Financial Shakeup this weekend

[Ccns23]

I think part of the reason there will be no flat tax is because of how many jobs would be lost. Think about it, you would be able to eliminate a ton of IRS jobs and CPA's would struggle to make ends meet. I truly believe that we should go to a flat tax rate, but it will probably never happen.

 

 

[Ccns23]

Sounds like these guys might be onto something. Too bad it would probably be years before they could even begin to scratch the surface as a legitimate competitor to the Republican/Democratic parties.

http://reformparty.org/platform.htm

[emayer]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tpcconten...rix15a.pdf

Looking at the data with more scrutiny, Obama and Clinton favor repealing the tax break for those in the top 2 tax brackets.  This means that if your income (single) is above 160k or (married joint) 190k, you will be subject to the higher rates.  Certainly the threshold is much lower than the 250k number being used. 

Wayne continues to make a valid point that we need to research these matters ourselves.  What is the definition of "rich" anyway....hock:

[ccm911]

Here is what I have found so far.  This s from the USA Today dated 2005:

The median household income for the nation — half were higher, half were lower — was $43,318.

So it seems to me that the figures 0f $160K and $195K would be on the high side if anything.  I agree that these folks must stop getting all the tax breaks.  If that makes me a "Tax and Spend Liberal", than so be it.  Just tired of all the biased treatment the rich receive in this country.

[Ccns23]

Well ccm, you could also look at it from a different point of view. Let's say that I made $1,000,000 this year. I would be taxed at I think 35% (granted a CPA could probably hide a lot of the income, but we're trying to keep it simple). So, I would pay $350,000 in taxes. The median ($43Kish) would have a tax burden of what 15-20% (we'll say 20%) so they pay $8,600. So in effect, I would be paying the same as approximately 40 people in the median. Is that fair? I'm not saying that the rich should'nt pay their part, but I am a little tired of people complaining that they aren't paying their share. Wealthy people pay a good portion of the taxes in this country. Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the cronic welfare offenders or the people who declare bankrupcy 5 time's over.

 

[Wellardmac]

Ccns23 wrote:

Well ccm, you could also look at it from a different point of view. Let's say that I made $1,000,000 this year. I would be taxed at I think 35% (granted a CPA could probably hide a lot of the income, but we're trying to keep it simple). So, I would pay $350,000 in taxes. The median ($43Kish) would have a tax burden of what 15-20% (we'll say 20%) so they pay $8,600. So in effect, I would be paying the same as approximately 40 people in the median. Is that fair? I'm not saying that the rich should'nt pay their part, but I am a little tired of people complaining that they aren't paying their share. Wealthy people pay a good portion of the taxes in this country. Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the cronic welfare offenders or the people who declare bankrupcy 5 time's over.

Yup, you earn more and you pay more. I know I certainly pay more than my fair share in taxes and a lot more than those that sit around complaining that they pay too much.

[Ccns23]

Wellardmac wrote:

ccm911 wrote:

Here is what I have found so far. This s from the USA Today dated 2005:

The median household income for the nation — half were higher, half were lower — was $43,318.

So it seems to me that the figures 0f $160K and $195K would be on the high side if anything. I agree that these folks must stop getting all the tax breaks. If that makes me a "Tax and Spend Liberal", than so be it. Just tired of all the biased treatment the rich receive in this country.

The problem with your comment Chris is the definition of "rich"

Think about it... $200K is "rich". That means that a couple earning $80-90K each and modest income from savings could be regarded as "rich"

Would like you to rethink your image of those that might be worthy of being taxed because they're "rich"?

Well, the way I see it, if you are making $80-90K EACH you are kinda on the rich side of things aren't you? I mean that is a really comfortable living at that point. This is why I think there should just be a flat tax. If you make over $150K, 20% should be the tax rate. That coupled with a national sales tax should be the ONLY taxes you have to pay. No more local taxes, no more state taxes. Just 1 revenue pool that everyone uses. I mean sheesh, even baseball has revenue sharing and you don't hear Steinbrenner bitching about it.

[ccm911]

No, I will not rethink.  But I will concede that the folks we are going after make well into the millions, and DO NOT pay their fair share.  I will need to research further.

But I will not back down about the rich.  A couple making 80 or 90 each are most definitely rich!  Maybe not like Mr. Howell on "Gilligan's Island", but they are doing a heck of a lot better than the majority of Americans.  You have to keep in mind that we live in an EXTREMELY wealthy area, so what we see is most definitely not representitive of how most of America lives.

[ccm911]

And I would fully go along with the flat rate income tax idea.  That way, everyone would pay their fair share, no ifs ands, or buts.

And for those displaced by these changes...I am sure a lot of positions will open up to police the tax retuns of everyone.

[Wellardmac]

Think about it. $80-90K is not rich.

It's an experienced teacher, it's a real estate agent, it's someone in IT, an engineer... it's most jobs that require a college degree.

Just because you're a dual income family doesn't make you rich - it makes you hard working and taxed.

If you think that this kind of income is rich, then you need to look at the job market some more, because a lot of people out there are earning those kinds of salaries fresh out of a college degree.