? What story did I relate to the board? I think you have me confused with someone else and that would explain why you thought I said those things you mentioned.
Ok maybe thats the case. Sorry if so.
? What story did I relate to the board? I think you have me confused with someone else and that would explain why you thought I said those things you mentioned.
The Fair Tax is the best alternative. It replaces (& abolishes) the Income Tax, replacing it with a national Sales Tax, which is estimated to be about 23%. That % could be raised or lowered, but would be clear to ALL who is voting to raise/lower it.Plus some proposals exempt certain item from the consumption tax to try offset its impact on the poor. I haven't looked at it in a long time, so I could be remembering this wrong, but with some proposals, the tax only applies to new products. The poor buy second hand lot more than the rich, and used goods wouldn't get taxed.
There is no 15% rule.I think it is 15% and something like $20K. So if you earn $1M, you can't put in $150K (limited to $20K). And if you earn $50K, you can't put in $20K (limited to 15% of $50K = $7.5K).
Like the SS max, the approximate $20K goes up a little each year.
So the taxpayers who have retired and paid into the social security tax system (15% for self employed) all of their working lives, will continue funding the social security system with the consumption tax. Wonder if they’ll receive a rebate based on their social security income for each year?I wonder about the 'tax' %, though. IIRC, GDP is roughly $29T and the budget is $5.6T. Wouldn't that translate into ~ 19% consumption tax rate vs 23%? I may have the numbers wrong or the $5.6T may omit some budgetary items. By this math, Social Security and Medicare taxes would also be eliminated, correct?
No worries. I shouldn't have gotten so frustrated.Ok maybe thats the case. Sorry if so.
Hmm, which political group to you tend to refer to yourself as?My policy is that I'm against taxes. But roads need to be built, garbage picked up, and we need an armed forces. So I'd be happy with just a National sales tax (for any new purchases above a sliding scale that defines basic cost of living expenses) to fund those things.
Also, I don't think Federal politicians should draw a salary. Consider it something akin to "jury duty" You get COLA, live in a dormitory, and get your old job back at the end of the year.
Whatever group supports no income tax, and a transparent government that does what it's told to. THAT one I guess.Hmm, which political group to you tend to refer to yourself as?
Wonder how many cats pause posters it would take to pay the amount of taxes he has given to the government this past year? I’m guessing a lot. Maybe we need to ponyGoogled this Simpson cat and he has 4.5 million shares in TXO which pays, on average, around a $.60 dividend quarterly. Not sure about his other compensation in other companies but he is pocketing around $2.7 million quarterly in dividends for which he only pays a 20% tax instead of the 38% in that income range.
The reason that dividends are taxed at a lesser rate are that corporations are also taxed on their income.The reasoning is to tax dividends at the normal income rate is in essence double taxationGoogled this Simpson cat and he has 4.5 million shares in TXO which pays, on average, around a $.60 dividend quarterly. Not sure about his other compensation in other companies but he is pocketing around $2.7 million quarterly in dividends for which he only pays a 20% tax instead of the 38% in that income range.
The reason that dividends are taxed at a lesser rate are that corporations are also taxed on their income.The reasoning is to tax dividends at the normal income rate is in essence double taxation
If we ever go to a consumption tax, I believe it should be charged on EVERYTHING - groceries, homes, entertainment, stocks/bonds (not inside IRA/401k), CDs, etc. So, the high earner would still pay more of the tax as they're going to spend/buy something with all that cash. Otherwise, they'll sock it away in those assets that don't incur the tax. However, with a consumption tax, I believe capital gains taxes would be eliminated, which is OK with me. There would have to be tax credit/rebate for lower income earners but the notion that a $1 earned at one level should be taxed at higher rate than a $1 earned at a different level is illogical.
I wonder about the 'tax' %, though. IIRC, GDP is roughly $29T and the budget is $5.6T. Wouldn't that translate into ~ 19% consumption tax rate vs 23%? I may have the numbers wrong or the $5.6T may omit some budgetary items. By this math, Social Security and Medicare taxes would also be eliminated, correct?
The reason that dividends are taxed at a lesser rate are that corporations are also taxed on their income.The reasoning is to tax dividends at the normal income rate is in essence double taxation
Well, almost everything you pay for has been taxed many times already.Some politicals think double and triple taxation on the same dollar is just fine.
When politicians say "make corporations pay their share", when you increase their cost of doing business, all they do is roll that back into the cost of their goods. Inflation anyone? That doesn't mean corporate (& private) loopholes should not be ended, they should. But simply raising tax rates, does not necessarily raise tax income. In Economics class most theories start with "assuming all other things remain constant", even though we fully know if you change 1 thing that will affect other things (they won't stay constant).
Meanwhile every major university has a billion dollar endowment which is a tax free hedge fund and no one says a word about it while tuition continues to rise bc ppls solution is to making everyone pay more for whatever their demands are.
I think the top 1% pay 32% now. I'd have to look it up but saw where that total has been increasing the 10 years at pretty good clip.Back in April 2018, the WSJ online published an article with data supplied from the Tax Policy Center had some very interesting findings on wage earners here in the US. The article stated the following:
· Those that earn > $3.2 million (Top 0.1% of income earners): represents 7.6% of the income earned, but pay 22.0% of the federal income taxes.
· Those that earn > $730,000 per year (Top 1% of income earners): represents 15.9% of the income earned, but pay 43.3% of the federal income taxes.
· Those that earn > $150,000 per year (Top 20% of income earners): represent 52.2% of the income earned, but pay 86.9% of the federal income taxes.
· Those that earn between $86,000-$150,000 per year: represents 20.7% of the income earned, but pay 13.2% of the federal income taxes.
· Those that earn between $48,000-$86,000 per year: represents 14.2% of the income earned, but pay 4.3% of the federal income taxes.
I doubt much has changed over the years.
Meanwhile every major university has a billion dollar endowment which is a tax free hedge fund and no one says a word about it while tuition continues to rise bc ppls solution is to making everyone pay more for whatever their demands are.
I think we can all agree that politicians need to pay a 90% tax on their stock portfolios.
Meanwhile every major university has a billion dollar endowment which is a tax free hedge fund and no one says a word about it while tuition continues to rise bc ppls solution is to making everyone pay more for whatever their demands are.