Kerry's tax plan

[Minnie824]

I do NOT mean this to be a debate, but somehow I'm sure it will become one. I'm not much into politics, but I can't help but hear some of it lately with everything on tv. Does anyone else not agree with Kerry's tax plan to take more taxes from the 'wealthy'? I think what they should do is just take an even percentage from everyone, and then the wealthy would pay more. I mean, 10% of 200,000 is more than 10% of 20,000 anyway. Wouldn't that be logical? Ok, just wanted to state my opinion.

 

[shortbun]

I've always liked the across the board flat tax idea. No one
who's ever been close to elected has embraced it though. I'm
not sure there is anything short of a total redo on the tax set
up we have now that would really work and no one in government is supporting that. I do know that the current plan
places too much of the burden on people like my husband because he is a small business owner and sole proprieter. Our
tax contribution is huge! People are aghast when I tell them
how much we pay versus what we earn. Two years ago, the
Bush tax refund didn't touch us. We are NOT rich, on the contrary, we may not even qualify for middle class. I guess I
wouldn't mind some more of the burden of supporting the
war in Iraq being placed on the upper income group. If not for
this war, we might be able to fund NCLB or Medicare. I should take a closer look. I vote more based on moral issues (some are
driven by the economy) like health care, education, equal protection/rights, privacy.

 

[Broken8ball]

I certainly agree with you. In fact, I think we should restructure the entire tax code to make it really simple. No more deductions, complex forms etc. A one page form thats says you made $XXXX, your tax is y%. Deduct what was paid and thats what you owe.

 

[wvrevy]

I was actually once on-board with the flat tax idea, but I've since gotten over it. The simple fact is that 10% of their salary for someone making $20,000 means a helluva lot more in terms of lifestyle than 10% of the salary of someone making $2,000,000 a year. That's simple fact, and undeniable. Where the flat taxers seem to differ is that they say that a progressive tax system (one in which the 2 million dollar man gets taxed 15% so that the person barely making a living wage can pay considerably less) is "unfair" to the person making 2,000,000....and while that may be true, I find it a specious argument, simply because I care more that the person working full time is able to afford a place to live and transportation to and from work, rather than that the person making $2,000,000 a year is able to afford the 44 foot yacht rather than the 36 footer

A flat tax SEEMS fair, but in reality it hits the poorest among us the hardest...and frankly, there are a helluva lot more people making 20 grand than there are making 2 mil.

Kerry's tax plan, by the way, will only roll back the most recent cuts for the top 2%...everyone else will stay at the same level they currently pay. And even the top 2% will only be "raised" back to the level of the Clinton years, before reckless cuts and excessive spending balooned the deficit. It's not like we're going back to the days of ridiculously high tax rates on the wealthy.

Just my opinion.

 

[Galahad]

I agree that a flat tax scheme with an appropriately high exemption for lower incomes would be much more "fair" and would generate more revenue as well.

 

[tkyes]

Just curious - what defines "wealthy"? Does anyone know what the amount is?

 

[Minnie824]

Kerry's tax plan, by the way, will only roll back the most recent cuts for the top 2%

Thats what I heard at first, but then I heard that it will affect those making over 200,000, not 2 million. Which in a lot of states and especially major cities, is considered middle class, not rich. And I can't believe that its only 2% of people when you look at it that way.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by Minnie824
Thats what I heard at first, but then I heard that it will affect those making over 200,000, not 2 million. Which in a lot of states and especially major cities, is considered middle class, not rich. And I can't believe that its only 2% of people when you look at it that way.

Exactly.

 

[richiebaseball]

Anyone have thoughts about a national sales tax to replace taxing of income?

Richard

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Minnie824
I do NOT mean this to be a debate, but somehow I'm sure it will become one. I'm not much into politics, but I can't help but hear some of it lately with everything on tv. Does anyone else not agree with Kerry's tax plan to take more taxes from the 'wealthy'? I think what they should do is just take an even percentage from everyone, and then the wealthy would pay more. I mean, 10% of 200,000 is more than 10% of 20,000 anyway. Wouldn't that be logical? Ok, just wanted to state my opinion.

Yes, it would be logical. The tax system was setup to "penalize" the rich.

If you make 2,000,000 or 20,000 dollars you pay the same sales tax on something you buy regardless of how much you make.

Why should the income tax system be different?

But there are A LOT of people out there that believe if you make more, you should pay more (percentage wise).

 

[jrydberg]

I've never understood the whole tax the rich more mentality. The rich already pay more than their fair share in income tax. I believe the current figure is something like the top 5% earn about 22% of income but pay 50% of income taxes. Something to that effect. My point being, the rich are already paying more than their fair share. That being the case, I think it's wrong to give everyone else tax cuts and not give them to the ones shouldering the lion's share of the tax burden.

I'm all for the wealthy paying a higher percentage, but not to the point where it's punitive.

Minnie824, good point about cost of living. I make more than double what I made when I lived in Alabama. But my standard of living hasn't really changed. I'm not really wealthier (not that I'm in the top 2% anyway). Most of the pay increase goes toward taxes and my outrageous mortgage payment

On a side note, deficits are all about spending (an area GWB could use some lessons in restraint). Tax revenue tends to remain relatively stable through tax cuts and increases. Spending needs to be controlled in order to deal with deficits.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Minnie824
Thats what I heard at first, but then I heard that it will affect those making over 200,000, not 2 million. Which in a lot of states and especially major cities, is considered middle class, not rich. And I can't believe that its only 2% of people when you look at it that way.

It is $200,000, but I have a major problem with calling anyone making that kind of income "middle class". The average income according to the US census buereau was just over $43,000...so I fail to see how you could possibly classify someone making 5 times that amount as "middle class"....I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Even in Manhattan the average is considerably less than half that $200,000 a year amount.

Here, check it out yourself...There's not a state in the union where the average income is anywhere NEAR $200k.

US Census Medium Income Tables

 

[castlegazer]

A flat tax system is in actuality a regressive tax system (hits the poor harder than the wealthy) - that is why it never flies.

Understanding tax policy takes more than a listening to a sound bite.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by castlegazer
A flat tax system is in actuality a regressive tax system (hits the poor harder than the wealthy) - that is why it never flies.

Understanding tax policy takes more than a listening to a sound bite.

Unfortunately, that's all most people are willing to listen to these days. If it's not simple to explain, they aren't interested, particularly if the real answer is somewhat counter-intuitive and you actually have to think about it

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues

Why should the income tax system be different?

Because the "rich" pay less. They have tax shelters and offshore accounts.

I say tax them.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by castlegazer
A flat tax system is in actuality a regressive tax system (hits the poor harder than the wealthy) - that is why it never flies.

.

The problem with that is fair=hit harder.

With the current tax system, they usually pay no taxes or get money back (that they didn't pay in).

So which is better?

Paying into the system at the same rate as everyone else or paying no taxes (or getting someone else's money back) each April?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
The problem with that is fair=hit harder.

With the current tax system, they usually pay no taxes or get money back (that they didn't pay in).

So which is better?

Paying into the system at the same rate as everyone else or getting someone else's money back each April?

Oh, please

You're talking about people making next to NOTHING...They make BARELY enough money to survive in poverty...Can we please knock of the crap about how great they've got it ? The fact is that NONE of us would willingly trade places with the people making that kind of money and living that kind of life.

Ask ANY person working full time below the poverty level whether they'd trade places with someone making an incredibly high salary if it also meant they'd have to pay more in taxes, and see what they say. Then ask a CEO if he'd trade with the janitor at his local McDonalds, and watch him laugh you out of his office.

So can we please cut the "oh, those poor millionaires" crap ? It's just ridiculous.

 

[Elwood Blues]

A question for those who prefer a progressive type tax system.

Why do you believe that someone who makes more money than someone else should pay a higher percentage in income taxes?

Why is it that the income tax system is the only one (that I know of) that does that?

Every other tax that we pay (for goods, services and excise) is at a flat rate.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Why? Many, many reasons.

I suppose to try and condense my answer I would say the "rich" are the ones "making" the system. To say otherwise it just laughable. The systems in place are OK but certainly there is room for making huge improvements.

If you want the power you have to pay for it. Price of admission.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, please

You're talking about people making next to NOTHING...They make BARELY enough money to survive in poverty...Can we please knock of the crap about how great they've got it ? The fact is that NONE of us would willingly trade places with the people making that kind of money and living that kind of life.

Ask ANY person working full time below the poverty level whether they'd trade places with someone making an incredibly high salary if it also meant they'd have to pay more in taxes, and see what they say. Then ask a CEO if he'd trade with the janitor at his local McDonalds, and watch him laugh you out of his office.

So can we please cut the "oh, those poor millionaires" crap ? It's just ridiculous.

Look here wise butt, knock off the sarcasm. It's getting old.

I asked a simple question.

People at or below the poverty level pay NO taxes with all the credits they get.

Let me ask you this, what's your "official" tax rate and what is you "effective" tax rate?

If you make enough money without deductions to live, why should you get them? Wouldn't that leave more money to give the poor?

And of course no one would WANT to trade their higher paying job with a lower (much much lower) paying one. What's the point in asking?