14.5% proposed flat tax.
morgansforever
Posts: 8,458 ✭✭✭✭✭
This would certainly impact my coin purchases, by giving me more to spend on the series I love and more to spend on bullion.
Who's for blowing it up? What are the negatives? Impact on bullion?
Kaboom!
Who's for blowing it up? What are the negatives? Impact on bullion?
Kaboom!
World coins FSHO Hundreds of successful BST transactions U.S. coins FSHO
0
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
linky
Will totally destroy the bullion business in America, or at least drive it underground.
That is not possible.
<< <i>Interesting... however, there are FAR more taxes than just income tax .... taxes are killing people today... Cheers, RickO >>
Figuratively, for sure, but not taking care of the poor and the sick is killing people literally. Which is more important?
Would be interested to know what the difference would be, maybe someone with far more free time than I can run the numbers with this example I'll provide.
All 100% hypothetical and using just AVERAGE numbers so it would apply to more people. When I say average, I have no data to back it up, it's more like they're "for the sake of argument" numbers, ok.
Here goes, everything figured at 14.5% tax rate:
A married couple with 2 kids still in school grosses $100k year.
$12000/yr mortage, this includes property taxes & homeowners.
$8k/yr in car payment(s) & repairs/up keep.
$10k/year is spent on food.
$12k/yr is spent on gasoline, utilities, home improvements, new clothing.
$3k/yr vacation expenses.
ok, with these very basic things of a family of four lifestyle, believe me, I know there's alot more, but these are just very basics...does this married couple NET more in their pocket with a 14.5% tax rate across the board or the way it is now? Notice I did NOT figure in any DEBTS such as credit card payments, outstanding loans, garnishment. I also did not include medical bills. So my example is of a family of 4 doing decent with no debt or medical issues.
Someone with some time may want to run this just to see where the numbers would end up using a 14.5% flat rate on everything
<< <i>It's not just a 14.5% tax on income, it's also a 14.5% Value Added Tax, or National Sales Tax if you prefer, on EVERYTHING!
Would be interested to know what the difference would be, maybe someone with far more free time than I can run the numbers with this example I'll provide.
All 100% hypothetical and using just AVERAGE numbers so it would apply to more people. When I say average, I have no data to back it up, it's more like they're "for the sake of argument" numbers, ok.
Here goes, everything figured at 14.5% tax rate:
A married couple with 2 kids still in school grosses $100k year.
$12000/yr mortage, this includes property taxes & homeowners.
$8k/yr in car payment(s) & repairs/up keep.
$10k/year is spent on food.
$12k/yr is spent on gasoline, utilities, home improvements, new clothing.
$3k/yr vacation expenses.
ok, with these very basic things of a family of four lifestyle, believe me, I know there's alot more, but these are just very basics...does this married couple NET more in their pocket with a 14.5% tax rate across the board or the way it is now? Notice I did NOT figure in any DEBTS such as credit card payments, outstanding loans, garnishment. I also did not include medical bills. So my example is of a family of 4 doing decent with no debt or medical issues.
Someone with some time may want to run this just to see where the numbers would end up using a 14.5% flat rate on everything >>
14% is 14%. If you want to have X's kids, house mortgage, boat payment, multiple expenses, multiple bedrooms, food payments and loans that's your problem. Think about that before you do it.
I personally would benefit because I am not a big spender on merchandise I wear the same clothes, shoes, shirt till there literally worn out, I don't buy excessive stuff, just enough to get buy. Don't eat lavishly and so forth
jim
<< <i>I agree with above, national sales tax at 14% would literally kill the coin and bullion business dead. (if it were deemed to be taxable)
I personally would benefit because I am not a big spender on merchandise I wear the same clothes, shoes, shirt till there literally worn out, I don't buy excessive stuff, just enough to get buy. Don't eat lavishly and so forth
jim >>
+1
If this thang were to ever become reality there is a lot of discretionary spending that would become a lot more discretioner. We are a mostly want based economy and a lot of that economic activity is done with borrowed money.
And if you made a decent wage, which you probably do, you would be far better off with a flat rate being the type of person you are. You would be taxed less on your income, probably significantly less, and you are a less to moderate buyer of "things".
So you get taxed 14% for splurging on a nice family meal or vacation once in awhile, big deal. Remember, you only got taxed 14% on the income you earned to have that meal and/or vacation
<< <i>I personally would benefit because I am not a big spender on merchandise I wear the same clothes, shoes, shirt till there literally worn out, I don't buy excessive stuff, just enough to get buy. Don't eat lavishly and so forth
So you get taxed 14% for splurging on a nice family meal or vacation once in awhile, big deal. Remember, you only got taxed 14% on the income you earned to have that meal and/or vacation
So now you would be getting double taxed on that income. But of course, sales taxes has always been a form of double taxation as has taxes on gasoline, booze, cigarettes, tires, etc. If you've ever taken out a 401K loan, you were double taxed on the principle AND interest that you paid since unlike contributions, repayments are not made pre-tax.
$100000 annual income. Currently taxed around minimum $35-40k OR would be $14k.
If this is me, Give me an extra $20-25k CASH a year in my pocket for me to decide what to do with, any day, every day and forever.
So you say you have to pay 14% tax on any and everything you buy. SO WHAT! In this example you have an extra $25k CASH to do with what you choose to.
Is this hard to understand? It's called economic stimulation
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Aint so bad here in the good ole USA.
Why 14.5% and not 14 or 15%? Or 20?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>we have a spending problem. Let's fix that first >>
<< <i>A single wage earner in Germany making $75,000 per year pays a 42% income tax and a 19% (value added tax) for goods and services.
Aint so bad here in the good ole USA.
Why 14.5% and not 14 or 15%? Or 20? >>
It's good to be LESS WORSE.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>How can I say this? But you are NOT getting taxed 35+% on your income, which is what counts the most by far. It's your starting point. You're getting taxed 14%.
$100000 annual income. Currently taxed around minimum $35-40k OR would be $14k.
If this is me, Give me an extra $20-25k CASH a year in my pocket for me to decide what to do with, any day, every day and forever.
So you say you have to pay 14% tax on any and everything you buy. SO WHAT! In this example you have an extra $25k CASH to do with what you choose to.
Is this hard to understand? It's called economic stimulation
Your example is not hard to understand but extremely inaccurate. While taxes vary widely depending on situations, a married couple making $100K don't come remotely close to paying 35+% on their income. Even if they had no mortgage or other significant writeoffs, their effective tax rate is not much more than 15%, if that. If they do have those things and contribute to a 401K, it could be a lot less than 14%. A huge portion of the population in this country don't pay hardly any taxes. >>
This
Divide the actual taxes you pay by your gross income and you'll find that your actual/effective tax rate is 10% or even less.
<< <i>Divide the actual taxes you pay by your gross income and you'll find that your actual/effective tax rate is 10% or even less. >>
This. Your withholding does not determine your effective tax rate. What you actually end up paying for the year does.
The fairest income tax replacement is a national sales tax with very little exemptions, maybe medical expenses. It would provide a steady stream of income for the nation throughout the year. Call it a VAT if you wish. Just do away with all "income" taxes and all excise taxes such as gasoline and communications. Have just one tax at the state level and at the national level. Might even encourage savings.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
ok, I'll admit, I am the example given. Now with the said, you're trying to tell me that I didn't pay 36.3% in total taxes (this is about total taxes, not just federal) when I LIVED it? Gime a f'in break. I know what came out of my/our check(s).
Divide the actual taxes you pay by your gross income and you'll find that your actual/effective tax rate is 10% or even less.
Is there some special group or exemption that I don't know about? No way it's close to 10% or 15%.
Federal income tax on $100,000 would be $21,000+, and that's only federal income tax. Add state & city income tax, sales taxes, property tax, taxes embedded in phone & cable services, license fees and the obamacare tax to that. That doesn't include social security or medicare payments either, but of course those aren't really taxes (wink, wink).
I knew it would happen.
<< <i> a married couple making $100K don't come remotely close to paying 35+% on their income. Even if they had no mortgage or other significant writeoffs, their effective tax rate is not much more than 15%
Divide the actual taxes you pay by your gross income and you'll find that your actual/effective tax rate is 10% or even less.
Is there some special group or exemption that I don't know about? No way it's close to 10% or 15%.
Federal income tax on $100,000 would be $21,000+, and that's only federal income tax. Add state & city income tax, sales taxes, property tax, taxes embedded in phone & cable services, license fees and the obamacare tax to that. That doesn't include social security or medicare payments either, but of course those aren't really taxes (wink, wink). >>
I was referring to Federal taxes on income. My bad for not making that clearer.
I was using gross income (not AGI) and the chart for a single taxpayer (with no deductions), so my bad. My calc wasn't based on AGI but neither was your original statement.
you so brazenly call social security and medicare a "tax". What will it be when you pay little to no social security and medicare "tax" very soon and get a SS check and medicare benefits that will be worth well over the five figure threshold very soon? A reverse tax? A handout?
Hmmm, we know that social security and medicare go directly into the general fund, so let's simply call them "unfunded liabilities". Since you are evidently not anywhere retirement, what's your position on the government taking money directly out of someone's pay for a 49-year work history with no chance of recouping much of it as promised? I choose to call that situation "a tax". Just like your buddy Obama and his tax, it's not what you call it when it's enacted, it's the reality that matters. Never mind, you'll have to worry about that soon enough.
How can you live with yourself sucking from the government teet like that?
Excuse me, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself and making assumptions that haven't happened. If that situation should ever come about, I'll let you know exactly "how I can live with myself". Chances are, I'll be working as long as I can avoid having to depend on the government for just about anything.
And let's look at this statement of yours:
A huge portion of the population in this country don't pay hardly any taxes.
If you are directing your remarks towards me, is 49 years not enough? Maybe you should be more critical of the cost of wasteful government largesse and also those payments to those folks who never bothered to sweat it out in a daily grind, but who are now collecting those checks. Maybe you shouldn't be critical of the contributors who've worked their entire lives without taking anything for nothing. Surely you can see the difference.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>So now you would be getting double taxed on that income. But of course, sales taxes has always been a form of double taxation as has taxes on gasoline, booze, cigarettes, tires, etc. If you've ever taken out a 401K loan, you were double taxed on the principle AND interest that you paid since unlike contributions, repayments are not made pre-tax >>
This is true!
The problem with this is that it's ok for anyone with no savings but if you saved money then whatever you saved and already paid tax on will get taxed again when you spend it. Oh, yeah of course they'll come up with some complicated way of not taxing some part of it but it won't be fair.
Instead of this idea why not make a flat income tax? Fair is fair, make it 15-20%.
If they did a scheme like this they'd need to have a way of not taxing your already taxed savings. They would not do it as a favor for the normal retired people with savings, they would do it because there's no way that the rich will pay tax again when they spend their millions of already taxed money.
The other problem is that they give tax deductions to people to get them to spend which stimulates the economy, this thing reduces spending. It would kill the economy.
<< <i>
The other problem is that they give tax deductions to people to get them to spend which stimulates the economy, this thing reduces spending. It would kill the economy. >>
<< <i>The other problem is that they give tax deductions to people to get them to spend which stimulates the economy, this thing reduces spending. It would kill the economy. >>
Extra money in the pocket encourages spending. People that saw a drop in taxes would increase their spending proportionately with their increase in disposable income. Unless, of course they decided to save some of it.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Maybe I was mistaken, because you somehow conflated my 49 years of paying into the system and then signing up for benefits with "sucking from the government teet", when it is anything but that. I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but please direct your sarcasm towards those who haven't contributed.
You can call it a "tax" or whatever you want but the bottom line is that it is in every way an annuity.
All payments go into the general fund, and since these programs have always been mandatory (unlike an annuity which is optional), it's completely fair to regard them as a tax. If you put $5,000 into a government "safety net" program and only get $2,500 back out - what would you call it? A bad investment? I never said these programs would go belly up, but it's obvious that the benefits won't be paid on anywhere near the same schedule that was promised. In fact, the retirement age has already been moved back, which is essentially an after-the-fact change in the terms of the "contract" which will result in lower payouts.
My position on Medicare and SS is that it should be significantly watered down.
I have little doubt that you will get your wish. It's a well-documented fact that the money available for social security payouts for future retirees won't be anywhere close to what has been paid into it. The money that's been paid in for decades is "long gone", "vanished", "disappeared", "spent". It will be watered down, but not in the ways you think - not through any legislation. That would require political backbone.
you're saying that when you are eligible, you won't sign up for Medicare and choose to pay for medical insurance out of your own pocket?
Scroll up. I never said that. Nor would I be dumb enough not to.
I knew it would happen.
As for you claiming you never stated that you wouldn't take government benefits, I guess I misinterpreted your statement as follows:
"Chances are, I'll be working as long as I can avoid having to depend on the government for just about anything."
It' funny that your assumptions seem to me to be more sweeping than any of mine. You've almost got me convinced that I should retire today so that I can start raking in all those benefits!! What happened to your desire to water down my benefits? Surely you can knock them down to a few hundred grand instead of a million? You're the reason I've decided to keep working. Don't worry, there's someone younger who has the same attitude towards you. karma.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Once again, you're making sweeping assumptions. How do you know how much you'll get back? The minute that you sign up for Medicare, and your spouse, you will get benefits of probably what would cost ~$25K per year on the open market (with that growing each year the older you get). If you live another 25 years that is up to maybe a million just on the Medicare portion alone in today's dollars. You're old enough to see many of those benefits. And none of that includes social security payments.
As for you claiming you never stated that you wouldn't take government benefits, I guess I misinterpreted your statement as follows:
"Chances are, I'll be working as long as I can avoid having to depend on the government for just about anything." >>
You want to hold it against him if he collects ? Why would anyone that paid in for their whole life decide to refuse the benefits ?
There's no professed noble stance here. There's a realistic understanding of how government spending makes it more advantageous not to depend on government programs if at all possible. I'm glad we're having this little chat. It makes things abundantly clear about how the next few decades will proceed. You completely characterize me as a dependent when I've never been one in my adult life. Why is that? It's an interesting perspective you have - hostile to say the least.
What I find unseemly is his hypocrisy in complaining about paying those "taxes" when he's definitely going to be reaping the benefits of it soon enough and it a pretty big way. Unlike myself, who doesn't complain in the manner that he seems, to and will see much less of it.
Conversely, I find your attitude to be richly hypocritical - yourself complaining about benefits you might not receive because of benefits that I *might* receive, even though you've not contributed nearly as much, nor for as long as I have.
I guess it's all about perspective. As I noted, there's going to be someone younger than you who believes that you've sucked that teet until it's raw. Maybe you should retire now, just to avoid not "reaping your benefits".
I'm done with this back & forth. Carry on.
I knew it would happen.
eagle;
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Youtube "the Gambler position of..." and that's basically what this whole conversation is about from my point of view lol. I didn't want to c&p it here because the title has a cuss word in it, but after watching it how John Goodmans character explains it how the "United States is based on the position of..." I think you'll understand where my point of view in this comes in. The problem is, for me, that I've never been up $2.5M LOL