Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/10/09 05:02 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Explain why it would be unfair to just tax their entire income.

I earn 500,000 in revenue. I have 400,000 in expenses. You tax me 190,000. I'm beyond broke. Not being able to deduct expenses is batshit retarded.

It seems like a self-employed person should pay about the same amount under this tax plan as they would under our current income tax.

Not if you can't deduct anything.

At 2/10/09 04:58 PM, Al6200 wrote: This system loses money as people retire, and their income hits $0 and they only receive benefits. The social security system loses money as people retire, not just because less people are paying into the system, but because more people are getting benefits.

You just said the same thing twice with different phrasing, you do realize that, right?

Yeah but this is a 40% rate.

I've gone through and reviewed my numbers, and the way I'm looking at it, you've now got 70% of the working population plus 26% of the general population drawing on this system. That's 179 million people out of a country that only has a 309 million people (give or take a few million), or roughly 57% of the population that will be drawing on this plan, that's a 475% increase in people drawing on the system.

And you're telling me that this system is going to be able to handle that, while the RICH are somehow still going to be paying less in taxes as you do here shortly....?

No, as in you pay a lower percentage as you make more money.

Are you just repeating what I said with your own spin on it at this point? How is "pay a lower percentage as you make more money" NOT "getting taxed less?" If I am progressively paying in less and less cash as I am progressively making more and more of it, that would mean I'm being TAXED LESS than the guys making next to nothing.

At 2/10/09 05:20 PM, Proteas wrote: you've now got 70% of the working population

Hold on... 70% of the working population makes 50K annually or less. With the rate at 40%, the cutoff is 25K, and only 42% of the working population makes that.

So that makes it 54.6 million workers, 49.7 million disabled people, and 35 million people over the age of 65, or 139 million people all eligible to benefit from this system give or take a few million people. That's about a 397% increase from just having people draw on Social Security.

And I haven't even started pulling numbers for people on welfare yet.

So uh... how are we supposed to pay for this system with rich people paying less taxes than they do now? Can someone explain that to me?

Why do people always need flashy, unrealistic tax systems to replace a gargantuan and corrupt tax system?

Is the idea of a flat rate tax system really that hard to swallow? Is simplicity to be feared?

At 2/10/09 05:07 PM, n64kid wrote:

I earn 500,000 in revenue. I have 400,000 in expenses. You tax me 190,000. I'm beyond broke. Not being able to deduct expenses is batshit retarded.

I think your income would actually be $100,000. I mean, if I go to work and my company makes a big sale, is that considered part of my income?

At 2/10/09 05:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

You just said the same thing twice with different phrasing, you do realize that, right?

That's because I've shown you the correct numbers over and over again, and you keep making mistakes and not understanding how the system works.

I've gone through and reviewed my numbers, and the way I'm looking at it, you've now got 70% of the working population plus 26% of the general population drawing on this system. That's 179 million people out of a country that only has a 309 million people (give or take a few million), or roughly 57% of the population that will be drawing on this plan, that's a 475% increase in people drawing on the system.

Look at these calculations (and btw your comparison with social security is wrong, this is a tax policy and a form of welfare in one elegant system):

US 2007 Budget: 2.73 trillion
Percent of US Budget taken by Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid: 42%
US 2007 Budget without Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid: 1.58 trillion

US Gross National Income: 9.78 trillion
Total Revenue from 40% Flat Tax: 3.912 trillion

Number of US adults over 19: 220 million
Total Size of Grants: 2.2 trillion

Total Revenue: 3.912 trillion
Total Costs: 3.78 trillion (grant + budget)

So with a 40% flat tax and $10,000 grant we'd actually run a 130 billion dollar surplus. (Note, GNI data from Nationmaster, demographics data from CIA World Factbook, budget data from Wikipedia).

And you're telling me that this system is going to be able to handle that, while the RICH are somehow still going to be paying less in taxes as you do here shortly....?

I don't think you're understanding that this is a tax policy and a welfare system. With a 40% rate and a $10,000 grant, the system is revenue neutral.

Are you just repeating what I said with your own spin on it at this point? How is "pay a lower percentage as you make more money" NOT "getting taxed less?" If I am progressively paying in less and less cash as I am progressively making more and more of it, that would mean I'm being TAXED LESS than the guys making next to nothing.

So is a flat tax progressive? Most people would say that it isn't, yet under a flat tax rich people pay the most taxes. A progressive tax is a tax where the rate at which you're taxed increases as your income increases. For the wealthy social security is regressive because there is a dollar figure cap on how much you can pay.

At 2/10/09 08:48 PM, Al6200 wrote: So with a 40% flat tax and $10,000 grant we'd actually run a 130 billion dollar surplus.

A hit, a very palpable hit.

But now for a reality check.

Do you honestly expect people to vote for doubling the taxation rate so the government can give itself a surplus that they'll most likely misspend anyway?

At 2/10/09 09:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

Do you honestly expect people to vote for doubling the taxation rate so the government can give itself

Okay, I graphed the tax rate of the NIT and the current income tax scheme. Note that I graphed the income tax rates, but didn't show any of the deductions that people get. So I suspect that on the left side of the curve, the blue line is actually significantly lower.

So most people are paying higher taxes, but they get a balanced budget on welfare. I personally would pay an extra 5% in taxes if I knew my money was working to create a better society. I don't know about everyone else though. Maybe they wouldn't go for it.

a surplus that they'll most likely misspend anyway?

I'm really surprised that no one has criticized the negative income tax on the grounds that poor people will just spent any extra money on drugs, alcohol, and hookers instead of improving their long term outlook, because that seems like the most obvious criticism of giving poor people money.

At 2/10/09 08:48 PM, Al6200 wrote: Total Revenue: 3.912 trillion
Total Costs: 3.78 trillion (grant + budget)

Whoa, you're eliminating every other tax?
I'd implement a sales tax.
And you most probably won't get a surplus, since you have to bring evasion into the equation.

At 2/10/09 09:25 PM, Proteas wrote: Do you honestly expect people to vote for doubling the taxation rate so the government can give itself a surplus that they'll most likely misspend anyway?

Sell it as a way to steer away from the huge debt you had, stress how Bush lowered taxes for the rich and your debt went up 3 trillion, stress how the burden will fall into the richest americans, and voila!
Having the majority in Congress does also help.

At 2/10/09 11:21 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

Whoa, you're eliminating every other tax?
I'd implement a sales tax.

Yeah, I guess I was sort of using a "lower limit" approach to show the feasibility of a NIT. Of course you could add other taxes, but I don't see the point. I don't like sales taxes because they make governments feel an immediate pinch in any sort of economic downturn (see California).

And you most probably won't get a surplus, since you have to bring evasion into the equation.

Do you think that the GNI figure corrected for evasion? If it did, then you're right.

Sell it as a way to steer away from the huge debt you had, stress how Bush lowered taxes for the rich and your debt went up 3 trillion, stress how the burden will fall into the richest americans, and voila!

The thing is that a lot of Americans have a dislike of the whole concept of "class warfare". It seems disturbing that there can be an economic conflict between two different groups. For example, a lot of people in America criticized Obama because he wanted to redistribute wealth. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Having the majority in Congress does also help.

I think the people pushing for a Negative Income Tax are mostly Republicans. As much as Democrats love helping the poor, they want to control how they spend it (this is somewhat legitimate, I see no reason why the government should subsidize someone's drug or prostitution habit).

At 2/10/09 08:30 PM, Al6200 wrote:

I think your income would actually be $100,000. I mean, if I go to work and my company makes a big sale, is that considered part of my income?

That's where DEDUCTIONS come in. Sales of 5 million can really be a net profit of 200,000, but without deductions, most people will pay more in taxes than what they can possibly receive.

At 2/10/09 06:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Why do people always need flashy, unrealistic tax systems to replace a gargantuan and corrupt tax system?

Is the idea of a flat rate tax system really that hard to swallow? Is simplicity to be feared?

Because for it to be truly flat (no deductions, none of that negative tax stuff with the drawing $10,000 a year), it would that idiots who decide to raise a family with 2 kids on minimum wage would suffer. And idiots suffering is apparently bad (the trick is to NOT HAVE BABY-MAKING SEX IF IT IS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR YOU!!!).

Also, its interesting to note that with a flat tax plan, the government would spend less money on trying to collect the money (hell, just by cutting out the printing of all those forms alone has to be worth something).

At 2/11/09 12:38 AM, n64kid wrote:

That's where DEDUCTIONS come in. Sales of 5 million can really be a net profit of 200,000, but without deductions, most people will pay more in taxes than what they can possibly receive.

Explain why you'd consider his total revenue to be his income, and not just his profits.

At 2/10/09 10:13 PM, Al6200 wrote: Maybe they wouldn't go for it.

I think it would go over like a lead balloon filled with farts, especially in Tennesse, my home state.

I'm really surprised that no one has criticized the negative income tax on the grounds that poor people will just spent any extra money on drugs, alcohol, and hookers instead of improving their long term outlook, because that seems like the most obvious criticism of giving poor people money.

That's just the thing; welfare does not improve anything. It's not MEANT to improve anything, it's meant to provide you the basic needs to live. If you're living a gutter rat lifestyle and you get on welfare, guess what? The government has just enabled your lifestyle.

At 2/10/09 11:56 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/10/09 11:21 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

I think the people pushing for a Negative Income Tax are mostly Republicans. As much as Democrats love helping the poor, they want to control how they spend it (this is somewhat legitimate, I see no reason why the government should subsidize someone's drug or prostitution habit).

Implying that such a thing exists, in part or in whole, is a confession to the fact that poverty is very likely self imposed, rather than the product of something beyond their own control. In which case it seems that it's more unjust to rob a productive man of his wealth than just to give a poor man the basic necessities of life.

At 2/11/09 06:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Implying that such a thing exists, in part or in whole, is a confession to the fact that poverty is very likely self imposed, rather than the product of something beyond their own control.

No, I think that poverty is generally not self imposed. But that does not mean that there are not those who would abuse a welfare system.

But I think that is simply a cost that we must accept if we want to provide a decent standard of living for all of our people.

In which case it seems that it's more unjust to rob a productive man of his wealth than just to give a poor man the basic necessities of life.

You might like this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Cen tennial-Ed-HC/dp/0525948929/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234397357&sr=8-
1

At 2/11/09 07:11 PM, Al6200 wrote: You might like this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Cen tennial-Ed-HC/dp/0525948929/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234397357&sr=8-
1

I'm already in the process of reading it.

What a horrible plan