Flat taxes anyone???

So, someone else should decide how much I should earn? I guess we hit the fundamental issue, didn't we?

Not at all, you decide. The only change from our present system is where the tax brackets are and at what level your are taxed. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

No different than our current system where the bulk of our tax revenue is collected from the middle bracket on up. This is just a scenerio that pushes that bracket further up. Just thinking out loud, the numbers I used are just for discusion purposes only.

Why is it ok to change taxation levels for lower brackets, but not ok to change them for the extreme upper levels?

grumpyrom wrote:How much money do you really need as incentive to go out and "do more" as you state?

How about I decide that, and not some left wing a$$hole who is trying to buy a political career by taking what I earn and giving it to some other a$$hole who can't be bothered to get his ass out of bed in the morning.

That's just it. Why do you feel, grumpyrom ,that when someone is successful they have to subsidize you?

There is paying your share and then there is really paying your share?

Why, under your "harebrained" scheme, do so many pay nothing?

This is where you lose me. People keep using the word greed. Why is it greedy when people work hard and earn their daily bread?

How would you react if this was your wallet the government stuck its hand so deeply into? When you do your taxes do you take advantage of every tax break afforded to you?

LMFAO GOM...they do stick their hand in my wallet so deeply as you put it.

Why is every right-wing nutjob (as freeman calls the left wing a$$holes) so scared of changing anything that may impact the uber wealthy negatively but may improve the lives of millions?

Like I said, nothing but thinking out loud.

Currently we have a system where a sizable portion do pay exactly nothing (<$11,000), as they should IMHO. I don't begrudge seniors and low income earners for paying nothing or only a very small percentage of what I pay. It's the price of living in a civilized society that looks after even it's poorest.

Where I think I've struck a nerve with the right-wing champions is for having the audacity to come out and say that maybe our society would be better off moving the brackets up.

Now who exactly is being greedy? Where exactly have I suggested an income cap, or a tax of all earings or anything like that? The only thing I've suggested is moving the brackets and the amounts. No different than introducing a flat tax that increase the amounts paid by some, and lower taxes paid by others. The only difference in my suggestion is who get the breaks. How is that any more evil than the alternative?

Freeman wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:How much money do you really need as incentive to go out and "do more" as you state?

How about I decide that, and not some left wing a$$hole who is trying to buy a political career by taking what I earn and giving it to some other a$$hole who can't be bothered to get his ass out of bed in the morning.

The only a$ssholes getting a break Freeman would be other working people such as you and I. To see any improvement to your take home salary you'd still have to go to work.

No where have I said that we should tax all the rich so we can all stay home. Try and let you left-wing hate settle down a bit before posting.

I recall you posting long ago about how high your tax bill was...given that from what I remember you'd fall into the <$1,000,000 annually bracket I figure you'd be looking a tax decrease. So why the hate?

grumpy old man wrote:That's just it. Why do you feel, grumpyrom ,that when someone is successful they have to subsidize you?

Who says anyone need to subsidize me? I thnk I'm doing my fair share of subsidizing others. Don't assume that just because I'm a left-wing a$$hole I lounge around all day waiting for my wellfare check.

I fall into the highest brackets most every year, and it doesn't keep me from wanting to earn more unlike Freeman who I guess just stops working once he hit's that top bracket since there's no incentive to earn anymore at that point.

Cheque fer gawd's sake. This is Canada...

grumpyrom wrote:Who says anyone need to subsidize me?

I realize the tax brackets (<50k) is a talking point, but that means those earning more than than $50k are subsidizing those that earn less. You can't avoid that label.

I also agree that the very poor (<$18k?) should be subsidized to a degree, but we need everybody contributing their fair share.

The debate then begins with "what is fair"?

grumpyrom wrote:Why is every right-wing nutjob (as freeman calls the left wing a$$holes) so scared of changing anything that may impact the uber wealthy negatively but may improve the lives of millions?

Not scared at all. Tax reform is needed. Hence this thread. My issue is with people that think it is okay to take so much more than what is reasonable.

So, again, we need to debate what is reasonable.

Ty GOM, glad you realise it's just a talking point.

I agree that those earning over $50k are subsidizing those earning less than $50k, but how is that any different than those in the top brackets now paying 45% subsidizing everyone else that pays less or nothing?

It's no different to me, the only difference being where we place the "subsidy" line. With a progrssive tax system your always going to have an imaginary line where everyone above a certain level is subsidizing everyone below it.

What is inherently good or evil about moving that line up or down?

It seems like moving the line down is seen as a good thing, but moving it up is not. Why?

Which change improves things for more people?

[quote="grumpyrom"]

Freeman wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:How much money do you really need as incentive to go out and "do more" as you state?

How about I decide that, and not some left wing a$$hole who is trying to buy a political career by taking what I earn and giving it to some other a$$hole who can't be bothered to get his ass out of bed in the morning.

The only a$ssholes getting a break Freeman would be other working people such as you and I. To see any improvement to your take home salary you'd still have to go to work.

No where have I said that we should tax all the rich so we can all stay home. Try and let you left-wing hate settle down a bit before posting.

I recall you posting long ago about how high your tax bill was...given that from what I remember you'd fall into the

Looks like your quoting didn't work Freeman. This board works funny sometimes.

Freeman wrote:So, someone else should decide how much I should earn? I guess we hit the fundamental issue, didn't we?

It would be nice if I could decide how much I earn - unfortunately it is decided by my hare-brained bosses.

Fire them and get new ones then.

eViL tRoLl wrote:

Freeman wrote:So, someone else should decide how much I should earn? I guess we hit the fundamental issue, didn't we?

It would be nice if I could decide how much I earn - unfortunately it is decided by my hare-brained bosses.

But thats the point, if you want more, it is within your control. Education and personal drive are the 2 biggest factors.

Our parents, grand parents, great grand parents, etc came here to find opportunities in a better place. Where did we lose that spirit and just give ourselves over to someone else? Personally, I think that the growth of socialism is taking away our individualism and drive to seek more opportunities for ourselves and our kids.

This is a topic that has been discussed at length elsewhere, and I am suprised that there are no links to facts and figures or other relevant documents. I have one to consider:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2007109/article/4096885-eng.htm
An interesting tidbit:

In the upper tail of the income distribution, a small increase in the proportion of filers paying no tax can be seen beginning with the top 5%. The proportion of filers paying no tax remains below 0.5%, and in the very highest income group, about 100 filers paid no tax. Tax deductions such as business losses and gifts to the Crown are responsible for a number of these situations.

Those 100 are drawn from 1.5% of families making more than $250,000.
The very high income earners also only make a fraction of their income from "hard work", it's mainly from investment schemes, and/or exploiting others. Maybe we should tax certain sources of income higher or lower than others, for example lower taxes for real work or real entrepreneurship.

OMG Evil Troll, that would be just plain wrong.