Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You want this guy for president then.

So do I though.

At 9/21/10 06:09 PM, Evark wrote: Stuff

I don't mean to double post but I have to say something to this. It doesn't look like there will be anymore comments on this thread anyways so I probably have to.

You're wrong about what you said. A flat tax empowers the poor and it takes away chances for tax deductions from the rich but does it in a way that doesn't screw them over.

The flat tax has worked wonders for Eastern Europe as it can here.

At 9/21/10 06:12 PM, Anozke wrote: My pops is a rural family physician making a supposedly lavish wage, yet I pay for part of my college. Parents go broke when they have 12 kids. Yeah whatever, do your progressive tax, but make HUGE exemptions if children are involved.

Yeah, I suppose the number of children should also be taken into account.

At 9/21/10 06:12 PM, Anozke wrote: My pops is a rural family physician making a supposedly lavish wage, yet I pay for part of my college. Parents go broke when they have 12 kids. Yeah whatever, do your progressive tax, but make HUGE exemptions if children are involved.

There already are tax credits for having children.

At 9/21/10 06:12 PM, Anozke wrote: My pops is a rural family physician making a supposedly lavish wage, yet I pay for part of my college. Parents go broke when they have 12 kids. Yeah whatever, do your progressive tax, but make HUGE exemptions if children are involved.

Don't have twelve fucking kids.

>_>

At 9/21/10 06:38 PM, OneWordName wrote:

At 9/21/10 06:12 PM, Anozke wrote: My pops is a rural family physician making a supposedly lavish wage, yet I pay for part of my college. Parents go broke when they have 12 kids. Yeah whatever, do your progressive tax, but make HUGE exemptions if children are involved.

Don't have twelve fucking kids.

>_>

Pretty much.

It's peoples choices to have children, it wasn't forced upon them like disability or something. If you can't pay for your children then don't fucking have them.

what da fuyck fidel castroism

At 9/21/10 06:44 PM, Gagsy wrote: If you can't pay for your children then don't fucking have them.

I have never agreed with anything anyone has said on this site more than this. Ever.

Ever.

At 9/21/10 05:42 PM, Twilight wrote: I'm cool with most of your threads nowadays but this one is just dumb.

I think he's injecting some thought into societies larger issues,and stimulating high quality critical thinking that concerns peoples from all kinds of socio economic levels and the fate of ther finances and its role in how government determines how much we as individuals pay.

At 9/21/10 06:31 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: You're wrong about what you said.

Wait, so you think 50 dollars out of 1,000 is equally burdensome as 5 million out of 1 billion? Even though 50 dollars represents directly subtracting, say, 10-15 meals from the person, whereas 5 million out of 1 billion is the difference between 49 megaestates vs. 50?

I'll remind you we're ignoring the realities of taxing in the country currently in order to talk about a progressive tax.

It's more then a little discriminatory, and there's bound to be a heap of arguments arising from it, so yeah, I'd prefer the "okay, you got a job, now give us that percentage of your income" take on taxing - it's just not worth the trouble that is bound to arise from people getting screwed over due to unsteady intake/overlooked jobs/AIDS/crystal meth addiction then what would happen otherwise.

The poor doctor can't get his fourth 3D tv now oh how I pity him.

At 9/21/10 05:41 PM, Gagsy wrote: Yamor, I've never disagreed with you harder than I do right now and find your attitude completely selfish and ungrateful.

This isn't about me wanting all the money for myself or anything. I don't even pay income tax. I just don't understand why we can't just have a low-ish income tax. 10% income tax would be perfectly fine if we stopped wasting all of our money on bullshit.

Yeah, this isn't me wanting all the money for myself. Just me not getting why we can't just have a decently low income tax that is flat. But yes, I do think if you get a good education/ make an awesome invention you should reap rewards.

Flat tax just seemed the fairest if the flat tax wasn't very high.

At 9/21/10 07:25 PM, Cootie wrote: This isn't about me wanting all the money for myself or anything. I don't even pay income tax. I just don't understand why we can't just have a low-ish income tax. 10% income tax would be perfectly fine if we stopped wasting all of our money on bullshit.

There's some people in this world that can spend every cent they have on neccessity, and still not/barely have enough money to live the next month.

Those are called poor people.

Not trying to be a smart ass but it seems like you don't know that they exist.

At 9/21/10 07:25 PM, Cootie wrote:

This isn't about me wanting all the money for myself or anything. I don't even pay income tax. I just don't understand why we can't just have a low-ish income tax. 10% income tax would be perfectly fine if we stopped wasting all of our money on bullshit.

I am aware though of your desire to get a big paying job. I fail to see beyond this being a personal matter to you.

Yeah, this isn't me wanting all the money for myself. Just me not getting why we can't just have a decently low income tax that is flat. But yes, I do think if you get a good education/ make an awesome invention you should reap rewards.

And they do reap the rewards. Why though should people unfortunate enough not to be able to have a good education be punished for that financially? Not everyone has the chance to go to college, or even school for that matter, yet they still have to get jobs, ones that are low pay and hard work. They do deserve a break as tax to them means more, as to them, they lose more.

Besides, I think you'll find that it tends to get more comfortable at the top. The hardest working jobs in terms of labour are generally the lower paying ones.

Flat tax just seemed the fairest if the flat tax wasn't very high.

The world isn't fair. Tax especially.

At 9/21/10 07:29 PM, Chymeraxe wrote:

Not trying to be a smart ass but it seems like you don't know that they exist.

My uncle is nonexistent :O, but really he did drugs and didn't work toward a future soooo... ya know how that goes.

At 9/21/10 07:32 PM, Gagsy wrote:

Besides, I think you'll find that it tends to get more comfortable at the top. The hardest working jobs in terms of labour are generally the lower paying ones.

I agree. My grandpa is a hay (yes like actually hay) farmer and he doesn't make very much money at all. And, I agree that not everyone gets to go to school. But, I do think that 99% of America has the ability to finish public school.

Poor people will tend to say it's fair because other people pay more of their share, while those same people are made to work harder.

At 9/21/10 07:32 PM, Cootie wrote:

At 9/21/10 07:29 PM, Chymeraxe wrote:

Not trying to be a smart ass but it seems like you don't know that they exist.

My uncle is nonexistent :O, but really he did drugs and didn't work toward a future soooo... ya know how that goes.

That's completely different.

I know people (from working with my dad) that have clean records, great families, good morals/intentions, honest livings that haven't had the chances most people have had and are working construction because that's all they have, but they'll be damned if they're gonna give up just because that shitty/hard/low paying/dangerous job doesn't bring in enough money to get good stuff. If it can get them enough money to live through the month then they'll work any hour that they can and more to provide for their children.

There are people out there that are walking saints, living in places most people would consider trashy and drug infested and working jobs that again, most people would be like LOL he didn't go to school guise. These people didn't have the chance. They were brought up to live with just enough money to eat and drive and they never could get enough money to send their kids to college like they would have wanted them to.

Again, I realize that there are stupid people that are lazy and drug addicts that are poor for a reason, but there's a shit ton more of these honest people that can barely live off what they get than you would ever be able to imagine, and these are the kind of people that deserve a break/bigger paying job than those plastic surgeons that can get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for doing nothing but slapping together a new titty on a 20 year old cause like omg hers are like saggy and gross.

We need to reassign how important jobs are to society, and pay them accordingly. But that's never going to happen, so the least we could do is change the taxes to help the poor and take away what the rich don't need to begin with.

A flat tax isn't "fair" due to the many reasons already stated in this thread. 10% of $30,000 is not the same as 10% of $300,000. However, where do we draw the line? What amount of money is enough money to where we can take more of somebodies money?

What got me thinking is I keep seeing $100,000 or $200,000 thrown around as a good point to start taxing more. I would disagree. While those people have substantially more money than the average American, I wouldn't consider them so rich that 15% or 20% is nothing to them. $15,000 from $100,000 is a lot of money, as is $40,000 from $200,000. I think when you get to the $400,000 plus range is where upper middle class or lower upper class (whatever you want to call it) turns into upper class to the point where 15% or 20% isn't a huge hit anymore.

If you look at the $80,000 - $200,000 group of people, they aren't the vision of "rich" that people see in this country. When I think of a rich person, i think of someone who has a mansion or two, very nice cars, and has no qualms about spending money on expensive things. I don't consider the people in the above bracket that kind of rich, or even rich. That group of people are the ones that don't have to make life decisions about getting fast food, going out to eat once a week, buying items at above-average prices, and generally contribute a lot of their income to the economy, which trickles down to the middle class and lower class. Taking tens of thousands of dollars from their incomes would mean they wouldn't spend their money on useless things as often, which means the businesses that generally hire the working class will suffer and you get the idea.

The hardest thing about creating a progressive tax plan is deciding what level is too much, and should involve a substantial amount of research to determine, for each level of income within $10,000 increments :

1 : How much money does each family or person spend on needed items?
2 : After that, how much is spent around their local and state businesses?
3 : How much is left over?

These three questions can help our government decided what levels of income are best suited for increased levels of taxing.

Either way...it's a huge hassle.

Totally fair.

Both the regressive and progressive tax systems are unfair. I propose that we scrap our income tax system and replace it with a national sales tax. That's totally fair.

At 9/21/10 07:58 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: Both the regressive and progressive tax systems are unfair. I propose that we scrap our income tax system and replace it with a national sales tax. That's totally fair.

Even that's gonna be flawed, becuase you're gonna have a different sales tax on different thing. like a new car could have a sales tax of 15% yet a pair of shoes could be taxed at 6%. The government is still gonna target the rich by taxing the hell out of items they buy.

Flat tax wins. Enough said.

Just because u get more doesnt mean they have a right to take more away. Even if you just win the lottery or wack a rich uncle and money suddlenly rains down on you

I think it seems fair.

At 9/21/10 08:05 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: The government is still gonna target the rich by taxing the hell out of items they buy.

Yacht Tax: 75%

At 9/21/10 08:05 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

Even that's gonna be flawed, becuase you're gonna have a different sales tax on different thing. like a new car could have a sales tax of 15% yet a pair of shoes could be taxed at 6%. The government is still gonna target the rich by taxing the hell out of items they buy.

Make it a uniform tax, like say....10%?

At 9/21/10 08:57 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 9/21/10 08:05 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

Even that's gonna be flawed, becuase you're gonna have a different sales tax on different thing. like a new car could have a sales tax of 15% yet a pair of shoes could be taxed at 6%. The government is still gonna target the rich by taxing the hell out of items they buy.

Make it a uniform tax, like say....10%?

Actually if you were to make the sales tax higher and have no income tax at all it wouldn't be too bad. It would get rid of us paying for illegal immigrants while they payed no income tax because even they will have to purchase things. Hmmm, maybe it could work.

At 9/21/10 09:21 PM, Cootie wrote:

At 9/21/10 08:57 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 9/21/10 08:05 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

Even that's gonna be flawed, becuase you're gonna have a different sales tax on different thing. like a new car could have a sales tax of 15% yet a pair of shoes could be taxed at 6%. The government is still gonna target the rich by taxing the hell out of items they buy.

Make it a uniform tax, like say....10%?

Actually if you were to make the sales tax higher and have no income tax at all it wouldn't be too bad. It would get rid of us paying for illegal immigrants while they payed no income tax because even they will have to purchase things. Hmmm, maybe it could work.

It would becuase the poor will buy cheaper stuff. if they bought a $300 TV they would pay an extra $30 while the rich will buy a $2500 and pay an extra $250