NY hates the rich
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
A few random thoughts:
People always assume that the rich pay very little in taxes because of tax sheltering. Well, there are very few ways to do that legitimately, and usually they have to pay taxes at some point, they are just able to defer them to a later date. chcr, I know where you're coming from though... the more money you make, the easier it is to take advantage of the loopholes (the few that still exist). However, take someone that makes $200,000 a year. That might seem like a lot, but it's very difficult for them to shelter much of that unless they are doing it through a business that they own. It's the "upper upper" middle class that I think gets royall screwed - they don't make enough to shelter their taxes from the unfairly high percentage they are obligated to pay, and they make enough to have to pay that unfairly high percentage.
Another random thought: in case anyone was wondering, I think our tax laws should be vastly reduced in complexity. A flat or nearly flat tax across the board with a huge revamping of the way we handle different investments, as well as a huge revamping of the tax structure for businesses (where most of the "sheltering" actually takes place, as opposed to individuals).
Another random thought: I think a midway step in reforming our social services (healthcare, welfare, disabled, etc.) would be to privatize the handling of money, but leave the donation of money to be an involuntary action dictated by the Federal government... just as it is now. In other words, leave the tax the way it is for now (or at least, don't make changes on the basis of social care reforms), and dictate what percentage of each person's income should go to private charities (the same percentage that currently goes to SS, welfare, etc.). Let the individual choose what charities they think do the most good for the money. Set up an accreditation program, review board, and oversight organization. In all, it would take a lot less beauracratic overhead than the current publicly handled system.
People always assume that the rich pay very little in taxes because of tax sheltering. Well, there are very few ways to do that legitimately, and usually they have to pay taxes at some point, they are just able to defer them to a later date. chcr, I know where you're coming from though... the more money you make, the easier it is to take advantage of the loopholes (the few that still exist). However, take someone that makes $200,000 a year. That might seem like a lot, but it's very difficult for them to shelter much of that unless they are doing it through a business that they own. It's the "upper upper" middle class that I think gets royall screwed - they don't make enough to shelter their taxes from the unfairly high percentage they are obligated to pay, and they make enough to have to pay that unfairly high percentage.
Another random thought: in case anyone was wondering, I think our tax laws should be vastly reduced in complexity. A flat or nearly flat tax across the board with a huge revamping of the way we handle different investments, as well as a huge revamping of the tax structure for businesses (where most of the "sheltering" actually takes place, as opposed to individuals).
Another random thought: I think a midway step in reforming our social services (healthcare, welfare, disabled, etc.) would be to privatize the handling of money, but leave the donation of money to be an involuntary action dictated by the Federal government... just as it is now. In other words, leave the tax the way it is for now (or at least, don't make changes on the basis of social care reforms), and dictate what percentage of each person's income should go to private charities (the same percentage that currently goes to SS, welfare, etc.). Let the individual choose what charities they think do the most good for the money. Set up an accreditation program, review board, and oversight organization. In all, it would take a lot less beauracratic overhead than the current publicly handled system.
chcr
Too cute for words
Hey OLI, interesting thoughts. I absolutely agree with the first one. Anyone who makes more than, say 50,000 and less than around 250,000 get raped. As for a flat tax, it penalizes people at the lower end of the income structure it uses. No matter where you cut it off, the people in the lowest 25% lose the most. What we have now isn't all that great, but I'd rather that than a flat tax. Just my opinion, I can really argue it either way. The charity thing, I don't know about. By that I mean the system is corrupt now, I'm just not sure your idea would change that. Besides, I'd want all mine to go to health services (I already do a ton for the National Cancer Society, my wife is an oncology nurse and a cancer survivor) what if there weren't enough money for all of the social services that were needed?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Then, obviously, the people don't think some of those services are needed.
Being in the military, I'm tapped once a year for a donation to the CFC. I don't have to give, but, since I've joined, I have...every year. I donate approximately $200 USD per year to various charities, and I choose who gets my cash based upon how much of that money actually goes to the charity, and not to line somebody's pockets. Lately, though, some folks in *ahem* higher positions make it extremely difficult not to give. I dunno...if there is a better way, then I've yet to see it, and it would, most likely, become corrupted just like the ideals behind the CFC...
Being in the military, I'm tapped once a year for a donation to the CFC. I don't have to give, but, since I've joined, I have...every year. I donate approximately $200 USD per year to various charities, and I choose who gets my cash based upon how much of that money actually goes to the charity, and not to line somebody's pockets. Lately, though, some folks in *ahem* higher positions make it extremely difficult not to give. I dunno...if there is a better way, then I've yet to see it, and it would, most likely, become corrupted just like the ideals behind the CFC...
chcr said:
That is a common argument. I don't understand it. It makes no sense, mathematically or logically. A person making 15k a year would pay (presuming 10%) $1500. Less than 29 bucks a week. Someone at the 175K level would pay $17,500 or over $335 a week. just in federal taxes. How is the working slob getting the shaft? Because he actually has to pay a little?
chcr
Too cute for words
Cost of living, Gonz. In simple mathematics, you are correct. If you factor in the cost of living, that 1500 bucks from the 10,000 a year guy is a lot more significant than the 17.5K is to the other guy. Besides, in every plan I've ever seen, the 10,000 per year guy wouldn't pay taxes. He doesn't now. Point is, you have to consider the cost of living. This is where the flat tax falls apart, IMO. Just because it works out in your favor (and mine) doesn't necessarily make it the best solution. I'm not saying it's the worst either, just that a simple flat tax costs the lower income people more in spendable money than it does the the more well off. Hell, I'd love to only pay 10 or 15 percent in taxes. But we'll be widening the gap between the haves and have nots, and there is a revolution at the end of that spiral. A bloody one I don't doubt. At least that's what history shows us will happen.
ris
New Member
i think that's probably it, while on paper it is the most fair tax system available the impact of paying 1000 on 10k pa is a lot more than paying 10k on 100k. i look back on when i was earning 8k pa, i was bringing home such a reduced amount after tax it was really hard to get by.
now i'm on over twice that my tax intake is that much higher but i'm not particularly bothered. i can run a car, i can pay the bills, i can pay the rent. on the 8k there were moments when it was sticky and few extra quid in my pay would have made all the difference.
now i'm on over twice that my tax intake is that much higher but i'm not particularly bothered. i can run a car, i can pay the bills, i can pay the rent. on the 8k there were moments when it was sticky and few extra quid in my pay would have made all the difference.