Muciti, can you tell me what YOUR effective tax rate is for 2011? Mine was ~16%
I have not been in error on anything.
I'll make it very simple for you, at least it will be simple if you have actually read what I have been writing about for 24 pages.
What is it you think I'd like to see happen with the current tax system? When has it ever even been attempted and failed? How exactly would it have a negative effect on income inequality?
I dont need to defend anything. I am ready to discuss it when you actually know what I am talking about. Until then, we have nothing to discuss. Its all right here in this thread if you genuinely want to know.
Again, you are asking me to support your arguments, I won't. I have countered your arguments, you cannot show anything to back your claims after repeated requests. Now you are asking the same questions of me that have already been answered, so why would my answering them again a second time do any good. You want me to go back, but here you are repeating what has already been debated. I know this game, it played on forums like this where comments get buried, where a poster can ask the same thing again and act as if it has not been covered.
I already showed how it causes increased inequality, you won't back your claim that a flat tax decreases inequality in wealth. You have not shown it in this thread, you have provided nothing to back your claim.
Beyond this, you are totally wrong on the effect of a flat 30% on middle earners. It doubles their tax rate. It is worse for lower income earners, it triples their tax rate. This proves without my showing you documentation that it makes wealth inequality greater.
Answer the question or quit talking to me. If you know what i am arguing for, tell me. Because I dont think you do. I think you are assuming many things about my argument.
And there you go, you won't say what your tax rate would be BEFORE your AGI. If you did, then it would be LOWER (by your own admission) than 27%, lower than the flat rate of 30% you want.My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.
However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.
Here's the issue. I would be all for discussing a flat tax, when the issue of welfare reform was done.
However, right now, the poor are already (if they aren't on welfare) working min wage or close to min wage jobs. If you increase their tax from 0 to 30% you are going to swamp and kill the welfare system.
The rich have a higher % of disposable income, so while they will be paying more it won't affect them nearly as much as the poor so the gap will widen IMO
And there you go, you won't say what your tax rate would be BEFORE your AGI. If you did, then it would be LOWER (by your own admission) than 27%, lower than the flat rate of 30% you want.
It would cause you to have less wealth....and we know you are not in the top quintile.
I just read your argument and your math, you can't see how your argument for a flat tax would cause you to have less wealth.You dont even know what my arugment is so your point is moot.
And I dont claim to be in the top anything. I am probably lower middle class by most standard, or upper lower class. I dont know honestly. But i am nowhere near the top quintile, or even the top 50% i am sure.
Either you or Obama are lying. You decide which. A large part of his push with the Buffet rule is that the majority of middle class are paying a higher % of their income than the wealthy. The 30% number came about because that is what the majority of middle class Americans are paying. A flat tax would barely affect the middle class and would greatly affect the higher end individuals especially if you eliminate ALL the tax breaks they receive and actually take 30% from them.
My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.
However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.
So what? They still have more disposable income than they know what to do with?
I have not-I am merely responding to the claims as they merit. I am merely telling those who argue for welfare socialism wealth redistribution as a vaccine against french revolution type nastiness that such a threat doesn't scare many of us in the least and we don't find it a viable or realistic argument for wealth redistributionI think Pol Pot DID intend on killing a lot of people.
Again...you are confusing "CAUSE" with "CURE". Another conservative did the same exact thing earlier.
Try again.
Either you or Obama are lying. You decide which. A large part of his push with the Buffet rule is that the majority of middle class are paying a higher % of their income than the wealthy. The 30% number came about because that is what the majority of middle class Americans are paying. A flat tax would barely affect the middle class and would greatly affect the higher end individuals especially if you eliminate ALL the tax breaks they receive and actually take 30% from them.
The focus of the Buffet rule is on INVESTMENT INCOME, those making over $1M are getting huge breaks on their INVESTMENT INCOMES.
Senate Blocks Buffett Rule 30% Tax Floor on Top Earners - Bloomberg
So you are wrong on the effective rate for middle income earners, too.
Still waiting for your proof that flat taxes decrease WEALTH INEQUALITY.
I agree, also include in that the teabaggers who have done the same thing with implied threats.
On income equality, it wouldn't because people will have the same amount taken out. However, after all that's said and done, the poor will have an even lower % of disposable income while the rich will have a much higher % of disposable income due to a flat tax. That will lead to an even greater gap in classes which would be a negative effect.
The main people that would benefit from a flat tax is the rich.
The Buffett rule would fund that government for about 11 hours. For Ubama it is not a fix it is a step to take all the money from the top 10% and then on down the line. The Marxist at work.
The GSA spent 30 billion? You sure about that?Now this is exactly what I thought. The Buffett Rule is all hype and no money. Hell the GSA has probably wasted this much on their "conferences".
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? 11 hours?The Buffett rule would fund that government for about 11 hours. For Ubama it is not a fix it is a step to take all the money from the top 10% and then on down the line. The Marxist at work.
Now this is exactly what I thought. The Buffett Rule is all hype and no money. Hell the GSA has probably wasted this much on their "conferences".
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? 11 hours?
Asking someone to hunt down the source of your own flawed numbers is not a good practice.Figure it out and get back to me.
how long do you think it will fund the government???...LMFAO
Asking someone to hunt down the source of your own flawed numbers is not a good practice.
Seeing as various estimates project revenues to fall anywhere between 30 and 40 billion, around 7 to 10 days.
My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.
However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.
Doesn't seem like enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?