Topic: Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie

[monstertruck]

I'd rather be rich and be "taxed unfairly" than be poor

I'd rather be poor and taxed fairly than accept handouts from anyone.

Because you have a mistaken assumption that poor people have only themselves to blame 

Where does it say that in my post?
I was referring to myself only and no one else.
Oh, I get it, you're assuming I made that assumption.....

[monstertruck]

I'd rather be rich and be "taxed unfairly" than be poor

I'd rather be poor and taxed fairly than accept handouts from anyone.

Because you have a mistaken assumption that poor people have only themselves to blame 

Sorry, I forgot, it's my fault.   I'm to blame for everything.  I should be personally responsible and accountable for everything that goes wrong.    Got it!
 

[jeffrx]

I'd rather be rich and be "taxed unfairly" than be poor

I'd rather be poor and taxed fairly than accept handouts from anyone.

I'm for a flat-rate tax.  If trump pays 15%, I want topay 15%.  Same deal for all Americans.  Even with that system, the rich would still not be happy because they would end up paying more. 

[dmastous]

I'd rather be rich and be "taxed unfairly" than be poor

I'd rather be poor and taxed fairly than accept handouts from anyone.

I'm for a flat-rate tax.  If trump pays 15%, I want topay 15%.  Same deal for all Americans.  Even with that system, the rich would still not be happy because they would end up paying more. 

I'd be all for a flat tax, but only if it includes zero loopholes.

[monstertruck]

I'd rather be rich and be "taxed unfairly" than be poor

I'd rather be poor and taxed fairly than accept handouts from anyone.

I'm for a flat-rate tax.  If trump pays 15%, I want topay 15%.  Same deal for all Americans.  Even with that system, the rich would still not be happy because they would end up paying more. 

Howzabout everyone pays the same amount.  Now that's a FLAT tax!

[Babblelot]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

[monstertruck]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

I'm ok with that.  As I've mentioned, I've been in the process of minimizing my taxable assets for nearly 10 years now.   

[swish]

I always liked the flat rate for tax idea even though it'll never work.

I would put in longer hours when the chance arises, not being discouraged by paying more because I'm making more.

I suppose more companies would put employees on salary where there is no overtime and the higher wage associated with it. Or maybe limit overtime as more employees would be willing to work longer, supply and demand for overtime would change.

The whole structure of work place pay policies would change, how is anyone's guess.

[dmastous]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

It's pretty much a no-brainer to say that under a certain amount, you wouldn't be taxed. Say under $1000/month, or maybe $1500/month

[Babblelot]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

It's pretty much a no-brainer to say that under a certain amount, you wouldn't be taxed. Say under $1000/month, or maybe $1500/month

No it's not. Most people say they want to tax everyone the same; most people look at it as an inocuous, necessary evil tax on income, not a disproportionate tax on disposable income; most people don't think, can't think or haven't thought this through; most people have "no brain" when it comes to a discussion of the flat tax--based on your comment, that might apply to you. Most proponents of the flat tax earn a salary. Most conservatives are full of crap like monster and swish, who claim that though they love their jobs, they wish they could work more but for the progressive tax system, as if most of them are hourly workers. What a load of   B.S. Y'all start sounding more and more like your hero "Joe the Plumber."    

[monstertruck]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

It's pretty much a no-brainer to say that under a certain amount, you wouldn't be taxed. Say under $1000/month, or maybe $1500/month

No it's not. Most people say they want to tax everyone the same; most people don't think this through; most people think it's a income tax not a disposable income tax; most conservatives are full of crap like monster and swish, who claim that though they love their jobs, they wish they could work more but for the progressive tax system. What a load of   B.S. Y'all start sounding like your hero "Joe the Plumber."   

The only whinning that's been goin' on in these political threads is you socialist leaning Effers wanting to get into someone else's wallet.
The real B.S. is the fact that not a single one of you can match the charitable contributions (post tax ) that I make each year.  You don't really want to help with your own cash.  Fackin' pathetic.

I give to whom I choose.
I give as much or as little as I choose.
I don't need the likes of you 'redistributing' my wealth! 
Distribute your own wealth Beeeyotches!  'cause you won't be getting any of mine (except by my choice of course!)

I'd say you sound like a toilet full of turds that just got flushed!

[Babblelot]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

It's pretty much a no-brainer to say that under a certain amount, you wouldn't be taxed. Say under $1000/month, or maybe $1500/month

No it's not. Most people say they want to tax everyone the same; most people don't think this through; most people think it's a income tax not a disposable income tax; most conservatives are full of crap like monster and swish, who claim that though they love their jobs, they wish they could work more but for the progressive tax system. What a load of   B.S. Y'all start sounding like your hero "Joe the Plumber."   

The only whinning that's been goin' on in these political threads is you socialist leaning Effers wanting to get into someone else's wallet.
The real B.S. is the fact that not a single one of you can match the charitable contributions (post tax ) that I make each year.  You don't really want to help with your own cash.  Fackin' pathetic.

I give to whom I choose.
I give as much or as little as I choose.
I don't need the likes of you 'redistributing' my wealth! 
Distribute your own wealth Beeeyotches!  'cause you won't be getting any of mine (except by my choice of course!)

I'd say you sound like a toilet full of turds that just got flushed!

I know, there are exceptions to the rule, and you are an exception. I've never had a problem with the way you conduct your affairs; I've you many times. Where you err is in applying your own personal model to everyone and everything else. I hope you find serenity in doing that, but I have to say, I'd be one bitter jack-a-lope if I did the same.

(Naturally, I added more meat to my arguement whilst you were typing   

What I was saying above is that most flat tax proponents are salaried employees, not hourly. The number of hours they work doesn't affect their income for an entire year, at which time they receive a raise. So when conservatives (or libertarians) start lying that they'd work more but for a progressive tax system, it's insincere B.S.

[monstertruck]

Raise the :red flag: every time the proponents of any new policy is limited to the rich, and that's who's behind a flat tax, people.

The less income you have, the less disposable income you have; the more income you have, the more disposable income you have. At one end of the income scale, you have poor folk with 0 (zero) disposable income; at the other end, you have the rich with no constraints on disposable income. 20% of 0 is onerous; 20% of unlimited is still unlimited. As you proceed up the income ladder, the flat tax becomes less and less onerous until you meet a "break-even" point, where the tax rate:disposable income ratio is "right". Beyond that point, it benefits those with more income. And that is exactly why we have a progressive tax rate, after all. So I vote with the people who want a progressive tax rate with no loopholes for those who can afford to pay others to find them.

Sorry monster, only you think it's a good idea to apply a flat tax to the poor; not even flat tax proponents would think of doing that. You lose, again 

It's pretty much a no-brainer to say that under a certain amount, you wouldn't be taxed. Say under $1000/month, or maybe $1500/month

No it's not. Most people say they want to tax everyone the same; most people don't think this through; most people think it's a income tax not a disposable income tax; most conservatives are full of crap like monster and swish, who claim that though they love their jobs, they wish they could work more but for the progressive tax system. What a load of   B.S. Y'all start sounding like your hero "Joe the Plumber."   

The only whinning that's been goin' on in these political threads is you socialist leaning Effers wanting to get into someone else's wallet.
The real B.S. is the fact that not a single one of you can match the charitable contributions (post tax ) that I make each year.  You don't really want to help with your own cash.  Fackin' pathetic.

I give to whom I choose.
I give as much or as little as I choose.
I don't need the likes of you 'redistributing' my wealth! 
Distribute your own wealth Beeeyotches!  'cause you won't be getting any of mine (except by my choice of course!)

I'd say you sound like a toilet full of turds that just got flushed!

I know, there are exceptions to the rule, and you are an exception. I've never had a problem with the way you conduct your affairs; I've you many times. Where you err is in applying your own personal model to everyone and everything else. I hope you find serenity in doing that, but I have to say, I'd be one bitter jack-a-lope if I did the same.

(Naturally, I added more meat to my arguement whilst you were typing   

What I was saying above is that most flat tax proponents are salaried employees, not hourly. The number of hours they work doesn't affect their income for an entire year, at which time they receive a raise. So when conservatives (or libertarians) start lying that they'd work more but for a progressive tax system, it's insincere B.S.

Well, that's just plain wrong then.

No bitterness here!
Maybe that comes from all the goodwill from the people I do choose to help.

[swish]

I would work more in a flat tax environment, as most hourly workers that I've talked to would also. The main reason is the time and a half paid for overtime. the trouble for lowly paid workers is that they would have to work more to reach that equilibrium point you were talking about above. That's the point were the flat tax equals the progressive tax.

Interesting conversation but I admit to not have thought much about it and the consequences.

Babb's you made a wrong assumption above when you said I love my job, I don't. 

[Babblelot]

I would work more in a flat tax environment, as most hourly workers that I've talked to would also. The main reason is the time and a half paid for overtime. the trouble for lowly paid workers is that they would have to work more to reach that equilibrium point you were talking about above. That's the point were the flat tax equals the progressive tax.

Interesting conversation but I admit to not have thought much about it and the consequences.

Babb's you made a wrong assumption above when you said I love my job, I don't. 

   

Since working longer hours only affects hourly workers, then let's examine your claim a little bit closer.

2008 Tax Brackets
Tax Rate............. Single........................... Married Filing Jointly
10%................... Not over $8,025..............Not over $16,050
15%................... $8,025 - $32,550............ $16,050 - $65,100
25%................... $32,550 - $78,850........... $65,100 - $131,450
28%................... $78,850 - $164,550.......... $131,450 - $200,300
33%................... $164,550 - $357,700......... $200,300 - $357,700
35%................... Over $357,700.................. Over $357,700

Let's simplify and only consider one of your single co-workers, who pays 28% on his income tax. Also, let's round the bookends off to $79K and $164K, so that there are 17 increments of $5000 between $79K to $164K (i.e., diff between 164,000 and 79,000 = 5000*17 = 85,000). Obviously, between the endpoints, the tax rate remains unchanged, kind of like a flat tax. Your co-worker can work longer hours and make up to $85,000 more than he currently hauls in each year and not be penalized. But this argument is measured at the margins only--going from a lower tax bracket to a higher bracket. 

$5000 over the 28% tax bracket would put him to the 33% tax bracket. That $5000 jump results in a $250 increase in taxes paid per $5000 of additional income ($1650 from $1400). So your lame complaint boils down to this: For an additional $1000 made at the margin, you will pay an additional $50 ($330 from $280) in taxes than had you not leapfrogged into the higher tax bracket.

That is so lame. I can't believe you goofs would forego that additional $1000 because it will cost you $50 more since you got bumped into the 33% tax bracket  And you know what, you wouldn't turn down that $1000, which is why I maintain that you guys glom onto these "Joe the Plummer" slogans that prey on everyone's inner victim

[swish]

I would work more in a flat tax environment, as most hourly workers that I've talked to would also. The main reason is the time and a half paid for overtime. the trouble for lowly paid workers is that they would have to work more to reach that equilibrium point you were talking about above. That's the point were the flat tax equals the progressive tax.

Interesting conversation but I admit to not have thought much about it and the consequences.

Babb's you made a wrong assumption above when you said I love my job, I don't. 

   

Since working longer hours only affects hourly workers, then let's examine your claim a little bit closer.

2008 Tax Brackets
Tax Rate............. Single........................... Married Filing Jointly
10%................... Not over $8,025..............Not over $16,050
15%................... $8,025 - $32,550............ $16,050 - $65,100
25%................... $32,550 - $78,850........... $65,100 - $131,450
28%................... $78,850 - $164,550.......... $131,450 - $200,300
33%................... $164,550 - $357,700......... $200,300 - $357,700
35%................... Over $357,700.................. Over $357,700

Let's simplify and only consider one of your single co-workers, who pays 28% on his income tax. Also, let's round the bookends off to $79K and $164K, so that there are 17 increments of $5000 between $79K to $164K (i.e., diff between 164,000 and 79,000 = 5000*17 = 85,000). Obviously, between the endpoints, the tax rate remains unchanged, kind of like a flat tax. Your co-worker can work longer hours and make up to $85,000 more than he currently hauls in each year and not be penalized. But this argument is measured at the margins only--going from a lower tax bracket to a higher bracket. 

$5000 over the 28% tax bracket would put him to the 33% tax bracket. That $5000 jump results in a $250 increase in taxes paid per $5000 of additional income ($1650 from $1400). So your lame complaint boils down to this: For an additional $1000 made at the margin, you will pay an additional $50 ($330 from $280) in taxes than had you not leapfrogged into the higher tax bracket.

That is so lame. I can't believe you goofs would forego that additional $1000 because it will cost you $50 more since you got bumped into the 33% tax bracket  And you know what, you wouldn't turn down that $1000, which is why I maintain that you guys glom onto these "Joe the Plummer" slogans that prey on everyone's inner victim

It looks right, I thought it would be more.

If someone makes $15.65/hr (32,550/yr) say he needs just that much to get by and buy a few things. When he works 10 hrs a week overtime he has 15.65X1.5X10 = 234.75 extra per week, then .75 X 234.75 = 176.06 after taxes and lost 23.48 because he went into a higher bracket. Since he worked 10 hrs he loses 2.35 an hour. This is equivalent to 2.35/15.65 = .15 or a fifteen percent decrease in salary for those hours worked. To those people who are concerned about making it from day to day this is a significant amount of money.

If there were a flat tax it may be too high for the lower paid workers to make it.
Any idea what the rate would be?

BTW, I'm not for the flat tax, I don't know enough about it. just putting in my 2.

[dmastous]

Why do you keep throwing Joe the Plumber in our faces, and what does he have to do with anything?
The more you make the more options you have in finding ways to hide income, and shift it into tax shelters. I wouldn't say the rich pay less taxes, but I doubt they pay a tax based on their full income.
There are three reasons we will never see a flat tax; 1, it would come at the cost of tax shelters, and loopholes, 2, it would destroy an entire industry by taking the confusion out of tax time, and 3, it would take away a form of control which the government uses to keep people doing what they thing is right, like borrowing money to buy a house, or not doing what they think is wrong (that they don't want to make against the law), like smoking cigarettes, or drinking.
I still think the ultimate revenue from a flat tax would be higher than with a progressive tax, and it would be fairer if done right.

[Babblelot]

I would work more in a flat tax environment, as most hourly workers that I've talked to would also. The main reason is the time and a half paid for overtime. the trouble for lowly paid workers is that they would have to work more to reach that equilibrium point you were talking about above. That's the point were the flat tax equals the progressive tax.

Interesting conversation but I admit to not have thought much about it and the consequences.

Babb's you made a wrong assumption above when you said I love my job, I don't. 

   

Since working longer hours only affects hourly workers, then let's examine your claim a little bit closer.

2008 Tax Brackets
Tax Rate............. Single........................... Married Filing Jointly
10%................... Not over $8,025..............Not over $16,050
15%................... $8,025 - $32,550............ $16,050 - $65,100
25%................... $32,550 - $78,850........... $65,100 - $131,450
28%................... $78,850 - $164,550.......... $131,450 - $200,300
33%................... $164,550 - $357,700......... $200,300 - $357,700
35%................... Over $357,700.................. Over $357,700

Let's simplify and only consider one of your single co-workers, who pays 28% on his income tax. Also, let's round the bookends off to $79K and $164K, so that there are 17 increments of $5000 between $79K to $164K (i.e., diff between 164,000 and 79,000 = 5000*17 = 85,000). Obviously, between the endpoints, the tax rate remains unchanged, kind of like a flat tax. Your co-worker can work longer hours and make up to $85,000 more than he currently hauls in each year and not be penalized. But this argument is measured at the margins only--going from a lower tax bracket to a higher bracket. 

$5000 over the 28% tax bracket would put him to the 33% tax bracket. That $5000 jump results in a $250 increase in taxes paid per $5000 of additional income ($1650 from $1400). So your lame complaint boils down to this: For an additional $1000 made at the margin, you will pay an additional $50 ($330 from $280) in taxes than had you not leapfrogged into the higher tax bracket.

That is so lame. I can't believe you goofs would forego that additional $1000 because it will cost you $50 more since you got bumped into the 33% tax bracket  And you know what, you wouldn't turn down that $1000, which is why I maintain that you guys glom onto these "Joe the Plummer" slogans that prey on everyone's inner victim

It looks right, I thought it would be more.

If someone makes $15.65/hr (32,550/yr) say he needs just that much to get by and buy a few things. When he works 10 hrs a week overtime he has 15.65X1.5X10 = 234.75 extra per week, then .75 X 234.75 = 176.06 after taxes and lost 23.48 because he went into a higher bracket. Since he worked 10 hrs he loses 2.35 an hour. This is equivalent to 2.35/15.65 = .15 or a fifteen percent decrease in salary for those hours worked. To those people who are concerned about making it from day to day this is a significant amount of money.

If there were a flat tax it may be too high for the lower paid workers to make it.
Any idea what the rate would be?

BTW, I'm not for the flat tax, I don't know enough about it. just putting in my 2.

This is why these arguments are so easy to poke holes through. Your example is tantamount to this optical illusion: Our company's profit margin grew 15% from the prior year, more than twice that of our closest competitor. You can see the folly here: Without the proper reference points and/or scale, that piece of rosey information is worthless on it's own; it could be floated out there to mislead stockholders.

With that in mind, we now have to establish the correct reference point for your co-worker. At $15.65/hr, he will earn $626 ($532 net) for his 40 hour week. So now he puts in 10 hours of OT, which earns $861 ($708 net). Here's the tradeoff: no OT and he foregoes $176 (net). Work ten 50 hour weeks, and he clears $1760 over what he would have earned having not worked any OT.

I'll say this much, 15%-25% is quite steep, indeed. But your co-worker's problem is not an argument for a flat tax. It is, however, an argument for lower tax rates for the middle/lower middle class. It is an argument for modifying the progressive tax code between the $8000 - $78,000 income brackets. It is not, however, an argument for abolishing the progressive tax rate.

Btw, when my salary is $36,000 and I work 50 hours a week, I don't get paid overtime. Now what's your co-worker whining about, again?

[Babblelot]

Why do you keep throwing Joe the Plumber in our faces, and what does he have to do with anything?

Because the "Joe the Plumber" archetype is germain to any discussion monster has opined on.

[monstertruck]

I certainly take offense to your allegation that I glom.

Wouldn't you say that the ultimate glommers were the voters that flocked to the polls and voted for President Elect Obama based on the slogans of 'Change' or 'Hope'?  That's some serious glomming that you've overlooked there Mate!

'Everyone's inner victim'?   
What an absolutely Monsterous claim!
I took a good look in the mirror this morning.
There never was and never will be some mealy mouthed 'inner victim' staring back at ME! 
So please don't lump me with your idea of 'everyone'.

That's exactly the mentality that was needed for the Dems to rise to power in this election. 
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the 'inner victims' are responsible for the result of this "landslide" "historic" election.
"Poor Me!"   
"It's not my fault I'm poor, it's Babblot's and MT's fault." 
"How dare that DMast and OSB make more money than me.   'Redistribute' that to me!"

Oh wait, I forgot.  Personal responsibility and accountability are not values espoused by the Inner VicDems.
And while I'm at it, the Republicans aren't role models in this case either!!!
Can anyone say 'Corporate Bailout!!!'

It's a bloody mess at the moment and I think this country is facing a long, cold winter in more ways than one.
Some people think the storm has passed with the recent election.
I'm certain that was just a passing squall and the real disaster is approaching.
Let's hope that I'm wrong....