31 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I could support this, though I think capital gains shouldn't be taxed (you're investing money that has already been taxed), and the corporate rate has to be competitive in a global economy. 

15% flat tax across the board makes sense.

Yeah, I get that it’s already been taxed, and the corporate rate has to be competitive, however capital gains and corporate income give them both skin in the game and also they do benefit from government.
 

Stuff needs to be moved, and taxes pay for the roads. Companies need competent workers, and education provides that. The US military protects international commerce allowing business and investment money to be made around the world (or at least it’s supposed to, pretty sure Trump doesn’t understand that being world police protects the value of the dollar, but w/e).*

Plus if you only tax regular income, people are going to be demanding more pay, and they’re gonna end up costing companies more anyway.



*(If anything the DOD budget needs to be doubled. Useful idiots like to point out that we are overspending the next x countries combined, but we aren’t. They’re on par with us, if not ahead of us, on military spending.)

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

The issue is EVERYONE needs to pay taxes, not just a small subset of people. Having 50% of the population only pick up 3% of the tax burden is unsustainable as it leads to politicians buying votes from the majority while promising to make a small group pay for all of it. It's why the Democrats' talking point about making the rich pay their fair share is so ridiculous -- it's the people below the top 10% that don't pay enough.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/#:~:text=High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Majority of Federal Income Taxes,of all federal income taxes.

 

If everyone paid, then more rational decisions would potentially be made by voters. It's easy to vote for stupidity when you don't pay the bil.

Everyone pays taxes: sales tax, property tax, vehicle registrations, licenses,.... You pay according to your means.

Larger incomes pay more income taxes because... Well, they have more income.

Even if you flat tax at 15%, government is still going to pander to the millionaires and billionaires. 15% of $1,000,000 is more than the average US salary.

5 minutes ago, toolg said:

Everyone pays taxes: sales tax, property tax, vehicle registrations, licenses,.... You pay according to your means.

Larger incomes pay more income taxes because... Well, they have more income.

Even if you flat tax at 15%, government is still going to pander to the millionaires and billionaires. 15% of $1,000,000 is more than the average US salary.

Sales tax, property taxes, vehicle registrations, licenses -- these are all local taxes. And property taxes are complete BS and shouldn't exist.

A flat tax with a standard deduction for everyone is fair. There's no reason why 10% of the population should be shouldering over 70% of the income tax burden, and those numbers don't account for the tax rebates and government handouts. Basically, 1-2% of people are actual net contributors to the federal government. There's no way that is sustainable. 

In all the socialist utopias that Democrats scream about (Scandinavia, Western Europe), the average citizen pays real income taxes. We're the only country that promises to spend more and more while fewer and fewer pay the bills.

And yeah, 15% of $1,000,000 is more than the average salary. Because someone making that money works harder, applied themselves and was driven to succeed. 

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

If everyone paid, then more rational decisions would potentially be made by voters.

I mean, I broadly agree that the bottom 50% are dumb about taxes. I don't think them paying more in taxes is going to lead to rational decisions though. 

(I know you qualified with "potentially" but .. paying taxes doesn't make someone smart or rational lol)

2 hours ago, mr_hunt said:

tough sheet...enjoy the next 4 because president aoc is gonna make you pay more!    

I'm still hoping for an OnlyFans.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

 property taxes are complete BS and shouldn't exist.

a land-value-tax seems preferable to a traditional property tax. 

persons existing on property that takes advantage of locally funded infrastructure - schools, roads, local police & fire, sewer, etc. - that are rolled into a tax bill have to pay for that infrastructure in some way. most local municipalities here in PA seem to turn to an EIT to "hold the line" on property taxes while increasing funding. 

personally I'd rather pay a LVT than an EIT. though I'd probably think differently when I retire

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

A flat tax with a standard deduction for everyone is fair. There's no reason why 10% of the population should be shouldering over 70% of the income tax burden

"Fair" will always be subjective based on perspective. The simple fact is at a flat 15% tax, the lowest earners will feel like they're being burdened unduly when the money that's being taken from them is money that they'd use to eat or pay for housing.

You can wax poetic all you want about the capitalistic tropes of "work harder if you want to make a $1,000,000" but the amount of high paying jobs relative to lower paying jobs isn't governed by how many people are working hard for them.  Someone is going to have to eat crap making your Nike shoes, whether they're working hard or not.

So when you have people who work hard and are still struggling, you're going to get the backlash we've seen. That being said, I'm fine paying more in a progressive tax system. As someone who's a net tax contributor, I don't think the concept of paying more is unfair at all.

14 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

"Fair" will always be subjective based on perspective. The simple fact is at a flat 15% tax, the lowest earners will feel like they're being burdened unduly when the money that's being taken from them is money that they'd use to eat or pay for housing.

You can wax poetic all you want about the capitalistic tropes of "work harder if you want to make a $1,000,000" but the amount of high paying jobs relative to lower paying jobs isn't governed by how many people are working hard for them.  Someone is going to have to eat crap making your Nike shoes, whether they're working hard or not.

So when you have people who work hard and are still struggling, you're going to get the backlash we've seen. That being said, I'm fine paying more in a progressive tax system. As someone who's a net tax contributor, I don't think the concept of paying more is unfair at all.

SPOILER ALERT: 98% of people don't work hard. That's the comedy of this, when morons scream "I work just as hard as the CEO!" No, you don't you useless wage monkey. You "work" 40 hours a week, but probably do actual work 20% of that time. Meanwhile, the CEO/CFO/etc. are basically working 24/7, always on call and dealing with issues. Wage monkeys don't want to respond to emails after 5pm or on vacation -- try that as someone with real responsibilities.

I have no interest in humoring these people that think they work hard.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I mean, I broadly agree that the bottom 50% are dumb about taxes. I don't think them paying more in taxes is going to lead to rational decisions though. 

(I know you qualified with "potentially" but .. paying taxes doesn't make someone smart or rational lol)

They could be less inclined to vote for politicians who promise limitless spending when they realize they’ll have to foot part of the bill as well.   Likewise, politicians wouldn’t be able to promise programs to their constituents with the idea that "someone else” will pay for it.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Sales tax, property taxes, vehicle registrations, licenses -- these are all local taxes. And property taxes are complete BS and shouldn't exist.

A flat tax with a standard deduction for everyone is fair. There's no reason why 10% of the population should be shouldering over 70% of the income tax burden, and those numbers don't account for the tax rebates and government handouts. Basically, 1-2% of people are actual net contributors to the federal government. There's no way that is sustainable. 

In all the socialist utopias that Democrats scream about (Scandinavia, Western Europe), the average citizen pays real income taxes. We're the only country that promises to spend more and more while fewer and fewer pay the bills.

And yeah, 15% of $1,000,000 is more than the average salary. Because someone making that money works harder, applied themselves and was driven to succeed. 

Agreed with everything except for notion that the amount of money you make is directly correlated to how hard you work.  Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn’t. There are people out there making millions of dollars making videos of themselves opening toys on YouTube.  I wouldn’t say those people are working harder than the skilled laborer busting their a s s all day for a decent salary.

Working smarter and/or finding something to exploit in the marketplace?  Sure.  Not necessary working harder.

Heck look at Jake Paul.  He made more money in that Tyson "fight” than like 99.9% of boxers will make in their entire career.  He would get absolutely destroyed by any number of journeyman heavyweights.  Is he making more money than them because he works harder?  No.  He found something to exploit in the marketplace.  Good for him, but not necessarily a sign of working harder.

39 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I have no interest in humoring these people that think they work hard.

Sounds like someone who never worked a day of labor in his life. Must be nice up there. 

46 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

SPOILER ALERT: 98% of people don't work hard. That's the comedy of this, when morons scream "I work just as hard as the CEO!" No, you don't you useless wage monkey. You "work" 40 hours a week, but probably do actual work 20% of that time. Meanwhile, the CEO/CFO/etc. are basically working 24/7, always on call and dealing with issues. Wage monkeys don't want to respond to emails after 5pm or on vacation -- try that as someone with real responsibilities.

I have no interest in humoring these people that think they work hard.

That's not an accurate representation of all wage pigs. There are tens of millions of hourly and salaried individual contributors who willingly work well outside of their scheduled hours. 

Lazy wage toids shouldn't even have jobs. There are plenty of people who want those jobs and are willing to work hard for them but can't for a million idiotic reasons in this country. The problem is the companies, and specifically the aforementioned "hard working CEO's",  tolerate the behavior. This wouldn't even be an issue if private sector leadership across the board decided to do something about it.

Someone is about to have 3 ghosts visit him on Christmas Eve. 

22 hours ago, Arthur Jackson said:

This will surely help.

Yep, Maga supports the military not getting paid. Better for America. That's what they voted for. 

25 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

That's not an accurate representation of all wage pigs. There are tens of millions of hourly and salaried individual contributors who willingly work well outside of their scheduled hours. 

Lazy wage toids shouldn't even have jobs. There are plenty of people who want those jobs and are willing to work hard for them but can't for a million idiotic reasons in this country. The problem is the companies, and specifically the aforementioned "hard working CEO's",  tolerate the behavior. This wouldn't even be an issue if private sector leadership across the board decided to do something about it.

Unions have a lot to do with the inability to fire low productivity workers. 

16 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yep, Maga supports the military not getting paid. Better for America. That's what they voted for. 

I mean you're helping.

A lot.

49 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Agreed with everything except for notion that the amount of money you make is directly correlated to how hard you work.  Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn’t. There are people out there making millions of dollars making videos of themselves opening toys on YouTube.  I wouldn’t say those people are working harder than the skilled laborer busting their a s s all day for a decent salary.

Working smarter and/or finding something to exploit in the marketplace?  Sure.  Not necessary working harder.

Heck look at Jake Paul.  He made more money in that Tyson "fight” than like 99.9% of boxers will make in their entire career.  He would get absolutely destroyed by any number of journeyman heavyweights.  Is he making more money than them because he works harder?  No.  He found something to exploit in the marketplace.  Good for him, but not necessarily a sign of working harder.

That's fair. The point most people miss is that those with higher incomes generally accept greater risk, whether in investing capital or being subject to higher performance standards. A CEO can be canned at anytime by the Board. People who want to take low risk have capped upside. 

Working smarter and harder is key. The real key is pressing your advantage when it is there and cutting losses when the odds are against you.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

That's fair. The point most people miss is that those with higher incomes generally accept greater risk, whether in investing capital or being subject to higher performance standards. A CEO can be canned at anytime by the Board. People who want to take low risk have capped upside. 

Working smarter and harder is key. The real key is pressing your advantage when it is there and cutting losses when the odds are against you.

Yup for sure.   Ironic you bring that up, our entire C-suite just got fired by our Board.  

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yup for sure.   Ironic you bring that up, our entire C-suite just got fired by our Board.  

Yeah, it's a tough gig, especially when activists start stirring things up.

40 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Unions have a lot to do with the inability to fire low productivity workers. 

That's only 10% of the job market. Most are hired and fired "at will". But when it's time I need to exit someone in my org for a documented instance of lying about an unauthorized change that led to real downtime and revenue loss I get HR telling me I have to give him an opportunity to improve first. Companies, and specifically their feckless leadership, are their own worst enemies. 

4 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

That's only 10% of the job market. Most are hired and fired "at will". But when it's time I need to exit someone in my org for a documented instance of lying about an unauthorized change that led to real downtime and revenue loss I get HR telling me I have to give him an opportunity to improve first. Companies, and specifically their feckless leadership, are their own worst enemies. 

Yeah - even without unions, it is brutal. Part of that is the insane legal system, but I agree most of it is bloated HR departments that cause inertia. It's one of the reasons the HF industry has always been better -- if you don't produce, you're gone. Though that has been changing as funds get larger and larger.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Unions have a lot to do with the inability to fire low productivity workers.

Lazy leadership that does not properly document occurrences is the bigger cause. I’m not a fan of unions, but union shops usually have a clear set rules that make it easier to fire workers when they cross the line. They also tend to have higher productivity than non-union shops. 

4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Lazy leadership that does not properly document occurrences is the bigger cause. I’m not a fan of unions, but union shops usually have a clear set rules that make it easier to fire workers when they cross the line. They also tend to have higher productivity than non-union shops. 

Eh, I can only speak from my own experiences. My dad was a chemical engineer at an oil refinery where the operators were unionized. They'd catch guys high and couldn't fire them because of the union rules; had to send them to rehab. The issue with companies we have owned would be trying to fire more senior workers -- sometimes the union rules made it last in, first out.