PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Hypothetical: You run a small country and are assigning taxes.


Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:30 PM
Your country has 25 households, all of which contain one man, one woman, and two children. (Actually, one contains two women and two adopted children from Guatemala, but that's a whole different discussion). Each household has the income levels shown at the end of this post.

Your job is to generate $200,000 in tax revenues for the government, which is about 10 percent of the $2,036,200 in total income in the community. How much tax do you charge to each household? I have included a spreadsheet for your convenience. Just fill in the blanks and then post it and explain your reasoning.

A. $6,700
B. $12,000
C. $16,000
D. $19,000
E. $22,500
F. $22,500
G. $27,500
H. $27,500
I. $35,000
J. $35,000
K. $35,000
L. $45,000
M. $45,000
N. $45,000
O. $62,500
P. $62,500
Q. $62,500
R. $62,500
S. $87,500
T. $87,500
U. $87,500
V. $150,000
W. $150,000
X. $150,000
Y. $680,000

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 07:36 PM
Give everyone a prebate of $4217.20 and charge a flat 15% rate.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:37 PM
Give everyone a prebate of $4217.20 and charge a flat 15% rate.


Put it in the spreadsheet and show me. I want to see each household.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:38 PM
I'd run a mini-anarchist country if it only had that many people. So taxes wouldn't be necessary and each home had to fend for itself. All infrastructure including roads would be private and I have a citizen militia like Switzlerland. For the rest of defense all households could donate too of their own free-will or be imprisoned during war time.

L.A. Chieffan
03-26-2009, 07:40 PM
only rainman

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:40 PM
Put it in the spreadsheet and show me. I want to see each household.

heh! I wouldn't need no stinkin' spreadsheet! :D

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 07:41 PM
Tax Needed $200,000
Tax Generated $200,000

Household Income Tax Bill Tax Rate Rebate Net Income
A $6,700 $1,005 15% $4,217.20 $9,912.20
B $12,000 $1,800 15% $4,217.20 $14,417.20
C $16,000 $2,400 15% $4,217.20 $17,817.20
D $19,000 $2,850 15% $4,217.20 $20,367.20
E $22,500 $3,375 15% $4,217.20 $23,342.20
F $22,500 $3,375 15% $4,217.20 $23,342.20
G $27,500 $4,125 15% $4,217.20 $27,592.20
H $27,500 $4,125 15% $4,217.20 $27,592.20
I $35,000 $5,250 15% $4,217.20 $33,967.20
J $35,000 $5,250 15% $4,217.20 $33,967.20
K $35,000 $5,250 15% $4,217.20 $33,967.20
L $45,000 $6,750 15% $4,217.20 $42,467.20
M $45,000 $6,750 15% $4,217.20 $42,467.20
N $45,000 $6,750 15% $4,217.20 $42,467.20
O $62,500 $9,375 15% $4,217.20 $57,342.20
P $62,500 $9,375 15% $4,217.20 $57,342.20
Q $62,500 $9,375 15% $4,217.20 $57,342.20
R $62,500 $9,375 15% $4,217.20 $57,342.20
S $87,500 $13,125 15% $4,217.20 $78,592.20
T $87,500 $13,125 15% $4,217.20 $78,592.20
U $87,500 $13,125 15% $4,217.20 $78,592.20
V $150,000 $22,500 15% $4,217.20 $131,717.20
W $150,000 $22,500 15% $4,217.20 $131,717.20
X $150,000 $22,500 15% $4,217.20 $131,717.20
Y $680,000 $102,000 15% $4,217.20 $582,217.20
Income Total $2,036,200

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:42 PM
This is what Saul's model looks like in my spreadsheet. It does indeed perfectly add up.

Hydrae
03-26-2009, 07:42 PM
I would raise the $200K via tariffs on imports. I am assuming that this small country is not producing much itself and certainly not enough to support everyone. All imports have a 12% or so tax upon entry to the country.

If more revenue is needed, set up a speed trap just inside the border and catch them speeding tourists!

wild1
03-26-2009, 07:43 PM
you shouldn't tax with an objective of generating X revenue in mind.

if the government works under that mentality, they don't control 10% or 15% of your finances. they control 100% of it - because you have to continue to justify why you should not have to give up that next 1% for the children/elderly/environment/kittens/baby seals/puppies/illegal aliens etc.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 07:44 PM
This is what Saul's model looks like in my spreadsheet. It does indeed perfectly add up.

How do you embed the spreadsheet?

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:44 PM
I would raise the $200K via tariffs on imports. I am assuming that this small country is not producing much itself and certainly not enough to support everyone. All imports have a 12% or so tax upon entry to the country.

If more revenue is needed, set up a speed trap just inside the border and catch them speeding tourists!


If you have no income tax and put tariffs on everything, your citizens will die, because your country is a small island where nothing can be produced. You must generate $200,000 in income taxes.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:45 PM
How do you embed the spreadsheet?

When you post, do "Go Advanced", and then "Manage Attachments" at the bottom of the page, and then browse and upload.

Hydrae
03-26-2009, 07:45 PM
BTW, I find it amazing that we seem to have lured Rainman into the den of iniquity that is DC planet. It really is a looooong, slow off season, eh?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:46 PM
If you have no income tax and put tariffs on everything, your citizens will die, because your country is a small island where nothing can be produced. You must generate $200,000 in income taxes.

If they can't produce anything then they have no income to tax too.
Must be a self-contained community then where they each make their own clothes, grow their own food and build their own homes and educate their children at home. Those economies don't really have enough cash to tax.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:46 PM
you shouldn't tax with an objective of generating X revenue in mind.

if the government works under that mentality, they don't control 10% or 15% of your finances. they control 100% of it - because you have to continue to justify why you should not have to give up that next 1% for the children/elderly/environment/kittens/baby seals/puppies/illegal aliens etc.

The Secretary of the Treasury assures you that the country will descend into chaos if $200,000 is not raised for general governmental purposes. Helicopters will lift people from your embassy roof and children will die in the arms of their weeping mothers.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:47 PM
The Secretary of the Treasury assures you that the country will descend into chaos if $200,000 is not raised for general governmental purposes. Helicopters will lift people from your embassy roof and children will die in the arms of their weeping mothers.

Fearmongers. All statists are that because the love power.

banyon
03-26-2009, 07:47 PM
Just let them all pay what they feel like paying, I'm sure it will work out great.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:48 PM
If they can't produce anything then they have no income to tax too.
Must be a self-contained community then where they each make their own clothes, grow their own food and build their own homes and educate their children at home. Those economies don't really have enough cash to tax.

They're all stock brokers who work on the Internet, but they live on an island that is nothing but rock, and it's rock of non-economic value, and the waters within 12 miles are barren of sea life and tides due to underwater seismic issues. There's no solar energy because the country across the water has really high mountains that block the sunlight. Your people have no resources except themselves.

wild1
03-26-2009, 07:49 PM
The Secretary of the Treasury assures you that the country will descend into chaos if $200,000 is not raised for general governmental purposes. Helicopters will lift people from your embassy roof and children will die in the arms of their weeping mothers.

If taxes must be levied for the purpose of government, which is to prevent the deepest level of chaos, then I would state a floor, perhaps 20,000, which is the minimum livable wage in the nation. Above that everyone pays the same percentage.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 07:49 PM
The Secretary of the Treasury assures you that the country will descend into chaos if $200,000 is not raised for general governmental purposes. Helicopters will lift people from your embassy roof and children will die in the arms of their weeping mothers.

I thought this was supposed to be a hypothetical, not Obama's latest speech.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:50 PM
Saul has stepped up with a plan to save his country. The rest of you are filibustering. Get working on those spreadsheets or you will be condemned in a formal United Nations resolution.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:50 PM
They're all stock brokers who work on the Internet, but they live on an island that is nothing but rock, and it's rock of non-economic value, and the waters within 12 miles are barren of sea life and tides due to underwater seismic issues. There's no solar energy because the country across the water has really high mountains that block the sunlight. Your people have no resources except themselves.
That's the biggest and richest resource sir!

And if they're all stockbrokers, they still don't produce anything.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:51 PM
If taxes must be levied for the purpose of government, which is to prevent the deepest level of chaos, then I would state a floor, perhaps 20,000, which is the minimum livable wage in the nation. Above that everyone pays the same percentage.

Do you subsidize the people below $20,000 to get them up to that level? I can put it in the spreadsheet.

wild1
03-26-2009, 07:51 PM
Do you subsidize the people below $20,000 to get them up to that level? I can put it in the spreadsheet.

No. We don't pay people to be failures. They just don't have to pay any taxes.

Hydrae
03-26-2009, 07:53 PM
If you have no income tax and put tariffs on everything, your citizens will die, because your country is a small island where nothing can be produced. You must generate $200,000 in income taxes.

My people still have to be able to buy goods and services. Those must be coming from offshore from the sounds of it. If there are no imports to tax and there is no production at home my people are still just as dead.

mlyonsd
03-26-2009, 07:53 PM
I contact China.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 07:56 PM
If taxes must be levied for the purpose of government, which is to prevent the deepest level of chaos, then I would state a floor, perhaps 20,000, which is the minimum livable wage in the nation. Above that everyone pays the same percentage.Then go this route: 13% of everything above $20,000

Tax Needed $200,000
Tax Generated $203,125

Household Income Tax Bill Tax Rate
A $6,700 ($13,300) $0
B $12,000 ($8,000) $0
C $16,000 ($4,000) $0
D $19,000 ($1,000) $0
E $22,500 $2,500 $325 13%
F $22,500 $2,500 $325 13%
G $27,500 $7,500 $975 13%
H $27,500 $7,500 $975 13%
I $35,000 $15,000 $1,950 13%
J $35,000 $15,000 $1,950 13%
K $35,000 $15,000 $1,950 13%
L $45,000 $25,000 $3,250 13%
M $45,000 $25,000 $3,250 13%
N $45,000 $25,000 $3,250 13%
O $62,500 $42,500 $5,525 13%
P $62,500 $42,500 $5,525 13%
Q $62,500 $42,500 $5,525 13%
R $62,500 $42,500 $5,525 13%
S $87,500 $67,500 $8,775 13%
T $87,500 $67,500 $8,775 13%
U $87,500 $67,500 $8,775 13%
V $150,000 $130,000 $16,900 13%
W $150,000 $130,000 $16,900 13%
X $150,000 $130,000 $16,900 13%
Y $680,000 $660,000 $85,800 13%
Income Total $2,036,200

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 07:57 PM
That's the biggest and richest resource sir!

And if they're all stockbrokers, they still don't produce anything.

Okay, fine. Let's say that they are lawyers, then.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 07:58 PM
No. We don't pay people to be failures. They just don't have to pay any taxes.


This is wild1's system.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:59 PM
Okay, fine. Let's say that they are lawyers, then.

They still don't produce anything. :)

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 08:01 PM
They still don't produce anything. :)

I'll keep setting them up if you'll keep knocking them down.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 08:01 PM
My people still have to be able to buy goods and services. Those must be coming from offshore from the sounds of it. If there are no imports to tax and there is no production at home my people are still just as dead.

Without income taxes, you can't build the port that is necessary to bring goods in, and if you enact tariffs the ships will all go to the wild capitalistic free-trade island 22 miles to your south that had a port built when it was a Swedish colony. That island also has cold beer at an affordable price.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 08:01 PM
I have to go walk 2 miles in a raging snowstorm. I'll check in later. Your country needs you!

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 08:02 PM
Without income taxes, you can't build the port that is necessary to bring goods in, and if you enact tariffs the ships will all go to the wild capitalistic free-trade island 22 miles to your south. That island also has cold beer at an affordable price.

That island sounds like a pretty decent place. Can't we just copy their tax code?

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 08:03 PM
That island sounds like a pretty decent place. Can't we just copy their tax code?

They copyrighted it. Sorry.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 08:03 PM
I'll keep setting them up if you'll keep knocking them down.

The women weave baskets from some rare grass that grows between the cracks in the rock with a stone clasp. They are beautiful and sought by Hollywood elites and other beautiful people around the world. The men manage the women in their cottage industry doing the marketing and going to trade shows off the island. They price out at $30-100K apiece. Set two of the 100K ones aside per year.

Hydrae
03-26-2009, 08:04 PM
That island sounds like a pretty decent place. Can't we just copy their tax code?

No, they don't have an income tax. This is possible thanks to the Swedes building a port before the islanders revolted and won independence.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 08:09 PM
I'd prefer to tax lifestyles/consumption rather than income, but I'm not going to give Rain Man any headaches by insisting that I'd use a different form of taxation (or none at all). Here's my income tax. The tax base is maximized so that the rate can be minimized. Everyone can tighten their belts enough to pony up 9.82222% of their income into the community coffers.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 08:25 PM
I'd prefer to tax lifestyles/consumption rather than income, but I'm not going to give Rain Man any headaches by insisting that I'd use a different form of taxation (or none at all). Here's my income tax. The tax base is maximized so that the rate can be minimized. Everyone can tighten their belts enough to pony up 9.82222% of their income into the community coffers.

Screw that noise. $8,000 apiece. Anyone who makes less than $8,000 gets chopped up and eaten, thus reducing the total revenue needed on multiple fronts.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 08:30 PM
Screw that noise. $8,000 apiece. Anyone who makes less than $8,000 gets chopped up and eaten, thus reducing the total revenue needed on multiple fronts.

LMAO

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2009, 08:47 PM
This is my proposal.

Family Income Tax Taxe Rate Net
A 6,700 $658.09 9.82222 $6,041.91
B 12,000 $1,178.67 9.82222 $10,821.33
C 16,000 $1,571.56 9.82222 $14,428.44
D 19,000 $1,866.22 9.82222 $17,133.78
E 22,500 $2,210.00 9.82222 $20,290.00
F 22,500 $2,210.00 9.82222 $20,290.00
G 27,500 $2,701.11 9.82222 $24,798.89
H 27,500 $2,701.11 9.82222 $24,798.89
I 35,000 $3,437.78 9.82222 $31,562.22
J 35,000 $3,437.78 9.82222 $31,562.22
K 35,000 $3,437.78 9.82222 $31,562.22
L 45,000 $4,420.00 9.82222 $40,580.00
M 45,000 $4,420.00 9.82222 $40,580.00
N 45,000 $4,420.00 9.82222 $40,580.00
O 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
P 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
Q 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
R 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
S 87,500 $8,594.44 9.82222 $78,905.56
T 87,500 $8,594.44 9.82222 $78,905.56
U 87,500 $8,594.44 9.82222 $78,905.56
V 150,000 $14,733.33 9.82222 $135,266.67
W 150,000 $14,733.33 9.82222 $135,266.67
X 150,000 $14,733.33 9.82222 $135,266.67
Y 680,000 $66,791.10 9.82222 $613,208.90

Total 2,036,200 $200,000.04 $1,836,199.96

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2009, 08:48 PM
This is an alternate proposal. - Got my republican hat on for this one.

Family Income Tax Taxe Rate Net Action Savings using their bodies as a fuel source
A 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
B 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
C 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
D 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
E 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
F 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
G 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
H 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Kill entire family $4,000.00
I 35,000 $3,123.52 8.92435 $31,876.48
J 35,000 $3,123.52 8.92435 $31,876.48
K 35,000 $3,123.52 8.92435 $31,876.48
L 45,000 $4,015.96 8.92435 $40,984.04
M 45,000 $4,015.96 8.92435 $40,984.04
N 45,000 $4,015.96 8.92435 $40,984.04
O 62,500 $5,577.72 8.92435 $56,922.28
P 62,500 $5,577.72 8.92435 $56,922.28
Q 62,500 $5,577.72 8.92435 $56,922.28
R 62,500 $5,577.72 8.92435 $56,922.28
S 87,500 $7,808.81 8.92435 $79,691.19
T 87,500 $7,808.81 8.92435 $79,691.19
U 87,500 $7,808.81 8.92435 $79,691.19
V 150,000 $13,386.53 8.92435 $136,613.48
W 150,000 $13,386.53 8.92435 $136,613.48
X 150,000 $13,386.53 8.92435 $136,613.48
Y 680,000 $60,685.58 8.92435 $619,314.42
Savings $32,000.00
Total 1,882,500 $200,000.89 $1,714,499.11 $32,000.00

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 08:54 PM
This is my proposal.

You totally ripped off pat

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2009, 09:13 PM
You totally ripped off pat

Not really - his looks better. We think alike. I didn't have time to do the image thing. Maybe I should of. I killed people for energy in the second one.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Give everyone a prebate of $4217.20 and charge a flat 15% rate.

It just absolutely cracks me up that some people think this is "fair."

You've just simply got to be kidding me.

This is why, for all their merits, conservatives and I will always, ALWAYS disagree.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 09:34 PM
I'd prefer to tax lifestyles/consumption rather than income, but I'm not going to give Rain Man any headaches by insisting that I'd use a different form of taxation (or none at all). Here's my income tax. The tax base is maximized so that the rate can be minimized. Everyone can tighten their belts enough to pony up 9.82222% of their income into the community coffers.

I don't believe we've had this conversation pat, but I suppose you favor a Fair Tax?

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 09:43 PM
Not really - his looks better. We think alike. I didn't have time to do the image thing. Maybe I should of. I killed people for energy in the second one.

You stole my idea on that one.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 09:45 PM
It just absolutely cracks me up that some people think this is "fair."

You've just simply got to be kidding me.

This is why, for all their merits, conservatives and I will always, ALWAYS disagree.

What do you find unfair about it? It's redistribution of wealth, as the lower income benefit more than the higher earners. I just accept the fact that a society is, by definition, an instrument of wealth redistribution. Only the degrees and methods vary.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 09:48 PM
What do you find unfair about it? It's redistribution of wealth, as the lower income benefit more than the higher earners. I just accept the fact that a society is, by definition, an instrument of wealth redistribution. Only the degrees and methods vary.

If everybody's getting the same prebate and paying the same tax rate, how on earth do the lower income benefit more?

Besides, I'm not convinced that the "lower income folks benfitting more" idea should be our desire.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 09:51 PM
If everybody's getting the same prebate and paying the same tax rate, how on earth do the lower income benefit more?

Besides, I'm not convinced that the "lower income folks benfitting more" idea should be our desire.

The lowest income earners actually get back more than they pay. If that's not benefiting them more than the rest, I don't know what is.

I can't say that I necessarily disagree with your second point, but that's a conservative argument.

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2009, 09:56 PM
It just absolutely cracks me up that some people think this is "fair."

You've just simply got to be kidding me.

This is why, for all their merits, conservatives and I will always, ALWAYS disagree.

OK - I don't understand this - it's fair - everyone pays the same percentage. If we really want to make it more fair - everyone pays $7692.30. Everyone is equal now. Is that what you want? I thought you were a member of the party of fairness?

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 09:57 PM
The lowest income earners actually get back more than they pay. If that's not benefiting them more than the rest, I don't know what is.

I can't say that I necessarily disagree with your second point, but that's a conservative argument.

It's a bit of a conservative argument, sure. But I just don't know how you measure who gets the best of what, since to me it seems that comparing what really, really poor people get out of a tax plan is totally different than what really, really rich people get out of a tax plan. The richest are largely talking about disposable cash and investments they can make. The poorest are talking about their most basic livelihood. So I don't know how getting a few more thousand dollars net is getting a "better" deal than someone rich who chucks more into the government, and drives off to their summer cabin on weekends. I just think determining who gets the "better deal" misses the point.

At the end of the day, I think you have to do what you can to make the minimum standard of living as bearable as possible without abjectly ripping off everybody else who is lucky enough to live well above it. I simply don't think your tax plan does that, but then again if I set up the tax %s the way *I* wanted, the government would be bringing in more than $200,000 altogether in this town.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 09:59 PM
OK - I don't understand this - it's fair - everyone pays the same percentage. If we really want to make it more fair - everyone pays $7692.30. Everyone is equal now. Is that what you want? I thought you were a member of the party of fairness?

No, if it were up to me, I'd say reduce that amount a lot on the people who are just barely paying rent and feeding themselves, and raise taxes a few percentage points on the well-to-do, who will be perfectly fine one way or the other.

To me, that's fair.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 10:21 PM
At the end of the day, I think you have to do what you can to make the minimum standard of living as bearable as possible without abjectly ripping off everybody else who is lucky enough to live well above it. I simply don't think your tax plan does that, but then again if I set up the tax %s the way *I* wanted, the government would be bringing in more than $200,000 altogether in this town.

That's exactly what my tax plan did. It raised the floor to a minimum level. You might quibble about where the floor should be, but this is a hypothetical. The point remains the same.

In any event, the poorest person gets his share of the $200,000 in this scenario. That amounts to $8,000 in value. Then he gets another $4,000 beyond what he earned. The guy earned $6700 and ends up with $18,000 in value.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 10:26 PM
That's exactly what my tax plan did. It raised the floor to a minimum level. You might quibble about where the floor should be, but this is a hypothetical. The point remains the same.

In any event, the poorest person gets his share of the $200,000 in this scenario. That amounts to $8,000 in value. Then he gets another $4,000 beyond what he earned. The guy earned $6700 and ends up with $18,000 in value.

*strokes chin*

I'm going back to reread your proposal. I've grown confused.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 10:28 PM
In any event, the poorest person gets his share of the $200,000 in this scenario. That amounts to $8,000 in value.

Here's where I'm getting lost.

Can you explain the $8,000 in value?

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 10:32 PM
Here's where I'm getting lost.

Can you explain the $8,000 in value?

$200,000 of tax dollars used for the benefit of society divided 25 ways. You could argue that the synergy of the money used collectively actually has more than $200,000 in value. $8000 is the indirect benefit. The $4,000 is a net, cash benefit.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 10:35 PM
$200,000 of tax dollars used for the benefit of society divided 25 ways. You could argue that the synergy of the money used collectively actually has more than $200,000 in value. $8000 is the indirect benefit. The $4,000 is a net, cash benefit.

Gotcha.

It's hard for me to remark on that one way or the other, because it's tough to discern in a hypothetical society that we know nothing about how much of that $8000 is actually finding its way to the people who need it.

I still side with my earlier post that providing the same rate and rebate to everybody is patently unfair, especially since the very rich lose so little, and the very poor gain so much, from even the slightest of adjustments to their tax rates.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 10:43 PM
By the way, Rain Man, this is a phenomenal exercise.

Really gets you into the nitty gritty on how these adjustments are made. Great stuff.

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2009, 11:27 PM
Obamas plan
Family Income Tax Tax Rate Net
A 6,700 $0.00 0 $6,700.00
B 12,000 $0.00 0 $12,000.00
C 16,000 $0.00 0 $16,000.00
D 19,000 $0.00 0 $19,000.00
E 22,500 $0.00 0 $22,500.00
F 22,500 $0.00 0 $22,500.00
G 27,500 $0.00 0 $27,500.00
H 27,500 $0.00 0 $27,500.00
I 35,000 $0.00 0 $35,000.00
J 35,000 $0.00 0 $35,000.00
K 35,000 $0.00 0 $35,000.00
L 45,000 $0.00 0 $45,000.00
M 45,000 $0.00 0 $45,000.00
N 45,000 $0.00 0 $45,000.00
O 62,500 $0.00 0 $62,500.00
P 62,500 $0.00 0 $62,500.00
Q 62,500 $0.00 0 $62,500.00
R 62,500 $0.00 0 $62,500.00
S 87,500 $0.00 0 $87,500.00
T 87,500 $0.00 0 $87,500.00
U 87,500 $0.00 0 $87,500.00
V 150,000 $0.00 0 $150,000.00
W 150,000 $0.00 0 $150,000.00
X 150,000 $0.00 0 $150,000.00
Y 680,000 $265,200.00 39 $414,800.00

Total 2,036,200 $265,200.00 $1,771,000.00
Teleprompter salary $65,200.00

CHIEF4EVER
03-27-2009, 02:58 AM
As your President, I have come up with the following tax code to meet the needs of the community as a whole. If you make less than $35,500 you will pay no tax. Bear in mind you will not be receiving a check either. However you get to keep all of what you have for your subsistence. Everyone else pays a flat tax of 11% (actually 10.625 but Chairman Rainmans program will not allow decimals sooooo....11%). This will leave us with a surplus of $6,944. I decree that this will be the annual Independence Day Lapdance, Beer and BBQ fund for all of our citizens to enjoy. Once a year, this surplus will be spent to throw one hell of a big party to celebrate our independence and everyone gets invited.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 07:27 AM
This is my proposal.

Family Income Tax Taxe Rate Net
A 6,700 $658.09 9.82222 $6,041.91
B 12,000 $1,178.67 9.82222 $10,821.33
C 16,000 $1,571.56 9.82222 $14,428.44
D 19,000 $1,866.22 9.82222 $17,133.78
E 22,500 $2,210.00 9.82222 $20,290.00
F 22,500 $2,210.00 9.82222 $20,290.00
G 27,500 $2,701.11 9.82222 $24,798.89
H 27,500 $2,701.11 9.82222 $24,798.89
I 35,000 $3,437.78 9.82222 $31,562.22
J 35,000 $3,437.78 9.82222 $31,562.22
K 35,000 $3,437.78 9.82222 $31,562.22
L 45,000 $4,420.00 9.82222 $40,580.00
M 45,000 $4,420.00 9.82222 $40,580.00
N 45,000 $4,420.00 9.82222 $40,580.00
O 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
P 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
Q 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
R 62,500 $6,138.89 9.82222 $56,361.11
S 87,500 $8,594.44 9.82222 $78,905.56
T 87,500 $8,594.44 9.82222 $78,905.56
U 87,500 $8,594.44 9.82222 $78,905.56
V 150,000 $14,733.33 9.82222 $135,266.67
W 150,000 $14,733.33 9.82222 $135,266.67
X 150,000 $14,733.33 9.82222 $135,266.67
Y 680,000 $66,791.10 9.82222 $613,208.90

Total 2,036,200 $200,000.04 $1,836,199.96

Outstanding proposal! :)

patteeu
03-27-2009, 07:29 AM
You totally ripped off pat

Nah. When I developed mine, I was guided by the WWVJD principle.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 07:33 AM
I don't believe we've had this conversation pat, but I suppose you favor a Fair Tax?

It's not perfect from my pov, but it's the best proposal I've heard in the past several years, yes.

My key criteria for a tax scheme are:
Base the tax on consumption rather than income
Tax everyone at the same flat rate
Keep the base as broad as possible so the rate can be minimized

Amnorix
03-27-2009, 08:18 AM
I'd run a mini-anarchist country if it only had that many people. So taxes wouldn't be necessary and each home had to fend for itself. All infrastructure including roads would be private and I have a citizen militia like Switzlerland. For the rest of defense all households could donate too of their own free-will or be imprisoned during war time.

You can't afford your citizen militia. Prsumably, you're just telling them to pay their own guns and get their own training.

What really amuses me is that this really is your position, and that your position doesn't seem that much different for a country of 300 million versus the fantasyland of 25 households.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 08:54 AM
You can't afford your citizen militia. Prsumably, you're just telling them to pay their own guns and get their own training.

You just contradicted yourself. Of course it's affordable. You just gave how it is: the people pay for their own guns etc. There's not a lot of difference between that and taxing them for the same....especially at that size community.

What really amuses me is that this really is your position, and that your position doesn't seem that much different for a country of 300 million versus the fantasyland of 25 households.
No fending for oneself is the way it has been in areas sparsely populated/settled areas. Remember the west? Or the first settlers in America? There ya' go. Seems to me they did all right. Afterall we're here today.

It's not exactly my formula for a larger country though. Just elements are. Decentralization. It just have to be proportional and there has to be the proper structure to make the decentralization still work.

Dave Lane
03-27-2009, 12:41 PM
OK heres a very realistic and easy one...

I'm sure it will cause shrieks of fear!

Dave Lane
03-27-2009, 12:43 PM
And here's BEP and everyone else s version which I call Chiefs Planet edition. Just to make sure we don't punish the rich and ensure the proper motivation to work.

Dave Lane
03-27-2009, 12:44 PM
I was going to extend the highest tax rate to -10% but it was too much extra figuring and I'm sure someone else has already done that one.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 12:48 PM
And here's BEP and everyone else s version which I call Chiefs Planet edition. Just to make sure we don't punish the rich and ensure the proper motivation to work.

You've got to admit that that would be a highly motivating tax code. I like it.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 12:49 PM
It's not perfect from my pov, but it's the best proposal I've heard in the past several years, yes.

My key criteria for a tax scheme are:
Base the tax on consumption rather than income
Tax everyone at the same flat rate
Keep the base as broad as possible so the rate can be minimized

Do you buy the Huckabee line that the Fair Tax should be put at 23%?

patteeu
03-27-2009, 12:56 PM
Do you buy the Huckabee line that the Fair Tax should be put at 23%?

I don't know anything about Huckabee's line. I'm not nearly as interested in the rate as I am in the form of the tax scheme. Once the scheme is fixed in a way that satisfies me, the next step would be to cut spending and minimize the rate.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 12:59 PM
I don't know anything about Huckabee's line. I'm not nearly as interested in the rate as I am in the form of the tax scheme. Once the scheme is fixed in a way that satisfies me, the next step would be to cut spending and minimize the rate.

Right now, I believe the rate would have to be 31% to maintain current spending.

And that's math I read from a couple years ago...

Amnorix
03-27-2009, 01:09 PM
Right now, I believe the rate would have to be 31% to maintain current spending.

And that's math I read from a couple years ago...


While I support your general statement that the rate is too high to be supportable, I think it's fair to say that currently spending is too high to be supported by any tax structure, which is part of the reason why we have massive structural deficits.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 01:10 PM
Right now, I believe the rate would have to be 31% to maintain current spending.

And that's math I read from a couple years ago...

Obama is exploding the budget so we'll probably have to make it 40%. I, for one, am not in favor of maintaining current spending.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 01:12 PM
Was "exploding" too much of an understatement?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SajVLBu6ssI/AAAAAAAAaSY/WR39qi3vB9U/s1600/obama%2Bbudget2.JPG

Amnorix
03-27-2009, 01:14 PM
Was "exploding" too much of an understatement?

What is your plan to end the recession?

patteeu
03-27-2009, 01:24 PM
What is your plan to end the recession?

I'm hoping that the recession doesn't get to me and I don't need to come up with a plan. But if I ever do come up with a plan, I assure you that it won't include make-work projects to remodel inner city golf courses, handouts to ACORN, schemes to raise taxes on 100% of the American people in the name of alternative energy, healthcare socialization or punitive taxation against a narrow class of people.

I think adopting a flat consumption tax of some sort and scrapping the income tax would be a great way to help the economy recover from a recession. For the longer run, I'd also focus on ways to make the US a global business haven.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 01:25 PM
schemes to raise taxes on 100% of the American people in the name of alternative energy

Cross thread humor FTW.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 01:29 PM
Cross thread humor FTW.

:p

Rain Man
03-27-2009, 03:21 PM
Just FYI, here's the actual U.S. rates, based on what I can calculate. And the income distribution matches the U.S. "Adjusted Gross Income" distribution as best as possible. I'm not sure how "Adjusted Gross Income" compares to total household income.

Simplex3
03-27-2009, 05:41 PM
It just absolutely cracks me up that some people think this is "fair."

You've just simply got to be kidding me.

This is why, for all their merits, conservatives and I will always, ALWAYS disagree.

The poor people still pay nothing. How the hell is that not fair?

Simplex3
03-27-2009, 05:44 PM
It's a bit of a conservative argument, sure. But I just don't know how you measure who gets the best of what, since to me it seems that comparing what really, really poor people get out of a tax plan is totally different than what really, really rich people get out of a tax plan. The richest are largely talking about disposable cash and investments they can make. The poorest are talking about their most basic livelihood.

Poor people have less shit. Why is that a surprise? They have less money which will translate into less stuff. Point out why someone who has earned less should have the same stuff.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 05:45 PM
OK heres a very realistic and easy one...

I'm sure it will cause shrieks of fear!
:lame:

Nice twist on what I posted. I guess athiests are pathological liars since they have no code to live by? I didn't have anyone in the lower brackets taxed. I just had two purses set aside by the community. :D


What's wrong with that?

Simplex3
03-27-2009, 05:46 PM
Gotcha.

It's hard for me to remark on that one way or the other, because it's tough to discern in a hypothetical society that we know nothing about how much of that $8000 is actually finding its way to the people who need it.

I don't think there are any social programs beyond the $4k government handout in this plan.

Simplex3
03-27-2009, 05:51 PM
Right now, I believe the rate would have to be 31% to maintain current spending.

And that's math I read from a couple years ago...

Whoopee. 23% of the price of goods is there to cover corporate taxes which go away. Do the math, even at your numbers:

$100 item drops in price 23% due to reduced costs. Item now costs $77. Add on your 31% tax and new item cost is $100.87.

$0.87 increase on a $100 item. That's a real wallet buster.

Simplex3
03-27-2009, 05:53 PM
Just FYI, here's the actual U.S. rates, based on what I can calculate. And the income distribution matches the U.S. "Adjusted Gross Income" distribution as best as possible. I'm not sure how "Adjusted Gross Income" compares to total household income.

You've missed the "earned income tax credits" (read: welfare checks).

Rain Man
03-27-2009, 06:04 PM
You've missed the "earned income tax credits" (read: welfare checks).

My suspicion is that earned income credits are included since they're on the tax form, but there is an entire right side of the equation, which is the value of the services received by each household. That may be my next project.

Hydrae
03-27-2009, 07:10 PM
Whoopee. 23% of the price of goods is there to cover corporate taxes which go away. Do the math, even at your numbers:

$100 item drops in price 23% due to reduced costs. Item now costs $77. Add on your 31% tax and new item cost is $100.87.

$0.87 increase on a $100 item. That's a real wallet buster.

Plus you didn't have an income tax so you actually received all $100 you earned while working, not $75 after federal income tax.

Simplex3
03-27-2009, 08:30 PM
Plus you didn't have an income tax so you actually received all $100 you earned while working, not $75 after federal income tax.

I didn't want to confuse them. :)

JohnnyV13
03-28-2009, 07:09 AM
I would tax the guy making 680,000 for 300,000. He or she'd still be making more than twice everyone else. Then I would distribute the 100,000 in bonuses to the other 19. The 5 poorest people would get the most.

Then I would wait for someone to start a newspaper saying what a wonderful leader I am.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2009, 07:34 AM
I would tax the guy making 680,000 for 300,000. He or she'd still be making more than twice everyone else. Then I would distribute the 100,000 in bonuses to the other 19. The 5 poorest people would get the most.

Then I would wait for someone to start a newspaper saying what a wonderful leader I am.

Positively criminal thinking. It's not yours or theirs, yet you act like it's yours to give to others which makes them criminals. It's just to fund the govt. How much gov't do 25 households need? Little. How much does the poorest need just for essentials to survive? Little. That just encourages sloth.

No wonder you're a Keynesian.

patteeu
03-28-2009, 07:49 AM
Positively criminal thinking. It's not yours or theirs, yet you act like it's yours to give to others which makes them criminals. It's just to fund the govt. How much gov't do 25 households need? Little. How much does the poorest need just for essentials to survive? Little. That just encourages sloth.

No wonder you're a Keynesian.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he was serious.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2009, 07:52 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think he was serious.

Well it fits with some of his other views. I'll admit he's not here as much for a full rundown but he did call taxes investments or some such.
And he is an ardent supporter of Keynesian economics which are anti-capitalist. I thought his last sentence was not serious.

Simplex3
03-28-2009, 11:17 AM
I would tax the guy making 680,000 for 300,000. He or she'd still be making more than twice everyone else. Then I would distribute the 100,000 in bonuses to the other 19. The 5 poorest people would get the most.

I hope you're joking, but if not, what is your tax plan when the guy making $680k decides this is screwed up and leaves?

Simplex3
03-28-2009, 11:18 AM
Whoopee. 23% of the price of goods is there to cover corporate taxes which go away. Do the math, even at your numbers:

$100 item drops in price 23% due to reduced costs. Item now costs $77. Add on your 31% tax and new item cost is $100.87.

$0.87 increase on a $100 item. That's a real wallet buster.

All those who are surprised that the leftists ignored the reality presented in this post raise your hands.