Reply With Quote
Just one more professional WC wants to tell that they are ignorant of something in their field. Just another day for WC.
Just one more professional WC wants to tell that they are ignorant of something in their field. Just another day for WC.
If he's a professional, how can he compound such a simple mistake?
Besides. Professional only means you get paid to do it. It doesn't mean you're any good at it.
You sir, have once again proven to be a stupid .
You essentially agreed to the income number (14.6 vs. 14.5), you told me I need to exempt LESS from taxes, then you tell me that the amount subject to income tax under your plan is less?
It's pretty simple math, dip . 14.6 - 2.1 = 12.5. Try to follow along.
My entire work is clearly on individual tax returns. You cannot include corporate taxes, Social Security, tariffs, fees, etc.
You are definitely an over paid professional.
The GDP of $14.5T is not all individual income moron.
I'm not a tax professional, but I am a Professional Able to Perform Arithmetic-er.
Well, if you want to argue the point of individual taxation, find the gross income of all individuals rather than using the gross national product.
Wasn't this whole plan on doing away with corporate taxation? Aren't payroll taxes still going to deducted from the gross figure before your multiplier anyway? Aren't tariffs and fees a relatively irrelevant part of federal receipts?
You are right about one thing. I am an overpaid professional. I work like two days a week, mountain bike the rest, and pay more in taxes every year than you probably will make in ten. And I don't complain about my taxes. How does that make you feel?
Last edited by scott; 07-13-2011 at 05:17 PM.
What do you think GDP is supposed to measure?
Anyway, if you want to get technical, personal income was 12.9T at the end of Q12011.
So good, you've dug an even deeper hole for fantasy spending cuts to get us out of.
That's a different idea.
Not at all. That's a separate deduction i didn't even address.
Yes and no. Besides, I am talking about individual taxes. Not everything. I was pointing out they are part of the gross revenue that I wasn't touching.
Earned or inherited?
I say good for you. Must be nice not to have to worry. I wouldn't complain about my taxes if others didn't expect to eat out of the government trough like pigs.
I have no idea what type of deductions you have, but wouldn't you prefer to pay less in taxes and s out what you feel appropriate to charities of your choice?
You may make 50 times what I do or so, but it wouldn't surprise me if I give more in charity than you do. I give a few thousand ever year. Since you make so much, I hope you give at least 10%.
I think you've got to make an allowance for size of the family. Is it a "reward" for having a bigger family? I guess if you just wanted to look at what you'd end up paying in income taxes you could make that case, but kids certainly cost more than whatever tax savings you'd be realizing. There's no financial incentive to crank out kids solely for the tax savings. (as far as taxes go, not welfare, which would be a separate discussion)
So you still want to double tax?
So I was wrong in assuming something you didn't address wouldn't be changing?Not at all. That's a separate deduction i didn't even address.
So what was your point?Yes and no. Besides, I am talking about individual taxes. Not everything. I was pointing out they are part of the gross revenue that I wasn't touching.
The only thing I've ever inherited was Male Pattern Baldness.Earned or inherited?
I say good for you. Must be nice not to have to worry. I wouldn't complain about my taxes if others didn't expect to eat out of the government trough like pigs.
I have no idea what type of deductions you have, but wouldn't you prefer to pay less in taxes and s out what you feel appropriate to charities of your choice?
You may make 50 times what I do or so, but it wouldn't surprise me if I give more in charity than you do. I give a few thousand ever year. Since you make so much, I hope you give at least 10%.
I'd prefer for us to pay for our expenditures rather than pawning it off to future generations like we've been so eager to do on an increasingly record pace since 2001.
You hope I give at least 10%? Why would you hope that? Why do you place a specific tax rate on my giving? Why not 8%? Why not 20%? Why not 0%? Why not WhyDoYouCare%?
Reel Classey Scoot
Do you know scott at all?
Asking someone at the poverty level to pay the same amount than someone in the upper 5% of the income distribution is a penalty as far as I am concerned.
Is it fair to ask someone to give up paying their utilities every other month so you can have a rate that doesn't "penalize" you?
Sorry I just don't buy this tired, immoral argument.
Well, he's a lawyer... <rimshot>
(I kid! I kid!)
It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.
If you are correct on that number (but you are wrong again,) and 2010 was similar, then the average tax burden of federal income taxes was only 6.97%. However, the 2010 number I find calculates to be $7.1T if I use your 153.1 million workforce times $46,326 average income. At $7.1T, the average individual tax burden becomes 12.6% The 12.6% is reached at an income of just over $58K with the 17% flat tax.
Big difference.
If that's what you want to believe. You still prove you don't understand. This is far more complicated than one simple calculation. You would have to calculate several different filing statuses and deductions, then add them together. Besides, the 17% is the magic number for 1992. It may need to be a little more today.
"Countless stories" mean less to me than, say, actual data.
I have zero doubt that there is some abuse any given program. I am prepared to accept that the cost of actually getting some aid to people that need it is that some of that will be abused, and that someone will game the system.
I think the benefits of such safety nets far exceeds the cost for a lot of reasons, although some programs can be very poorly designed and have costs that exceed benefits. Granted. Controls and audits to prevent abuse should be designed into any system. Granted.
But
If you want to tell me that all such programs should be scrapped because of "countless stories", I will call bull , and ask for some measure of data that supports the assertion that the abuse is so rampant as to outweigh the benefits.
Don't give me any feelgood egostroking bull about how bad poor people are and how they should be as industrious as you are. Serve your ego on your own dime.
I want some reasonable data on abuse, costs and benefits.
Bull has been called. "countless stories" is not sufficient to warrant a major policy shift. Provide some solid data on the costs of abuse relative to the benefits
I'll admit, it's nice to pay less when having dependents, but it's not fair to make a single person pay more for his hard earned money than it is for someone with kids.
Please...
Tell me you aren't a Marxist.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
You are one who obviously believe in giving the government a larger percentage of income at higher income levels. I would think the same applies to charity. If fact, that's where I believe people should have more flexibility. I only give about 4% or 5%, but I would give far more if I could afford to. I would give more if I were taxed less. I picked 10% arbitrarily as a minimum. I see is as a reasonable number that is not excessive.
Below poverty level would never pay taxes. But the point is most people wouldn't be agreeing to these socialist notions and failed experiements if their money was being used.
To help a bit:
You are trying to get at the difference between the book rate, and the effictive rate of tax.
The book rate on income might be 35% on income over $250,000, but if the tax codes provide different difinitions of "income" and tax sheltering methods like house deductions and so forth that reduce both Adjusted Gross Income, Taxable Income and so forth, the *effective* rate of taxation could be much lower for the population at large.
You are trying to get to this, I think, with what you are saying.
Some economists reverse engineer this "effective" rate from the data, and perhaps you should ask scott if he can expand on that.
From what I understand there is a large disconnect between the marginal "book" rate and the overall effective rates of tax on income. On this, I think you would agree.
I used to be somewhat opposed to a flat tax, simply because the changeover costs would be more than some proponents would admit to, but I have come to believe that simplifying the tax code would be enormously beneficial in the long run.
The ultimate rate would be closer to the 17% you are talking about, although I have heard it would go as high as 26%, if memory serves.
In any event, we could probably easily tweak that % if we get it wrong for a year or two, and borrow if we undershoot.
Actually, they're nothing alike. Like Apples and Tomatoes.
That's why I would prefer to see everyone pay at least something in income tax. Damn...
These people are freaking out over a 17% flat tax with the first $15,080 excluded. They might have a heart attack if i proposed what I really think is right.
Actually, it's not.
Lucky for me I know where to look for real data, instead of just pulling it out of my ass.If you are correct on that number (but you are wrong again,) and 2010 was similar, then the average tax burden of federal income taxes was only 6.97%. However, the 2010 number I find calculates to be $7.1T if I use your 153.1 million workforce times $46,326 average income. At $7.1T, the average individual tax burden becomes 12.6% The 12.6% is reached at an income of just over $58K with the 17% flat tax.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml...isuri=1&903=58
Indeed.Big difference.
It's not really that complicated, you're just not that smart.If that's what you want to believe. You still prove you don't understand. This is far more complicated than one simple calculation. You would have to calculate several different filing statuses and deductions, then add them together. Besides, the 17% is the magic number for 1992. It may need to be a little more today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
