Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
In tonight's State of the Union address, President Obama will declare a new found commitment to "fiscal responsibility" to cover the huge spending and debt he and congressional Democrats have run up in his first year in office. But next Monday, when he submits his actual budget, I fear it will rely on gimmickry, commissions, luke-warm spending "freezes," and paper-tiger controls to create the illusion of budget discipline. Meanwhile, he and the Democratic congressional leadership will continue pursuing a relentless expansion of government and a new culture of dependency.

America needs an alternative. For that reason, I have reintroduced my plan to tackle our nation's most pressing domestic challenges—updated to reflect the dramatic decline in our economic and fiscal condition. The plan, called A Road Map for America's Future and first introduced in 2008, is a comprehensive proposal to ensure health and retirement security for all Americans, to lift the debt burdens that are mounting every day because of Washington's reckless spending, and to promote jobs and competitiveness in the 21st century global economy.

The difference between the Road Map and the Democrats' approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion "stimulus" last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a "progressive" strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes—a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.

Americans don't have to settle for this path of decline. There's still time to choose a different future. That is what the Road Map offers. It is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses the government on its proper role. It restrains government spending, and hence limits the size of government itself. It rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world. And it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship and opportunity.

Here are the principal elements:

• Health Care. The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure an affordable health plan that best suits their needs, and shifting the control and ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.

It provides a refundable tax credit—$2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families—to purchase coverage (from another state if they so choose) and keep it with them if they move or change jobs. It establishes transparency in health-care price and quality data, so this critical information is readily available before someone needs health services.

State-based high risk pools will make affordable care available to those with pre-existing conditions. In addition to the tax credit, Medicaid will provide supplemental payments to low-income recipients so they too can obtain the health coverage of their choice and no longer be consigned to the stigmatized, sclerotic care that Medicaid has come to represent.

• Medicare. The Road Map secures Medicare for current beneficiaries, while making common-sense reforms to save this critical program. It preserves the existing Medicare program for Americans currently 55 or older so they can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives.

For those under 55—as they become Medicare-eligible—it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.

The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs. Enacted together, these reforms will help keep Medicare solvent for generations to come.

• Social Security. The Road Map preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older. For those under 55, the plan offers the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees. This proposal includes a property right, so those who own these accounts can pass on the assets to their heirs. The plan also guarantees that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.

The plan also makes the program permanently solvent by combining a modest adjustment in the growth of initial Social Security's benefits for higher-income individuals, with a gradual, modest increase in the retirement age.

• Tax Reform. The Road Map offers an alternative to today's needlessly complex and unfair tax code, providing the option of a simplified system that promotes work, saving and investment.

This highly simplified code fits on a postcard. It has just two rates: 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers, and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. It also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four), and no tax loopholes, deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit).

The proposal eliminates the alternative minimum tax. It promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. It eliminates the death tax. It replaces the corporate income tax—currently the second highest in the industrialized world—with a business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is roughly half the average in the industrialized world and will put American companies and workers in a stronger position to compete in a global economy.

Even without the Democratic spending spree, our fiscal outlook is deteriorating. They are only hastening the crisis. It is not too late to take control of our fiscal and economic future. But the longer we wait, the bigger the problem becomes and the more difficult our options for solving it.

The Road Map promotes our national prosperity by limiting government's burden of spending, mandates and regulation. It ensures the opportunity for individuals to fulfill their human potential and enjoy the satisfaction of their own achievements—and it secures the distinctly American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … inion_main

Right about now most conservatives would be nodding their heads and going 'What a great idea!'. Lower taxes? Personal responsibility? Sign me up!

Yeah... about that. This plan would completely fuck over quite a few people.

Let's start with the graduated income tax with it's two brackets arbitrarily set at $0 and $100k. Sounds great on paper because it 'punishes' the 'rich', no? Well, two things. One, it doesn't take into account cost of living. $100k in real income in New York is the same as $50k in real income in Florida. Two people, doing the same job, just living in different parts of the country so their incomes are different. One would pay $25k in taxes, the other would pay $5k. After taxes the person in New York will have made $75k, the person in Florida $45k. The person in Florida is now making 60% of what the person in New York is making instead of 50%, in absolute income. The Floridian is now making a 10% higher relative value in income. Any graduated tax system, in order to be fair, must take into account cost of living.

Secondly, and by far the most important part, is the removal of the capital gains tax completely. This is a very bad thing. Let's see how.

Under the current system, an individual making up to $172k is taxed at a rate of 28%, capital gains tax is 15%. Let's say that this person scrimped and saved and managed to invest $100,000 into the stock market. Because of taxes, the real value that he needed to invest was $128k. He buys a stock and he sits on it with an annual return of 10% for 20 years. After 20 years he decides to divest. Over that time his holdings have increased in value to $672,749.99 total. He then pays capital gains taxes of 15% on the $572,749.99 profit that he made over those twenty years. It comes out to $85,912.50 in taxes. When the initial taxes that he paid are tacked onto the total, he's paid a total of 16.9% in taxes on his initial $100k investment and turned that $100k into a healthy $586,837.50 after taxes.

Under the proposed system, the individual making $172k and investing $100k would pay an initial hit of 25%, making the pretax income he would need to put into a $100k investment at $125k. He then realizes the same 10% annual growth over 20 years and ends up with the same $672,749.99. He pays nothing in taxes because it's a capital gain and capital gains taxes have been eradicated. So he paid a total of $25k in taxes on his $672,749.99 which is a whopping 3.7%, far less than the guy that trudged through life and thought he was getting off easy by only paying 10% of his income in taxes instead of the 25% the 'rich' were paying all that time.

As we can see, under both the current and proposed systems the poor and middle class are actually paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those that are on the wealthy end and savvy enough to garner a 10% annual return. It kind of made me sad to do all this math because it puts the lie to our supposedly equitable distribution of taxation in this country. The rich are in fact paying far lighter taxes than the worker bees but are hiding it behind the smoke and mirrors of the supposed progressive tax system that 'seems' to punish the wealthy in support of the 'little guy'. The truth is anything but.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
No one wants to tackle this one?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6982|NJ
It's really long..
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
13rin
Member
+977|6765
BWahaha... He tossed his party under the bus.  What the hell is with this guy?  Yea, keep up the 'health care reform'.  Democrats reckless spending?  They were his ideas -hell many voted on it without even reading it!  Guy's delusional.  How f'n stupid does he think the average American is? 

So he's figured out a way dupe the poplus into thinkin they're getting a break but really screwing em' over.  Typical Obama.  Tell the American people what you think they want to here and do whatever the hell you want.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

DBBrinson1 wrote:

BWahaha... He tossed his party under the bus.  What the hell is with this guy?  Yea, keep up the 'health care reform'.  Democrats reckless spending?  They were his ideas -hell many voted on it without even reading it!  Guy's delusional.  How f'n stupid does he think the average American is? 

So he's figured out a way dupe the poplus into thinkin they're getting a break but really screwing em' over.  Typical Obama.  Tell the American people what you think they want to here and do whatever the hell you want.
Ahh, sorry, I should've added the byline. The article was an Op-Ed in the WSJ written by a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin named Paul D. Ryan.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13rin
Member
+977|6765

JohnG@lt wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

BWahaha... He tossed his party under the bus.  What the hell is with this guy?  Yea, keep up the 'health care reform'.  Democrats reckless spending?  They were his ideas -hell many voted on it without even reading it!  Guy's delusional.  How f'n stupid does he think the average American is? 

So he's figured out a way dupe the poplus into thinkin they're getting a break but really screwing em' over.  Typical Obama.  Tell the American people what you think they want to here and do whatever the hell you want.
Ahh, sorry, I should've added the byline. The article was an Op-Ed in the WSJ written by a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin named Paul D. Ryan.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

BWahaha... He tossed his party under the bus.  What the hell is with this guy?  Yea, keep up the 'health care reform'.  Democrats reckless spending?  They were his ideas -hell many voted on it without even reading it!  Guy's delusional.  How f'n stupid does he think the average American is? 

So he's figured out a way dupe the poplus into thinkin they're getting a break but really screwing em' over.  Typical Obama.  Tell the American people what you think they want to here and do whatever the hell you want.
Ahh, sorry, I should've added the byline. The article was an Op-Ed in the WSJ written by a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin named Paul D. Ryan.
lol
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1tmCFpVWs
tl;dr version please?
Sorry, I don't do tldr versions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
What you are missing here is 80% of those investments have nothing to do with the stock market.  This impacts anyone starting or buying a business.

I'm not quite how sure that is "economically friendly".

Now, I do believe they are smarter than that, and it'll be just investments...but there's also legislation specific for classifying partial investment in a business to use the same SEC guidelines (aka the same as the stock market).  In other words, it's not as clear cut as you believe.
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6247|Places 'n such

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1tmCFpVWs
tl;dr version please?
Sorry, I don't do tldr versions.
Ok, I read it... In conclusion the rich conservatives are fucking over poor people with clever taxes and trying to pass them off as beneficial.
Same shit different president.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
What you are missing here is 80% of those investments have nothing to do with the stock market.  This impacts anyone starting or buying a business.

I'm not quite how sure that is "economically friendly".

Now, I do believe they are smarter than that, and it'll be just investments...but there's also legislation specific for classifying partial investment in a business to use the same SEC guidelines (aka the same as the stock market).  In other words, it's not as clear cut as you believe.
House flippers and institutional investors wouldn't pay a dime in taxes under this proposal. Those are just two examples.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1tmCFpVWs
tl;dr version please?
Sorry, I don't do tldr versions.
Ok, I read it... In conclusion the rich conservatives are fucking over poor people with clever taxes and trying to pass them off as beneficial.
Same shit different president.
No, it's really deeper than that because 'progressives' have been doing the same shit in order to gain votes over the years. They can 'tax the rich' to win votes among the jealous poor and working class without it really having any impact because all the smart people have the majority of their income coming in via dividends and other capital gains. You could raise the highest income tax bracket to 90% and it wouldn't really effect anyone other than professional athletes, actors etc who receive their income in real wages. The rest will be sitting back paying their 15% capital gains tax.

It's all a sham. Both parties have been protecting the rich from taxes at the expense of the middle class for decades. The Republicans are just more up front about it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
And Pug, feel free to clear up any misconceptions I may have. I'm not a CPA.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
Whoops...apologies.  Due to lack of attention and time, and the inability to read more than two lines:

I thought this was about Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains tax back up where it use to be.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
Fair points...  but I actually can level with Galt on this.

The cost of living is probably the strongest argument against a nationwide graduated income tax that I've heard.  A truly effective graduated income tax would have regional adjustments to brackets, but since the likelihood of that ever happening is low, I can sympathize with the push for a flat income tax.

The catch is that the only way a flat percentage that wasn't too hard on the poor could be implemented for all incomes would first require massive drops in government spending.

Granted, I'm not necessarily against that either, but good luck getting Congress to do that while being run by either party.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
Fair points...  but I actually can level with Galt on this.

The cost of living is probably the strongest argument against a nationwide graduated income tax that I've heard.  A truly effective graduated income tax would have regional adjustments to brackets, but since the likelihood of that ever happening is low, I can sympathize with the push for a flat income tax.

The catch is that the only way a flat percentage that wasn't too hard on the poor could be implemented for all incomes would first require massive drops in government spending.

Granted, I'm not necessarily against that either, but good luck getting Congress to do that while being run by either party.
What I wouldn't give to have a government that wasn't full of lawyers without an inkling of how macroeconomics works...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
What you are missing here is 80% of those investments have nothing to do with the stock market.  This impacts anyone starting or buying a business.

I'm not quite how sure that is "economically friendly".

Now, I do believe they are smarter than that, and it'll be just investments...but there's also legislation specific for classifying partial investment in a business to use the same SEC guidelines (aka the same as the stock market).  In other words, it's not as clear cut as you believe.
Did you read the article? It's a stupid broad persuasive op-ed piece made by a congressperson putting down liberal legislation with unrealistic and unspecific remarks about how he would do things. So far as I can tell it doesn't even link to the actual proposal.

edit: I read down and saw that you didn't.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you don't like cost of living, move. There is a cost to live in urban areas.

Poor people don't get taxed on investments (or are taxed similarly to right people in the current scenario) either. They can invest and over time make 5x the money and have a holy crap look how little I paid in taxes moment too. They are only punished so far as not making $172k in the first place - like the government has anything to do with that.
Fair points...  but I actually can level with Galt on this.

The cost of living is probably the strongest argument against a nationwide graduated income tax that I've heard.  A truly effective graduated income tax would have regional adjustments to brackets, but since the likelihood of that ever happening is low, I can sympathize with the push for a flat income tax.

The catch is that the only way a flat percentage that wasn't too hard on the poor could be implemented for all incomes would first require massive drops in government spending.

Granted, I'm not necessarily against that either, but good luck getting Congress to do that while being run by either party.
Are you even reading what you're saying? Regional brackets? Government working on a 17% or less flat tax rate? Jesus H. Christ dude.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Are you even reading what you're saying? Regional brackets? Government working on a 17% or less flat tax rate? Jesus H. Christ dude.
Regional brackets for cost of living adjustments to the graduated income tax. What's so unreasonable about this? The government already tracks the cost of living by zip code.

Why exactly isn't the government capable of working with a 17% flat tax? 17% is more than enough to conduct the business that the federal government is intended for.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
Because it's not like you don't make more money to compensate for the cost of living as it is. If you would rather have a lower gross income and a lower cost of living then frickin move. No one is forcing you to live conveniently in an urban center or have higher disposable income that you can invest with.

Right. Make a plan and prove it.

Being extremely generous at 150k households and average household income of $50k is comes out to just over 1.25 trillion LOL. That's half what the revenue is now and the system is beyond broken between healthcare and social security. Even Ron Paul would want to spend more than that.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because it's not like you don't make more money to compensate for the cost of living as it is. If you would rather have a lower gross income and a lower cost of living then frickin move. No one is forcing you to live conveniently in an urban center or have higher disposable income that you can invest with.

Right. Make a plan and prove it.
I make more money, yes, and it drives me into a higher tax bracket.

If I'm performing the exact same job in Florida where the cost of living is half, the man in Florida can make $50k a year and have the exact same salary as me at $100k once cost of living is factored in. I'll be paying 28% in federal income taxes, the man in Florida will pay 25%. So, my take home pay is 72k, his is 37.5k. We went from a 2:1 ratio before taxes to a 1.92:1 ratio after taxes. I am now poorer in comparison to the man in Florida and essentially subsidizing his lower tax bracket even though we have the same real wages after cost of living.

Plan? Remove Social Security and Medicare and have people take care of their own retirements like they should be doing. It's a big part of the reason our populace lives on it's credit cards and doesn't plan for the future. They think it's already taken care of for them so they can fuck off and do whatever they like until retirement.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because it's not like you don't make more money to compensate for the cost of living as it is. If you would rather have a lower gross income and a lower cost of living then frickin move. No one is forcing you to live conveniently in an urban center or have higher disposable income that you can invest with.

Right. Make a plan and prove it.
I make more money, yes, and it drives me into a higher tax bracket.

If I'm performing the exact same job in Florida where the cost of living is half, the man in Florida can make $50k a year and have the exact same salary as me at $100k once cost of living is factored in. I'll be paying 28% in federal income taxes, the man in Florida will pay 25%. So, my take home pay is 72k, his is 37.5k. We went from a 2:1 ratio before taxes to a 1.92:1 ratio after taxes. I am now poorer in comparison to the man in Florida and essentially subsidizing his lower tax bracket even though we have the same real wages after cost of living.

Plan? Remove Social Security and Medicare and have people take care of their own retirements like they should be doing. It's a big part of the reason our populace lives on it's credit cards and doesn't plan for the future. They think it's already taken care of for them so they can fuck off and do whatever they like until retirement.
Yet at the same time you are living in New York City, in the middle of a large urban population with all the convenience and opportunities that comes with it, instead of shitty Florida being surrounded by old people and Kmarion. You just regurgitated what you said in your first post with some new numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._ … Y_2007.png

You need to get rid of some more sections of the pie.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yet at the same time you are living in New York City, in the middle of a large urban population with all the convenience and opportunities that comes with it, instead of shitty Florida being surrounded by old people and Kmarion. You just regurgitated what you said in your first post with some new numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._ … Y_2007.png

You need to get rid of some more sections of the pie.
Not really, I just lopped off just short of half the budget. With the stimulus included last year, spending was at 28% of GDP. Lopping off those two pieces alone pushed us well below 17%. I would keep going though and slash the military budget tremendously but that would be a harder sale. So, we're already below 17% and the government can use up the remaining budget to fund interstate construction projects since our current infrastructure is on it's death bed.

Edit - Btw, where did you pull 17% from anyway? My entire commentary on the OP was an attack on his proposed flat tax because it excluded capital gains and an attack on our current progressive system because having a capital gains tax separate from the regular income tax rate is a sham.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-28 15:22:12)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yet at the same time you are living in New York City, in the middle of a large urban population with all the convenience and opportunities that comes with it, instead of shitty Florida being surrounded by old people and Kmarion. You just regurgitated what you said in your first post with some new numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._ … Y_2007.png

You need to get rid of some more sections of the pie.
Not really, I just lopped off just short of half the budget. With the stimulus included last year, spending was at 28% of GDP. Lopping off those two pieces alone pushed us well below 17%. I would keep going though and slash the military budget tremendously but that would be a harder sale. So, we're already below 17% and the government can use up the remaining budget to fund interstate construction projects since our current infrastructure is on it's death bed.

Edit - Btw, where did you pull 17% from anyway? My entire commentary on the OP was an attack on his proposed flat tax because it excluded capital gains and an attack on our current progressive system because having a capital gains tax separate from the regular income tax rate is a sham.
Where did GDP come from? Spending is compared to tax revenue.

If you'll notice I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Turquoise. I think 17% is the lowest tax bracket, which I would assume to be the highest tax rate that would be low enough to not screw over poor people too hard.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
Galt:
According to this, if you are making $50k in Orlando and moved to Queens, your new salary is $81,078

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/sav … lator.aspx

But the calculator didn't add in the NY state or NYC income taxes which Florida doesn't have...but note that $50k and $81k are in the same tax bracket for single dudes.

But in your example, you understand that Florida also has a standard of living, which means you should also be reducing the Floridians' $50k before you make a comparison, no?

Also remember that a lot of those "cost of living adjustments", like mortgage interest and state income taxes, knock your taxable income down.

For instance, in NY, there's about a 10% income tax.  So you are now only taxed on $90k (Floridians get to reduce it by 1-2% for sales tax, so they are at $49.5k).

I'm with FM on this one.  The cost of living adjustment isn't a big as you purport it to be, and the current tax code actually already accounts for some of the regional differences of cost of living.  It's just not as transparent as you'd like it to be.

Last edited by Pug (2010-01-28 15:42:52)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard