Speaking of taxes........

[glatt]

Just for kicks, I pulled out the 1040 we just filed and then figured out what my tax would be with the form you posted above, and my tax would be 2.8028 times what it is now. I'm opposed to it.

If you are curious as to my economic status, our household is below the average for households in this area. I would consider us to be middle class on the national level, but slightly lower than middle class for this metropolitan area. But then we just have one income, so it's to be expected.

[deadbeater]

My taxes would increase by about 6000. And I'm not rich. Er, no, I don't think so.

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's what I'm asking you. There's no line for it on your form.

Incorporations can't have children. Use your imagination and visualize the first line reading simply......Gross Profits, Cash accounting method.

Next !

[DanaC]

Am I the only one who finds that big red 'Next!' a tad irksome?

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by glatt

Just for kicks, I pulled out the 1040 we just filed and then figured out what my tax would be with the form you posted above, and my tax would be 2.8028 times what it is now. I'm opposed to it.

If you are curious as to my economic status, our household is below the average for households in this area. I would consider us to be middle class on the national level, but slightly lower than middle class for this metropolitan area. But then we just have one income, so it's to be expected.

Did you not say that you paid little or no taxes? What is 2.8028 x (little or no) ? You've argued strictly for your individual position but you've yet to state a logical argument against the fairness of the overall plan. Once a money making entity, be it family, sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation, achieves a predetermined level of income/profit, taxes are levied on such at a single percentage rate. ALL income is equally and therefore fairly taxed. You owe me a donut hole.

Next !

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Am I the only one who finds that big red 'Next!' a tad irksome?

It's intended to invite debate, issue a challenge. Last time I checked I was told that it's o.k. to be irked, but would you prefer a different color? Maybe 3-d? Or maybe you'ld like to enter the debate?

Next !

[DanaC]

It's intended to invite debate, issue a challenge. Last time I checked I was told that it's o.k. to be irked, but would you prefer a different color? Maybe 3-d? Or maybe you'ld like to enter the debate?

About tax systems? No thanks. I barely understand my own country's tax codes let alone jumping into yours. Did you mean for the 'Next !' to look arrogant and aggressive ?

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

My taxes would increase by about 6000. And I'm not rich. Er, no, I don't think so.

At a 17% rate your taxes would increase by six grand and you're not rich? Hmmm.....you need to either find a good accountant or fire the one you've got.

Next !

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by DanaC

About tax systems? No thanks. I barely understand my own country's tax codes let alone jumping into yours. Did you mean for the 'Next !' to look arrogant and aggressive ?

Challenging I think. Not arrogant, surely.

Not being able to understand the tax codes is one huge reason to simplify the bloody things. Other than eliminating taxes completely, a single rate for everybody is as simple a plan as I've been exposed to......but I'm open to alternatives, which is why I've introduced the topic.

Next !

[DanaC]

Yey that 'next !' is much nicer *smiles*

Not being able to understand the tax codes is one huge reason to simplify the bloody things. Other than eliminating taxes completely, a single rate for everybody is as simple a plan as I've been exposed to......but I'm open to alternatives, which is why I've introduced the topic.

Personally I have never been in favour of flat rate taxing. The point has alreadybeen raised i think, that taking x% from someone who's income is less than 20k will impact that person/household far more than taking the same x% off someone who earns 600k. Out of that 20k I bet every cent is needed just to keep the wolf from the door, and every cent taken in tax was a vital one for that household. That isn't the case with the household of 600k. When you are counting pennies to ensure everyone is fed, you notice that x% going out of your income; when you don't have to think before booking a table at a restaurant or a flight to the bahamas, I doubt you feel quite the same sting from that x%.

In the UK we adopted a system of low rate tax for the lowest earners, 10p in th £1. Above the threshold you get the usual rates. These rates slide according to income level. When you go from one threshold to the next, the rate at which everything you earn above that threshold is taxed, becomes that bit higher, but what you earn below that threshold stays at the lower tax rate. Of course that's just Income Tax. the Council Tax system for gathering local government funds, is much less fair generally, as it is based on the which property band your house falls into.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It puts much more of a burden on the poor. If you make $12,000 and they take 20%, you have $9,600 left to live on. If you make $12,000,000 you are left with $9,600,000.

Even worse when you understand that the wealthiest in the country have no income to tax. Most of their salaries are insignificant and many of them earn zero dollars.

Google CEO Eric E. Schmidt earned $1 last year.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*smiles*

do you mean your asterisks to be *smarmy* and condescending?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Kitsune's link

Like other execs at the search giant, the bulk of the Schmidt's compensation comes from his stock options. As of March 1, Schmidt owned more than 10.7 million Google shares, worth more than $5 billion at Wednesday's closing price of $471.02. Similarly, cofounders Sergey Brin and Larry Page received $1 salaries but each owns stock worth around $13.5 billion.

But if they are selling a handful of stock options here and there for day-to-day cash, that money is still taxed as capital gains. Don't most flat-tax plans still count capital gains as income?

The problem is that "flat tax" and "a simplified tax system" do not have to go hand-in-hand at all. Hyoi's graphic of the postcard-sized tax form could easily include staggered tax rates from 0% to 40% depending on the income bracket just by adding a couple lines. But a system that simplified is unrealistic anyway--just as one example, how in the world would the self-employed prove their net versus gross income?

[DanaC]

do you mean your asterisks to be *smarmy* and condescending?

Yup. *grins*

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But if they are selling a handful of stock options here and there for day-to-day cash, that money is still taxed as capital gains. Don't most flat-tax plans still count capital gains as income?

I've heard both versions suggested, but I'd guess you'd have to count any and all income. This, to me, means forms quite a bit bigger than a postcard.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The problem is that "flat tax" and "a simplified tax system" do not have to go hand-in-hand at all.

I, personally, don't want a simplified tax system. Deductions and the sliding scale go in my favor and will continue to do so as my life progresses, property is purchased, etc. The benefits of the current system are too great, especially for people with low incomes and those getting their lives started.