Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Biden wants to increase taxes on all you rich working peeps.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rez Exelon" data-source="post: 3567852" data-attributes="member: 5800"><p>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:</p><p></p><p>Let's toss some hypothetical numbers out. Let's say a flat tax was 10% and say I made </p><p>$10,000 a year, my tax is $1,000</p><p>$100,000 a year, my tax is $10,000</p><p>$1,000,000 a year, my tax is $100,000. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>$10,000 a year, my tax is $1,000</p><p>$100,000 a year, my tax is $15,000</p><p>$1,000,000 a year, my tax is $200,000. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rez Exelon, post: 3567852, member: 5800"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Biden wants to increase taxes on all you rich working peeps.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom