lol, socialist

[Slack3r78]

http://s3.moveon.org/images/tax_rate-chart.gif

[Generation ABXY]

Alright, I give up - do you have a point?

[Johan]

That's a neat little chart. Don't forget...

* Obama wants to transfer government holdings in the banks from non-voting into voting shares, and therefore government control (nationalization).
* Obama wants to diminish tax cuts for charitable giving, while pumping up government volunteer organizations.
* Obama wants universal health care coverage.
* Obama's Dept. of Ed. wants universal nationwide educational standards.
* Obama wants the government to have a degree of control over which medical treatments/procedures are approved or not.

There's more. Not all is bad, not all is good; it depends on personal preference. However, it's pretty clear that Obama is much more inclined to enmesh government in the lives of Americans than a free-enterprise, laissez-faire leader would.

Many people would call him a socialist. I don't think that's a real stretch, frankly. I'm also not entirely sure it's all negative, either...though a few of the above items turn my stomach over quite a bit.

[Slack3r78]

To be clear, I've heard specific allegations of socialism over the tax hikes. That's all I'm getting at with this thread.

Basically, I think there's a specific segment of the population who will demonize him no matter what he does.

[Generation ABXY]

Basically, I think there's a specific segment of the population who will demonize him no matter what he does.

While that is no doubt true, I think you have to acknowledge that we aren't getting a full picture here either. I mean, you neglected to provide one for the lowest tax bracket, and I think that is an important aspect of many people's claims.

From what I can remember – and I am not saying this is an absolute or necessarily correct, but I'm sure someone can correct me – when the taxes go up on the one, they also tend to go up on the other, too. With the plans set in motion, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the one group (and, no, not as high as they were during Reagan, though he lowered them, as the chart shows) while promising to not do so on the other (I won't quibble over whether or not he is living up to it or not); hell, for all I know, they may get them lowered.

If you ask me, that only serves to increase the disparity between two groups, placing more of the burden on a tax bracket that is already paying more - and in order to pay for a number of programs that in many ways will not benefit them at all. I think that is what many people are talking about.

Also, your chart makes me think of Dominos Pizza.

[Slack3r78]

I'd be interested in seeing numbers on the historical concentration of wealth in this country to correlate with this, ABXY. My suspicion is that it's likely at far higher levels than it was in, say, the 1950-1970 era, but I'd be glad to recant if it can be shown otherwise.

[Slack3r78]

I am going to include the note that I'm particularly frustrated by this topic because the readily available data is clearly manipulated by those with interests at either side of the issue.

I want clean data, and I know that's a fool's errand.

[Ox]

To be clear, I've heard specific allegations of socialism over the tax hikes. That's all I'm getting at with this thread.
You're only citing some of the tax hikes.

EDIT: It's also misleading to look solely at the base marginal rate. Very few wealthy people ever actually paid the 91% rate of the '50s. There were a lot of deductions, safe havens, what-have-you. Subsequent tax reforms reduced these loopholes, especially via the AMT. Comparing effective tax rates would be a far more accurate gauge, although I don't know of anyone who has bothered to do that.

[ShivaX]

Holy crap how did Ike get away with that?

I mean... wow. Then again I guess that created the middle class. Ike was a bigger socialist than the Swedes apparently.

I still think its kinda funny that so many members of the GOP talk about the Reagen years like it was perfect in every way, but when you talk about making their taxes almost 80% of what they were in the 80's you're punishing capitalism and all the rest of it.

[Ox]

I mean... wow. Then again I guess that created the middle class.
You know, in the 1950s, black people couldn't vote. Did that create the middle class? Don't confuse correlation with causation.

[BlackPete]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21638.html?goodstrategery

A conservative faction of the Republican National Committee is urging the GOP to take a harder line against both Democrats and wayward Republicans, drafting a resolution to rename the opposition the “Democrat Socialist Party”

That's in the first paragraph. It goes downhill from there.

[OUX]

I am going to be suspicious of the accuracy of any chart that has a sentence as a title.

[Ancalagon]

I dont get what the chart is supposed to show anyway.

I mean, I assume that rich people paying more = closer to socialism. So, if they paid a lot more under Nixon, then that means Nixon was socialist? Am I missing something?

So even though Obama hiked taxes on the rich and cut taxes for the middle and lower classes, he still isnt as "socialist" as Nixon? (incidentally, was Nixon a republican or democrat?)

Of course, this chart wont tell the full story, ie effective tax rate and all that.

[Stmfuller]

This graph is why we need a flat % tax. No loopholes, no messing around, just straight up "you pay this %". And the only people that would have to file taxes are those with something to declare on their tax forms (like businesses and self employed people).

The tax code is such a joke, if the average american can't understand the tax code, then there's something wrong. The govt works for US, not the other way around.

Also, going socialist isn't such a bad idea. OMG it's so horrible that we all take care of each other!!!!! Come on...let's get real...

[National Kato]

I am going to be suspicious of the accuracy of any chart that has a sentence as a title.

A Venn diagram, however....

;)

[Ancalagon]

heres a little something I found on tax systems:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amount s each should pay.!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even hal f of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Narradisall]

Damn, what were you guys spending all that money on in the 40's and 50's?!?!?!?

[Voodoo]

http://s3.moveon.org/images/tax_rate-chart.gif

The chart complies with the data found here : http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

In regards to Marginal Tax Rate, I didn't know what that meant so I looked it up.
The marginal tax rate is the rate on the last dollar of income earned. This is very different from the average tax rate, which is the total tax paid as a percentage of total income earned. In 2003, for example, the United States imposed a 35 percent tax on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold; income below that cutoff point would still be taxed at rates of 10 percent on the first $7,000, 15 percent on the next $14,400, and so on. Depending on deductions, a taxpayer might pay a relatively modest average tax on total earnings, yet nonetheless face a 28–35 percent marginal tax on any activities that could push income higher.-Library of Economic and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html)

After a few searches, it would seem that Ox is pretty accurate (as usual) that information on effective tax rates during the same time periods is elusive. I'm going to continue looking as interest and time warrants.

[Johan]

...the AMT.

The fools who passed that law didn't index it for inflation. What morons. Seriously. Now, the AMT is the new middle class nightmare. It was supposed to catch wealthy individuals who escaped taxes through clever, and legal, tax shenanigans. No inflation indexing means the bar has been lower every year, and now scoops up people it never originally intended to target.

Give it a few more years, and without reform, I'll be hit by it, and I'm not rich by any measure in the U.S. (worldwide standards, I'm wealthy; we all are, even our poor).

[Ink Asylum]

This graph is why we need a flat % tax. No loopholes, no messing around, just straight up "you pay this %". And the only people that would have to file taxes are those with something to declare on their tax forms (like businesses and self employed people).

I'll ask you the same question I always ask when someone proposes a flat tax: Who pays more and who pays less?

Switching the system to a flat tax while leaving spending alone changes the tax burden distribution drastically. Certain groups will pay more than they are paying now and others will pay less. Who do you think those will be?

[Ink Asylum]

What I think is hilarious about attacking Obama as a "socialist" is how much has changed since that label was at its most damaging. A politician that was labeled as a socialist sixty years ago would've had trouble getting elected dogcatcher. Now we've had a Presidential campaign where the winning candidate was constantly being called a socialist by the opposing party and he won handidly.

Conservatives have cried socialism for so long to attack the policies of liberals, whether they deserve the label or not, that they've watered down what was once their strongest attack to the point where it is no longer effective. Add to that a crushing recession many people see as the failure of modern capitalism and socialism is starting to look good to a whole lot of people.

[Johan]

There should be only one tax at the state and federal level...a sales tax of 15-20%. There could be a very few exceptions, to help those in the lower income brackets:

* First $200,000 on a home excluded
* First $15,000 on a car excluded.
* Tuition excluded.
* Food excluded (not restaurants, however).
* Medical care excluded.

Everything else would be taxed at a very high rate, to encourage savings and investment. Big spenders would be paying big. Small fry would pay very little. The IRS and most accounting could be done away with.

It'll never happen.

Add to that a crushing recession many people see as the failure of modern capitalism and socialism is starting to look good to a whole lot of people.

I think this, and health care, are the two primary reasons socialism is appealing.

Don't forget, however, that while Obama received 69 million votes, McCain actually got 60 million. In a year when virtually ANYONE would have beaten the Republican candidate, many millions still supported him.

[Ancalagon]

Add to that a crushing recession many people see as the failure of modern capitalism and socialism is starting to look good to a whole lot of people.

Personally I dont think America is truly capitalist anyway - it has elements of oligarchy in it.

But yeah, I agree that pure capitalism probably isnt desirable, some socialism at least is necessary.

[Ink Asylum]

Don't forget, however, that while Obama received 69 million votes, McCain actually got 60 million. In a year when virtually ANYONE would have beaten the Republican candidate, many millions still supported him.

And Obama still has an approval rating higher than the percentage of the vote he received, so millions of those that voted for McCain support Obama even though they voted against him.

An election, especially ones where there is no incumbent, is a referendum on who people believe will be a better president before anyone has real knowledge of how they will perform in the office. A vote for one candidate is not a complete rejection of the ideas and policies of the other for most voters.

[Johan]

And Obama still has an approval rating higher than the percentage of the vote he received, so millions of those that voted for McCain support Obama even though they voted against him.

Obama received 53% of the popular vote. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/)

His current approval is around 62%. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

That's a nice margin. We'll see how long it holds up, beyond the honeymoon period. Biden's poll numbers are doing really well (below Cheney's at the same point in their administrations). A lot can happen in politics over the course of a year. We'll see.

[Vulture]

Conservatives have cried socialism for so long to attack the policies of liberals, whether they deserve the label or not, that they've watered down what was once their strongest attack to the point where it is no longer effective.

this, is why i fear the over use, and politicization, of the word "racist."

[TheKeck]

I'll ask you the same question I always ask when someone proposes a flat tax: Who pays more and who pays less?

Switching the system to a flat tax while leaving spending alone changes the tax burden distribution drastically. Certain groups will pay more than they are paying now and others will pay less. Who do you think those will be?
Just for kicks, I'll bite.

The poor end up paying more taxes and the rich end up paying less. Did I get it right? Sounds like a great plan! :p

[Voodoo]

Just for kicks, I'll bite.

The poor end up paying more taxes and the rich end up paying less. Did I get it right? Sounds like a great plan! :p

In comparison of tax versus net income, that'd be correct. A federal flat tax wouldn't applied to everything purchasable or service types though. As far as I am aware, no necessities would have a federal flat tax. So if a lower income family had spending habits that are more within necessities then they'd actually have more available monies to them. At least this is how it reads to me. It also would seem that a federal flat tax would capture a lot more than income tax and at a continuous level. For example, the local prostitutes here in Daytona Beach I don't presume pay a income tax that is equable to their income while a federal flat tax would capture it.

[torrefaction]

I'm for a progressive consumption tax over a flat tax. It is more complicated and you have to be intelligent about exceptions, so it could end up being a burden on businesses... but it's always seemed like the tax that punishes the rich only if they spend their money on luxury items, and encourages savings over buying luxury items out of your reach.

[TheKeck]

A federal flat tax wouldn't applied to everything purchasable or service types though. As far as I am aware, no necessities would have a federal flat tax.
Of course, the proposition we were responding to is a straight flat % taxed for every person, no exceptions. ;)

[Ink Asylum]

Once you start adding more and more exemptions for "necessities" you're making the tax code more and more of a progressive tax code anyway. What necessities? Food? Clothing? Housing? Transportation? School? How much are covered? A bare minimum for survival?

Once you add in all those necessities exemptions how much different is the system than the one we already use? In the final calculations you'll probably end up with a similar breakdown to the one we already have, people at the very bottom paying little tax while the rich pay the bulk.

[Generation ABXY]

There should be only one tax at the state and federal level...a sales tax of 15-20%.

I can't remember if that is the fair or flat tax, but that is the one I like. (As an addendum of sorts to what you said, I would make things like, say, food, tax free for everyone, not just lower incomes.) As someone said, I think it encourages people to live within their means. And, now that Congress may be pushing through some changes to online purchases (you have to pay your state tax, regardless), it doesn't seem like there is much standing in our way.

[Ink Asylum]

When it comes to a 15-20% tax on non-necessities, I wonder what the reaction would be from businesses that make those products and services. Books, music, games, dvds, electronics, etc now all taxed that makes cigarette taxes look paltry. At the same time, the actual post-tax income of a large number of consumers doesn't go up all that much.

[Generation ABXY]

And Obama still has an approval rating higher than the percentage of the vote he received, so millions of those that voted for McCain support Obama even though they voted against him.

The polls they use are usually pretty cut and dry; it is only one of two choices, from what I've seen. Given that, even I would say I approve of Obama. Sure, he has done a few things I disagree with (and there are rumors of more in the works), but he hasn't yet gotten us into a war or blown up by a nuclear bomb - I give at least basic approval for that last one alone. :p

When it comes to a 15-20% tax on non-necessities, I wonder what the reaction would be from businesses that make those products and services. Books, music, games, dvds, electronics, etc now all taxed that makes cigarette taxes look paltry. At the same time, the actual post-tax income of a large number of consumers doesn't go up all that much.

Hard to say, but I imagine a few would offer a price drop. On the other hand, without an income tax, people would also have "more" money to spend, so it may even out in their eyes.

[Ink Asylum]

The polls they use are usually pretty cut and dry; it is only one of two choices, from what I've seen. Given that, even I would say I approve of Obama. Sure, he has done a few things I disagree with (and there are rumors of more in the works), but he hasn't yet gotten us into a war or blown up by a nuclear bomb - I give at least basic approval for that last one alone. :p

Consider also that the "right track/wrong track" numbers have also been increasing steadily since the election, despite a continually harsh recession.

[Generation ABXY]

I haven't seen any of those (at least as far as I can remember), but I'll take your word for it.

[Ink Asylum]

An aggregation here from Pollster.com. (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/issue-rdwt.php)

http://www.pollster.com/IssueRDWTr.png

[Voodoo]

Of course, the proposition we were responding to is a straight flat % taxed for every person, no exceptions. ;)

That proposition have a snowball's chance in hell.

[TheKeck]

That proposition have a snowball's chance in hell.
I agree.

[Johan]

My suggested exemptions for a flat sales tax were not based upon income. None of the exemptions would be based upon income, but upon prices and/or necessities.

For example, the poor need a home, and a 20% tax on $100,000 really hurts them, but if you exempt the first $100,000 or $200,000, you get a windfall in taxes on purchases of more expensive homes, from people who apparently can afford those homes.

There are too many vested interests in the current balkanized system of privilege, and the complications and shroud of secrecy enable a cadre of professionals to earn a living off the backs of those who cannot afford to spend their entire year understanding the laws in order to comply, thereby having to outsource and pay for such work.

I absolutely hate our current system of taxation, of health care insurance, of political partisanship, of journalistic lack of integrity, and on.

/rant off.

[TheKeck]

Of course, if you simplify up the tax code then there will be a lot of accountants and software developers out of work, further worsening the economy. ;)

[Ox]

In regards to Marginal Tax Rate, I didn't know what that meant so I looked it up.
In college, we were studying the effects of tax rates on the economy. The professor pointed out that the marginal rate is always the same as the average rate: when you move up a tax bracket, all your income is taxed at the new rate. So it's easy to get a situation where, if your income increases slightly just bumping you up to a new tax bracket, you can actually wind up with less take-home pay. E.g., if I go from making $50,000/yr at a 15% rate, I take home $42,500. But if I got a raise to $52,000/yr that bumped me to the 20% bracket, I'd only take home $41,600/yr.

I raised my hand. "In America, we don't do it like that. Each tax bracket applies to income made in that band. So the first $10,000 is taxed at a certain rate, then the next $10,000 is taxed at a slightly higher rate, and so on."

She didn't believe me. Apparently, Americans are notorious for lying about the mathematical sophistication of their tax codes.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't have the time to find it right now, but there was an article in a major paper/magazine about people making around $250,000 that were actively trying to find ways to make their taxable income $249,999 because they feared exactly that. They were mistaken, of course.

[Johan]

There are triggers in the tax code that can cost you a heckuva lot of money, however. For example, earning $1 over the limit for your household regarding the EIC can cost you literally thousands.

[Ox]

You're thinking of this report (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=6975547&page=1), Ink. You're right, those people are pretty foolish.

However, Johan has a point, too: there are aspects of the tax code, especially at the lower levels, where small increases in income can result in marginal tax rates close to or in excess of 100%. Indeed, I'm an example of this: as a peculiar result of a quirk in my student loans, I face a marginal tax rate of something like 85%. I can vouch it changes my behavior: I have very little incentive to try for a higher salary, but I do place a remarkable premium on tax-exempt benefits like insurance and shorter work hours. I recently went on a job interview, and I had to restrain myself from saying, "I don't really care how much you pay me."

[BlackPete]

An aggregation here from Pollster.com. (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/issue-rdwt.php)


I don't really like line curves as they can mean just about anything, so here's another chart:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/509-5.gif

Source: Gallup 2009

Somewhat more meaningful, but ultimately still pretty meaningless IMO.

[ShivaX]

I don't really like line curves as they can mean just about anything, so here's another chart:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/509-5.gif

Source: Gallup 2009

Somewhat more meaningful, but ultimately still pretty meaningless IMO.

Pretty much. I assume those numbers are early in the presidency? Cause Bush started out pretty decent, but at the end theres no way he was getting 62% of independants or 38% of Democrats.

[Ox]

Let me make one point about Obama's tax plan (at least on the campaign trail, I can't remember if he still endorses it) that is, literally and not histronically, socialist.

When Social Security was created, it was billed as a savings and insurance scheme: you pay in money as you work, then you retire and take the money back out. The amount of money you got out bore a relationship to how much money you put in: the longer you worked and the more money you made, the more Social Security would pay you. There was a cap on Social Security benefits, of course, and so there was also a cap on the amount of income that would be taxed for it. Right now, you only get taxed on the first $97,000 or so of income -- anything above that doesn't have to pay Social Security.

Obama proposed removing this cap: Social Security deductions would continue as your income rose. The benefits would remain capped, however, so that extra deduction would entirely go to workers who hadn't put as much money in. Social Security was never really a savings plan, of course, but under this plan, any fiction about SS not being a straight wealth transfer would be gone.

I can't recall if he's since backed away from this position, although it looks like he hadn't backed away a few months ago (http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_social_security.htm). But proposing a straight wealth transfer as a replacement for a program that ostensibly is intended to mimic a savings program can quite rationally be described as "socialist."

[Jackel]

Another point to remember is that the time cost / value of that income changes when you reach the new tax bracket too.

Workers might be pushed to the point where they decide they'd rather use the time to spend with family / leisure activities.

For example, I know some commercial fishermen up here in Alaska won't stay out as long or catch as much fish, to keep themselves in certain tax brackets..simply because the time / energy costs involved (weeks away from your family at a time) aren't worth the take-home value in the higher tax brackets.

[BlackPete]

Pretty much. I assume those numbers are early in the presidency? Cause Bush started out pretty decent, but at the end theres no way he was getting 62% of independants or 38% of Democrats.

I'd assume that those figures were from the beginning of each presidencies, yes. Bush did prove one thing though: Just because you're popular today doesn't mean you'll be still popular next year.

[ShivaX]

I'd assume that those figures were from the beginning of each presidencies, yes. Bush did prove one thing though: Just because you're popular today doesn't mean you'll be still popular next year.

Well everyone's popular when they haven't done anything to piss anyone off yet. :)

I think that was basically Clinton's entire presidency for that matter. Don't do anything and noone will get mad and you'll stay popular. I mean people out there just love the guy and overall he really didn't do a damn thing (yes I know there are exceptions). If you don't rock the boat odds are you'll get re-elected, at least up till now. People seem to want Obama to rock the boat right now. Of course they also don't want things they like to change, just "other stuff," but thats human nature for you.

"Fix it, its broken."
"Ok we'll do these things."
"Well don't fix my stuff, thats fine, fix everything else."

[BlackPete]

Yep it won't matter what the president does, someone's bound to get pissed off.

After all, the debt is already at unrealistic levels, and needs to be brought under control. I doubt that cutting taxes is the handy solution here.

[Stmfuller]

I'll ask you the same question I always ask when someone proposes a flat tax: Who pays more and who pays less?

Switching the system to a flat tax while leaving spending alone changes the tax burden distribution drastically. Certain groups will pay more than they are paying now and others will pay less. Who do you think those will be?Well, if we're talking seriously, I'd much rather we didn't have any taxes...but since we have to I'd rather everything be equal and fair.
Yeah, I imagine some would be paying more and some be paying less, but the distribution would be a little more fair. This way, the rich people can't complain they're getting taxed more than the poor and the poor can't complain they have no influence because their tax dollars start having meaning.

[Deadend]

Johnan, a straight sales tax would gut the government, as the thing about the rich is that they don't always spend anywhere NEAR the same percentage of their income on goods that say a guy making $20,000 does. So suddenly instead of being taxed 30+% of their income, a rich guy could end up being taxed only 5% or less of their income. Someone living paycheck to paycheck would go from paying 10% or so to whatever percentage the tax is set to.

Know why I think the rich should be taxed heavier? Because they make way more. I think the number is the top 1% of the population has 40% of the wealth and the bottom 80% have 10% of the money in the U.S.
I think the way it should work is the way it's supposed to work, by aligning the amount paid with their portion of the money made that year.

I would have it done by figuring out what the total income was for that year, for EVERYONE and Corps. Then you take a percentage of that number (35% sounds popular in this thread). Lets say Microsoft made 40% of the money that year, they pay for 40% of the budget. Let's say I made .00001% of the money, then I pay .00001% of the budget. I'm pretty sure it would not come out as a flat tax, and would be more fair then the tiers we use now, but be easier on the poor than a flat tax, and it would make it so the mildly rich would try and stop making income short of the arbitrary points where taxes increase. As I recall hearing that there is a change between $250,000 a year and $251,000 that makes it much better to not go over, unless you can go over by a HUGE amount. It could however be a different number.

[Generation ABXY]

I would have it done by figuring out what the total income was for that year, for EVERYONE and Corps. Then you take a percentage of that number (35% sounds popular in this thread). Lets say Microsoft made 40% of the money that year, they pay for 40% of the budget. Let's say I made .00001% of the money, then I pay .00001% of the budget. I'm pretty sure it would not come out as a flat tax, and would be more fair then the tiers we use now, but be easier on the poor than a flat tax, and it would make it so the mildly rich would try and stop making income short of the arbitrary points where taxes increase. As I recall hearing that there is a change between $250,000 a year and $251,000 that makes it much better to not go over, unless you can go over by a HUGE amount. It could however be a different number.

Is it just me, or does it seem like that would take forever to figure out?

[Ox]

I would have it done by figuring out what the total income was for that year, for EVERYONE and Corps. Then you take a percentage of that number (35% sounds popular in this thread). Lets say Microsoft made 40% of the money that year, they pay for 40% of the budget. Let's say I made .00001% of the money, then I pay .00001% of the budget.
There are two objections to this. First, one you might find reasonable: someone who made very little money doesn't really have the ability to contribute anything to the coffers. This is why there's a floor below which income is not taxed.

The second one you may scoff at. Let's say you make $10,000 and decide to spend it all. You'll get taxed once (leaving aside sales taxes, which usually aren't federal). If I make $10,000 but decide to save it rather than spend it right away, I'll get taxed when I first earn the $10,000 and again when I try to recoup my investment. This double taxation discourages savings and encourages people to spend as much money as they make as quickly as they make it. If we're worried about a consumer culture and people not saving for tomorrow, targeting savings for additional taxation does not strike me as the best way to ameliorate that issue.