I see what you are saying, and as for deductions you might be right. I think the only way to evaluate the effect of a tax change is to look at what it does to specific individuals in specific scenarios, and I have not gone into that in any depth on capital gains.
I have heard people object that capital gains income has already been taxed once, I think, but isn't that true of corporate income in general? On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My thought has always been that without deductions, the playing field > kind of gets leveled a bit. > > There are a lot of deductions that only the wealthy can 'qualify' for. > > Here is a good starting point. Tax ALL income equally. This shit where > you get taxed a lower rate on income earned from 'capital gains' is > bull shit. Money is money, right? > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > it sounds fair until you stop looking at amount paid and look what the > > money would be spent on instead if taxes were different. If people are > > paying taxes instead of their rent, there's a social problem there, > > assuming we're talking about a reasonable rent. If it's a matter of > flying > > second-class instead of first when the family goes on vacation, you don't > > have the same desperate flavor to the choices. You may still feel that > > there are inequities, but they won't be those inequities. > > > > Cam and I had a huge thread on this a couple of years ago. Assuming I > > understood him, he feels sure that a flat tax would only apply past a > > certain income level. It is possible that if that "certain income level" > is > > high enough, you might avoid the worst consequences of this structure. In > > other words, you wouldn't be taxing money people need to live. We did > not > > agree on where "a certain level" would be, and it may depend a lot on the > > local cost of living, the situation and the actual legislation that might > > pass. > > > > However, a tax would still be not be "progressive" because that's defined > > as a tax structure model where the percentage of income paid in tax goes > at > > higher income levels. Larry may correct me here, but I don't think it > would > > be "regressive" either, as the proportion is, well, flat. An example of a > > regressive tax is Social Security, which only taxes the first > 80-something > > thousand, so Bill Gates pays proportionately much less into that system > > than you do. > > > > It's tempting to want to simplify the tax code, god knows, but everybody > > likes the deductions they get to use, so it's hard to get consensus > behind > > eliminating loopholes. Also, the usual number I hear bandied about in > flat > > tax proposals is 10%, also, which would represent a considerable tax cut > > for upper-income taxpayers. Whether eliminating deductions would balance > > that out is a good question. > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> OK..I can see it now. > >> > >> FWIW - My thought has been for a while that we rework the tax code so > >> that there are no deductions...at all..none. > >> > >> Its simple...how much money did you make, regardless of where it came > >> from, from January 1 to Dec 31? Ok, you owe us this much. > >> > >> Of, course, there would be a progressive scale there as well. > >> > >> That would likely put a lot of people out of business, though. > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > OK lets see how bad of a hash I can make of this. A sales tax hits > >> > lower income people far more than those who make more, as a percentage > >> > of income. > >> > > >> > 10% of a grocery bill of $100 is less of a hit to someone making > >> > $100,000 a year than someone making $20,000. > >> > > >> > Its still a hit but a much greater hit for the person making $20,000. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> First, let me say, I am not advocating a 'flat tax' . These are > >> >> legitimate questions (not trolling). I really don't understand (and > >> >> want to) > >> >> > >> >> How would it 'hit the poor far more than any other group'? > >> >> > >> >> How would they (the poor) be paying for 'the rich or upper class > >> >> indulgences'? If the rich purchase 'indulgences' wouldn't that > benefit > >> >> everyone - more money spent = more tax revenue, would it not? > >> >> > >> >> Again...not trying to be a shit stirrer (this time). I really just > >> >> don't understand how this would be considered a 'poor tax'. > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > larrycly...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's > clothing), > >> it > >> >>> that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other > >> group. > >> >>> Why should they pay for the rich or upper class indulgences? Frankly > >> all > >> >>> the proposal I've seen on this could only be classified as a Poor > Tax. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> > wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> "The solution isn't to just raise taxes. It's to also put rules in > >> place > >> >>> to > >> >>>>> safe-guard and penalize against hiding your money to avoid paying > the > >> >>>>> taxes." > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Or ditch the monstrosity that is the progressive income tax and > move > >> to a > >> >>>>> national sales tax. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I can certainly get behind reforming the tax code to steamline it > and > >> >>>> remove most (if not all) of the specialized deductions that keep > >> >>>> adding entropy to the system. I certainly can't agree on the > wisdom of > >> >>>> switching from a progressive income tax to a national sales tax > >> >>>> though. A progressive income tax is still, philosophically, the > right > >> >>>> way to go in my opinion. Obviously its current implementation > leaves > >> >>>> something to be desired. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Judah > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348194 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
