What's the difference between HARD and EASY earned income?

Quote; .......agree with you that we should eliminate the vast overwhelming majority of special tax breaks/loopholes both for corporations and individuals, even though this would likely result in a tax increase for me.



''We should eliminate, and/or lower their deductions, however, it seems Congress does not want to budge.

Also, most ''would should'' proposals in this thread are unrealistic.

HOWEVER, what's realistic is raising the top tax rate from 37% to 39.6%, and for your info; Clinton's 39.6% tax rate REMAINED ON BOOKS from Jan 03, 1995 to Jan 03, 2001, thus, throughout 3 Republican majorities. In other words;

Attention anti-tax hypocrites; From Jan 03, 1995 to Jan 03, 2001, Clinton's 39.6% top tax rate didn't hurt Gingrish economy, and in fact, it was Gingrish & Co. who have accelerated a balance budget WITH WITH WITH the additional revenues generated by Clinton's tax inceases, AND AND AND by lowering spending to a minimum growth rate.

 

That system is contrary to the concept of equality. It is a way of subsidizing farmers. Government shouldn't subisidize anything. Better to base property taxes based on the value of the property. If building a house on farm land increases its value then taxes will increase. But you have treated everyone equally. The rules are the same for everyone.

 

Attention FLAT TAX believers;

Here's the math that would determine the rate needed to replace exisiting income tax receipts;

1. Income tax receipts; Let's use a normal fiscal year such as 2019

Individual income tax receipts; $1.718 Trillion
Corporate income tax receipts; $230 billion
Total income tax receipts; $1.948 Trillion

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0919.pdf

2. Next.....LOGIC

Employer/Employee combined FICA rate; 15.2%
FY2019 FICA Receipts; $1.242 Trillion
Grade 5 Math; If 15.2% equates to $1,242 trillion, what's 24% equates to; $1.961 Trillion

Thus, a FLAT TAX of 24% would negatively affect the lowest 3 income tax brackets, thus, a majority of taxpayer's HARD earned income.

 

Have you done the math for your proposal?

I just did the math for the FLAT TAX proposal.

 

You're conflating payroll taxes and income taxes.

 

No because, like you, I don't have the information to do it. FICA is about Social Security and Medicare. I don't understand what that has to do with overall income tax. The last figures I saw several years ago, estimated that a flat tax would be around 10% of gross income for people and 10% of net profit for businesses. At any rate we have way way way too much federal government.

 

Here's the math that would determine the rate needed to replace exisiting income tax receipts;
Your math/logic are off, but irrelevant anyway. Even if we assume it correct, your basic premise is flawed IMO. Many of us disagree that replacing existing income tax receipts should be the goal of any tax reform or is any way desirable. Cut spending and shrink Federal government. Pretty much one of the basic areas of disagreement between factions in this country.

 

Are you really a Certified Professional Accountant??????

I'm using LOGIC......I'm using an existing flat rate (FICA) to calculate a FLAT RATE needed to replace existing income tax receipts.....DUH!

Question; Would a flat 24% individual and corporate tax rate replace FY2019 Income tax receipts, both Corporate and Individual?

Answer; Yes it would, and here's the math;

FY2019 Corporate and Individual tax receipts/Ind. $1.718 Trillion + $230 billion Corp. = $1.948 trillion

Fact; Employer and Employee's FICA rates are the same, and the combined rates equates to 15.2%

Now, forget FICA, forget FICA, forget FICA, just concentrate on the math;

Question; In FY2019, if a FLAT RATE of 15.2% generated $1.242 Trillion, then what's a 24% FLAT RATE equates to?

Answer; $1.961 Trillion, thus, $21 billion more than FY2019 Individual/Corporate Receipts; $1.948 trillion

Question; In FY2019, if a 21% corporate tax rate generated $230 billlion, what's a 24% tax rate equates to?

Answer; $262 billion, thus, $30 billion more.

CONCLUSION:

A 24% Corporate and Individual Flat Rate would replace exisiting Income tax receipts, both corporate and individal

 

Yeah Yeah Yeah............For your info, you're conversing with a retired structural engineer.

Let's try again.......

I'm using LOGIC......I'm using an existing flat rate (FICA) to calculate a FLAT RATE needed to replace existing income tax receipts.....DUH!

Question; Would a flat 24% individual and corporate tax rate replace FY2019 Income tax receipts, both Corporate and Individual?

Answer; Yes it would, and here's the math;

FY2019 Corporate and Individual tax receipts/Ind. $1.718 Trillion + $230 billion Corp. = $1.948 trillion

Fact; Employer and Employee's FICA rates are the same, and the combined rates equate to 15.2%

Now, forget FICA, forget FICA, forget FICA, just concentrate on the math;

Question; In FY2019, if a FLAT RATE of 15.2% generated $1.242 Trillion, then what's a 24% FLAT RATE equates to? Grade 5 Math

Answer; $1.961 Trillion, thus, $21 billion more than FY2019 Individual/Corporate Receipts ( $1.948 trillion)

Note; In FY2019, Corporate paid a rate of 21%

Question; In FY2019, if a 21% corporate tax rate generated $230 billlion, what's a 24% tax rate equates to?

Answer; $262 billion, thus, $30 billion more.

CONCLUSION:

A 24% Corporate and Individual Flat Rate would replace exisiting Income tax receipts, both corporate and individal

-------------------------------------

 

Why are you using FICA? There is nothing logical in doing so. Half of the current FICA is paid by employers which complicates the calculation, and then on top of that, FICA is currently capped at 148k in income, while in reality, the top 5% pays the lions share of all income taxes, but it is not reflected in FICA numbers because they stop taxing at 148k.

As such, your subsequent calculation is literally worthless.

 

Is this rate with or without tax deductions?

 

Instead of criticizing other people's math, where's your FLAT TAX math?

 

I didnt come here to calculate a flat tax. In fact, the premise of a flat tax has not one thing to do with why I have looked at this thread. With that being said, I saw that your logic was SERIOUSLY and undeniably flawed. I correctly pointed out that error. Assuming that you care about accuracy, you should be thanking me.

You are welcome.

 

Quote: FICA is currently capped at 148K

Hey pharma boy;

If we were to remove the cap, it would generate an extra $90 billion annually ........I knew this fact before I made my calculations, and I also quoted a FICA amount of ($1.242 Trillion), which includes other receipts

Actual amounts;

FY2019 Total -- Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund; $733 billion
FY2019 Total -- Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; $144.7 billion
FY2019 Total -- Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; $277.5 billion

Total FICA; $1.154 Trillion

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0919.pdf

---------------------

My logic/quick calculation STANDS!

 

You're conflating the two. You're comparing a low income tax rate now to a combined payroll/income tax under a flat tax and then saying the latter would hurt people in lower brackets. That's not apples to apples.

 

So when you said...

...you are NOW trying to claim that you took into account $90 billion annually and then took that amount and increased it due to the rate rise you suggested from 15.2% to 24%?

LOL....You are not telling the truth. You explained your "grade 5 math" (see above) and how you arrived at your number. No such provision was added in. You are now just trying to throw around enough sand in the hopes that no one can see your glaring error. You are funny. Using FICA for this calculation is downright silly.




BTW...My time in pharma ended 15 years ago.

 

You can repeat it ad nauseum, but if one doesn't agree with your premise that it's DESIRABLE to replace or exceed EXISTING income tax receipts, it's irrelevant whether it does or doesn't.

 

Quote: ''You are not telling the truth''

In other words, you're calling me a liar..........Thanks for revealing that there's something wrong in your brain.

For your info, when it comes to math, I could beat someone with a calculator, and faster.

1. Once again, I already knew that removing SS Cap would generate an extra $100 billion a year +/- $10,000.......I'll look it up

2. I've studied our Treasury Monthly Statement for well over 20 years, and I already knew that ''Social Security and Retirement'' Receips are FICA and other receipts, thus, I already knew that the FICA amount I quoted was inflated by approx. $70 billion

3. In my mind, 2 offset 1, thus, let's go with the logic of using an existing flat rate to calculate a flat rate.

Bottom line; A differential of $50 billlion would change my original 24% to a PLUS or MINUS 1%, thus, who the phuck cares?

Answer; People with a mental disorder.

 

currently with fed and state taxes the rate is about 27%-30% of net, no?

 

My purpose of quickly calculating a flat rate to replace existing income tax receipts was to prove that the rate would be much higher than 15% and/or 20%, thus, Attention Flat Tax Believers; Accoding to my calculations, the flat rate isn't the 15% you folks have been promoting.

 

So when you said....

...you were not telling the truth because as you CLAIM now you put far more variables into your equation but just were not stating them ( even if we accept that dubious claim as fact).

So when The Urban Institute puts the number at about 14%....whom should we believe? Your nonsensical claptrap or their in depth analysis?
https://www.urban.org/sites/default...00104-The-Simple-Arithmetic-of-Flat-Taxes.pdf

...or when the Hoover Institute places it at 19% which is higher than the Urban Institute because it adds in a $25,500 deduction but still drastically lower than your 24%,,,whom should we believe? Your irrational half baked logic and self reported ability to figure numbers quicker than a calculator, or the Hoover Institute?
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/flat_tax_ch4.pdf



Hmmmm....Your stated necessary percentage is 72% higher than the Urban Institute, who put it at 14%, and 26% higher than the Hoover Institute who added in a $25,500 annual tax deduction which you have not added in. Why then should anyone believe your bizarre logic?

This whole FICA boondogle is an exercise in idiocy and futility, regardless of how good you fancy yourself at replacing a calculator. Garbage In/Garbage Out

 

Quote; The Urban Institute puts the number at about 14%

1996??????............will not bother reading it!.............My 2019 flat tax math/logic of replacing existing Income tax receipts equates to 24%, Plus, or Minus 1%.

Key words; replacing existing income tax receipts

My math isn't total receipts

 

As compared to what rate now?

 

Mr. CPA....there are several types of Flat Tax proposals.

However, in reference to Urban's 14% flat rate (Did not read their proposal), this is how my brain works;

FACT; 14% Flat is 1.2% lower than FICA's Flat 15.2% on GROSS

FACT; Total Wages and Salaries, Sep 30th, 2019; $8.568 Trillion .........https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BA06RC1A027NBEA

$8.568 Trilion X a FLAT 14% withholding tax rate on GROSS GROSS GROSS, wages and salaries = $1.2 Trillion

$8.568 Trillion X FICA's FLAT 15.2% on GROSS = $1.3 trillion........What a near coincidence.......My NO CAP FICA = $1.250 trillion, thus $50 billion short

FY2019 Individual Receipts;

Withheld; $1.328 Trillion........................EQUATES TO AN AVERAGE 15% WITHHOLDING TAX RATE
Other; $634.3 billion...............................+ $634.3 BILLION FROM OTHER SOURCES
Total Gross; $1,962 trillion
Refunds; $244,7 billion
Net Income tax; $1.717 Trillion..............NET INCOME TAX RECEIPTS; $1.717 TRILLION

Table 4. Receipts of the U.S. Government, September 2019 and Other Periods
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0919.pdf

CONCLUSION; Urban's 14% Flat ''withholding'' on GROSS would not even replace FY2019 Individual Tax Receipts and FICA Receipts

 

Hey Pharma Boy......Look what I found;

Total Wages and Salaries, Sep 30th, 2019; $8.568 Trillion.......https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BA06RC1A027NBEA.

Now, before I continue, I better tell you that I adjusted Dec 31st, 2019 cumulative ($8.768 trillion), because I'm using fiscal numbers, thus, Sep 30th, and here's how I did the adjustment; 2019 Cumulative - 2018 Cumulative = $800 billion differential, minus one quarter, thus, minus $200 billion.

$8.568 Trillion X Flat 15.2% on Gross, and no cap = $1.3 trillion

My quick/estimated NO CAP FICA = 1.24 trillion

Now, let's do the math on Urban's FLAT 14%, and let's assume a 14% FLAT Withholding tax on GROSS

$8.568 Trillion X 14% = $1.2 trillion

FY2019 Actual Individual income Receipts;

Withheld; $1.328 Trillion........................EQUATES TO AN AVERAGE 15% WITHHOLDING TAX RATE
Other; $634.3 billion...............................+ $634.3 BILLION FROM OTHER SOURCES
Total Gross; $1,962 trillion
Refunds; $244,7 billion
Net Income tax; $1.717 Trillion..............NET INCOME TAX RECEIPTS; $1.717 TRILLION

Table 4. Receipts of the U.S. Government, September 2019 and Other Periods
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0919.pdf

CONCLUSION; I didn't read Urban's 14% proposal, however, Urban's 14% Flat ''withholding'' on GROSS would not even replace FY2019 Individual NET Tax Receipts and FICA's NET Tax Receipts...........Thanks for revealing your IQ level