 
|
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/27/04 - 16:45 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: |
Run the numbers.
Right now it's an incremental tax system. ANY kind of income tax that is flat is going to be a huge tax break for the top 10%.
And as for ridiculous exemptions, they're not found on the personal tax side of income tax code. It really is basically pretty cut n' dried for 1040s. Where the loops come in is on the corporate side. Now if you want to talk corporate income taxes, the rates there and who pays what, that's a whole different story. But all the flat tax schemes I've seen apply to personal income taxes. It'd be a boon for the wealthy. |
people have forgotten Steve Forbes, evidently
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 16:45 Post subject:
Corporate taxes are a joke. Companies don't pay taxes. You and I do as real people. When IBM has to pay "corporate taxes," that is less $$$ they have to pay employee salaries, employee benefits, return as profit for the shareholders of the company, invest in new machinery or R&D, etc.
Corporate taxes are basically a fraud to an un-educated workforce. They are transparent to the actual companies.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 17:03 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | people have forgotten Steve Forbes, evidently |
http://www.forbes96.com/
The link doesn't work any more 
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/28/04 - 08:43 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | Run the numbers. Right now it's an incremental tax system. ANY kind of income tax that is flat is going to be a huge tax break for the top 10%. |
I did. In your original scenario you stated that 10% would make half the tax, 90% (the rest of us) would make up the other half. That's what doesn't make sense. Right now 50% pay 4% of the tax base (I'm going with my source, not the 14% from your citing), so it would seem that that 50% would pay less in taxes, moving to a lower tax bracket of 20%. In in your scenario of 1,000, the current lower 50% contribute $40 (4%) at higher rates. If the percentage they pay drops to 20%, that $40 becomes say $35. The upper 50% will pay more, their original $960 + $5. When this gets in the real number area, that's huge.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/28/04 - 09:16 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | (I'm going with my source, not the 14% from your citing) |
The numbers you use aren't even realistic. 887-million for total nationwide AGI? That's not even half the NFL salary total
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/28/04 - 09:17 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | The numbers you use aren't even realistic. 887-million for total nationwide AGI? That's not even half the NFL salary total |
That's what the census bureau had.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
