www.ditl.org

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:
It seems to take a Ph. D in lawyerese (aka bullshit) to even begin to understand the American Tax Code, but anyway, we effectively have no tax for the wealthy, since these guys all pay tax lawyers huge fees to finagle the numbers so as to avoid having to pay a single cent to Uncle Sam.

A legt thank God. I thought it was just me!

I think this is rather low by European standards;

'Tis, but you don't have the sort of social systems we have over here, which is what takes up most taxes.

Tsukiyumi wrote:The problem with a flat tax percentage is simple:

If person A makes $10,000 a year, and the tax is 30%, that leaves them with $7,000 a year to work with.

If person B makes $50,000,000 a year, and the percentage is the same, that leaves them with $35,000,000 a year to work with.

Considering the cost of, well, everything, person A would be disproportionately affected by that percentage.

I say, implement a tax structure that would affect a percentage directly proportional to the actual amounts people make.

Under said system, person A pays 0% taxes, because they don't make enough to pay any amount fairly.

Person B could pay 75% of their income in taxes, and still make $12,500,000 in total. But I guess that's not good enough.

This would fail in a million ways as the person wouldn't bother claiming pay in the US anymore. They'd go to another country and claim their taxes there. 75% tax is just stupid because now you are hurting someone for doing well in life. If you're going to tax someone then it needs to be balanced out. Otherwise you're no better then the rich people trying to get out of paying their taxes because you're now trying to get them to pay your taxes for you. That leaves you with a system of law that would just be as much a joke as Bush's bailout.

Deepcrush wrote:This would fail in a million ways as the person wouldn't bother claiming pay in the US anymore. They'd go to another country and claim their taxes there.

So, all the rich people would renounce their US citizenship? I suppose that could happen. Which means that we are effectively hostages to their "generosity", right?

Deepcrush wrote:75% tax is just stupid because now you are hurting someone for doing well in life.

Ouch. Now they only have twelve and a half million dollars a year to live on. Whatever will they do?

I was suggesting that high of a bracket for people who make more than $50 million a year.

Deepcrush wrote:If you're going to tax someone then it needs to be balanced out.

That would be a balance. The people with more pay more.

Deepcrush wrote:...Otherwise you're no better then the rich people trying to get out of paying their taxes because you're now trying to get them to pay your taxes for you...

People who make less than $10,000 a year should never have to pay taxes.

Please, come up with a rational argument for allowing people who own cars worth more than your house to pay the same percentage in taxes as everyone else. I'd love to hear it.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I was suggesting that high of a bracket for people who make more than $50 million a year.

Exactly - in the 1950s, the US had a top bracket that was over 90%. It would basically discourage people from receiving gigantic salaries.

What? No it wouldn't. They'd still be making far more in the end, even with taxes included.

Deepcrush wrote:I'd strip the bitches dry if I could. The Gov goes to bail out and then just hitches the money into these rich guys pockets while they suck money from the working class. There needs to be a flat tax rate for everyone. A percent that never changes. No rebates because you paid for a senator's dinner.

I say we borrow a plan tried and tested by English monarchs with those banking execs. If they squandered tax money then their lands and money should be confiscated and given to the government. Worked for the Brits.

Rochey wrote:What? No it wouldn't. They'd still be making far more in the end, even with taxes included.

You would still have people making very big salaries, but I think corporations would be reluctant to pile on additional millions of dollars to their executives if 90% of it was going to the government. The closer you go to a 100% top tax rate, the closer you would go to an effective maximum income.

Lazar wrote:

Rochey wrote:What? No it wouldn't. They'd still be making far more in the end, even with taxes included.

You would still have people making very big salaries, but I think corporations would be reluctant to pile on additional millions of dollars to their executives if 90% of it was going to the government. The closer you go to a 100% top tax rate, the closer you would go to an effective maximum income.

Do we really need a maximum income though?

I don't support a maximum income, but income inequality does correlate with a lot of social ills. Bear in mind that American CEOs make about 15 times as much money as Japanese CEOs, and about four times as much as European CEOs, and that they're rarely fired for poor performance. This, while hundreds of thousands of workers are being laid off.

Overall I say if you make more you should paymore, what I don't understand is how some people see the flat tax as a good thing since it penalises people who are either just starting out or who don't make as much. Also I find it a bit amusing that as a member of the Armed Forces my pay gets taxed (at the federal level only, my state doesn't tax military pay) even though my paycheck comes form the tax payers in the first place (I'm in a twisted way paying my own paycheck). I say if you make below a certain amount you pay a much lower amount than someone who makes a great deal of money (ie 10000$ a year no tax, 20000 to 35000 a year 10% ect. on up to 75% for someone making over a couple mil a year). And yes I do agree that if you managed to become sucessful you should enjoy that success but not at the expense of those that work for you. my two cents feel free to "tax" it.