Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hdevonxz

Can someone explain this to me.

Recommended Posts

tight lines    156

If you think "the rich" are paying a lot in taxes, you're not paying attention.

That depends on whether you mean rich as in income or rich as in accumulated wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




88 Bronco    1,303

If you think "the rich" are paying a lot in taxes, you're not paying attention.

No, I don't think that. People scream "tax the rich", but they don't grasp what happens when that concept is applied. The "rich" hide their money in investments, charitable donations and lots of other tax deductions that brings their gross adjusted income down a tax bracket or 3. Even if we could get the "rich" to pay more, people like you and me would end up paying the increase in taxes because the "rich would force an increase to goods and services to recoup some of their lost earnings

This is why I believe in a flat tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tight lines    156

If you're main income is a paycheck, you ain't rich.

That skirts my question. Income is income to the IRS whether its a paycheck or not.

My question was whether you meant income rich ( the way the government determines tax brackets) or accumulated wealth rich ( people who inherited large sums of money and have most of it tax sheltered ( the truly rich)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pstall    5,759

I think 100% flat tax is impractical. Like communism it looks great on paper.

Implementation would be extremely tough.

If anything, phase it in so as not to totally disrupt the system and put into shock. The main issue is the uber rich have a stranglehold on not just money but culture, power, politics and pretty much alot of other things. They won't just roll over. Thats left or right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88 Bronco    1,303

I think the biggest reason we don't have a flat tax is because a few non-profit organizations would go under due to the lack of donations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Delhommey    2,800

Trust me. A being a single, childless non home owner in a decent tax bracket, I am well aware who bears the brunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delhommey    2,800

That skirts my question. Income is income to the IRS whether its a paycheck or not.

My question was whether you meant income rich ( the way the government determines tax brackets) or accumulated wealth rich ( people who inherited large sums of money and have most of it tax sheltered ( the truly rich)

BS. Income is not income.

Trust me, I pay a much higher percentage on my yearly income, than Warren Buffet. At least double.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88 Bronco    1,303

Trust me. A being a single, childless non home owner in a decent tax bracket, I am well aware who bears the brunt.

Not to be a smug dick, but did I miss anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88 Bronco    1,303

No deductions for kids or mortgage interest = pain.

Sorry I forgot the classic "adopt a foreign kid instead of destroying my figure so I can get a child tax deduction". Plus expenses incurred during an adoption are tax deductible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tight lines    156

Trust me. A being a single, childless non home owner in a decent tax bracket, I am well aware who bears the brunt.

You have still missed my point. Graduated income tax is based on income Not Accumulated wealth, hence you can be rich without having a large income and you can have a large income without having a large amount of accumulated wealth.

Ps having children can be more considerably more expensive than the money you save in taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
engine9    1

Yeah, that's what I don't get. This dude was so concerned about taxing the rich, when he has no chance of being rich.

Kinda like the whole Joe sixpack dilemma.

I don't know any hourly workers who haven't mentioned how much more money they'd be making if it weren't for all the deductions by the gov't. I completely understand that the gov't has to run and the only way it can run is on taxes, but when the amount of money is blown every year that our gov't completely wastes, it leaves a person (particularly a person who has performed a week of strenuous physical labor) a bit jaded toward said gov't that is taking that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×