Screw the IRS.

[pchang]

Flat tax simplification is a myth.
The vast majority of the IRS code is devoted to defining what is and what is not earned income. This will not change under a flat tax. Most of the work that IRS does is devoted to keeping track of earned income. This will not change under a flat tax.

Under Plato's system the poor will pay about the same amount in taxes that they pay now (pretty much 0).
There will be a certain segment of the middle class (the lower portion, but not sure where it tops out) that will pay more in taxes than they pay now.
Everyone else will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

Is this what you really want? Just like the majority of voting Americans wanted Bush, the majority of voting Americans do not want this.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
In that case, Social Security must be eliminated. In its present form it is the most regressive tax there is.

At the same time, everyone who pays into it in teory draws the same benefit from it, unlike the general budget, where this is not true.

[pchang]

what exactly do you mean by same benefit? people get different SS benefits depending upon their SS income during the top 10 quarters of their life.

[Dauphin]

What does social security pay for?

[GePap]

And don;t the people who earned more pay higher payroll taxes, thus in the end making the correlation between what you paid in and what you will get roughtly the same amongst different income brackets coming in at the same time into the system?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dauphin
What does social security pay for?

Social Security is what we call the public pension system. Tough the government also pays out of that ssytem for disability pensions for those that had been working. If you recieve any other type of public pension, you do not get Social Security, thought people who get private pensions still can get Social security.

[Dauphin]

I only ask as the equivalent input payments here for National Insurance are just another form of taxation with no direct funding correlation to output payments.

[pchang]

Social security pays a small benefit to old and disabled people because they are old and or disabled.

Gepap,
If your claim is that SS provides the same proportional benefits based upon what you paid in, then I don't see why you think this is not the case with the general fund. Don't you think that rich people who pay more into the general fund benefit more from the general fund than poor people who pay less?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by pchang
Under Plato's system the poor will pay about the same amount in taxes that they pay now (pretty much 0).
There will be a certain segment of the middle class (the lower portion, but not sure where it tops out) that will pay more in taxes than they pay now.
Everyone else will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

The $50K limit is just arbitrary. It could be $75K or whatever number causes that lower middle class tax burden to be level or decreased.


You are VERY correct thoughin insinuating that the definitions of earned income need some serious looks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
Social security pays a small benefit to old and disabled people because they are old and or disabled.

Gepap,
If your claim is that SS provides the same proportional benefits based upon what you paid in, then I don't see why you think this is not the case with the general fund. Don't you think that rich people who pay more into the general fund benefit more from the general fund than poor people who pay less?

Yes, the rich people who pay more into the general fund do benefit more, hence it is right that they pay more, thus, keep our progresive tax structure and say no to a flat tax.

[pchang]

Glad I could help you keep on the right track.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Yeah, I know, but everybody has to play the deduction game every year to get it there. I'm just wondering if you could make it that simple and still have a sound tax system that was nevertheless just.

It's already pretty simple, unless you have a business.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kaak
So it's fair for him to have to pay $70k in taxes a year, and you to pay $3680?

Yes. He benefits disproportiontely more from our government protections. It's a geometric progretion, not an arithmatic one.

Now, if the actual amount your father pays is $70K a year in income taxes he's making $265,000 a year, not counting for deductions. Add in deductions, exemptions, etc. and with that specific number on taxes, he's probably making close to $300K a year. So, in actuality, your father only paid 23% of his income in income taxes.

That's assuming you didn't simply multiply $175K * 40% to come up with the $70K number. If your father made $175K, then he paid $39K in income taxes, not accounting for deductions and what not. Add those in and he paid around $31K in incomes taxes, which is around 18%.

So stop whining.

[David Floyd]

Don't talk about fiarness liberterian, cause real fairness would be everyone paying the same percentage on the same earnings.

Why? What do earnings have to do with anything? Earnings simply represent a private agreement between two parties, and have nothing to do with the government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Earnings simply represent a private agreement between two parties, and have nothing to do with the government.

We're talking about fairness, not the government.