The negative income tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2014, 08:01 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(08-03-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, as usual, frankie is full of shit. More income is more income - you are never worse off making more money.

You're right, this is "as usual". As usual, I have facts, figures and independent research to back up my claims. And you have nothing but "because I said so" in your fantasy world. The point I made is uncontroversial.

Even the non-partisan Tax Policy Center published a detailed report, which was even reviewed by Congress. The Washington Post also ran a story confirming the points. They confirm " a family going from $10,000 and $40,000 .... pays an average of 82 cents per dollar earned in new taxes and lost benefits" and "those making around $25,000 to $30,000 face marginal tax rates of around 100 percent. That is, if they work to gain one more dollar, all of that is given up in new taxes and lost benefits". The report confirms, just like I said, that at the poverty level "the [marginal tax] rate can exceed 100 percent", meaning the MORE you earn, the LESS you take home.

Okay, Chas. Check. I've shown you the source of my data, now show me the source of your data that substantiates your opposite claim "More income is more income - you are never worse off making more money". My crystal balls tells me you're going to run from this challenge as always because it is YOU who is full of shit and just makes up your facts, and ignores anything that doesn't suit your ideology. Go ahead, just try to prove me wrong dip-shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(08-03-2014 06:22 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Is this seriously how things work in America? Wow, you guys are so stupid!

In Britain there are tax bands and the more you earn the higher percentage you pay but you can never be worse off for making more money, it's simply impossible. Is your political system so fucked up that you haven't been able to achieve that yet?

Yes, Americans ARE that stupid, and the political system IS that fuckedup. Want to see know why? Watch Chas's response. You'll see that he will completely ignore the facts. He won't address them, he'll just bury his head and live in total denial. Sadly, that's the way things work in the US. There are absolutely moronic policies, but the pro-big-government types like Chas will blindly support anything and everything the government does and never question authority, as little subservient lemmings. Facts be damned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: The negative income tax
Well, I have no idea which of you is right (nor do I care enough to research it either).

However, if it is the case that earning more can mean receiving less then that's stupid.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(08-03-2014 08:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, as usual, frankie is full of shit. More income is more income - you are never worse off making more money.

You're right, this is "as usual". As usual, I have facts, figures and independent research to back up my claims. And you have nothing but "because I said so" in your fantasy world. The point I made is uncontroversial.

Even the non-partisan Tax Policy Center published a detailed report, which was even reviewed by Congress. The Washington Post also ran a story confirming the points. They confirm " a family going from $10,000 and $40,000 .... pays an average of 82 cents per dollar earned in new taxes and lost benefits" and "those making around $25,000 to $30,000 face marginal tax rates of around 100 percent. That is, if they work to gain one more dollar, all of that is given up in new taxes and lost benefits". The report confirms, just like I said, that at the poverty level "the [marginal tax] rate can exceed 100 percent", meaning the MORE you earn, the LESS you take home.

Okay, Chas. Check. I've shown you the source of my data, now show me the source of your data that substantiates your opposite claim "More income is more income - you are never worse off making more money". My crystal balls tells me you're going to run from this challenge as always because it is YOU who is full of shit and just makes up your facts, and ignores anything that doesn't suit your ideology. Go ahead, just try to prove me wrong dip-shit.

And in that report, there is a narrow band between about $27,000 and $29,000 where the marginal rate is about 100%. I stand corrected.

The multiple, interlocking programs and the tax code are too complex for most legislators to comprehend.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(08-03-2014 08:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  And in that report, there is a narrow band between about $27,000 and $29,000 where the marginal rate is about 100%. I stand corrected.

I'm impressed, Chas. I retract calling you a dipshit. However, to clarify, the band is only narrow without factoring in child grants. Once you add them in, throughout the poverty level every $1 extra you earn results in nothing extra in your pocket.

But the BIG tragedy is that throughout the entire middle-class band, from $10k-$40k/year, for every dollar extra you earn, you only take home on average an extra 18 cents. Say you make $20/hour, a respectable enough wage, but you only work 20 hours/week. Why would you work any more given that for each extra hour you work you're only taking home an extra $3.60. It's just not worth it. THAT is the reality of the income-based system; it traps people in poverty by stripping away any incentive to get out of poverty.

By contrast, the Swiss [libertarian] system scores the best in the world at eliminating inter-generational poverty.

But people don't ever stop to think how stupid these policies are. It's just a foredrawn conclusion that there must be an income tax and if you're low-income the government will give you money and take away the benefits the more you make. Legislatures and the public in general never stop to think about the tragedy this creates. They'll look at huge swaths of the country that are dirt poor and think the solution is to do MORE of the thing that's trapping them in poverty in the first place! Why not take a step back, open your mind, and consider alternative solutions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(07-03-2014 02:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A few questions for you:
What about people that don't have jobs?
Do they get paid the $10,000 topup?

Sure. There is enough productivity in the world now that those who don't want to work don't have to. They would either be rich or just have enough for the bare necessities(food, shelter, clothing, car, tv, cell phone, etc.). I imagine that in the near future robots will exist that can do most of the jobs humans do now and most of us will be on the dole so to speak.

(07-03-2014 02:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What if they have babies or disabilities which come with high costs to support?
What if they need medical care?

The state should provide medical care for anyone who wants it.

(07-03-2014 02:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What if they want to train to increase their earning potential?
Is school free?

No free school beyond a basic education of children.....K-12.

(07-03-2014 02:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Also do you think it is wise for a government to support failing businesses. e.g. they run the risk of creating multibillion dollar industries which rely on this topup. This could make the government bankrupt. It would certainly make the country wastefull and inefficiant and it would thus fall behind other more efficient countries.

Corporations would only be taxed on retained earnings. Dividends would be taxed be treated as personal income.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: The negative income tax
(08-03-2014 08:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, Americans ARE that stupid, and the political system IS that fuckedup. Want to see know why? Watch Chas's response. You'll see that he will completely ignore the facts. He won't address them, he'll just bury his head and live in total denial.

Yabut, Chas ain't stupid. So that don't really contribute to your case. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-03-2014, 12:41 AM
RE: The negative income tax
Raise the minimum wage to a yearly self-adjusting living wage and stop giving billions away in tax subsidies that allow the wealthiest corporations to pay no taxes. Fucking seriously, I paid more taxes last year from the sales tax on a single Big Mac than did Boeing Aerospace and General Electric combined over the last 5 years, and that is bullshit. So how about we focus on those who have the most already, instead of seeing how to best kneecap those who already have the least?




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-03-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: The negative income tax
(08-03-2014 08:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 08:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're right, this is "as usual". As usual, I have facts, figures and independent research to back up my claims. And you have nothing but "because I said so" in your fantasy world. The point I made is uncontroversial.

Even the non-partisan Tax Policy Center published a detailed report, which was even reviewed by Congress. The Washington Post also ran a story confirming the points. They confirm " a family going from $10,000 and $40,000 .... pays an average of 82 cents per dollar earned in new taxes and lost benefits" and "those making around $25,000 to $30,000 face marginal tax rates of around 100 percent. That is, if they work to gain one more dollar, all of that is given up in new taxes and lost benefits". The report confirms, just like I said, that at the poverty level "the [marginal tax] rate can exceed 100 percent", meaning the MORE you earn, the LESS you take home.

Okay, Chas. Check. I've shown you the source of my data, now show me the source of your data that substantiates your opposite claim "More income is more income - you are never worse off making more money". My crystal balls tells me you're going to run from this challenge as always because it is YOU who is full of shit and just makes up your facts, and ignores anything that doesn't suit your ideology. Go ahead, just try to prove me wrong dip-shit.

And in that report, there is a narrow band between about $27,000 and $29,000 where the marginal rate is about 100%. I stand corrected.

The multiple, interlocking programs and the tax code are too complex for most legislators to comprehend.

In the study window it is the loss of benifits that is impacting the increase tax burden, not an increase in rate. For the year of the study the 15% bracket for married filing jointly (the study's target group) is approx $17k to $70k.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(18-03-2014 12:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Raise the minimum wage to a yearly self-adjusting living wage and stop giving billions away in tax subsidies that allow the wealthiest corporations to pay no taxes. Fucking seriously, I paid more taxes last year from the sales tax on a single Big Mac than did Boeing Aerospace and General Electric combined over the last 5 years, and that is bullshit. So how about we focus on those who have the most already, instead of seeing how to best kneecap those who already have the least?




Personally, the whole idea of a corporate tax is goofy to me. I don't agree that corporate income should be subject to taxation.

In your example McDonald's sells me a Big Mac. That revenue helps to pay salaries, materials and corporate profit. The salaries are subject to more taxation at the corporate level and then are taxable to the worker as income tax. The money used to pay for materials eventually makes its way to another company which is taxed again. The corporate profit may be distributed to shareholders which is then again taxed at the personal level of the shareholder.

To me the simplest method is a vat tax at the consumer level. In that scenario, lower income drives theoretically lower consumption and thus lower tax. Plus it is simpler to administer and we can toss the tax code out the window.

Unfortunately, this eliminates an income source from our elected representatives who make money at the corporate trough as our government decides which industries to penalize and which to promote through "tax breaks", "tax credits" and simple "taxes".

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: