extranormal's Wealth Redistribution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHZQ_vmMHoY&feature=player_embedded

Flounders invited.

In reply to oldsaw:

Same percentage tax for everyone. Yaaaay. I win. Me for president!

^ I like the fairtax over a flat tax, but that's just me.

Can't watch the video at work, YouTube is blocked, anyone care to give a brief summation?

I didn't watch the whole thing but it was about wealth redistribution. I don't believe in wealth redistribution, but I don't believe in high tax breaks either. For anyone. Getting rid of tax breaks COULD help our deficits. Too many rich have dropped their taxes unfairly low.

Nicely worded, actually.

N, I agree with you, tax breaks should be all but eliminated as well as an overall flat tax (or flat sales tax, I really don't care one way or the other).

N Sperlo wrote: I didn't watch the whole thing but it was about wealth redistribution. I don't believe in wealth redistribution, but I don't believe in high tax breaks either. For anyone. Getting rid of tax breaks COULD help our deficits. Too many rich have dropped their taxes unfairly low.

If I am elected Prez I promise to eliminate income tax! I will make a national sales tax. If you make more money, it is logical that you will spend more money... This will totally eliminate the >40% of the leaches that pay no income tax. It's morally wrong that people that pay no tax can vote on, or at least vote by proxy (via an elected representative), taxes. This would greatly limit ways for anyone to cheat on their taxes, and all but eliminate those IRS scumbags.

The idea of wealth redistribution is really at there heart, socialist. Those two terms (wealth redistribution, and socialism) have been thrown around wildly like a ball during the hurling competition at the Special Olympics. Flat or equal taxes is purely democratic, but tax breaks are also fair in a democratic society as long as they are warranted.

Maybe what we really need is a warranted tax break system so there would be no need for audits. More paperwork, less headache, right? I don't know if I like that either....

In reply to YaNi:

I step down with my nomination going to YaNi.

N Sperlo wrote: Too many rich have dropped their taxes unfairly low.

Easy cop-out, but the "rich" don't formulate tax policy. The onerous blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of politicians who pander to special interests, of whom the "rich" are only a small portion.

I’ll spare you all another long winded discussion about my beliefs. I'll just say the analogy in the video is fundamentally flawed. If it isn't obvious how, it's unlikely anything I say will make it so. There has been a lot invested to make sure a lot of people believe things about taxes. This effort has worked very well and a post on an internet forum isn’t a powerful enough medium to compete with that message.

N Sperlo wrote: Same percentage tax for everyone. Yaaaay. I win. Me for president!

Personally, that is one of the ideas I like better than our current system. But it would have to be same rate for all taxes. Equal rate for salary may not be as equal as it sounds. Just looking at my own situation, the FICA cap means I don’t pay that tax on a good hunk of my income. People who make less than I do have to pay FICA on all their income. So we would have to change how that is addressed. And in the interest of not getting long winded, I’ll let you investigate on your own why Warren Buffett says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. You’ll see it’s a system that favors people who already have a good bit of money. That would have to be included in “same for everyone” too. If that were the case, “equal for all” would soak the rich in a far more profound manner than any proposal being discussed in Washington. And that’s why it’s unlikely to even be considered.

Sales tax only? It's a great idea. But the rate would be very, very high. And Democrats would insist it not apply to anything you actually need, like food, clothing, housing... It would be hard to make all of the money we need on taxes for Yachts and Bugatti’s.

That wasn’t too long or inflammatory was it?

I suspect the rich are going to get their asses handed to them at some point in the future in the form of a big tax rate hike. If they hadn't got so greedy with the the 15% tax rate on investments...

oldsaw wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Too many rich have dropped their taxes unfairly low.

Easy cop-out, but the "rich" don't formulate tax policy. The onerous blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of politicians who pander to special interests, of whom the "rich" are only a small portion.

That "small" number of the rich have the most influence. This influence is known as money and it is the same money that keeps their names out of the media.

So even if a rich person paid in $1,000,000 a year in taxes and 47% of America paid no taxes then the rich have had their taxed dropped unfairly low?

BTW Those are real figures.

By virtue of being rich they are contributing to the overall economy of this country. 4th-5th-6th generation Welfare recipients are nothing but a drain.

Flat sales tax? I'm all over it! As long as there's no income tax to go along with it. Then everyone pays tax in proportion to what they use.

Rich and spend a lot then you pay a lot!

Poor and don't buy so much? Then you don't pay much!

Of course then the tax breaks would go to those who barter. Dang it! You just can't get rid of those tax cheats!

BIn reply to carguy123:

47% of America paid no taxes

So we never talked about enforcement. That's a whole other issue. Should we do that or save it for another thread? This may get long on its own. (Giggity)

In reply to carguy123:

47% of America paid no taxes

No sales tax, no real estate tax, no payroll taxes, no nothing?

carguy123 wrote: So even if a rich person paid in $1,000,000 a year in taxes and 47% of America paid no income taxes then the rich have had their taxed dropped unfairly low?

Fixed that for you. There's a lot more out there than income tax, and sales tax hits the poor harder than it hits the rich.

In reply to ReverendDexter:

Change it federal income taxes exluding medicare and social security taxes.

Even then, I bet some creativity happened in getting to 47%.

And you are exactly right, the poor pay 10% sales tax here in Birmingham, even on food. Sales tax annoy me. I imagine it is a much bigger problem than an annoyance for many.

N Sperlo wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Too many rich have dropped their taxes unfairly low.

Easy cop-out, but the "rich" don't formulate tax policy. The onerous blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of politicians who pander to special interests, of whom the "rich" are only a small portion.

That "small" number of the rich have the most influence. This influence is known as money and it is the same money that keeps their names out of the media.

I'd suggest the media is just as guilty in keeping some other realities of the tax system invisible.

Interesting link to AGI numbers and amounts of taxes paid: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Quite nicely put, actually. I agree with what you're saying to boot. If you taxed everyone at say 30% with no tax breaks, I would be happy. Would the rich, as you put it, get a hike bigger than anything being discussed? maybe some of them. That's fine, though, because that's truly fair. I'd even allow some sort of cut off, under poverty level no taxes etc... Of course this is just federal income taxes. Local sales tax and state income taxes would have to follow suit.

tuna55 wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Quite nicely put, actually. I agree with what you're saying to boot.

Not kidding when I say, that kinda makes my day.

tuna55 wrote: If you taxed everyone at say 30% with no tax breaks, I would be happy. Would the rich, as you put it, get a hike bigger than anything being discussed? maybe some of them.

I'll ask you to take a look at the Warren Buffett situation I mentioned above. Iron Balls McGinty hit on it above. There’s not a lot of “maybe” in there. And we’re not talking “a little bit” either. Fix that and it won't have to be 30%

Funny how being fair hits the rich much harder than the "unfair" hikes we're talking about.

tuna55 wrote: ...tax breaks should be all but eliminated as well...

Can you imagine what that would do to small businesses?! (e.g. sole proprietorship)

Are you trying to kill small businesses!?! And their children?!? (obligatory political overstatement)

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I’ll spare you all another long winded discussion about my beliefs. I'll just say the analogy in the video is fundamentally flawed. If it isn't obvious how, it's unlikely anything I say will make it so.

You need a perfect analogy to absorb the point?

Or would a mandated maximum income level serve your contention more appropriately?

The point of the clip is that the tax code is berkeleyed-up and there are minions of useful idiots who demagogue the successful of society instead of addressing the core problems.

tuna55 wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Quite nicely put, actually. I agree with what you're saying to boot. If you taxed everyone at say 30% with no tax breaks, I would be happy. Would the rich, as you put it, get a hike bigger than anything being discussed? maybe some of them. That's fine, though, because that's truly fair. I'd even allow some sort of cut off, under poverty level no taxes etc... Of course this is just federal income taxes. Local sales tax and state income taxes would have to follow suit.

Nice to see a FairTax proponent, because that is exactly its' premise - with the cap set at 23%.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Well put.

This is a great debate but one that is ultimately doomed to failure. Personally, I believe that there is NO way the tax code gets revised. Do you know how many employees the IRS has? Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth. We all have read "studies" that may support our personal preferences (biases) but will a "flat tax" work? I don't know. I would like to think so as I pay a lot more in taxes than I ever would have believed- as on of those "rich people" but also as someone who has 25 employees. What's the solution? I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure another government agency is not the solution