Support NeoGAF

[venne]

Some good points but no one seems to have mentioned illegals living on the tax dime. Flat tax would close up that loophole. And in theory yes rich should pay more but rich are usually rich because they are smart about money. They take advantage of tax loopholes to the point of sometimes paying no taxes at all. Flat tax would make sure they pay their fair share. And yes rich may save money but I imagine rich will be buying more than 17 cent loafs of bread.

Flat tax might not be the answer but only 50 percent of Americans pay income tax. Even if its a penny for every 10 dollars everyone should be include in income tax so that everyone knows know the free money isn't so free.

Everyone pays FICA. Even if people aren't paying income tax it doesn't mean they aren't paying taxes on their earnings.

 

[LaMeRz]

Its not fair because 10% of someone earning 15,000 a year is a much greater burden on that person than 10% of someone earning 1,000,000 a year.
Sure it's fair on paper, but when applied to real life, it kinda sucks if you're poor.

Just curious about when most people think the burden becomes fair?

at 50% for the 1,000,000 that person still has 500k left over
at 75% that person would still have 250k left over
even at 90% that person would still have 100k left over which would be over 7 times the amount left for the 15k earner

So far this thread has turned into what is fair for rich v poor and what is the correct burden that should be placed on their income/life style.

Not all rich people cheat the system. (For the hippies)
Not all poor people cheat the system. (For the Neo-cons)

I guess there is no real solution that would make everyone happy but would love to read more solutions/alternatives that you guys throw out there. At this time in the USAs economic situation it is a great time to get creative and think of new solutions.

 

[Piecake]

Just curious about when most people think the burden becomes fair?

at 50% for the 1,000,000 that person still has 500k left over
at 75% that person would still have 250k left over
even at 90% that person would still have 100k left over which would be over 7 times the amount left for the 15k earner

So far this thread has turned into what is fair for rich v poor and what is the correct burden that should be placed on their income/life style.

Not all rich people cheat the system. (For the hippies)
Not all poor people cheat the system. (For the Neo-cons)

I guess there is no real solution that would make everyone happy but would love to read more solutions/alternatives that you guys throw out there. At this time in the USAs economic situation it is a great time to get creative and think of new solutions.

We have a marginal tax rate. Having a 50% tax on people making over a 1 million dollars does not mean that people making over a million dollars pay 50% in taxes.

 

[The Kid]

Actually, a type of flat tax already exists in the US. You can deduct state taxes from your federal income taxes. So if you are tax more in the state, you can deduct more from your federal taxes. Virtually this creates a flat tax at the state level.

Reforming the tax code is really difficult. As people have said, changing tax bracket taxation levels isn't a big deal. The big deal is wading through the mess of deductions, taxable events, etc. The tax burden (over 90%) is mainly shouldered by people making 50,000 and above. Also, changing a lot of tax incentives could ruin a lot of programs people approve of. For example, there are major tax incentives for starting new businesses and alternative energy projects. Cutting these would give the government more money, but at the risk stopping much needed economic growth and change. Finally, one of the big issues in tax when when you are taxed. Many tax experts support capital gains tax because if those rates were like normal rates, many people would never sell stuff like stocks. Even if you don't sell stock, there are ways to get money from that stock and never have to pay tax on that money. By reducing transactions, it would really gum up the economy. My argument isn't very cohesive but I'm just trying to show that changing the tax system isn't simple and any changes must really be examined and studied.

 

[venne]

Just curious about when most people think the burden becomes fair?

at 50% for the 1,000,000 that person still has 500k left over
at 75% that person would still have 250k left over
even at 90% that person would still have 100k left over which would be over 7 times the amount left for the 15k earner

So far this thread has turned into what is fair for rich v poor and what is the correct burden that should be placed on their income/life style.

Not all rich people cheat the system. (For the hippies)
Not all poor people cheat the system. (For the Neo-cons)

I guess there is no real solution that would make everyone happy but would love to read more solutions/alternatives that you guys throw out there. At this time in the USAs economic situation it is a great time to get creative and think of new solutions.

That's not how the tax system works.

This isn't accurate but it goes like this, if a person's income is x:

The first $25k is taxed at 10%, the next $25k is taxed at 15%, the next $25k is taxed at 20%, etc.

I don't think it's unreasonable that as the utility of money goes down, the tax burden on that money goes up.

 

[Kabouter]

I thought right now the top 1% pay something like 30% of income tax which means they pay too little tax (thank you Bush/Obama).

It's simple really, two rates of tax - 20% for all people earning $100k or less and 35% for earnings above $100k. No getting around it. Have an allowance of say $25k where people pay no tax at all and you have the foundations of a sensible tax system...

Why not have far more tax brackets? Brackets don't increase the complexity of the system at all, unless your country is made up of three year-old kids, but if that's the case, there are bigger issues to worry about than taxation. A more gradual rise in rates is much fairer.

Are they really?

50% above $100k is a very high rate of tax and I think people would then try and avoid it. 40-45% is the accepted highest rate of tax around the world, higher rates tend to destroy the tax base and lower than that takes in less than the maximum amount, but can be used as a competitive advantage to grow the tax base.

The top rate in the Netherlands is 52%, and you pay it for everything over €55,694. Lowering that most certainly will not increase revenues, and our rich are doing just fine, the tax base certainly hasn't been 'destroyed'. As far as competitiveness goes, I don't think we have any issues, not just because of certain core strengths, but also because while some people are so fixated on the income tax rate, there's so much more to the tax policy. For one thing, what exactly falls under that rate can differ quite a bit per country, as can what deductions are available. Here in the Netherlands, at a certain point the tax rate actually becomes degressive for a bit because the obscene mortgage interest deduction kicks in. Even outside of that though, there are other types of taxes. Things that affect cost of living (like the VAT), all elements that affect corporate taxation (including what the corporate tax base is), property taxation, the bilateral tax treaties a country has concluded etc.

 

[LaMeRz]

We have a marginal tax rate. Having a 50% tax on people making over a 1 million dollars does not mean that people making over a million dollars pay 50% in taxes.

That's not how the tax system works.

This isn't accurate but it goes like this, if a person's income is x:

The first $25k is taxed at 10%, the next $25k is taxed at 15%, the next $25k is taxed at 20%, etc.

I don't think it's unreasonable that as the utility of money goes down, the tax burden on that money goes up.

I was describing (what is called) a hypothetical situation that was more concerned with provoking the discussion on how much burdern is too little or too much.

I was not portraying an actual persons income in the current tax system.

 

[Piecake]

Many tax experts support capital gains tax because if those rates were like normal rates, many people would never sell stuff like stocks. Even if you don't sell stock, there are ways to get money from that stock and never have to pay tax on that money. By reducing transactions, it would really gum up the economy. My argument isn't very cohesive but I'm just trying to show that changing the tax system isn't simple and any changes must really be examined and studied.

How would it gum up the economy? More long term investment is a good thing and will lead to more market stability. I personally would be fine if we just kept rates the same (well, maybe raise it on the richest bracket by at least 5 percent), but just extend short-term gains to like 5 years instead of 1 year.

Also, how do you get money from a stock and not pay taxes on it? I am seriously curious since you pay taxes on dividends and capital gains, and not really sure where else you can get money from

 

[Captain Sparrow]

I don't understand the argument that we need to rewrite the tax code because it is confusing. No it isn't. Even if you think so, who cares how "complicated" it is if it works? What we need is simple amendments to ours so that it will work better for society. While we're at it, should we rewrite the constitution? That's also wildly confusing to the American public.

Flat tax is the stupidest idea ever. That would force either the poor to pay more or the rich to pay less. Which one of those would help our current situation? Neither. I don't understand how the GOP manages to keep people believing in this BS (besides the rich who obviously benefit from it).

 

[Kabouter]

I don't understand the argument that we need to rewrite the tax code because it is confusing. No it isn't. Even if you think so, who cares how "complicated" it is if it works? What we need is simple amendments to ours so that it will work better for society. While we're at it, should we rewrite the constitution? That's also wildly confusing to the American public.

Flat tax is the stupidest idea ever. That would force either the poor to pay more or the rich to pay less. Which one of those would help our current situation? Neither. I don't understand how the GOP manages to keep people believing in this BS (besides the rich who obviously benefit from it).

The United States tax code is relatively complex compared to that of many other countries, and the reason people care that it's so complicated is not just because it's annoying if you have a relatively complex tax situation, but also because it increases compliance costs, which hurt business and contribute nothing to the economy. Finding a more simple yet fair system is absolutely beneficial for everyone. Also, just to be clear, a flat tax is not in any significant way simpler, not unless it comes with other changes which could also be implemented in a system that maintains progressive taxation.

 

[JGS]

I don't understand the argument that we need to rewrite the tax code because it is confusing. No it isn't. Even if you think so, who cares how "complicated" it is if it works? What we need is simple amendments to ours so that it will work better for society. While we're at it, should we rewrite the constitution? That's also wildly confusing to the American public.

Flat tax is the stupidest idea ever. That would force either the poor to pay more or the rich to pay less. Which one of those would help our current situation? Neither. I don't understand how the GOP manages to keep people believing in this BS (besides the rich who obviously benefit from it).

A tax code should not be confusing. Anything dealing with money should be easy enough for the payer to grasp to make sure he isn't gipped. It should definitely be easy enough to understand so that the biller isn't gippped themselves which happens all the time. They can't audit everybody and allow for a huge percentage of fraud to leak through - on top of the loopholes. The current system sucks and result in pushes for higher tax rates without makigng the current collection of them efficient.

 

[The Technomancer]

No, I was making the point that a flat tax is regressive due to the fact that poor people still got to buy things to live off of -- which cost the same no matter how much money you make.

Eh....define "cost". If it takes a person making $10 an hour five hours to afford food for a week and it takes an incredibly high earner just a few seconds to "earn" an equivalent sum, I would argue that it ends up costing the poor person more. Time is valuable.

 

[LaMeRz]

Maybe I can make a topic about it later, but I do want to try and discus the merit of a socialist/communist like society. I think the a big reason the soviet union's idea failed was not due to planing (If planing on a large scale didn't work, these multinational companies would not be in business), it was the fact that at the time, they didn't have an excess of labor and technology. Give us about 10 or 20 years, and a good incentive, and most bottom level jobs could likely be done by machine, or specialized workers who maintain a large amount of a smaller aspect of a larger system (A single person managing the check out system at a large super market,

The easiest way to make a socialist work would be to turn the system of work on its side. Right now, we are forced to work to survive. But, we should have enough labor force, many of which are doing essentially busy work, that we may be able to actually provide the staples of life to every person for nothing at all. And as such, working would actually be something done by choice. Now, why would a person work if they have their basic needs met? Basic Housing given for free, food and utilities, public transportation upto and including air travail, basic entertainment, medical, even given a expenditure account for what ever else they want. All the stuff would have quotas that you can get on the governments dime to try and prevent people from just wasting it ("You use over X KWH per month? That is coming out of your expense account? Use less? Extra to the expense account.")

Now, why would any one actually work? Well, would you like nicer stuff? A better place then the small box the government gives? A car of your own? Maybe the ability to travail more? Or heck, even have something to do? There likely would be an unproductive part of the population that would be content with just watching tv 24/7/365, but others still would be completely free to pursue what they want. You would actually have a capitalist system within this socialist system still, but you would eliminate the fact that people would be stuck in an essentially dead end job. And I want to argue that the added mobility of the working population, in both physical ability, and the metaphorical since, would more then make up for the lost busy work from the part of the population that doesn't want to work.

I also think the idea that a socialist society isn't innovated is simply wrong, because though years of research by people in a number of fields, it has been shown that once you make enough money that you don't have to worry about a means to survive, people are not actually incentivized by money. What they are incentivized by is being able to do the things they want.


Wow, this bit of ramblings went on longer then I thought.

tl;dr: Basically, you make the absolute bottom of doing nothing still be enough to live a modest life without problems, and treat the rest of the system more or less the same. If you need something done, you simply pay for it (Need teacher in your public schools? Offer more incentives for it). You would just have a much larger public sector.

I am like your part about making sure everyone has the primary basics. Although, I disagree with the basics coming for free there should be protections for those with the lowest earning and in bad situations.

Would people be more open to a flat tax that did not affect the first 24k of a persons income (2k a month tax free seems livable)?

 

[Kabouter]

I am like your part about making sure everyone has the primary basics. Although, I disagree with the basics coming for free there should be protections for those with the lowest earning and in bad situations.

Would people be more open to a flat tax that did not affect the first 24k of a persons income (2k a month tax free seems livable)?

Of course I would be less opposed to it, but why still that flat tax? That system would still be more unfair than a progressive system, whilst being no simpler.

 

[The Technomancer]

Is this really the case in USA?

I have trouble believing it. I would think a 100k salary would be pretty damn good. Not 'rich' but upper middle getting close to rich? In the Netherlands you hit the 'rich' tax rate at about 55K per year or so and if you are earning this much money, you can live a really good lifestyle (I'm talking savings and using all of your 30ish vacation days a year to travel outside the country)

Thats about where my parents are, and I consider us part of the last sliver of the middle class. We're fortunate enough to have a nice home in a nice city, we can afford to send me and my siblings to college with only $10-15,000 in loans each and we don't have to "worry" on a month to month basis about paying the bills. We can even afford to keep a small boat down at the lake. But man, we're nowhere near anything I'd consider "wealthy"

 

[Zoe]

Would people be more open to a flat tax that did not affect the first 24k of a persons income (2k a month tax free seems livable)?

And how much do you plan on taxing after the 24k?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

what if your tax rate was proportional to the amount of income of the country you hold?

So if you're in the group that holds 80% of the wealth, you pay 80% of the expenses of the tax burden.

This would have several effects I believe. First, it would encourage those holding 80% of the wealth to give more of it to the lower tax brackets so that their taxes are raised and the rich are lowered. By upping how much of a percent the middle and lower classes make, the rich would effectively be able to lower their own taxes through work.

 

[LaMeRz]

Of course I would be less opposed to it, but why still that flat tax? That system would still be more unfair than a progressive system, whilst being no simpler.

My comment was more pointed at objections to a flat tax because it would be such a tremendous burden to the impoverished. So with an untaxed bracket enough to live on (even though it may not be the most comfortable lifestyle) the basics would be taken care of for most people so everything above that would be to enhance lifestyle and living conditions.

Your point about it being more unfair is true (if x>y then [z% of x] > [z% of y]) but if the essentials are taken care of then what is fair? For the same amount of money each person left over? For the rich to pay more? How much more? Less economic services for those that don't need it (social security, medicare)?

 

[gutter_trash]

flat tax is bogus because a rich person can chose to live modestly in a regular house with a regular car and save save save money by spending as much on utilities as a low income earner

 

[LaMeRz]

And how much do you plan on taxing after the 24k?

No idea. But as long as the basics can be met with the first 24k (lets say that amount is re-evaulted over a short span (every 3-4)) we are just arguing over lifestyle and who has what toys? Which is a similar situation to the previous example given by Drkirby about a society where peoples basic needs are met (in his example these basics are provided by the government at no expense) and all other luxuries are obtained by people earning more money.

 

[Stairs]

actually if you really look into the issue like i have it really is the most fair..its basic economy

 

[Wanace]

I just live outside the country and make less than 90k a year and pay no taxes.

Last year I had $0 taxable income and I got a $300 tax rebate. Not sure how that works, I think my accountant is a genie.

 

[Azih]

Nope.

 

[JGS]

flat tax is bogus because a rich person can chose to live modestly in a regular house with a regular car and save save save money by spending as much on utilities as a low income earner

This is what's supposed to happen. They are not using any more resources than the poorer person and yet are paying more in taxes just the same.

Savings is always a good thing. I don't think it is a likely scenario though as many rich people still like to live beyond their means much less at it. I think a tiered system would reflect the the majority that aren't scamming the government by living a normal life.

 

[Kabouter]

actually if you really look into the issue like i have it really is the most fair..its basic economy

I really urge you to actually read the thread, many people have argued very well that a flat tax is unfair.

My comment was more pointed at objections to a flat tax because it would be such a tremendous burden to the impoverished. So with an untaxed bracket enough to live on (even though it may not be the most comfortable lifestyle) the basics would be taken care of for most people so everything above that would be to enhance lifestyle and living conditions.

Your point about it being more unfair is true (if x>y then [z% of x] > [z% of y]) but if the essentials are taken care of then what is fair? For the same amount of money each person left over? For the rich to pay more? How much more? Less economic services for those that don't need it (social security, medicare)?

Yes, you have taken care of the burden for the impoverished, that is certainly true. However, in your scenario, you are giving a tax cut to the rich at the cost of a tax hike for the middle class. I think what is fair is dependent on many factors, like what society you are dealing with, but it would always have to be a progressive system that finds a good balance between sufficiently encouraging people to earn more yet still is strongly in line with the ability to pay principle.

 

[Dolla Dolla]

actually if you really look into the issue like i have it really is the most fair..its basic economy

This kinda sounded like...

I don't know how much the rest of you know about Fair tax (I'm an expert), but ...

 

[venne]

This is what's supposed to happen. They are not using any more resources than the poorer person and yet are paying more in taxes just the same.

Savings is always a good thing. I don't think it is a likely scenario though as many rich people still like to live beyond their means much less at it. I think a tiered system would reflect the the majority that aren't scamming the government by living a normal life.

There's a complicating issue with extreme wealth in democracy. A very rich individual is able to assert their voice in a manner an average individual is not. At some point, the power of money should be curtailed for the sake of democracy. I don't know where that line should be drawn, but it should be something which is taken into account. Tax policy seems like the most reasonable venue to check monetary influence in the political process (which is probably why politicians won't touch it).

 

[LaMeRz]

Yes, you have taken care of the burden for the impoverished, that is certainly true. However, in your scenario, you are giving a tax cut to the rich at the cost of a tax hike for the middle class. I think what is fair is dependent on many factors, like what society you are dealing with, but it would always have to be a progressive system that finds a good balance between sufficiently encouraging people to earn more yet still is strongly in line with the ability to pay principle.

Well said

 

[Tenks]

I'd be in favor of it. Liberals claim equality but want to put the rich on a pedestal by single handedly funding the country.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

my rent+electric is currently around 12% of my monthly NET income. if i were taxed at X% i'd be okay, if i suddenly lost my job and had to take a mcdonalds job, my rent+electric would suddenly be something like 60% of my net income if i could even get the hours. still being taxed at that X% would suddenly have a lot more impact on my bottom line than if i was still working at my higher paying job.

what would i have left for gas, food, medical costs, savings? i also owe student loans and im paying off a medical bill. obviously im very thankful for what i have and where i am in life, but flat tax seems pretty unfair, and not based on fixed numbers like housing (rent) prices (which are rising) or the variables from area to area based on average cost of living. (ie: groceries may cost a ton more in one state compared to another)

it needs to be tiered based on income level, but i think maybe it should ramp up in a more broad spectrum than just low-> middle -> upper. (although i believe there are more than 3 brackets, but they are supposedly grouped closely together)

edit: and by rent being a fixed number, i mean the apartment complex isn't going to go "oh you don't make much? we'll charge you less then. " they will still charge you the same as anyone else.

 

[Enron]

how is this fucking thread even 5 pages long? The answer is obvious.

 

[mingus]

I just live outside the country and make less than 90k a year and pay no taxes.

Last year I had $0 taxable income and I got a $300 tax rebate. Not sure how that works, I think my accountant is a genie.

Can I assume that by "the country" you mean the US? I'd believe you if you said zero US income taxes, there's an exclusion for that since you actually live outside the US. As for non-US income taxes, I guess that depends on where you're currently living/working.

 

[Tenks]

how is this fucking thread even 5 pages long? The answer is obvious.

How do you not browse at maximum posts per page? The best way to browse is obvious.

 

[venne]

I'd be in favor of it. Liberals claim equality but want to put the rich on a pedestal by single handedly funding the country.

Which is why FICA doesn't stop at $106,800 . . . Oh wait.

edit: number was incorrect

 

[Enron]

How do you not browse at maximum posts per page? The best way to browse is obvious.

Whatever. This shit is still too long.

 

[BeEatNU]

Taxed based on what you earn, you mean. I'm pretty sure OP is talking about income tax, not sales.

Its not fair because 10% of someone earning 15,000 a year is a much greater burden on that person than 10% of someone earning 1,000,000 a year.
Sure it's fair on paper, but when applied to real life, it kinda sucks if you're poor.

I am glad there is other smart people in this world like us

*hug*

Comical. You think 100k is a lot? It's not. I bet you earn under it, though.

I'm sure majority people in this forum makes less than that but regardless, it's all relative.

 

[Zoe]

it needs to be tiered based on income level, but i think maybe it should ramp up in a more broad spectrum than just low-> middle -> upper. (although i believe there are more than 3 brackets, but they are supposedly grouped closely together)

Tax	Single
10%	$0 – $8,350
15%	$8,351– $33,950
25%	$33,951 – $82,250
28%	$82,251 – $171,550
33%	$171,551 – $372,950
35%	$372,951+

Tax	Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er)
10%	$0 – $16,700
15%	$16,701 – $67,900
25%	$67,901 – $137,050
28%	$137,051 – $208,850
33%	$208,851 – $372,950
35%	$372,951+

Tax	Married Filing Separately
10%	$0 – $8,350
15%	$8,351 – $33,950
25%	$33,951 – $68,525
28%	$68,525 – $104,425
33%	$104,426 – $186,475
35%	$186,476+

Tax	Head of Household
10%	$0 – $11,950
15%	$11,951 – $45,500
25%	$45,501 – $117,450
28%	$117,451 – $190,200
33%	$190,201 - $372,950
35%	$372,951+

Standard deductions are $5800, $11600, $5800, and $8500, respectively.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I just live outside the country and make less than 90k a year and pay no taxes.

Last year I had $0 taxable income and I got a $300 tax rebate. Not sure how that works, I think my accountant is a genie.

I... hope your accountant is really good when dealing with audits.

 

[mclem]

So, nobody here is going to argue that a flat tax is more fair?

Good.

Oh, it's perfectly fair. Provided we all have flat income, too.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

why does it stop at around 300,000

There's are thousands of people that make 10x that amount every year. Some that make 100 times that amount.

The highest tax rate shouldn't stop increasing until the absolute highest earner in the country.

 

[Tenks]

why does it stop at around 300,000

There's are thousands of people that make 10x that amount every year. Some that make 100 times that amount.

The highest tax rate shouldn't stop increasing until the absolute highest earner in the country.

Dude they already have to pay 35% of their earned income according to that chart. How much more do you want them to cough up?

Though I'm sure they have great tax people that find every deduction and loophole to push down that %

 

[dave is ok]

why does it stop at around 300,000

There's are thousands of people that make 10x that amount every year. Some that make 100 times that amount.

The highest tax rate shouldn't stop increasing until the absolute highest earner in the country.

Because this way, those people can argue that raising their taxes is fucking over a family of four who makes 300k

 

[JGS]

There's a complicating issue with extreme wealth in democracy. A very rich individual is able to assert their voice in a manner an average individual is not. At some point, the power of money should be curtailed for the sake of democracy. I don't know where that line should be drawn, but it should be something which is taken into account. Tax policy seems like the most reasonable venue to check monetary influence in the political process (which is probably why politicians won't touch it).

I would agree with this if it could be ascertained that the wealthy are having a negative impact on democracy. Politics definitely, but that shouldn't be tied to the tax code.

The wealthy pay a huge share of taxes right now dollar wise. So we aren't really at the point where we need to outright take money to equalize things since the lower classes don't pay more.

At the same time, much could be said about disposable income. Poor people have none of it. I fail to see why they should be the standard to be looked at since the American dream has always included the abilty to pay bill, save money, have some fun. But a simple tiered system allows for the rich to share the burden they can afford while allowing them their well deserved creature comforts.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wealthy and to be able to buy what you want. It's not going to make the poor person attain it any quicker and also keeps people employed.

 

[Zoe]

Dude they already have to pay 35% of their earned income according to that chart.

That's not how it works. They only pay 35% for $372,951 and above.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Dude they already have to pay 35% of their earned income according to that chart. How much more do you want them to cough up?

Though I'm sure they have great tax people that find every deduction and loophole to push down that %

the richest person in the country should be paying 90% income taxes. They managed in the past with this tax rate and we had time of great economic boom.

Also you don't seem to know how income tax brackets work

 

[zomgbbqftw]

why does it stop at around 300,000

There's are thousands of people that make 10x that amount every year. Some that make 100 times that amount.

The highest tax rate shouldn't stop increasing until the absolute highest earner in the country.

Because the person who pays all the tax would just leave. Quite simple really. People and corporations don't exist to be taxed.

 

[Mael]

Because the person who pays all the tax would just leave. Quite simple really. People and corporations don't exist to be taxed.

pfahaha I always love when people say that and don't even back it up.
We had a law who actually protected people's income from tax....and well there was even more people leaving the country for switzerland than before.

 

[dave is ok]

Because the person who pays all the tax would just leave. Quite simple really. People and corporations don't exist to be taxed.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Rich crybabies like to throw this around every time they think their taxes might go up a few percent.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Without dedusction, they will make more money at the previous tax rates than they are now. There's no reason to raise them more than needed unless we want the government to be wealthy (I supposed they could pay the debt down faster).

I think a 3rd tier for millionaires at 40-50% is fair though (100k is not wealthy except to a poor person).

hahahahah, mayber if you live in downtown san francisco, manhattan, or washington DC.

If I made 100k I would be putting away enough money to put a 100% down payment on a new house every 3-4 years here in minnesota. and that's after taxes and expenses (Put away $30k i nmy first year of work whiel making $70k and furnishing a new apartment, so I figure I'd be putting away just over $50K on $100k of income after taxes. The average home or condo price is just south of $150K in Minneapolis)

and i live in one of the states with the highest taxes (total. Sales, property, income, etc)

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm not rich but if my taxes went up by $10,000 or even $15,000 per year I wouldn't pack up and leave, heh. Why would the rich? Especially when they'd be taxed higher in any other country?