US Flat Tax Rate

[Valjean]

In applying "simple math", it seems you forgot to carry the one.
The average tax rate increases with income asymptotically.

Earning level.....
25K: Average rate = 0%
50K: Average rate = 5%
100K: Average rate = 7.5%
100M: Average rate = 10%

It's about the concept, rather than specific numbers.
If you don't like these results, the adjust them.
Taxes could start at $40K.
The marginal rate could be 13% above that.
Whatever works is better than what we have now.

This looks like a simplified, graduated tax, not a traditional, flat tax.

 

[Revoltingest]

This looks like a simplified, graduated tax, not a traditional, flat tax.

I'm not traditional.
What matters to me is the incentives.....
- You get to keep all (if you're poor) or most of what you make.
- You don't jump up into a confiscatory bracket by working or investing more.
- There is only a single class of capital gains, which is adjusted for currency devaluation, & is the same rate as the income tax.
- There is only a single class of income (other than capital gains).
- The payroll taxes, self employment taxes, & fiction of the SS Trust Fund are eliminated.
(The taxes are rolled into the income & capital gains taxes.)
- All IRS workers must have heart plugs installed.

 

[Curious George]

It might.
Your calculations?

Do you remember that wall of text?

That should be enough to prove the point, but if you are really interested, and will agree that a flat tax is a bad idea, I will run through the numbers

 

[tytlyf]

I'm not traditional.
What matters to me is the incentives.....
- You get to keep all (if you're poor) or most of what you make.

But that wouldn't work, people will be crying about people not paying any taxes. It's usually republicans that are against that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you remember that wall of text?

The one with all the hypotheticals?
That's not quantitative.

That should be enough to prove the point, but if you are really interested, and will agree that a flat tax is a bad idea, I will run through the numbers

You'd need real numbers.
But your calculations cannot show that it's a bad idea because of a fundamental problem with
economics, ie, you can't factor in how the alternative system (flat tax) will change behaviors.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that wouldn't work, people will be crying about people not paying any taxes. It's usually republicans that are against that.

People are always crying, so we can't let that stop a better approach.

 

[Curious George]

The one with all the hypotheticals?
That's not quantitative.

You'd need real numbers.
But your calculations cannot show that it's a bad idea because of a fundamental problem with
economics, ie, you can't factor in how the alternative system (flat tax) will change behaviors.

I am trying to figure out if getting actual numbers is futile. Either, you are very clear on the math already or, for some strange reason, you actually think that this flat tax rate will not raise taxes near whatever line you draw for income on which you tax. I take your last comment to mean, even if it is as I say, and a flat tax would increase the amount of the people closest to the line at which we begin taxing, you still think it will be a good idea because ideas and behavior will change to make it a good idea.

It's fine. This is one of your bad ideas and your sticking to it. Someone once told me the smartest people use up the erasers first. While we all make errors, the smartest of us find them and make changes.

Cheers

 

[tytlyf]

People are always crying, so we can't let that stop a better approach.

And Rmoney supporters cried when he lost. It's not news. Stop supporting the republican establishment (swamp dwellers) if you want to see change. Unfortunately, conservatives decided to vote to keep the swamp as-is (not referring to Trump). Rubio? lmao

 

[Revoltingest]

I am trying to figure out if getting actual numbers is futile.

It would be illuminating as a base line for comparison.
But such a model would be a whole lotta work.
Perhaps someone has already done it?
I found this sort of similar proposal based on 2005 tax data.....
Proposal for a "Dual-Rate Income Tax"

Either, you are very clear on the math already or, for some strange reason, you actually think that this flat tax rate will not raise taxes near whatever line you draw for income on which you tax. I take your last comment to mean, even if it is as I say, and a flat tax would increase the amount of the people closest to the line at which we begin taxing, you still think it will be a good idea because ideas and behavior will change to make it a good idea.

I haven't applied any math to the proposal.
Your comment isn't clear, so I'll just say....
I want the poor paying no taxes, but encouraged to increase their income because the marginal tax rate is low.

It's fine. This is one of your bad ideas and your sticking to it. Someone once told me the smartest people use up the erasers first. While we all make errors, the smartest of us find them and make changes.

I only propose an approach to taxation.
Still at the not-right-&-not-even-false stage, I haven't yet reached the point of making a math mistake.

 

[Revoltingest]

And Rmoney supporters cried when he lost.

I don't remember the flood of tears which we now see.
Hillary voters are a weepy bunch.
R Lee Ermey has handed our a lot of tissues.....

Stop supporting the republican establishment (swamp dwellers) if you want to see change. Unfortunately, conservatives decided to vote to keep the swamp as-is (not referring to Trump). Rubio? lmao

Any chance of positive change meant stopping Hillary.
It's just a tragedy that Trump was the guy to do it.

 

[Curious George]

It would be illuminating as a base line for comparison.
But such a model would be a whole lotta work.
Perhaps someone has already done it?
I found this sort of similar proposal based on 2005 tax data.....
Proposal for a "Dual-Rate Income Tax"

.

Well a "dual rate" is firstly, very different than a flat rate, unless you also consider what we have now as a flat rate. This income neutral tax increases the tax on the lowest paid Americans by 5%. It keeps the second lowest tax bracket at the same percentage but deprives them of tax deductions. And it creates double taxation in states with income tax....again affecting the lowest paid the most. You cannot create a scenario wherein the yield is the same and you decrease the tax rate, without attacking deductions, exclusions, and credits. And if that is the problem, why not directly attack those?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well a "dual rate" is firstly, very different than a flat rate, unless you also consider what we have now as a flat rate. This income neutral tax increases the tax on the lowest paid Americans by 5%. It keeps the second lowest tax bracket at the same percentage but deprives them of tax deductions. And it creates double taxation in states with income tax....again affecting the lowest paid the most. You cannot create a scenario wherein the yield is the same and you decrease the tax rate, without attacking deductions, exclusions, and credits. And if that is the problem, why not directly attack those?

I've been proposing eliminating personal deductions all along.
I don't know what credits & exclusions you speak of, but I'll ditch those too.

Consider.....
If the poor cannot deduct the rent they pay,
why should wealthier folk be able to deduct mortgage interest & property taxes?

 

[Curious George]

I've been proposing eliminating personal deductions all along.
I don't know what credits & exclusions you speak of, but I'll ditch those too.

Consider.....
If the poor cannot deduct the rent they pay,
why should wealthier folk be able to deduct mortgage interest & property taxes?

Why do we need a flat tax to discuss that? Why not just talk of lowering all the brackets? Where is the excess picked up? People like their deductions, credits, and exclusions. People have all sorts of ideas which they feel are fair. But a flat tax is not a good idea because even the dual tax system realizes that elimination of most deductions are not enough to offset the loss that would occur. The money has to come from somewhere. You cannot cut tax rates and make the same money. So, from where does the money come? You want to get into nitty gritty, let's talk about deductions and which to eliminate. You say eliminate them all? Great we can lower the tax rate on all income brackets. Problem solved, no need for flat taxes. I just can't imagine the repercussions of eliminating all of the deductions...after all they are there for a reason, no?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do we need a flat tax to discuss that?

The flat tax addresses the incentive to be productive, ie, low marginal income tax rate.

Why not just talk of lowering all the brackets?

That's in improvement, but I'm taking the more extreme approach....one marginal rate for all.

Where is the excess picked up?

The threshold & the rate would be set for revenue neutrality.
Of course, I'd like to see revenue cut too, but we'd have to give up our penchant for needless wars.

People like their deductions, credits, and exclusions. People have all sorts of ideas which they feel are fair.

People like them because this is how the game is played.
I propose changing the rules....exchanging personal deductions from a high tax rate for a lower tax rate.
They'd like that too.

But a flat tax is not a good idea because even the dual tax system realizes that elimination of most deductions are not enough to offset the loss that would occur.

That's a matter of setting the tax rate.

You cannot cut tax rates and make the same money.

There's more to it than cutting rates.....
- Eliminating personal deductions
- With a lower marginal rate, there's less incentive to be in the untaxed cash economy or to use complex tax avoidance investment vehicles.

You want to get into nitty gritty, let's talk about deductions and which to eliminate. You say eliminate them all?

All of'm.

Great we can lower the tax rate on all income brackets. Problem solved, no need for flat taxes. I just can't imagine the repercussions of eliminating all of the deductions...after all they are there for a reason, no?

You have your preference (tax brackets), & I have mine (flat tax).

 

[tytlyf]

I don't remember the flood of tears which we now see.
Hillary voters are a weepy bunch.

You have selective memory.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have selective memory.

I posted real examples of Dems bawling they eyes out.
You only had pix witha hippety hoppety score.

 

[tytlyf]

I posted real examples of Dems bawling they eyes out.
You only had pix witha hippety hoppety score.

The point is that every election this happens, doesn't matter if it's R or D. One reason you probably never saw it during Rmoney's loss is because Fox most likely didn't make news of it. But they sure would have if Obama lost. It's not news.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is that every election this happens, doesn't matter if it's R or D. One reason you probably never saw it during Rmoney's loss is because Fox most likely didn't make news of it. But they sure would have if Obama lost. It's not news.

I've a theory that Democrats, being so empathic, sensitive, &
emotional, they're more prone to public emotional breakdowns.
I don't say this is wrong.....just that it would be beneath me.
But that's just me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all flat taxes are the same.
I proposed exempting the poor entirely.

... thereby making it a progressive tax system with two tax brackets, not a flat tax.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consider.....
If the poor cannot deduct the rent they pay,
why should wealthier folk be able to deduct mortgage interest & property taxes?

FWIW, in Canada, renters do get a deduction for the rent they pay (it's a percentage of their rent, meant to represent the portion that flows through as property tax).