So what I’m hearing is abolish the IRS?
@Lord Cthulhu, yes
@Lord Cthulhu, absolutely. They are just a method of control. In reality, a flat tax would net the nation far more, and spare the middle class quite a bit, because there would be no loop holes to get out of paying.
@Lord Cthulhu, hell yes
@Lord Cthulhu, yup
@groundpounder04, the issue is that a flat tax rate is difficult on those around poverty level. Let’s say 20% in your example. Across all income rates bills would stay the same, and we’d set 1200 a month as our example.
Imagine you make minimum wage.
Now imagine you make 5 times minimum
Now imagine 10 times.
How easy is it to pay your bills?
The issue isn’t the rates of taxes across the board. It’s the loopholes only the rich have access to.
@Cloverleaf, flat tax rate for everyone who makes above x amount. Problem solved. Vote me in the upcoming elections.
@I am Levi, problem: where’s that line then? How do you draw one line that makes it fair? Honestly you cannot. Because the line that would be considered fair is gonna slide around.
So by your logic, I’m assuming you’ll look at taxable for this. So let’s say the line is…20k
Now, let me check something with you. If they make 20001, is it x% on the 1 dollar, or on the 20001 dollars?
@Cloverleaf, oh lordy it's not as complicated as you make it seem. let's say the flat tax rate starts right above whatever the poverty line is for each state + 5k (the tax rate should be the same in every state, just where it starts is effected by the cost of living and varying poverty levels). Clearly each child/dependent you have should decrease your tax rate (I'm not giving a number rn because I don't need to present you a complete tax restructure plan in a meme comment and I'm not sureby how much it should decrease the tax percentage by as that would require an in depth research program). When you aren't above the poverty line + 5k mark you still pay taxes, just a lower amount. As for your 20,000 + 1 analogy, yes. Yes you pay the next tax bracket up's rate, but the system should not be structured to incentivize people to make just less than the poverty line to avoid taxes.
@I am Levi, so now we’re adding more variables, like poverty +, and variance for dependents, plus talking paying the bracket up’s rate. That’s not a flat tax rate anymore.
But what makes it sound worse is your answer to my question appears to be an all or nothing when crossing brackets. So by that 20% example someone making 20k pays nothing, but someone making 20001 pays 4K. I hope that isn’t what you intended, but if it is, that makes it completely unfair to those making just around that.
Side note, I’ll mention I’ve worked with taxes, mainly on a federal level, for 11.5 years, as my job.
@Cloverleaf, it's cool and all that you have worked with taxes for the last 11.5 years but idk if you've noticed you're operating in a broken system which needs to be completely torn apart and restructured.
Maybe you didn't understand what my point was. Everyone pays a flat tax rate if they make above 5k over the poverty line I am completely fine moving this number as it just arbitrarily set above the poverty line as to not act as a barrier to escape poverty. As they approach this income level the tax percentage they pay grows closer to what the flat rate is set at, not you pay 0 taxes until you reach this mark. My thought with this was to be a slow transition into paying the flat tax rate in which you start paying some amount of taxes before the full %. The thought with the children deceasing the taxable income was for the same reason. The loopholes the rich exploit is disgusting and should be closed with no exceptions, but the poor shouldn't be penalized and unable to escape poverty.
@I am Levi, then that’s not a flat tax rate by definition. And in truth poverty income barely exceeds the current standard deduction. (2021 standard will be 12550 for single, poverty is 12760 for a single person)
What it sounds like you’re suggesting is brackets up to, in this example, 17760, and then hitting a capped rate. What you are not taking into consideration is that will lower the tax rate for those at the top, while increasing it for a majority of those in the US. The tax rate goes to 22% on single income for any amount above 54200. Below that? 14201-54200 is 12%. So those making 17760 to 54200 would get screwed over by a 20% flat tax rate for income above poverty +5k and below 54200. Guess what the average income is. 31133, per 2019 information, and likely similar since.
@Cloverleaf, seems to me you want me to give you an in depth tax restructure plan with the intent of picking apart every piece of what I say as if the numbers are not just arbitrary place holders. "Its not a flat tax rate, because blah blah, small technicality, blah" Okay? What I'm suggesting is a flat tax rate just as much as our economy is free market; maybe it isn't technically, but I'm still going to call it that because it's based off the same principle. I don't really get what you are arguing here other than your own need to be right.
So I will describe this idea to you one more time but simpler. Flat tax for everyone above (some number above the poverty line), people between (snatpl) and (some number less above the poverty line than the previous) pay an increasing tax rate as their income increases until they reach the flat rate for everyone else.
Then TAX THE RICH. Close loopholes, tax their gains on assets, and whatever else till they pay the equivalent % to what we pay.
@I am Levi, and yet by adjusting the rates on higher brackets and closing those loopholes, you’d achieve the same results without endangering the livelihood of those just above poverty. There’s the biggest issue with your idea. It doesn’t take sweeping, all encompassing reform. That’s what I’m trying to tell you.
Why take all these extra steps when they are unnecessary to achieve the end goal?
@Cloverleaf, you know what dude? I've wrote maybe a paragraph or two to reiterate my point, but honestly I'm thinking you'll probably just do exactly what you've been doing this whole reply chain here. You can't seem to move past the general idea I had to not tax the poor the full rate until they hit some arbitrary number above the poverty line by presenting one whataboutism after another. Its starting to seem like you are reading into what I'm not including in my responses more than what is actually written and focusing 0% of your response/thoughts on the main sentiment of my argument here. MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR SHARE.
Maybe you just like the idea that things don't need a complete overhaul because you are part of the system I'm saying needs to be dismantled?
I understand this is hypocritical to my reading into what isn't written statement, but is intentionally so. Understand that just because you have been in this field for years does not make you the law in regards to it.
@I am Levi, and just because you have an idea doesn’t make it good. The general consensus of tax the rich I agree with, but what I am saying here is that you’re trying to overhaul it all when that isn’t necessary to achieve the goal, and that said overhaul you’re proposing would negatively impact the demographic you’re trying to help.
Set a flat rate above x threshold, and you have two possibilities.
1. That threshold is set too low and costs those only slightly above poverty more.
2. Set it too high and effectively lower taxes for the rich.
There isn’t an easy answer. There never will be. And flat taxation can’t solve this problem simply because the point where it becomes unfair is far too easy to misjudge.
You claim your argument is trying to prove we should tax the rich? That’s never been in question. I’ve been disputing your basis of how to do it as flawed.
@groundpounder04, I agree with everything you said except for the loophole part being the problem.
@Cloverleaf, what fuсking loser makes 1200 a month? Get a damn job or 2 you lazy POS
Isn't that how taxing investments normally works?
@daweim0, yes, and?
@daweim0, it is, but who’s gonna make a “I bought stock in Kleenex” meme?
You greedy bastards….
Crypto can go die in a fire before it causes us to
All risk* all profit*.
“Cryptocurrency” is neither.