Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:12 PM   #26
leenak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
90%? There is no reason to tax someone 90%. If we had a flat tax or a quasi flat tax without tax brackets, those that make less would end up paying less tax than they do currently and it'd be 'fair'.
leenak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:16 PM   #27
noisycats
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: This is the place
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
This is a good point, I am not sure why the tax bracket increases stop at a certain point.
Really? No idea at all?? Would you be willing to hazard a guess?
noisycats is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:43 PM   #28
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by leenak View Post
90%? There is no reason to tax someone 90%. If we had a flat tax or a quasi flat tax without tax brackets, those that make less would end up paying less tax than they do currently and it'd be 'fair'.
That depends on the structure of the flat tax and its relationship with parallel taxation like property taxes, sin taxes, utility fees, and state/local taxation.

Generally speaking, those at the low-rung of the ladder pay no Federal Income tax, but get hammered by others. A flat-tax on the Federal level won't solve this problem.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:45 PM   #29
MacNut
Thread Starter
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
That depends on the structure of the flat tax and its relationship with parallel taxation like property taxes, sin taxes, utility fees, and state/local taxation.

Generally speaking, those at the low-rung of the ladder pay no Federal Income tax, but get hammered by others. A flat-tax on the Federal level won't solve this problem.
Wouldn't a true flat tax provide enough income that the utility taxes are not needed?
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:52 PM   #30
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Wouldn't a true flat tax provide enough income that the utility taxes are not needed?
Aren't we talked about a flat federal income tax? That wouldn't have any bearing on the other taxes people have to pay.
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:53 PM   #31
MacNut
Thread Starter
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by LethalWolfe View Post
Aren't we talked about a flat federal income tax? That wouldn't have any bearing on the other taxes people have to pay.
I would say flat tax across the board. It would fix local and federal taxes.
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:56 PM   #32
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Wouldn't a true flat tax provide enough income that the utility taxes are not needed?
Well, again assuming that the flat tax is created in accordance with the removal of other taxes, otherwise, the poor just end up potentially paying a "flat" income tax in addition to everything else.

But, because these are parallel systems, it's unlikely that a flat tax at the federal level would be married to the removal of utility fees, the decrease of sales taxes, or the removal of state income tax.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 04:02 PM   #33
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
I'd be up for a flat rate tax provided any and ALL loopholes were removed.

I don't see that happening though.

And this topic is about federal taxes so according to a moderator we should stick to the topic.
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 49
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 04:05 PM   #34
walangij
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: MI
We have a progressive tax system. Progressive != liberal in this case.
That means that for those earning $250,000 a year, the income they earn above that is taxed at 35%. The money that is earned below that is taxed progressively, so to simplify things

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350.

So someone earning $250,000 a year and someone earning $10 million a year, the taxation on that income is progressive. So the income they make over the bracket threshold gets taxed at that rate.

Also when people say we'll tax the wealthy out of wealth they are talking about the Laffer Curve. When the amount of taxation is so high that it actually reduces the net gain from taxes to a net loss. Keep in mind that this is suggested to be around 70% taxation. There's no way we're returning to that. The current debate is raising taxes on the 1% from 35% to 39.6%. An increase of 13% for the highest tax bracket.
walangij is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 04:58 PM   #35
CorvusCamenarum
macrumors 65816
 
CorvusCamenarum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
There's simply no reason that we can't split the $250,000 earners from $1 million except for politics and I'm sure Republicans are wary of doing so since it wouldn't allow them to protect billionaires under the aegis of protecting small businesses.
Which is a bucket of dumb, IMO. If your income is $250k+, chances are you voted for Obama twice, who promised tax increases on folks with your income level. Why the GOP keeps stumping for the super-rich who don't even return the favor on election day with a vote escapes me.

Then again, instead of worrying about the brackets and marginal rates, maybe we should be taking a look on what sort of income is taxable and how. Make a couple changes there and watch the wealthy squeal.
__________________
Much of modern liberalism consists of people trying to get revenge on the football players to whom they felt inferior in school.
CorvusCamenarum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 05:29 PM   #36
entatlrg
macrumors Demi-God
 
entatlrg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
1% of the American population earns $250,000 or more. The more you make the more tax you should pay in order to get the government services 'everyone' needs - as in fair play. Republicans don't want that and label it socialism.

But, is paying more taxes bad? Scandinavians pay the highest taxes in the world, 48 to 56% I think. Isn't that horrible, rotten, lazy socialism? Every citizen gets healthcare, dental, free university education, high quality care for the ederly, housing, meals, dental, optomitry, everything they need. Everyone is equally entitled. The white collars are no more important than the garbage man. That's called fair play. Coincidently Scandavians are the happiest people in the world, very little violence and crime, no guns, no poor just a happy, secure way of life.

I say 'Wake up America' and many Americans are wide awake and 'get it' ... problem is the rich, greedy and corrupt will never let that happen. And through political spins, half truths and no truths the greedy and selfish somehow brainwash a large percentage of the middle class to vote for them. When in reality they're putting their support to the people that are taking away from their lifestyles. There's a strategy behind keeping the middle class just above being broke and hungry ... Where did all the money go from the good times? The rich have it, it didn't disappear. It's a mess. Having lived in USA, Scandavia and Canada it's so interesting. You can see the differences in the people, how they feel about, work, family, lifestyle, night and day difference in attitude.
entatlrg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 07:28 PM   #37
IBradMac
macrumors 68000
 
IBradMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ohio
Send a message via AIM to IBradMac
Quote:
Originally Posted by entatlrg View Post
1% of the American population earns $250,000 or more. The more you make the more tax you should pay in order to get the government services 'everyone' needs - as in fair play. Republicans don't want that and label it socialism.

But, is paying more taxes bad? Scandinavians pay the highest taxes in the world, 48 to 56% I think. Isn't that horrible, rotten, lazy socialism? Every citizen gets healthcare, dental, free university education, high quality care for the ederly, housing, meals, dental, optomitry, everything they need. Everyone is equally entitled. The white collars are no more important than the garbage man. That's called fair play. Coincidently Scandavians are the happiest people in the world, very little violence and crime, no guns, no poor just a happy, secure way of life.

I say 'Wake up America' and many Americans are wide awake and 'get it' ... problem is the rich, greedy and corrupt will never let that happen. And through political spins, half truths and no truths the greedy and selfish somehow brainwash a large percentage of the middle class to vote for them. When in reality they're putting their support to the people that are taking away from their lifestyles. There's a strategy behind keeping the middle class just above being broke and hungry ... Where did all the money go from the good times? The rich have it, it didn't disappear. It's a mess. Having lived in USA, Scandavia and Canada it's so interesting. You can see the differences in the people, how they feel about, work, family, lifestyle, night and day difference in attitude.
this makes me sad..
IBradMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 07:34 PM   #38
MacNut
Thread Starter
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by entatlrg View Post
1% of the American population earns $250,000 or more. The more you make the more tax you should pay in order to get the government services 'everyone' needs - as in fair play. Republicans don't want that and label it socialism.

But, is paying more taxes bad? Scandinavians pay the highest taxes in the world, 48 to 56% I think. Isn't that horrible, rotten, lazy socialism? Every citizen gets healthcare, dental, free university education, high quality care for the ederly, housing, meals, dental, optomitry, everything they need. Everyone is equally entitled. The white collars are no more important than the garbage man. That's called fair play. Coincidently Scandavians are the happiest people in the world, very little violence and crime, no guns, no poor just a happy, secure way of life.

I say 'Wake up America' and many Americans are wide awake and 'get it' ... problem is the rich, greedy and corrupt will never let that happen. And through political spins, half truths and no truths the greedy and selfish somehow brainwash a large percentage of the middle class to vote for them. When in reality they're putting their support to the people that are taking away from their lifestyles. There's a strategy behind keeping the middle class just above being broke and hungry ... Where did all the money go from the good times? The rich have it, it didn't disappear. It's a mess. Having lived in USA, Scandavia and Canada it's so interesting. You can see the differences in the people, how they feel about, work, family, lifestyle, night and day difference in attitude.
Who allowed them to get rich? We willingly pay more for everything. Where are the people cutting their cable or telling Apple to shove their over priced products? When prices of services go up and quality goes down who is to blame? We as a country need to demand something back for our money.
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 07:39 PM   #39
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Who allowed them to get rich? We willingly pay more for everything. Where are the people cutting their cable or telling Apple to shove their over priced products? When prices of services go up and quality goes down who is to blame? We as a country need to demand something back for our money.
Tell that to this group of people.
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 49
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 10:51 PM   #40
splitpea
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Among the starlings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Tell that to this group of people.
FWIW, that's counting people who have $1M net worth, not who make $1M/year. A lot of those are going to be people nearing retirement who put away (and wisely invested) $10K/year out of, say, an $80K salary for 50 years. Honestly, by that measure, it's kind of sad that the number isn't higher. Even sadder is that for many of them, even with prudent spending, that won't be enough to last them from retirement to death without social security.
__________________
What's the point of a sig showing the system I owned in 2006?
splitpea is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:22 PM   #41
colourfastt
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Enough with the brackets, just draw a straight line. Start it at 10% for those making twice poverty, end it at 90% for anyone making 0.1% of GDP or more. Nice straight line, though maybe steeper at the lower end than I would like.
I agree with a straight line, but that line should be 10% straight across for EVERYONE. No deductions, exemptions, or loopholes allowed.
__________________
Sexual intercourse is a poor substitute for masturbation. - Quentin Crisp
colourfastt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:33 PM   #42
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by colourfastt View Post
I agree with a straight line, but that line should be 10% straight across for EVERYONE. No deductions, exemptions, or loopholes allowed.
That's a heavily regressive tax. For a household making only $12K a year you really think taking $1200 away from them in federal income tax is the right move?
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 02:52 AM   #43
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Analogy:

The economy is a recirculating steam engine. It has a ten gallon boiler tank with a fire box under it that feeds steam to the pistons that do the work (stamping out widgets or whatever). The water vapor exhaust from the pistons goes through a condenser that turns the vapor into liquid that is fed into a thirty gallon reservoir, which then feeds water into the boiler tank.

The reservoir represents investment capital, while the boiler is the working economy (the 99.9%). With a regressive tax scheme, the water balance tends toward the reservoir tank, with minimal flow into the boiler tank, which is what we have now: most of the capital in the economy is sloshing around in the reservoir, only the barest minimum in the boiler tank (wealth disparity). This presents an analogous problem, because the fire box can overheat the boiler tank and cause its pressure fittings to fail, destroying the whole engine (spare parts are unavailable).

Progressive taxation combined with sensible regulation tends to facilitate more flow from the reservoir to the boiler, keeping the system nominal and stable. Flat (regressive) taxation and/or excessive deregulation tends to constrict flow into the boiler tank (excessive accumulation in the reservoir), limiting the engine's production speed and ultimately risking catastrophic failure.

Higher taxes improve the real economy and may reduce "bubble effects" by allowing less money for speculation (regulatory limitations help here as well). People who are already loaded are not interested in creating more jobs because employees are an expense, give them more money and they will just wager it on arcane financial instruments, leaving less capital to feed the working economy.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 12:16 PM   #44
colourfastt
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LethalWolfe View Post
That's a heavily regressive tax. For a household making only $12K a year you really think taking $1200 away from them in federal income tax is the right move?
I think that equality in taxing income is the right move. And, equality is NOT "regressive" no matter how much spin the left-wing puts on it.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Analogy:

The economy is a recirculating steam engine. It has a ten gallon boiler tank with a fire box under it that feeds steam to the pistons that do the work (stamping out widgets or whatever). The water vapor exhaust from the pistons goes through a condenser that turns the vapor into liquid that is fed into a thirty gallon reservoir, which then feeds water into the boiler tank.

The reservoir represents investment capital, while the boiler is the working economy (the 99.9%). With a regressive tax scheme, the water balance tends toward the reservoir tank, with minimal flow into the boiler tank, which is what we have now: most of the capital in the economy is sloshing around in the reservoir, only the barest minimum in the boiler tank (wealth disparity). This presents an analogous problem, because the fire box can overheat the boiler tank and cause its pressure fittings to fail, destroying the whole engine (spare parts are unavailable).

Progressive taxation combined with sensible regulation tends to facilitate more flow from the reservoir to the boiler, keeping the system nominal and stable. Flat (regressive) taxation and/or excessive deregulation tends to constrict flow into the boiler tank (excessive accumulation in the reservoir), limiting the engine's production speed and ultimately risking catastrophic failure.

Higher taxes improve the real economy and may reduce "bubble effects" by allowing less money for speculation (regulatory limitations help here as well). People who are already loaded are not interested in creating more jobs because employees are an expense, give them more money and they will just wager it on arcane financial instruments, leaving less capital to feed the working economy.
This line of thought is what Ayn Rand warned us about in Atlas Shrugged. Your wealth belongs to everyone but you. While her positions were simplistic and overly optimistic, she was on point with this.
__________________
Sexual intercourse is a poor substitute for masturbation. - Quentin Crisp
colourfastt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 12:58 PM   #45
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by colourfastt View Post
I think that equality in taxing income is the right move. And, equality is NOT "regressive" no matter how much spin the left-wing puts on it.[COLOR="#808080"]
A flat tax like you are suggesting is pretty much the very definition of a regressive tax:
Quote:
In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.
Why don't you step away from your pre-built, third party ideology for a moment and look at the world as it really works. Do you really think that there is no functional, real world difference between a person making $12,000 a year paying $1200 in taxes vs someone making $100K paying $10K in taxes? Is an after tax budget of $10,800 equal to an after tax budget of $90,000?
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:25 PM   #46
colourfastt
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LethalWolfe View Post
Why don't you step away from your pre-built, third party ideology for a moment and look at the world as it really works. Do you really think that there is no functional, real world difference between a person making $12,000 a year paying $1200 in taxes vs someone making $100K paying $10K in taxes? Is an after tax budget of $10,800 equal to an after tax budget of $90,000?
It doesn't matter what one's after tax income is. It's a matter of whether or not services provided are equal to what one pays. In other words, if I pay $10,000 in taxes I should receive services (police, fire, ambulance, etc.) in proportion to what I pay over someone who pays, say, $500.
__________________
Sexual intercourse is a poor substitute for masturbation. - Quentin Crisp
colourfastt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:28 PM   #47
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by colourfastt View Post
It doesn't matter what one's after tax income is. It's a matter of whether or not services provided are equal to what one pays. In other words, if I pay $10,000 in taxes I should receive services (police, fire, ambulance, etc.) in proportion to what I pay over someone who pays, say, $500.
So..

Did you happen to think that through ?

The result of what you said would be higher crime, lower health and little education in poor areas.
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 49
Peace is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 10:40 PM   #48
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by colourfastt View Post
It doesn't matter what one's after tax income is. It's a matter of whether or not services provided are equal to what one pays. In other words, if I pay $10,000 in taxes I should receive services (police, fire, ambulance, etc.) in proportion to what I pay over someone who pays, say, $500.
Really? And you think this is a pragmatic and sustainable solution how? Whats funny is that this has been tried before and it was so horribly ineffective that it caused governments to start getting involved in things like sanitation/public health, fire prevent/fire fighting, law enforcement, building infrastructure, education, etc.,.

Oh, please, please can we go back to a Dickensian era where there persistent filth lets disease run rampent and whole swaths of a city can go up in flames at a moments notice because a blaze starts in home or business that can't afford fire service. And herd immunity? Yeah, who the hell wants that! Oh, wow, this is rich.
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 10:57 PM   #49
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by colourfastt View Post
I think that equality in taxing income is the right move. And, equality is NOT "regressive" no matter how much spin the left-wing puts on it.
Most of us would "think" you are mistaken. "Equality in taxation" means you pay for what you get. Wealthy people get a great deal more from the system, the system that supports and fosters their wealth, than the middle-class and poor do, so tax equanimity means the wealthy ought to pay a higher relative rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colourfastt View Post
This line of thought is what Ayn Rand warned us about in Atlas Shrugged. Your wealth belongs to everyone but you. While her positions were simplistic and overly optimistic, she was on point with this.
Rand was a writer of fiction and an erstwhile philosopher of sorts. Her ideology is only relevant to ideology, she was not an economist. "Objectivism" pertains to the individual, not the larger system, so if I deprecate or reject the substance of her "warnings", I hope you understand why. Being "on point with this" is only valid with respect to the outlook of the individual, who really, truly "did not build that".
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2012, 05:39 AM   #50
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
If it were me making the decisions, I would use a sigmoidal curve (low taxes for poor & working class, then rapidly accelerating tax rates starting at the upper-middle- class and then finally a plateau tax rate for the truly rich. Having discrete tax bands is stupid - it is not as though most people can't perform algebra and even if some can't a simple look-up table would suffice.

Also, I would eliminate all tax deductions for anybody earning more than $1 million.

This is probably why I will never hold an elected office....
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iTunes Hits New Milestones, Will Help Leverage Growth of Beats' 250,000 Subscriber Base MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 29 May 29, 2014 05:42 PM
Bootcamp vs. VMWare Fusion 6 vs. Parallels 9: Excel w/large data sets (250,000+ rows) smileman Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 6 Jan 6, 2014 06:13 AM
BBC Reports Twitter Hacked 250,000 passwords stolen James Craner Mac Applications and Mac App Store 0 Feb 2, 2013 06:55 AM
Magic number game is freee now smartselwady1 iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Nov 10, 2012 05:15 PM
iTunes Match 25,000 limit/Amazon Cloud Player 250,000 limit kingledley Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Jul 31, 2012 04:03 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC