I think I'm seeing yet another reason for a flat tax.
What is your logic/formula for wealthier people paying a higher percentage of their wealth to the state?
I go back and forth in my thinking on whether a flat tax makes sense of not as there's lot of arguments that could be made for and against. Kind of similar to you question here:
Let's toss some hypothetical numbers out. Let's say a flat tax was 10% and say I made
$10,000 a year, my tax is $1,000
$100,000 a year, my tax is $10,000
$1,000,000 a year, my tax is $100,000.
Now at the same time, the baseline of goods and services is always going to be relatively constant, unless I want to buy fancier things. A Toyota Corolla will not change in price based on my income, although if I had extra money a Lambo would definitely be more expensive.
So, in that situation, which bracket is most affected? Well, the lowest one. All things being equal having $9,000 leftover after taxes to live on for a year is a way different situation than having $900,000 leftover to live on. So let's assume that we step the brackets, 10,15,20.
$10,000 a year, my tax is $1,000
$100,000 a year, my tax is $15,000
$1,000,000 a year, my tax is $200,000.
Again, the question is whether it's equitable right? Now, the households are left with $9,000, $85,000 and $800,000. I don't know about you, but I could still live comfy on either the 85 or 800 leftovers. But that setup is, to me, more fair because the top earners are contributing more. And statistically speaking, they are probably using more services that society funds in terms of infrastructure and the like.
Where it gets tricky is how to implement this. How does one capture all the income, investment income, etc. What would the brackets be? Would it fixed brackets, a basis scale, what? Is there a top end cap like having over "X" in assets means you pay a capped percentage per year? Even if the concept is simple there's still lots of challenges to making it work IRL.
Yes!
Having 90% of your income left is 90%, regardless of the actual income number. It sucks to be at the bottom, but that is motivation to rise. Someone that works, invests in education and makes loads of money should not be penalized to make things more "equitable" for those that don't.
The idea of a graduated income tax is so far from what our Republic was based on it's sickening. Not buying this crap, comrade.
No, but the Republic was also based on far different ideals then we had today where the wealthy could literally work people to death for instance. And whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, there are systemic biases against the bottom percentages of our population.
And don't call me comrade --- you can be better than stooping to names even if you disagree with me.
I have been at the bottom. My wife was at the bottom. Life ain't fair and the world is mean.
Didn't realize "comrade" would offend you, I'll refrain from using that.
A flat tax will never work. The original income tax was a "flat tax" until politicians began adding to the code to please various sections of voters, or to encourage certain behavior in society. A "flat tax" enacted in 2022 will have many changes by 2025 and will continue to evolve into the same 70,000 pages of tax code that we have today.
Those are some crazy numbers. 1st the profit being used is 25%. What time frame is that? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. The comments seem like $50,000 is just going to magically appear. It doesn’t work like that.
The difference in 20% vs 40% in this example is the difference of making 20% vs 15%. For an average person that 5% may not seem like much. The difference in earning 15% vs 20% over 20 years on $200,000 is $4.4 million or ending with $3.3m vs $7.7M.
There’s an opportunity cost that investors or anyone will have when the money is used for one thing, there could be a cost by not using it somewhere else.
.gov taxation policy is used to pull intelligent investors around by the nose ring. Do you realize an individual can report loses every year with rental properties? What other business can you do that, none!. Essentially the .gov is paying you to lose money as you grow wealth. As long as there’s cash flow to live on, you are golden. You can retire a millionaire and pay very little in tax over your life. Unlike having a job and getting a paycheck that’s taxed as much as possible.
There’s a reason people stay poor. Follow the liberal mentality. It won’t matter how much money the .gov gives them, they will never succeed waiting on someone else to make them rich.
The difference in 20% vs 40% in this example is the difference of making 20% vs 15%. For an average person that 5% may not seem like much. The difference in earning 15% vs 20% over 20 years on $200,000 is $4.4 million or ending with $3.3m vs $7.7M.
There’s an opportunity cost that investors or anyone will have when the money is used for one thing, there could be a cost by not using it somewhere else.
.gov taxation policy is used to pull intelligent investors around by the nose ring. Do you realize an individual can report loses every year with rental properties? What other business can you do that, none!. Essentially the .gov is paying you to lose money as you grow wealth. As long as there’s cash flow to live on, you are golden. You can retire a millionaire and pay very little in tax over your life. Unlike having a job and getting a paycheck that’s taxed as much as possible.
There’s a reason people stay poor. Follow the liberal mentality. It won’t matter how much money the .gov gives them, they will never succeed waiting on someone else to make them rich.
Similar threads
