NationStates Jolt Archive

American Income Tax:
* 10%: from $0 to $7,150
* 15%: from $7,151 to $29,050
* 25%: from $29,051 to $70,350
* 28%: from $70,351 to $146,750
* 33%: from $146,751 to $319,100
* 35%: $319,101 and above

Serapindal Income Tax:

* 15%: from $0 to $10,000
* 18%: from $10,000 to $30,000
* 21%: from $30,000 to $75,000
* 24%: from $75,000 to $150,000
* 27%: from $150,000 to $350,000
* 30%: from $350,000 to 500,000
* 33%: from $500,000 to $1,000,000
* 36%: from $1,000,000 and above

RATE!

looks fair enough :)

well, actually...it's kind of rough on the poor

I wouldn't make people pay it who can't afford to live decently :/

It's a little hard for us to rate without demographics or budget info or any kind of fiscal information.

I, anyway, favour a flat tax. So I doubt this'd be getting high marks.

It's a little hard for us to rate without demographics or budget info or any kind of fiscal information.

I, anyway, favour a flat tax. So I doubt this'd be getting high marks.

I like the idea of a flat tax, too, but whenever you have very wealthy people, you've got to try and milk them a bit more

not so much that it removes much of the benefit of being rich, but enough to make them pay a bit more than their share

1 being the worst, 10 being the best, right?

1 being the worst, 10 being the best, right?

Yup!

Sorry, not feeling it, bro. I see a tax and spend nightmare producing a bloated, authoritarian government with a hefty heap of corruption to boot.

In other words, it wouldn't be that different than our current system.

...Not really.

I'd support something more along the lines of

0% - $0 - $25,000
5% - $25,000 - $55,000
8% - $55,000 - $80,000
12% - $80,000 - $200,000
15% - $200,000 - $500,000
20% - $500,000+

with the absolute maximum income tax being 20%, I don't think too much higher than that is very good. If the government needs more money it can just enforce jaywalking rules, raise sales tax, increase tariffs etc.

I don't agree, I agree with a flat rate tax of under 5%, just to provide the basic neccesities to people who really need them. ie. the ill and to an extent the elderly.

...Not really.

I'd support something more along the lines of

0% - $0 - $25,000
5% - $25,000 - $55,000
8% - $55,000 - $80,000
12% - $80,000 - $200,000
15% - $200,000 - $500,000
20% - $500,000+

with the absolute maximum income tax being 20%, I don't think too much higher than that is very good. If the government needs more money it can just enforce jaywalking rules, raise sales tax, increase tariffs etc.

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?!

*cocks guns*

*is shot while cocking gun*

:p

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?!

*cocks guns*

*is shot while cocking gun*

:p
I said... hey, look behind you! *Runs*

I think income tax should work like this:

0%: from $0 to $28,000

with an increase of 5% for every $10,000 after that this will of course be affected by how many kids you have etc

mind you I've never been to good at math but you get the picturee

I would argue for exempting from income tax any earnings under £8,000 or so. I think that's approximately $15,000. Earnings above this level would be subject to a progressive scale of up to no more than 50% (if the economy is thriving, then there would be less need for such a high rate).

Your scale is, on balance, inferior to that currently adopted in the US, I would say.

In addition, I would have no sales taxes at all.

I think income tax should work like this:

0%: from $0 to $28,000

with an increase of 5% for every $10,000 after that this will of course be affected by how many kids you have etc

mind you I've never been to good at math but you get the picturee

Are you crazy?

Someone with $210,000 would have a 100% income tax/communism.

I think income tax should work like this:

0%: from $0 to $28,000

with an increase of 5% for every $10,000 after that this will of course be affected by how many kids you have etc

mind you I've never been to good at math but you get the picturee
So you're paying a 110% income tax by the time you make $248,000 a year.

Very interesting. :D

...Not really.

I'd support something more along the lines of

0% - $0 - $25,000
5% - $25,000 - $55,000
8% - $55,000 - $80,000
12% - $80,000 - $200,000
15% - $200,000 - $500,000
20% - $500,000+

with the absolute maximum income tax being 20%, I don't think too much higher than that is very good. If the government needs more money it can just enforce jaywalking rules, raise sales tax, increase tariffs etc.

I like your plan better.

Tariffs GOOD!

I like your plan better.

Tariffs GOOD!
Yay! ;)

Much too rough on the rich. 36% for 1,000,000$+? that's ridiculous, if i earn those one million dollars i deserve to keep every single last one of them. I should nto be forced to pay for poor people. Nobody should pay anything other than a fixed tax rate.


I support:


10% INCOME TAX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAKE....

10% for 0$ to ∞$

500% tax for anything under 0$ income.


TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!


EDIT: Also, you should only be allowed a maximum deduction of 1% for every 100,000$ yearly income,

MAX DEDUCTIONS ( eg: you get 1,000,000$ per year you are taxed 100,000$ (10%) and you can deduct up to a max of 100,000$):

0% ----------------> 0-99,999$
1% ----------------> 100,000$-199,999$
2% ----------------> 200,000$-299,999$
3% ----------------> 300,000$-399,999$
4% ----------------> 400,000$-499,999$
5% ----------------> 500,000$-599,999$
6% ----------------> 600,000$-699,999$
7% ----------------> 700,000$-799,999$
8% ----------------> 800,000$-899,999$
9% ----------------> 900,000$-999,999$
10% ------------------> 1,000,000$+

Much too rough on the rich. 36% for 1,000,000$+? that's ridiculous, if i earn those one million dollars i deserve to keep every single last one of them. I should nto be forced to pay for poor people. Some people deserve to be poor and deserve no help from me. Nobody should pay anything other than a fixed tax rate.
People deserve to be poor? Explain that!

Staggared income tax - that is, you're taxed 0% on the first 10,000, 5% on the next 20 thousand, etc.

Single:
0% $0-$10,000
5% $10,001-$30,000
10% $30,001-$40,000
15% $40,001-$60,000
20% $60,000-$80,000
30% $80,000-upwards

I, anyway, favour a flat tax. So I doubt this'd be getting high marks.
Yeah, same here. Flat tax is a lot more simpler than a progressive tax

I give it a three. It's on the board because it's progressive, but it's only a 3 because it increases taxes on the poor while lowering them on the rich.

Much too rough on the rich. 36% for 1,000,000$+? that's ridiculous, if i earn those one million dollars i deserve to keep every single last one of them. I should nto be forced to pay for poor people. Some people deserve to be poor and deserve no help from me. Nobody should pay anything other than a fixed tax rate.


I support:


10% INCOME TAX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAKE....

10% for 0$ to ∞$

500% tax for anything under 0$ income.


TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!


EDIT: Also, you should only be allowed a maximum deduction of 1% for every 100,000$ yearly income,

MAX DEDUCTIONS:

0% ----------------> 0-99,999$
1% ----------------> 100,000$-199,999$
2% ----------------> 200,000$-299,999$
3% ----------------> 300,000$-399,999$
4% ----------------> 400,000$-499,999$
5% ----------------> 500,000$-599,999$
6% ----------------> 600,000$-699,999$
7% ----------------> 700,000$-799,999$
8% ----------------> 800,000$-899,999$
9% ----------------> 900,000$-999,999$
10% ------------------> 1,000,000$+
38% isn't ridiculous. Especially on 1 mil+ incomes.

Your deduction plan, on the other hand, is ridiculous, as you're allowing the rich to completely deduct their taxes.

I think my Tax Plan could be voted in.

It VERY marginally lowers it for the rich, keeps it the same for the VERY rich, and it lowers it a good deal for the middle class.

It's perfect!

And poor people can't vote anyways, so it'll pass. Bwahaha.

38% isn't ridiculous. Especially on 1 mil+ incomes.

Your deduction plan, on the other hand, is ridiculous, as you're allowing the rich to completely deduct their taxes.


I know.
It's ridiculous from your point of view, not from mine though, i see having to pay no taxes on a 1,000,000$ income is very reasonable.... especially since my family is on that mark.....LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!!!


People deserve to be poor? Explain that!

I got a bit carried away..ignore that remark...









(Wow, 2 responses, jesus christ people, look at my nations name and at what party i am in for NS....I WROTE IT TO MAKE FUN OF CAPITALISM!!!!!

In reality i personally support a tax system as the one in place in Luxembourg....rofl


you really should get informed before getting angry...)

I know.
It's ridiculous from your point of view, not from mine though, i see having to pay no taxes on a 1,000,000$ income is very reasonable.... especially since my family is on that mark.....LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!!!




I got a bit carried away..ignore that remark...









(Wow, 2 responses, jesus christ people, look at my nations name and at what party i am in for NS....I WROTE IT TO MAKE FUN OF CAPITALISM!!!!!

In reality i personally support a tax system as the one in place in Luxembourg....rofl


you really should get informed before getting angry...)
Americans are immune to sarcasm. We get innoculations against it every year, much like the British get shots against humor (except eddie izzard)

I give it a three. It's on the board because it's progressive, but it's only a 3 because it increases taxes on the poor while lowering them on the rich.

That was exactly my rating and rationale. Great minds think alike! ;)

I'm usually in favor of flat tax (or better yet zero tax), but if I had to have a progressive tax system it would look like this:

~20% for people making less than $100,000 a year.
~5% for people making more than $100,000 a year.

Yes you read that right. I would tax rich people less than poor and middle class people. Why? So that wealthy people would have incentive to move to my country. My country would have lots of rich people, and the taxes my government would get from them (even at a 5% rate) would be huge. Gradually the 20% rate for those making less than a hundred grand a year could be brought down to 5%. After that the tax rate would remain flat and would be lowered as far as it could go without jeopardizing the government's responsibility to provide a military and a police force.

With any taxation system, people will pay it up to the point where it's convenient to do so. When taxes become high enough and income becomes high enough, it's more economical to find ways to avoid taxes than to pay them.

Peacetime is not a good time to raise taxes. If you want to have taxes raised and have reasonable expectations of people paying them, get involved in a war and then raise taxes, that way one can exploit nationalism as a reason to pay taxes.

Since I oppose any and all forms of income tax, I had to pick 1. Sorry, nothing personal. :(

American tax system is better. I gave you a 1.

Maybe the whole idea of taxation is flawed. Considering that taxes are used to support public services, maybe people should be billed instead of taxed. That way, you can make as much money as you like and the government gets their income.

So it's true...being a moderate in anything makes both sides hate you.
>_> >_< <_<

Reduce each number by 10 and it's perfect.

I was very merciful in my decision.

My father earns (converted to USD) around $110k, and pays 40% tax.

I earn $36k (just graduated, heh) and pay 22% tax.

And you know what, I think that's quite fair, here in the socialist UK. It's not as high as in some European countries, and we do get a reasonable level of public service for our money. My university education, for example, was free (well, what's £1000 per year?), and so is my healthcare.

I do feel however, that if people are earning over $200k, they should pay 50% income tax. There does need to be an additional bracket. And tax loopholes for the very rich should be closed.

My ideal tax system...

3 Parts

Income is taxed at a flat rate.
Everyone gets a Universal Basic Income at $x.
Families get supplementary children benefits.

With that we can abolish all other forms of welfare.

Ok here is the one thing that pisses me off whenever anyone talks about taxes. The Rich and the Poor. Who exactly are these people? At what income levels do you magically become poor or rich. And by what standard? Right now I make about $35k USD. Now in Mexico or several central African countries I am very rich. By some European standards I'm probably poor. I hear tax the rich more and the poor less, but noone ever defines them.

More when there are replies

Ok here is the one thing that pisses me off whenever anyone talks about taxes. The Rich and the Poor. Who exactly are these people? At what income levels do you magically become poor or rich. And by what standard? Right now I make about $35k USD. Now in Mexico or several central African countries I am very rich. By some European standards I'm probably poor. I hear tax the rich more and the poor less, but noone ever defines them.
I make about the same as you, and I have to say, my standard of living is goood, even in Western Europe. I'm not rich. But hell no, I'm not poor.

American Income Tax:
* 10%: from $0 to $7,150
* 15%: from $7,151 to $29,050
* 25%: from $29,051 to $70,350
* 28%: from $70,351 to $146,750
* 33%: from $146,751 to $319,100
* 35%: $319,101 and above

Serapindal Income Tax:

* 15%: from $0 to $10,000
* 18%: from $10,000 to $30,000
* 21%: from $30,000 to $75,000
* 24%: from $75,000 to $150,000
* 27%: from $150,000 to $350,000
* 30%: from $350,000 to 500,000
* 33%: from $500,000 to $1,000,000
* 36%: from $1,000,000 and above

RATE!
Don't know why people are so in love with progressive taxation. Or income taxation, either. The consumption tax, as described at www.fairtax.org is such a better method of taxation, anyway.

I, anyway, favour a flat tax. Same here. A flat tax of 100%, that is.

Anyway, I gave yout system a 2. It's nowhere near equality of income, and is worse than the U.S. system, but at least it's a progressive tax system. (As opposed to a regressive system or a flat tax of something other than 100%.)

Don't know why people are so in love with progressive taxation. Or income taxation, either. The consumption tax, as described at www.fairtax.org is such a better method of taxation, anyway.
The fair tax system is preferable than a simple system of sales taxation, but is nonetheless worse than income taxation. If anything, sales taxes should be eliminated, and income and property taxes raised.

The fair tax system is preferable than a simple system of sales taxation, but is nonetheless worse than income taxation. If anything, sales taxes should be eliminated, and income and property taxes raised.
Consumption taxes are by their very nature a regressive tax. They hit those who spend a larger percentage of their income far harder then those who can more afford it (and have large amounts of assets that aren't subject to taxation under a consumption tax).

I would have given it a zero if that option was available. I'm a staunch supporter of no income tax, and higher tariffs. (but would support free trade if it was in my nations interests)

Consumption taxes are by their very nature a regressive tax. They hit those who spend a larger percentage of their income far harder then those who can more afford it (and have large amounts of assets that aren't subject to taxation under a consumption tax).
Exactly. Which is why the fair tax system sucks (it's regressive), but a regular system of sales taxes are even worse.

Same here. A flat tax of 100%, that is.

Anyway, I gave yout system a 2. It's nowhere near equality of income, and is worse than the U.S. system, but at least it's a progressive tax system. (As opposed to a regressive system or a flat tax of something other than 100%.)

If you're going to take everything I make what incentive do I have to actually go out and earn anything?

If you're going to take everything I make what incentive do I have to actually go out and earn anything?
That would depend upon the actual structure of the society in which you're living. I would continue this topic, but don't want to hijack this particular thread. So I direct you to the "Marxists: Until the Revolution, Which Form of Government Works Best?" and "A Memorial For the Victims of Capitalism" threads.

The fair tax system is preferable than a simple system of sales taxation, but is nonetheless worse than income taxation. If anything, sales taxes should be eliminated, and income and property taxes raised.

Why? A sales tax would generate MORE revenue than an Income tax, or at the very least from more sources. Income tax only affects those actually earning an income. If I put away say a million dollars and then quit my job, living only off the savings, I would have no income and thus pay no taxes, even though I am "rich". For that matter since welfare is based only on income I would be elegilbe for many forms of income. With sales taxes revenue is generated from not only workers, but from black market sources (they have to buy food and clothes too) and tourists.


Consumption taxes are by their very nature a regressive tax. They hit those who spend a larger percentage of their income far harder then those who can more afford it (and have large amounts of assets that aren't subject to taxation under a consumption tax).
You are correct that a plain straight up consumption tax would be regressive. However the Fair Tax plan eliminates that by providing in its structure a prebate for the amount of tax requilred for the necessaties of life.

For example, let's assume that poverty level (i.e. the minumum amount of income required to provide for the basic necessities of life) is $10,000 a year for a single person (this number is for example purposes only and not to be take as a working number). The current proposal is figuring on 23% sales tax. That means that someone AT the poverty level is going to have to pay an ADDITIONAL $2,300 in taxes at the sales registar (looking at no other taxes). Each month the government would provide each single person $191.67 ($2,300 divided by 12 months). That covers their taxes for the necessaties of life. This prebate is given to EVERYONE, regardless of income, from Joe Blow to Bill Gates. Even if you make less than $10,000 a year you still get the full $2,300 prebate. Thus anyone at the poverty level pays absolutly NO taxes out of their pocket. Anyone making less than the poverty level will actually get more prebate then they would spend (sort of an equilivant of the EIC). For each additional person in the household the poverty level goes up and the prebate rises accordingly. Thus the Fair Tax s no longer regressive since the "poor" no longer pay any tax.

Why? A sales tax would generate MORE revenue than an Income tax, or at the very least from more sources. Whether or not it creates more revenue or not isn't my issue. The maximum tax that someone could possibly pay is 23%. However, with current income taxes, there are brackets with people who have to pay more than 23%. This means either that the tax burden is shifted further onto the poor, or that government spending is cut. While there are certain areas where spending should be cut, overall spending shouldn't be.

Income tax only affects those actually earning an income. And sales taxes only affect people who buy things. The people who are more likely to not buy things are the rich.

If I put away say a million dollars and then quit my job, living only off the savings, I would have no income and thus pay no taxes, even though I am "rich". Interest from savings is taxable income.
But actually this brings me to my other point. With the "fair" tax, you essentially turn banks into tax shelters. The rich are more likely to put their money into banks, and therefore are more likely to exploit this loophole.

I support a flat tax, or at the least a progressive tax with two brackets. Very poor, and everyone else. But I give your tax scheme a 3, for effort.

Sort of off topic, but one thing that I find helpful to keep in mind is that, as taxes are increased, it does not always mean you get more money. Many players in NS need to keep this in mind. 100% tax doesn't equal 100% of GDP going to your budget. Even if you redstribute it, you will lose money. It costs money to print money, ship it around, etc. Electronic systems, I'd have to imagine, also require money. And even with redistribution, some people are going to avoid taxes, move to the black market, etc.

Melaxicus-Gothonius, Pitius, Superious, YellowComet=coolest voters.

Whether or not it creates more revenue or not isn't my issue. The maximum tax that someone could possibly pay is 23%. However, with current income taxes, there are brackets with people who have to pay more than 23%. This means either that the tax burden is shifted further onto the poor, or that government spending is cut. While there are certain areas where spending should be cut, overall spending shouldn't be.

I address this with the Prebate portion of the Fair Tax, and even acknowledged that a straigh Sales tax would be regressive

And sales taxes only affect people who buy things. The people who are more likely to not buy things are the rich.

And where are you from? I am constantly hearing complaints about how much more stuff, in addition to money that "rich" people have. And even then I have to then divide the "rich" : Those who have gotten rich because they have earned that money through hard work, and careful savings and planning, and those who recieve it, either through inheritance or the lotteries.

That latter group blows right through that money. More lottery winners are back to their previous levels within 10 years of winning than invest their winnings wisely. More sales tax there. In addition, the former group still does tend to buy more items and more expensive items than the "poor" do. Heck look at all parties the political people throw that aren't even for campaining.

Yes there are plenty of rich people who are putting savings away and investing it. But they are also the ones creating jobs. When was the last time you heard of poor person creating a job. And when a poor person does do something good and bulids a business from that he or she tends to move into the "rich" catagory, assuming the business doesn't fail.

Interest from savings is taxable income.
But actually this brings me to my other point. With the "fair" tax, you essentially turn banks into tax shelters. The rich are more likely to put their money into banks, and therefore are more likely to exploit this loophole.

With no income taxes on my savings and investing I now have more incentive to save. If I'm barely making ends meet why bother to save any money if I am going to have part of it removed? Granted you can only give the incentive for a person to save. If they won't do it then THEY are at fault for not looking out for their future.

I address this with the Prebate portion of the Fair Tax, and even acknowledged that a straigh Sales tax would be regressiveGood, agreed.


And where are you from? I am constantly hearing complaints about how much more stuff, in addition to money that "rich" people have. And even then I have to then divide the "rich" : Those who have gotten rich because they have earned that money through hard work, and careful savings and planning, and those who recieve it, either through inheritance or the lotteries.Of course, but one can only have more stuff if one has more money.


That latter group blows right through that money. More lottery winners are back to their previous levels within 10 years of winning than invest their winnings wisely. More sales tax there. In addition, the former group still does tend to buy more items and more expensive items than the "poor" do. Heck look at all parties the political people throw that aren't even for campaining.Here's an arbitrary example, of two people, with hypothetical numbers given, but it'll work:

Person A makes $20,000 a year.
Person B makes $500,000 a year.
Person A spends all of his income (yes, I realize that it won't be on food, but he'll spend it on other "nonessentials", such as a new refrigerator or microwave.
Person B spends $100,000, and saves the rest.
Now, while they are both being taxed at the same rate, 100% of person A's income is being taxed, whereas only $20 of person B's income is being taxed. Therefore, it is regressive.

With no income taxes on my savings and investing I now have more incentive to save. If I'm barely making ends meet why bother to save any money if I am going to have part of it removed? Granted you can only give the incentive for a person to save. If they won't do it then THEY are at fault for not looking out for their future.Banks giving people interest on savings is an incentive to save. The system as it would work is not simply an incentive, it gives a reward to people who save. There is a difference.

Of course, but one can only have more stuff if one has more money.

But in order to have more stuff they must spend more money and thus pay more taxes.

[/QUOTE]Here's an arbitrary example, of two people, with hypothetical numbers given, but it'll work:

Person A makes $20,000 a year.
Person B makes $500,000 a year.
Person A spends all of his income (yes, I realize that it won't be on food, but he'll spend it on other "nonessentials", such as a new refrigerator or microwave.
Person B spends $100,000, and saves the rest.
Now, while they are both being taxed at the same rate, 100% of person A's income is being taxed, whereas only $20 of person B's income is being taxed. Therefore, it is regressive.[/QUOTE]

Ok I will make an assumption that we are still with my previous example of $10,000 being poverty level.

Person A spends all of his $20,000. Since he already recieved $2300 in tax prebate based on $10,000 only 50% of his income was taxed.

Person B makes $500,000 but spends only $100,000, however since he recieved his prebate as well he only paid taxes on 18% of his income.

But wait! Person C also makes $500,000 and spends 200,000. He is taxed on 38% of his income.

By taxing comsumption a person can actually control at what rate they are taxed in relation to thier income. In addition, the poverty level is based on plain MSRP levels. A person who earns $10,000 a year can actually get by on less by shopping at thrift stores, using coupons, bartering with friends and more. Let's say by doing so Person A can cut an additional $2000 off his spending. Now he is only taxed on 40% of his income. Remember that under the Fair Tax NO ONE pays taxes on the ESSENTIALS of life. Everything else is simply luxury. It's a luxuery tax. You may not like it presented that way, but simply put if it's not required for you to live (food clothing shelter) then it's extra.


[/QUOTE]Banks giving people interest on savings is an incentive to save. The system as it would work is not simply an incentive, it gives a reward to people who save. There is a difference.[/QUOTE]

A reward is an incentive. Intrest AND no taxes is more incentive than just intrest.

Your tax system would only increase the rich-poor divide. That's the last thing we need. Besides you are asking most of us to support higher taxes for ourselves, since I'm sure most of us fall under the lower income brackets.

American Income Tax:
* 10%: from $0 to $7,150
* 15%: from $7,151 to $29,050
* 25%: from $29,051 to $70,350
* 28%: from $70,351 to $146,750
* 33%: from $146,751 to $319,100
* 35%: $319,101 and above

Serapindal Income Tax:

* 15%: from $0 to $10,000
* 18%: from $10,000 to $30,000
* 21%: from $30,000 to $75,000
* 24%: from $75,000 to $150,000
* 27%: from $150,000 to $350,000
* 30%: from $350,000 to 500,000
* 33%: from $500,000 to $1,000,000
* 36%: from $1,000,000 and above

RATE!

This is a gross abuse of the poor. You are repealing the tax cut Bush gave the lowest earners and raising tax on them by 50% but the highest earners only pay 10% more. Meanwhile, your top bracket does not cover enough people to make up for the difference in taxes cut to the middle earners.

In principal the idea has merit - stretch the tax brackets out further. I would just be more careful about how much you cut tax, how much you increase it, and where.

Also, if you really want to muck it up, discuss the AMT. - EEK!

If we make the poor poorer, and the rich richer, we can actually collect more tax money, because the rich will pay a higher percent...

This is a gross abuse of the poor. You are raising tax on the poorsest tax payors by 50% but the highest earners only pay 10% more. Meanwhile, your top bracket does not cover enough people to make up for the difference in taxes cut to the middle earners.

In principal the idea has merit - stretch the tax brackets out further. I would just be more careful about how much you cut tax, how much you increase it, and where.

Also, if you really want to muck it up, discuss the AMT. - EEK!

Which really does make my idea look better to me, since I generally do support tax cuts (but not too radical). Minor tax-cuts)

If we make the poor poorer, and the rich richer, we can actually collect more tax money, because the rich will pay a higher percent...


LOL


Eat the poor!

TMeanwhile, your top bracket does not cover enough people to make up for the difference in taxes cut to the middle earners.

Wait a minute how do you know that?. You are imposing an income spread of (most likely) the US. But what are the demographics of his country? Maybe there are more people in the 75K+ range than anywhere else. Then there would be more than enough people to cover it.

And no has yet to define specificly "poor" and "rich"

Wait a minute how do you know that. You are imposing an income spread of (most likely) the US. But what are the demographics of his country? Maybe there are more people in the 75K+ range than anywhere else. Then there would be more thatn enough people to cover it.

And no has yet to define speciffically "poor" and "rich"

I don't feel like doing it right now, but go to the census and see. The bottom 50% of earners only pay 5% of taxes. As I recall The median household income is around $50,000 or so. There is a substantial number of people earning up to around $200,000, but then it drops off dramatically.

It is all there if you look - I just don't feel like it. It IS your tax plan afterall.

Bah, it wasn't too hard tro find;

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

As you'll see, those earning over about $295,000 represent less than 1% of taxpayors.

i just dont understand, so the harder your work (assuming that the more money you get the harder you work) the more your punished. and even then the more money you have that money belongs to you, not the governemt to put into charity for the poor or lazy. if you want to help the poor out, do it on your own merits, dont allow the government to take money from you to put into their own private corrupt charity.

I don't feel like doing it right now, but go to the census and see. The bottom 50% of earners only pay 5% of taxes. As I recall The median household income is around $50,000 or so. There is a substantial number of people earning up to around $200,000, but then it drops off dramatically.

It is all there if you look - I just don't feel like it. It IS your tax plan afterall.

Huh? What does that have to do with the demographic spread of the income for the country that started this thread?

I like the higher tax rates on 350,000+ but I have some serious problems with the lower part of your tax bracket. Taking 18% out of somebody's $10,000 income just isn't right, I think you should have gone down to about 5-6% there. Besides, when you end up taking money people can't afford you just have to give it back with welfare programs later on. Beyond that, I would consider inserting a top tax bracket of 38-39% for $5,000,000 earners.

My mother brought in almost 50 thousand last year. However, with bills paid and everything (with dozens of late notices because she wasn't making enough to pay it off right away) her personal income was only about 2 thousand. So where exactly is the divide between rich, poor, and middle class?

Consumption taxes are by their very nature a regressive tax. They hit those who spend a larger percentage of their income far harder then those who can more afford it (and have large amounts of assets that aren't subject to taxation under a consumption tax).
You obviously haven't read the fair tax plan. There is a rebate to low earners that offsets the sales tax.

Originally Posted by CSW
Consumption taxes are by their very nature a regressive tax. They hit those who spend a larger percentage of their income far harder then those who can more afford it (and have large amounts of assets that aren't subject to taxation under a consumption tax).

You obviously haven't read the fair tax plan. There is a rebate to low earners that offsets the sales tax.

The statement in and of it self stands true. A straight Consumption tax system is regressive, i.e. the less money you make the higher a percentage of that money you pay in taxes. The Fair Tax is not a straight Consumption tax system though.

But in order to have more stuff they must spend more money and thus pay more taxes.But nonetheless, most people only buy the amount of things that they need. For instance, while a microwave isn't a necessity (people can survive without one), the amount of time and labor saved with one makes the purchase worth it. But people seldomly buy two microwaves.

Ok I will make an assumption that we are still with my previous example of $10,000 being poverty level.

Person A spends all of his $20,000. Since he already recieved $2300 in tax prebate based on $10,000 only 50% of his income was taxed.

Person B makes $500,000 but spends only $100,000, however since he recieved his prebate as well he only paid taxes on 18% of his income.

But wait! Person C also makes $500,000 and spends 200,000. He is taxed on 38% of his income.

By taxing comsumption a person can actually control at what rate they are taxed in relation to thier income. Why in the world should a person be able to control how much they are taxed? A person should be taxed in relation to the amount of benefit that they receive from society. In this case, income is a good measurement of the benefit that a person receives from society, and therefore should be what is taxed. A measurement of consumption doesn't tell how much a person benefits from society.

In addition, the poverty level is based on plain MSRP levels. A person who earns $10,000 a year can actually get by on less by shopping at thrift stores, using coupons, bartering with friends and more. Let's say by doing so Person A can cut an additional $2000 off his spending. Now he is only taxed on 40% of his income. A rich person could cut coupons, and would probably be more able to barter with friends, since the rich person would have more collateral.

Remember that under the Fair Tax NO ONE pays taxes on the ESSENTIALS of life. Everything else is simply luxury. It's a luxuery tax. You may not like it presented that way, but simply put if it's not required for you to live (food clothing shelter) then it's extra.I have no problem with a luxury tax per se, but it shouldn't be the only tax used.

A reward is an incentive. Intrest AND no taxes is more incentive than just intrest.Why do people need more of an incentive to save? If banks want people to save more, then they will offer better deals on savings. The government doesn't need to enact legislation that would give the banks more business.
While it could be arguable, and is even probable that people investing will benefit the economy in the long term, the massive drop off of spending will definitely hit the economy hard in the short term.

I give a 0 just because the rich pay more. The rich are too heavily taxed, and the tax money does not go to the poor anyway.