Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP And It's Driving People Insane
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="inactive" data-source="post: 1788392" data-attributes="member: 7488"><p>So we'll compare you at $80,000 to someone who makes $40,000. And let's assume a rate of 25%</p><p></p><p>Income of 80,000, spends 40,000. Tax is 10,000. You take home 70,000 after taxes. 70,000 / 80,000 = 87.5% taken home</p><p>Income of 40,000, spends 40,000. Tax is 10,000. They take home 30,000 after taxes. 30,000 / 40,000 = 75% taken home</p><p></p><p>Let's take someone who makes $10 an hour, or $20,000 per year (round numbers):</p><p>Income of 20,000, spends 20,000. Tax is 5,000. They take home 15,000 after taxes. 15,000 / 20,000 = 75% taken home</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not gonna show my hand and say I am for or against a consumption tax. But the fact remains a consumption tax is by nature regressive. (I typed progressive earlier. The proper term is regressive). The nice thing about math is that it's consistent. A person who must spend what they make to subsist will never pay less than a 25% tax rate. People who can afford to spend more but don't are afforded a tax break. This is totally the definition of a regressive tax rate system. Though in all honestly, we have that today when comparing the middle class to the wealthy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inactive, post: 1788392, member: 7488"] So we'll compare you at $80,000 to someone who makes $40,000. And let's assume a rate of 25% Income of 80,000, spends 40,000. Tax is 10,000. You take home 70,000 after taxes. 70,000 / 80,000 = 87.5% taken home Income of 40,000, spends 40,000. Tax is 10,000. They take home 30,000 after taxes. 30,000 / 40,000 = 75% taken home Let's take someone who makes $10 an hour, or $20,000 per year (round numbers): Income of 20,000, spends 20,000. Tax is 5,000. They take home 15,000 after taxes. 15,000 / 20,000 = 75% taken home I am not gonna show my hand and say I am for or against a consumption tax. But the fact remains a consumption tax is by nature regressive. (I typed progressive earlier. The proper term is regressive). The nice thing about math is that it's consistent. A person who must spend what they make to subsist will never pay less than a 25% tax rate. People who can afford to spend more but don't are afforded a tax break. This is totally the definition of a regressive tax rate system. Though in all honestly, we have that today when comparing the middle class to the wealthy. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP And It's Driving People Insane
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom