Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2010-01-28 15:45:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

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.
I use Pensacola because it is exactly half. Orlando is a bit more expensive, yeah.
"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
2010-01-28 16:03:15
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.
17% is what the rich already pay in this country. I stated that in my original post and Warren Buffett backs me up. It's what he calculated his own taxes to be. So if the rich are already paying 82.5% of the taxes in this country at 17%, you don't think a 17% flat tax will work? The wealthy in this country don't pay the bloated 35% income tax rate, they pay the 15% capital gains tax.

The only people paying more than 17% in income tax now are the poor idiot schlubb middle class people who aren't smart enough or frugal enough to invest their wages. Kind of ironic, no?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-28 16:06:19)

"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
2010-01-28 16:59:13
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

JohnG@lt wrote:

I use Pensacola because it is exactly half. Orlando is a bit more expensive, yeah.
Ahh, okay.  But here's the thing.  The tax bracket is progressive.  Once you get over a certain amount you pay the higher rate on only the amount over the highest amount in the lower bracket.  (tired, so easier: lets say the top bracket if $75k.  You made $80k.  You pay only the higher rate on the $5k.)

Plus, if you tried to equalize the tax burden by salary (sort of like the modified flat tax system here), the problem is the rich have more disposable income then the poor.  So what happens is it's a larger sacrifice for a poor person on a % basis, because the cash spent on living expenses is essentially equal for both parties - aka $25k is spent to survive, no matter if you make $50k or $1.5m.

The second part of the equation is the choice of where you want to live.  No one is forcing you to live in that higher standard of living area.

If you put all that together, you are complaining about your disposable income is impacted much more than someone who lives in a lower standard of living area.  And a modified flat tax system will screw over the poor more than the current system....

Plus the Buffett comparison is a little ridiculous.  Buffett makes money by playing in the market with the cap gains rate.  He's not the typical rich dude, since 90% of his revenue is due to trading stocks.  There's a bunch of folks (like me for instance) who work their ass of an enjoy the 35% bracket.
2010-01-28 17:01:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

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 are feasible, but not likely.  I never specifically said 17% would be the rate though.
2010-01-28 17:03:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I use Pensacola because it is exactly half. Orlando is a bit more expensive, yeah.
Ahh, okay.  But here's the thing.  The tax bracket is progressive.  Once you get over a certain amount you pay the higher rate on only the amount over the highest amount in the lower bracket.  (tired, so easier: lets say the top bracket if $75k.  You made $80k.  You pay only the higher rate on the $5k.)

Plus, if you tried to equalize the tax burden by salary (sort of like the modified flat tax system here), the problem is the rich have more disposable income then the poor.  So what happens is it's a larger sacrifice for a poor person on a % basis, because the cash spent on living expenses is essentially equal for both parties - aka $25k is spent to survive, no matter if you make $50k or $1.5m.

The second part of the equation is the choice of where you want to live.  No one is forcing you to live in that higher standard of living area.

If you put all that together, you are complaining about your disposable income is impacted much more than someone who lives in a lower standard of living area.  And a modified flat tax system will screw over the poor more than the current system....

Plus the Buffett comparison is a little ridiculous.  Buffett makes money by playing in the market with the cap gains rate.  He's not the typical rich dude, since 90% of his revenue is due to trading stocks.  There's a bunch of folks (like me for instance) who work their ass of an enjoy the 35% bracket.
And how much are you investing? My entire point was that if the capital gains tax doesn't match the income tax bracket then people are skating through without paying as much as the public thinks they are. The Dems raising the top income tax bracket doesn't really hurt a whole lot of people, it's all show, since most of the uber wealthy, not working stiffs like you, pay the vast majority of their taxes via cap gains. It's all smoke and mirrors to make you, the poor working schlubb think he's 'socking it to the rich'.
"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
2010-01-28 17:27:46
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


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.
17% is what the rich already pay in this country. I stated that in my original post and Warren Buffett backs me up. It's what he calculated his own taxes to be. So if the rich are already paying 82.5% of the taxes in this country at 17%, you don't think a 17% flat tax will work? The wealthy in this country don't pay the bloated 35% income tax rate, they pay the 15% capital gains tax.

The only people paying more than 17% in income tax now are the poor idiot schlubb middle class people who aren't smart enough or frugal enough to invest their wages. Kind of ironic, no?
Are you fucking kidding? Do people the smart middle class not need food? If the given tax rate for the rich is 35% now they wouldn't pay less than 17% if there was a flat tax rate?
2010-01-28 17:29:03
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

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 are feasible, but not likely.  I never specifically said 17% would be the rate though.
I said 17% because I think that is about the tax rate for the lowest income bracket right now. That assumes that it is the highest percentage the poor should be paying in your opinion. I think that is a pretty fair assumption.
2010-01-28 17:31:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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 are feasible, but not likely.  I never specifically said 17% would be the rate though.
I said 17% because I think that is about the tax rate for the lowest income bracket right now. That assumes that it is the highest percentage the poor should be paying in your opinion. I think that is a pretty fair assumption.
Well, perhaps, some sort of income threshold should be established for taxation.

In many First World countries, there is a set amount of income you can make without being taxed at all.  I forgot what Canada's threshold is, but I remember that it seemed to encompass a lot of the poor's total income.
2010-01-28 17:38:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Are you fucking kidding? Do people the smart middle class not need food? If the given tax rate for the rich is 35% now they wouldn't pay less than 17% if there was a flat tax rate?
Look dude, I know you're economically challenged. Your specialty is obscure philosophy, I get that.

Many of the rich, especially those with old money, are paying 15-17% tax rates currently because they don't have income. They don't receive a monthly paycheck from an employer, their money comes from capital gains on investments.

The top income tax bracket in the US is 35%. The capital gains tax rate is 15%. Warren Buffett (and other institutional investors, read: old money) pays 17% of his income in taxes per year because the guy only pays himself a salary of $100k. The rest of the millions he makes every year are in dividends and long term capital gains sales which are taxed at 15%.

The only people actually paying the 35% are people who make a salary above $373,651 a year. People like movie stars and baseball players and (apparently) CPAs. People like Paris Hilton pay this on their salary but the vast majority of her annual income would be taxed at the lower 15% cap gains rate because she is an heiress and that money is sunk into securities.
"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
2010-01-28 17:39:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Regional brackets are feasible, but not likely.  I never specifically said 17% would be the rate though.
I said 17% because I think that is about the tax rate for the lowest income bracket right now. That assumes that it is the highest percentage the poor should be paying in your opinion. I think that is a pretty fair assumption.
Well, perhaps, some sort of income threshold should be established for taxation.

In many First World countries, there is a set amount of income you can make without being taxed at all.  I forgot what Canada's threshold is, but I remember that it seemed to encompass a lot of the poor's total income.
$25k adjusted from the lowest cost of living zip in the nation seems perfectly fair to me.
"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
2010-01-28 17:42:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


I said 17% because I think that is about the tax rate for the lowest income bracket right now. That assumes that it is the highest percentage the poor should be paying in your opinion. I think that is a pretty fair assumption.
Well, perhaps, some sort of income threshold should be established for taxation.

In many First World countries, there is a set amount of income you can make without being taxed at all.  I forgot what Canada's threshold is, but I remember that it seemed to encompass a lot of the poor's total income.
$25k adjusted from the lowest cost of living zip in the nation seems perfectly fair to me.
I don't know if I'd put it quite that high, but it's good start.  Maybe 20k would work better.
2010-01-28 17:44:37
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, perhaps, some sort of income threshold should be established for taxation.

In many First World countries, there is a set amount of income you can make without being taxed at all.  I forgot what Canada's threshold is, but I remember that it seemed to encompass a lot of the poor's total income.
$25k adjusted from the lowest cost of living zip in the nation seems perfectly fair to me.
I don't know if I'd put it quite that high, but it's good start.  Maybe 20k would work better.
Same ballpark. It's enough to live on but not enough to buy a boat
"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
2010-01-28 17:44:51
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Are you fucking kidding? Do people the smart middle class not need food? If the given tax rate for the rich is 35% now they wouldn't pay less than 17% if there was a flat tax rate?
Look dude, I know you're economically challenged. Your specialty is obscure philosophy, I get that.

Many of the rich, especially those with old money, are paying 15-17% tax rates currently because they don't have income. They don't receive a monthly paycheck from an employer, their money comes from capital gains on investments.

The top income tax bracket in the US is 35%. The capital gains tax rate is 15%. Warren Buffett (and other institutional investors, read: old money) pays 17% of his income in taxes per year because the guy only pays himself a salary of $100k. The rest of the millions he makes every year are in dividends and long term capital gains sales which are taxed at 15%.

The only people actually paying the 35% are people who make a salary above $373,651 a year. People like movie stars and baseball players and (apparently) CPAs. People like Paris Hilton pay this on their salary but the vast majority of her annual income would be taxed at the lower 15% cap gains rate because she is an heiress and that money is sunk into securities.
You read about 4 books on economics and flaunt it like it means something. I don't even think you've taken an advanced economics course in your life.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only people paying more than 17% in income tax now are the poor idiot schlubb middle class people who aren't smart enough or frugal enough to invest their wages.
No. Fucking no. The majority of the country consumes more than they spend and can't afford to get the majority of their assets into investments for most of their life. They have to put bread on the table and pay for the mortgage every month. Just because the top 1% doesn't need a salary and that drastically reduces their overall taxes doesn't mean nearly everyone else isn't paying well over 17%.
2010-01-28 17:45:56
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Are you fucking kidding? Do people the smart middle class not need food? If the given tax rate for the rich is 35% now they wouldn't pay less than 17% if there was a flat tax rate?
Look dude, I know you're economically challenged. Your specialty is obscure philosophy, I get that.

Many of the rich, especially those with old money, are paying 15-17% tax rates currently because they don't have income. They don't receive a monthly paycheck from an employer, their money comes from capital gains on investments.

The top income tax bracket in the US is 35%. The capital gains tax rate is 15%. Warren Buffett (and other institutional investors, read: old money) pays 17% of his income in taxes per year because the guy only pays himself a salary of $100k. The rest of the millions he makes every year are in dividends and long term capital gains sales which are taxed at 15%.

The only people actually paying the 35% are people who make a salary above $373,651 a year. People like movie stars and baseball players and (apparently) CPAs. People like Paris Hilton pay this on their salary but the vast majority of her annual income would be taxed at the lower 15% cap gains rate because she is an heiress and that money is sunk into securities.
You read about 4 books on economics and flaunt it like it means something. I don't even think you've taken an advanced economics course in your life.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only people paying more than 17% in income tax now are the poor idiot schlubb middle class people who aren't smart enough or frugal enough to invest their wages.
No. Fucking no. The majority of the country consumes more than they spend and can't afford to get the majority of their assets into investments for most of their life. They have to put bread on the table and pay for the mortgage every month. Just because the top 1% doesn't need a salary and that drastically reduces their overall taxes doesn't mean nearly everyone else isn't paying well over 17%.
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg
"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
2010-01-28 17:47:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No. Fucking no. The majority of the country consumes more than they spend and can't afford to get the majority of their assets into investments for most of their life. They have to put bread on the table and pay for the mortgage every month. Just because the top 1% doesn't need a salary and that drastically reduces their overall taxes doesn't mean nearly everyone else isn't paying well over 17%.
Good points...  I think part of the problem with the current system aside from cost of living variances is how the rich can deduct so much.  If we were to implement a flat tax, we'd have to get rid of deductions altogether.
2010-01-28 17:48:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
Turquoise how do you pay for healthcare with a flat tax system?
2010-01-28 17:50:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise how do you pay for healthcare with a flat tax system?
A socialized medical system could be implemented with this tax system if we spent a lot less on the military and ended SS.

Basically, if we could trim down most government spending to simply education and healthcare, then it would be feasible.

Granted, I admit that under our current budget, we can't implement a flat tax system.  As I mentioned earlier, this would first require massive spending cuts.
2010-01-28 17:52:06
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
How do you justify ending SS but keeping universal healthcare? Old people dying because they can't pay their heating bill is the same thing as old people dying because they can't pay for their prescriptions.
2010-01-28 17:54:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How do you justify ending SS but keeping universal healthcare? Old people dying because they can't pay their heating bill is the same thing as old people dying because they can't pay for their prescriptions.
The majority of expenses incurred by SS are healthcare related.  So, if we got rid of socialized retirement, we could still take care of the health needs of the old.

Basically, what it comes down to is that retirement is a private responsibility.  I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's retirement because my generation will mostly work until it dies.  I know I probably will.

Retirement in the future will likely become a luxury for the rich.
2010-01-28 17:56:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
FM, I really can't believe how dense and stubborn you are sometimes. My entire argument was that the rich aren't paying nearly as much as the public thinks they are. While the tax bracket may say they are paying 35%, and in the eyes of many their 'fair share', they are paying far less and in many cases far less than in proportion to a middle class person. All I've been saying from the first post to here is that capital gains taxes need to stop being separate from regular income tax to remove the illusion. It's to get more transparency into the tax code so people are actually paying as advertised.

The BS about a flat tax that you got hung up on is just a small sidebar.
"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
2010-01-28 18:04:55
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
My response to the OP was:

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.
which you didn't respond to. Then I quotes Turquoise - I was talking to Turquoise - and you decided to jump on that too. Fine. Don't get pissy when I'm responding to the point we're talking about instead of responding to what you see as your strongest yet irrelevant point.
2010-01-28 18:07:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

My response to the OP was:

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.
which you didn't respond to. Then I quotes Turquoise - I was talking to Turquoise - and you decided to jump on that too. Fine. Don't get pissy when I'm responding to the point we're talking about instead of responding to what you see as your strongest yet irrelevant point.
So you're perfectly fine with the illusion that the rich pay more than the middle class?
"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
2010-01-28 18:20:41
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
You mean am I okay with the rich making more investments than the middle class, and yes, I am.
2010-01-28 18:23:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You mean am I okay with the rich making more investments than the middle class, and yes, I am.
You don't feel that the returns on those investments should be at the normal income tax rate that they would fall into?
"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
2010-01-28 18:24:49
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
They are as entitled to their money as anyone else. The government doesn't need it.

This country needs all the investment it can get. God knows the middle class isn't investing.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard