said:
Tell me chap... just how does that increase taxes on those making under $100k? Since you are in agreement with the resident idiot. Do the math.

The resident idiot is trying to spin this into something it is not. Social Security etc... are paid in the same manner regardless of the method of income taxation. No one is changing anything there. Thus no increase.

Now if someone is making $30k under my proposal they pay NO federal income tax. Is that more or less than the current system? Same for couples earning $60k. How many couples making $60 or less pay NO taxes under the current system?

Now extend out.... If an individual makes $50k. The first $30k is free of federal income tax. The remaining gets taxed at 20%. An individual making $50k would thus pay $4k in taxes. An effective tax rate of 8%. Assume that same person under the current tax code paid at 10% on everything above the standard deduction.... they would pay $4200 in federal taxes. Which is slightly HIGHER than the flat tax.

The low income families would be protected. The lower middle income families would also see little change.
Click to expand...

Big income families would see a BIG change...

Except for those that make most of their income off of capital gains. Since I assume you want to appeal that tax, Warren Buffet and the like won't have to pay taxes.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, the higher cost of living areas will be more adversely effected and the lower cost of living areas will receive more benefit. That is the same as our current tax system and does not change.

But say you have a couple in MA making $150k. They would then pay taxes on $90k. Their taxes under my proposal would thus be $18k. Which is an effective tax rate of.... 12%. I seriously doubt they are able to come up with an effective rate that is lower than that under the current system.
Click to expand...

I know it would be a lot easier to start a business in Mississippi than in Massachusettes. You wouldn't pay as much in cost of living, you'd pay a LOT less in taxes, you could pay your workers less, they couldn't unionize, and you'd get all the top notch graduates from Mississippi universities that snobby people in Massachussettes refuse to hire because they're from Mississippi. At very low wages.
 
A true flat tax is not progressive percentage wise.

But then those darned percentages are worn out from being used to spin figures.

I do not even support a standard deduction. all income is taxed the same , period.

regardless if investment or earned income from wages.
 
Watermark said:
Big income families would see a BIG change...

Except for those that make most of their income off of capital gains. Since I assume you want to appeal that tax, Warren Buffet and the like won't have to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote water... I said ALL sources of income would be taxed at the same rate. I even stated specifically that it would include capital gains, dividend income and earned income.
 
Superfreak said:
How are they regressive Water? If you have a standard deduction as I presented, they are most definitely NOT regressive, nor are they hard to collect.
Click to expand...

SF, just think about it. Everyone can't be paying less taxes. The rich are paying about 1/3rd as much income in taxes under this system, 36% to 22%, and they currently pay more than 50% of all the taxes. Where do you think that is going to have to be made up?
 
Superfreak said:
Read what I wrote water... I said ALL sources of income would be taxed at the same rate. I even stated specifically that it would include capital gains, dividend income and earned income.
Click to expand...

One reason I like Consumption taxes is that it taxes capital gains with out having to go through all the messiness of double taxation (through taxing both business and capital gains).
 
Watermark said:
SF, just think about it. Everyone can't be paying less taxes. The rich are paying about half as much income in taxes, and they currently pay more than 50% of all the taxes. Where do you think that is going to have to be made up?
Click to expand...

I never said everyone would be paying less water. Quit acting like Cypress. Please explain what your attempt at discussing the wealthy was supposed to say. Yes, the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes and they make the bulk of the income when you look at it in terms of dollars. What is your point?
 
Watermark said:
One reason I like Consumption taxes is that it taxes capital gains with out having to go through all the messiness of double taxation (through taxing both business and capital gains).
Click to expand...

And only capital gains and corps are taxed that way ? I wonder how many times a dollar is taxed in it's flow thru the system.
 
Watermark said:
SF, just think about it. Everyone can't be paying less taxes. The rich are paying about 1/3rd as much income in taxes under this system, 36% to 22%, and they currently pay more than 50% of all the taxes. Where do you think that is going to have to be made up?
Click to expand...

Since you changed this.... let me rephrase my response to you. The current tax brackets are a sham. Because of the loopholes and deductions that are allowed under our current system coupled with the lower taxes on capital gains results in most of the wealthy paying effective tax rates lower than 20%.
 
Superfreak said:
Since you changed this.... let me rephrase my response to you. The current tax brackets are a sham. Because of the loopholes and deductions that are allowed under our current system coupled with the lower taxes on capital gains results in most of the wealthy paying effective tax rates lower than 20%.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are too many stupid loopholes. I'm amazed at how bad the tax system is, honestly. I couldn't design anything more idiotic if I tried.

Hey Chap:

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/cost...MS&toStateMenu=MA&to_city=Boston+MA&x=39&y=10
 
Superfreak said:
Since you changed this.... let me rephrase my response to you. The current tax brackets are a sham. Because of the loopholes and deductions that are allowed under our current system coupled with the lower taxes on capital gains results in most of the wealthy paying effective tax rates lower than 20%.
Click to expand...


I wonder what percent they'll pay with a consumption tax?
 
Watermark said:
I agree, there are too many stupid loopholes. I'm amazed at how bad the tax system is, honestly. I couldn't design anything more idiotic if I tried.

Hey Chap:

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/cost...MS&toStateMenu=MA&to_city=Boston+MA&x=39&y=10
Click to expand...

If you agree then you should realize that a flat tax with nothing other than a standard deduction is not regressive. The effective rate would start at zero and work its way towards 20%. Which means the more you make, the closer to the 20% you get. That is progressive.

As I also stated, if you want to add a bracket for income over $5mm adjusted for inflation, I would not have a problem with that either as it would tend to generate the money needed to pay down the debt.
 
Superfreak said:
If you agree then you should realize that a flat tax with nothing other than a standard deduction is not regressive. The effective rate would start at zero and work its way towards 20%. Which means the more you make, the closer to the 20% you get. That is progressive.

As I also stated, if you want to add a bracket for income over $5mm adjusted for inflation, I would not have a problem with that either as it would tend to generate the money needed to pay down the debt.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. I've usually preferred the consumption tax but either seems good in comparison to the current system.
 
Does taking away 30% of everyone's income sound like a good idea to you?

ZOMG fear fear fear people! We must keep the complicated and flawed system and there is no other choice! FEAR!
 
Idiots in Shitheaps article said:
Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income
Click to expand...

The article pretty much makes a joke of itself after this point. Trying to defend the income tax by talking about how intrusive it is to track income? Wow. That's an amazing logical leap.
 
The current system is a bonaza for us accountants, that and it's skewed to the wealthy have me voting to keep it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top