Why we need a flat tax

[SuperDuper! 230]

Private jets are expensive.

Not if you rent from NetJets.com Warren Buffet approves, what more do ya want.....

[mawilson 2,133]

That's a strange system. A guy making 4 million takes home 1 million, someone making 8 million would take home $800000, and the guy making 16 million takes home $160,000.

That's not what he suggested.

[mawilson 2,133]

Those are corporate jets and thus tax deductible.

What, I can't have my own personal jet? Or a $30,000,000 home? I'd have to make billions to afford that at a 99% tax rate.

[Dakine10 5,452]

That's not what he suggested.

Yes, I probably shouldn't have skipped over the examples.

[rika60607 215]

Yeah, flatter broader tax would be excellent... together with flatter broader incomes, of course

I am baffled by almost 50% Americans not paying any tax (they are with incomes of 44K or less per household and with 1.35 earners). They must be using some nice tricks to achieve no tax liability.

Let's see: 44K - 18.7 K (standard deductions and exemptions for a married couple with no kids) leaves a household with 25K of taxable income and 2.9K of tax liability.

How do they hide $2900 from the IRS?

[rika60607 215]

Oh, also the lovely couple above would have paid (44K-4K)*0.03 = $1200 in IL tax for 2010 and 40K*.05= $2000 for 2011 state taxes.

In IL, state tax is essentially flat. Yet, budget crisis is pushing the tax rate up and millionaires do not flock to IL But may be for the state taxes, flat is not a bad idea at all.

[Ban Hammer 13,694]

That's a strange system. A guy making 4 million takes home 1 million, someone making 8 million would take home $800000, and the guy making 16 million takes home $160,000.

It's like the progressive tax code from Bizarro world.

but it matches up well with many's desire to punish success.

[rika60607 215]

This is not what Bob suggested... read his example

Besides, who wants to punish success? High incomes and high taxes paid on them are rarely an indication of success... More often, they are a result of unfair practices or a result of inherited fortune

but it matches up well with many's desire to punish success.

[Dan J 277]

Yeah, flatter broader tax would be excellent... together with flatter broader incomes, of course

I am baffled by almost 50% Americans not paying any tax (they are with incomes of 44K or less per household and with 1.35 earners). They must be using some nice tricks to achieve no tax liability.

Let's see: 44K - 18.7 K (standard deductions and exemptions for a married couple with no kids) leaves a household with 25K of taxable income and 2.9K of tax liability.

How do they hide $2900 from the IRS?

Kids - Tax liability decreases around $1500 for each kid. (Until they are 17 anyway, then its less)

Edited April 4, 2011 by Dan J

[rika60607 215]

Okay, they have two kids and that reduces their federal tax to $0 and their IL state tax to $1000.

Four people living on 43K in IL? This is poverty! If their tax evasion is due to having a kid or two, then the issue should be not that almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax. The issue should be that almost 50% of Americans are dirt poor!

Kids - Tax liability decreases around $1500 for each kid.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

That's a strange system. A guy making 4 million takes home 1 million, someone making 8 million would take home $800000, and the guy making 16 million takes home $160,000.

It's like the progressive tax code from Bizarro world.

No, it's just that you flunked basic math.

The guy who makes more is just taxed higher on he amounts above the income.

Anybody who makes more takes more home. It's just that the more you make, the more you are taxed on the excess income.

At some point it will just make sense for a corporation to not pay their CEO $100,000,000 because the majority of that would be taxed away. The corporation would be better off to reduce the price of their product or invest in new technology or create more jobs instead.

[mawilson 2,133]

No, it's just that you flunked basic math.

The guy who makes more is just taxed higher on he amounts above the income.

Anybody who makes more takes more home. It's just that the more you make, the more you are taxed on the excess income.

At some point it will just make sense for a corporation to not pay their CEO $100,000,000 because the majority of that would be taxed away. The corporation would be better off to reduce the price of their product or invest in new technology or create more jobs instead.

What would be the incentive for a corporation to even exist, if its owners can't make any real money?

You'd have to make over 100 million dollars to buy a million-dollar apartment (which in NYC is a basic 1 bedroom), and over a billion to buy a 10 million-dollar home.

But let's say you do that and the government becomes flush with more money than they might be able to reasonably spend. What would the government do with all those trillions of dollars? Invest back into the same businesses they took the money from, in essence nationalizing them? Invest in foreign countries? Give everyone a $100,000 check?

See how ridiculous your idea is?

[rika60607 215]

Repay the debts and then decrease taxes?

I don't expect surplus would be a problem

.......

But let's say you do that and the government becomes flush with more money than they might be able to reasonably spend. What would the government do with all those trillions of dollars? Invest back into the same businesses they took the money from, in essence nationalizing them? Invest in foreign countries? Give everyone a $100,000 check?

See how ridiculous your idea is?

[Dakine10 5,452]

No, it's just that you flunked basic math.

The guy who makes more is just taxed higher on he amounts above the income.

Anybody who makes more takes more home. It's just that the more you make, the more you are taxed on the excess income.

At some point it will just make sense for a corporation to not pay their CEO $100,000,000 because the majority of that would be taxed away. The corporation would be better off to reduce the price of their product or invest in new technology or create more jobs instead.

As I said I didn't look at your examples. The discussion topic was why we need a flat tax, and without looking at the examples your table did not indicate those were progressive marginal tax brackets.

Forgive me for not looking at your post in greater detail, it has nothing to do with my math skills, rather my reprehension at the suggestion of 90% and 99% tax brackets.

[Zero Sum 305]

As I said I didn't look at your examples. The discussion topic was why we need a flat tax, and without looking at the examples your table did not indicate those were progressive marginal tax brackets.

Forgive me for not looking at your post in greater detail, it has nothing to do with my math skills, rather my reprehension at the suggestion of 90% and 99% tax brackets.

He may have been a bit hyperbolic. The point is, even at those rates, the super wealthy would still continue to be super wealthy. Its amazing what some people will consider as 'fair' income for 'fair' work these days.