Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Google flat tax and you'll get 12,400,000 results...
Wez
DA
Google flat tax and you'll get 12,400,000 results...
Other than the complexity and loopholes, what's wrong with our current progressive tax system?
Not only is Trump losing and/or settling lawsuits, he is using his fake charity to pay them off --
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
Google flat tax and you'll get 12,400,000 results...
There are a lot of options there. Which one do you support?
It used to be much worse - top rates over 70%, but with so many exceptions, exemptions, and dodges that anyone making that much could figure out how not to pay the top rates. An historic example is that of Eisenhower, who after his retirement from the Army, published his memoir Crusade in Europe. It was a huge seller, almost as if every soldier who served in Europe and every Army officer bought a copy. The unplanned sudden jump in income from the royalties was going to push Eisenhower into the top bracket, but Treasury ruled that he could treat the income as capital gains, and thus pay a much lower rate. That ruling was widely noted at the time as unprecedented and not supported in the tax laws, but no one wanted to contest it.
I took advantage of another quirk in the laws. After I got out of the Navy, my 1977 taxable income jumped up significantly. I was only getting paid less than $6/hour, but we were really busy that year, so overtime pushed it up much higher (my best day was 14 hours on a holiday => 36 hours pay, plus hotel room, car and per diem because we were working off site). I was able to use a feature called Income Averaging in 77 and 78 to cut my tax bill a large amount.
The 1986 "simplification" eliminated a lot of that.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Here are 15 things that a $15 minimum wage law does not and cannot do:
We can all agree that what we want is for as many Americans as possible to have GOOD JOBS, jobs that pay well and allow workers to live a good life. We can also agree that before you can get a good job, you first need A job, and those first jobs are almost always entry-level jobs.
If we wanted to design a perverse public policy that would minimize employment opportunities for unskilled, entry-level workers, and prevent as many of them as possible from finding their first job, an entry-level job that would put them on the path to eventually getting a really good job, we might propose a $15 an hour minimum wage law. That would guarantee that entry level jobs would be eliminated, and the higher the minimum wage, the more jobs that would be eliminated (see Henry Payne cartoons above).
On the other hand, if we want to maximize employment opportunities for as many Americans as possible, especially the most vulnerable among us (the unskilled, the poor, and minorities), we should NOT erect artificial barriers that will deny employment opportunities to those Americans, and we shouldn’t be outlawing jobs with minimum wage laws. Rather, we should allow market-determined wages to prevail, because we know from ECON 101 that market wages will maximize employment opportunities, while government-mandated wages are guaranteed to reduce employment opportunities.
In closing, remember that the real minimum wage is always zero, because that is the wage that thousands, possibly millions of workers will receive following a government-mandated $15 minimum wage, because they will either lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. That’s a very cruel public policy, and I urge the city of Minneapolis and the citizens of Minneapolis and Minnesota to reject that form of cruelty, a cruelty that would inflict the most harm on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged among us.
Bonus Venn Diagram:
- It does not raise unskilled workers’ productivity or their value to an employer to accompany the 100% increase in wages that employers are forced to pay unskilled workers.
- It does not guarantee that a single new job will be created, and in fact a minimum wage law outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.
- It cannot stop employers from reducing the number of low-skilled workers they employ.
- It cannot stop employers from reducing the number of weekly work hours assigned to employees at the higher wage.
- It cannot stop employers from hiring fewer unskilled workers in the future following a minimum wage hike.
- It cannot stop firms from investing in labor-saving technologies like self-ordering kiosks following a minimum wage hike.
- It cannot stop firms from decreasing the amount of on-the-job training provided to unskilled workers.
- It cannot stop firms from reducing or eliminating workers’ non-monetary fringe benefits.
- It cannot stop firms from adjusting (to the disadvantage of workers) other “non-wage attributes” of jobs including: the strictness of work demands, flexibility in scheduling, and upward mobility.
- It cannot stop firms from discriminating against low-skilled workers and substituting higher-skilled workers. In fact, the minimum wage law is a law that forces employers to discriminate against workers who have low skills.
- It cannot stop firms from discriminating against minority groups.
- It cannot stop firms from making location and expansion decisions that avoid geographic areas that have high minimum wages. Example: Buffalo Wild Wings decision to avoid expansion in cities like Seattle with $15 an hour minimum wage laws.
- It cannot stop firms from closing down or contracting their operations (and eliminating jobs) following a minimum wage hike.
- It cannot stop entrepreneurs and potential small business owners from deciding to not start new businesses, or to not expand their current businesses because of the higher labor costs from government-mandated minimum wages.
- It cannot stop manufacturing firms from outsourcing production overseas and it cannot stop service-sector firms from outsourcing call centers overseas.
We can all agree that what we want is for as many Americans as possible to have GOOD JOBS, jobs that pay well and allow workers to live a good life. We can also agree that before you can get a good job, you first need A job, and those first jobs are almost always entry-level jobs.
If we wanted to design a perverse public policy that would minimize employment opportunities for unskilled, entry-level workers, and prevent as many of them as possible from finding their first job, an entry-level job that would put them on the path to eventually getting a really good job, we might propose a $15 an hour minimum wage law. That would guarantee that entry level jobs would be eliminated, and the higher the minimum wage, the more jobs that would be eliminated (see Henry Payne cartoons above).
On the other hand, if we want to maximize employment opportunities for as many Americans as possible, especially the most vulnerable among us (the unskilled, the poor, and minorities), we should NOT erect artificial barriers that will deny employment opportunities to those Americans, and we shouldn’t be outlawing jobs with minimum wage laws. Rather, we should allow market-determined wages to prevail, because we know from ECON 101 that market wages will maximize employment opportunities, while government-mandated wages are guaranteed to reduce employment opportunities.
In closing, remember that the real minimum wage is always zero, because that is the wage that thousands, possibly millions of workers will receive following a government-mandated $15 minimum wage, because they will either lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. That’s a very cruel public policy, and I urge the city of Minneapolis and the citizens of Minneapolis and Minnesota to reject that form of cruelty, a cruelty that would inflict the most harm on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged among us.
Bonus Venn Diagram:
One that addresses deficit spending year after year...
One that would work.
One that would have more payers.
Tell me MAgoo, which one do you suggest?
It looks like you believe in fairy tales, unless you can firm up some details like --
What "flat" rate?
What is counted as income?
What deductions, exemptions, credits are permitted?
What would be the impact on current long-term tax-deferment plans?
How much revenue would it raise, compared to the current horrid system?
I haven't seen any plan touted as "flat tax" that makes sense with those factors taken into account
Wez
DA
What do poor people have to do with the National debt? 40+% of taxpayers pay nothing because their income is too low to pay taxes.
What's wrong with skewing the tax system, like our progressive tax system does, toward those who can most afford to pay taxes?
A flat tax punishes the poor and benefits the rich, is that what you want?
I'm sorry I expect to much from you and MAgoo.
Who said poor people had anything to do with the national debt? I didn't.
Wez, you asked what was wrong with the current system...I answered see the national debt.
Under our current system the national debt continues to climb. The current system doesn't work very well.
One of the big bitches from many is that write offs such as the mortgage interest favors the rich..
Then there are business expenses, that wage earners can't claim, bla bla bla....
Rich guys with really good tax attorney's will pay far less as a % than us middle class guys.
So, let's let the poor continue not to pay taxes, set a number $15,000.00? $20,000.00? $35,000.00?
Make that a base line. You earn at or below the base, you pay no tax.
Everybody else pays... again set a number 10%? 15%? 18.5% 28%? and they pay that number on all their income.
Both sets of numbers can be easily manipulated or changed as the economy strengthens or weakens or as additional revenues are needed.
Does that really punish the poor?
I suppose it's just a fairy tale....
Think about it, ponder it if you will.
You believe yourself smarter than ...well....everyone.
Let's hear what MAgoo would do.
Just don't think about it too hard, you might soil yourself.
Bruddah IZ
DA
That's because you're ignoring spending
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
...and immediately followed it with: "50% of tax payers pay nada....perhaps since we all benefit, we should all pay something?"
If the "poor" are exempted, than no, but a progressive tax system skews the tax payments toward those most able to afford them.
Yes, you can exempt poverty levels, but those just above paying the same as the rich and they are the ones who get screwed. The rich make out because they no longer are shouldering the majority of tax burden, like they currently do.
I'm middle class (depending on how you define it), I don't want a flat tax. I think what we have now actually works pretty well, despite various complaints, usually from those who don't fully understand taxation.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
State Department spokesman John Kirby acknowledged Wednesday that Islamic State terrorists are trying to mingle with refugee populations overseas in the hopes of making it to the U.S. posing as a refugee.