Someone explain taxes to me

[Bloodninja]

12% is significant to me. If we cut all the welfare programs to 0 that would be a 12% reduction in the federal budget which is about a trillion dollars

lol our budget isn't over 1 quadrillion dollars

[Rhyseh]

Income tax is what most of my part in the convo has been about, and what I was specifically referring to. And no, you do not have the right to simply assign me an opinion different from the one I was arguing because it's easier to argue against. As for the last part, I don't know why you're telling me that since I"m not advocating government using taxes to futiley try to redistribute wealth.

You cannot look at income tax in a vacuum. You need to factor in a number of economic variables to fully understand why the lower income earners need to be taxed proportionally less than the higher income earners. You cannot simply argue for a flat % income tax rate without looking at all the ancillaries.

My last point wasn't specifically directed at you, more of a tangent really.

[Kujako]

And his 15% is still like 50 million dollars MORE than you pay so stop your bitchin

I'm not "bitching", he is about all us moochers.

[Spectral]

12% is significant to me. If we cut all the welfare programs to 0 that would be a 12% reduction in the federal budget which is about a trillion dollars

Well, no, it wouldn't be.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that's not even in the ballpark.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 10:57 PM ----------

Private business will take care of it.

If that's definitely true, why in the world was it that NIH funded labs developed the vaccines that eradicated polio and smallpox rather than private business?

[Paranoid Android]

But they say that about EVERY program people suggest eliminating. If they actually eliminated all those little .01% of budget projects would add up to big money. Its like the people that say Oh, there is a penny on the ground. Its not worth my time to pick it up, but if they picked up every penny they found they eventually add up to big bucks

See, you to just drink the Kool-Aid and dont really think about what is being said. I am saying you people like you are trying to trim fat off the scraps when you do not want to trim fat off the real pork in our government. Again Military, which is larger than next 10 countries combined. The reason Presidential candidates bring up PBS because they know its something that most politicians honestly dont care about so its good to show how "fiscally" responsible they are when its complete BS. Romney was talking about spending MORE on our military budget..I mean CMON!!

I also saw someone mention the EPA. Again I laugh because its a program that they think they can pick on because of that dang government regulation. Yeah like I trust a business is going to be responsible and spend money say desposing of waste when its either to dump it in a lake. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid of these talking points and at least think for yourself on what is and what is not wasteful spending.

[Bloodninja]

12% is significant to me. If we cut all the welfare programs to 0 that would be a 12% reduction in the federal budget which is about a trillion dollars

Also cutting all welfare programs would hurt our economy so much we'd probably fall into a depression.

[Spectral]

Yeah I know because when you are actually a person like Romney your money makes you money. His investments, and interest is more than what most Americans make. I know, I know I dont like the rich I'm sure I'll get that reply. That is not the case sorry I just boil it down to if you make more than you pay a littel more. Paying 5% more for Romney will NOT effect his lifestyle one bit..sorry.

Indeed. I have no problem with people making the big bucks, and I think our advancements as a society are at least partly predicated on extreme ambition. I just think all income should be treated the same for tax purposes rather than pretending that there's a good reason to tax capital gains at a lower rate than earned income.

[Kujako]

Indeed. I have no problem with people making the big bucks, and I think our advancements as a society are at least partly predicated on extreme ambition. I just think all income should be treated the same for tax purposes rather than pretending that there's a good reason to tax capital gains at a lower rate than earned income.

I have no problem with the capital gains rate being lower, however a lot of things that are counted as capital gains should not be in my opinion. Since we're on the subject of Romney, what Bane Capital does should not be counted as capital gains in my opinion (since there is little to no risk), while stock market investments should (since there is high risk).

[Spectral]

I have no problem with the capital gains rate being lower, however a lot of things that are counted as capital gains should not be in my opinion. Since we're on the subject of Romney, what Bane Capital does should not be counted as capital gains in my opinion (since there is little to no risk), while stock market investments should (since there is high risk).

I don't see why risk is a valid reason to tax a form of income at a lower rate. If it is, this suggests to me that I should pay a lower rate if I seek future employment at a biotech startup than if I choose to work in an academic or government lab.

I know that's a crummy comparison to capital gains in a more overarching way, I'm just looking strictly at the risk part of things. There's really not a lot of evidence that people avoid stock investment when capital gains are taxed a bit higher.

[Arcanist]

No matter what they say, statist parasites don't have an ethical leg to stand on.

Assuming you're an American OP, your taxes feed the world's most adept murderer: The US government. Must I remind you of the carnage the nation has wrought in the Middle East? The 500,000 children under the age of 4, dead, due to economic sanctions during the 90s? The irradiation of entire regions due to the use of depleted uranium in weaponry? The hundreds of military bases, the nukes, the CIA secret prisons...Must I go on?

[Mormolyce]

And if you want a flat tax, government will need to rise it like 2 or 3 times, because government will need at least the same money income from taxes.

Hmm well not that I support a flat tax or anything but a bit of Googling seems to indicate that the total income tax revenue in the US in 2009 was about $1.25 trillion and the total taxable income of the US same year was about $5 trillion, so to get the same tax at a flat rate it would have to be 25%. Assuming those numbers are accurate.

[Spectral]

So tell me, what about Japan and what they did during World War II, or Nazi Germany? Or you know, basically any country that exists/has existed in this world.

Judging from the content, I'm guessing that he's pushing fairly extreme anarcho-libertarian rhetoric in which all states are bad.

Yeah.

[Mormolyce]

All countries have skeletons, but, some people just can't get over the fact that they do.

I think the post you're responding to was gibberish but I don't think you can call something from the 90s a "skeleton". Plenty of meat still on those bones!

[Kujako]

Hmm well not that I support a flat tax or anything but a bit of Googling seems to indicate that the total income tax revenue in the US in 2009 was about $1.25 trillion and the total taxable income of the US same year was about $5 trillion, so to get the same tax at a flat rate it would have to be 25%. Assuming those numbers are accurate.

Which would be fine, but some people cant afford 25%. And once you start granting exceptions, everyone wants them, and soon you no longer have a flat tax.

Overall, it comes down to being part of a society or not. While I would love for people to have the option to drop out and receive no governmental support in exchange for paying no taxes, wer'e talking about this using computers based on technology developed for the government, on an internet created by the government, powered by centralized electricity, and so on. Not seeing a good way out other then the self sufficient compound in the mid-west, which never seems to end well.

[Mormolyce]

A 25% tax rate on someone who's making $20,000 a year, would be fairly crippling would it not? (Just an example).

Since they'd only be making $15,000 a year after taxes. I'm really a bit of a noob on what the poverty level is set at in the U.S., but, I personally couldn't imagine living off of $15,000 a year, especially if I had a family.


I'm starting to not like flat taxes, unless they are bracketed, but then that defeats the whole purpose of a flat tax.

Yeah I don't know what the cost of living in the U.S. is but if your rent is $300 a week that's $15k per year right there, never mind food and electricity etc. You would basically die without significant government benefits.

I was just saying that 2-3 times is not really accurate.

---------- Post added 2013-02-05 at 04:38 AM ----------

Which would be fine, but some people cant afford 25%. And once you start granting exceptions, everyone wants them, and soon you no longer have a flat tax.

Overall, it comes down to being part of a society or not. While I would love for people to have the option to drop out and receive no governmental support in exchange for paying no taxes, wer'e talking about this using computers based on technology developed for the government, on an internet created by the government, powered by centralized electricity, and so on. Not seeing a good way out other then the self sufficient compound in the mid-west, which never seems to end well.

Well as I said I don't support a flat tax, just giving some actual numbers to the debate.

I don't know how you could opt out of government support in exchange for no taxes, as the people who need the support are not the ones paying most of the tax. Many of them are unemployed for example.

[Orlong]

In terms of science, and technology. Government money is almost always the drive behind them.

Do you honestly think for one second that private enterprises would be pushing the frontier in places like space? Where there isn't always a definable return of investment, and there is high danger to the employees. No, it wouldn't.

NASA is very much needed, and I would argue for even more funding for it, with some goals like a moon base, within 5 years. (Fuck Mars, the Moon isn't completely useless either, couldn't hurt to get a base there and learn things from it.)

First of all wasting money to go to the moon serves no purpose other that to say we did it again. Nothing good can come from it.Secondly there is ALREADY a private company sending people into space soon. Its called Virgin Galactic

[Kujako]

First of all wasting money to go to the moon serves no purpose other that to say we did it again. Nothing good can come from it.Secondly there is ALREADY a private company sending people into space soon. Its called Virgin Galactic

Miniaturization of electronics and computers was done primarily to support the space program. it's hard to predict what will effect technology in the long run. The people at the 100 year space ship program are of the opinion that everything we need to know about living better on earth can be learned by studying what we need to know to live in space.

[Charge me Doctor]

Hmm well not that I support a flat tax or anything but a bit of Googling seems to indicate that the total income tax revenue in the US in 2009 was about $1.25 trillion and the total taxable income of the US same year was about $5 trillion, so to get the same tax at a flat rate it would have to be 25%. Assuming those numbers are accurate.

If i would be taxed like this (currently, i pay 13% for ~13.156$ per year), I would end with 9.867 per year (822,25 per month, converting it to rubbles = 23.845 at average).
I pay for utilities 7.000-13.000rub per month (water, electricity, internet, wow and so on), plus, i need extra clothing due to cold winter (-15 -30 at average) and hot summer (+15 +25 at average). After doing calcualtions i will end up with 16.845-10.845 per month to live (official living wage is 5100 rub, but this is bullshit, because you can afford only bread and milk on this money over a month), i spend around 10.000 on food and all what is left i translate into a savings account.
With current taxes (13%), i have at least 4.000 rub to save every month, with flat tax i will have nothing.

Well, if your numbers are accurate, government will need to almost double taxes (which comes into mine 2-3 exaggerated assumption)

[ognomad]

Good luck becoming a success without schools, roads, or basic infrastructure!

This, basically.

The government is an endlessly hungry black hole of money. They steal from everyone, every single one of your dollars is taxed when you earn it, when you save it, when you spend it, when you give it away, and even when you die. They steal a higher percentage from more successful people because they know that idiots will say things like "Nobody needs as much money as those people make!", without a thought for the concept that they earned it, so it is theirs or the fact that the government doesn't need that money either. And in spite of all of that, the government STILL has to print more fiat currency every single year (further devaluing the money in our pockets) to keep up with it's appalling spending.

The level of waste is truly unbelievable, between rampant military spending in wars that don't benefit U.S. citizens in any way, bailouts to keep failed companies alive and prevent new ones from rising, subsidies to select businesses (the ones that own enough of the politicians) without any possible justification, and free money for people too lazy to work. And yet the space program--something of critical importance to the future of the entire human race--is woefully underfunded.

We could cut the national budget in half and nothing of value would be lost.

Yeah, let me know when the crime, gang bangers and drug dealers control the world you want to live in when people who need the help have no other options when they can't find work.

[Charge me Doctor]

Yes, private companies are moving into low-earth orbit, guess what, NASA and the RFSA (Russian Federal Space Agency) did that over 50 years ago, and look how long it is taking private enterprise to do that. Private enterprise will not be at the frontier of dangerous and relatively un-profitable (From a pure profit perspective, before taking into account of spinoffs) missions into space. It takes a Government organization to do that, or a collaboration of Government organizations.

As to establishing a base on the moon, we could have people on the moon, studying it every day of the year, and potentially breaking fantastic scientific developments back with them to Earth, not to mention setting up telescopes on the moon, that would be incredible.

I think it is achievable even without people living on moon. We could use remote control to manipulate equipment and robots