Do I really have to explain why?Why isn’t it fair to pay the same rate on all income?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do I really have to explain why?Why isn’t it fair to pay the same rate on all income?
There are other ways to tax and make up the difference. Sales tax, use tax etc.It's really a pretty simple concept. As you can see the only "con" to a progressive tax is based primarily on feelings of grievance, whereas the pros are a net benefit to society at large.
And again, this is why virtually every single Western democracy utilizes a progressive tax system.
And now you have entered the pouting stage.Nope, I don't like giving my money to public programs that are wasteful, are not being used by me, and may be worse off for my kid. Maybe we can spend more on of our taxes on buying more crack pipes. That sounds good.
Sales tax disproportionately affect lower incomes.There are other ways to tax and make up the difference. Sales tax, use tax etc.
Lol. The conservative stance is the money follows the child. Not sure how I can help you anymore than that. You just come back with those are private schools. That's your only argument.Why isn't Reynolds doing this then?
Nah, sounds like you're making things up. Good workAnd now you have entered the pouting stage.
There isn’t a logical answer. You’re punishing people for earning more that they worked for the same as lower income workers. I’m fine with charging them for more on sales/use tax for example if they’re buying/using more with their higher income.Do I really have to explain why?
I don't need another argument. If you can't understand the difference between private and public spending, then that is on you.Lol. The conservative stance is the money follows the child. Not sure how I can help you anymore than that. You just come back with those are private schools. That's your only argument.
lol sure dude. I bet you're all for these jabs out here. Ooooh but that's different spending I'm sure in your mind.I don't need another argument. If you can't understand the difference between private and public spending, then that is on you.
So they should get a break there, too? People who earn more usually buy more thus leading to more sales tax revenue. People who earn more use roadways more, buying more gas thus paying more in taxes.Sales tax disproportionately affect lower incomes.
What's it like to live such a bitter life? I can't even imagine.The effective tax rate for two $50k earners in a family is 6.25%. So where are you getting a 4% cut? This family, at best, would save $2,250, and that's if they claim no deductions, which this bill also neuters. In all likelihood, they might see a few hundred dollar cut. Whoopee
The logical answer is that you can't squeeze juice from an orange with none to give.There isn’t a logical answer. You’re punishing people for earning more that they worked for the same as lower income workers. I’m fine with charging them for more on sales/use tax for example if they’re buying/using more with their higher income.
Sorry, but it's proven that it negatively affects working class people more.So they should get a break there, too? People who earn more usually buy more thus leading to more sales tax revenue. People who earn more use roadways more, buying more gas thus paying more in taxes.
Correct, and those are regressive taxes.There are other ways to tax and make up the difference. Sales tax, use tax etc.
Sales tax disproportionately affect lower incomes.
Why is it a punishment? I don't understand this feeling of grievance.There isn’t a logical answer. You’re punishing people for earning more that they worked for the same as lower income workers. I’m fine with charging them for more on sales/use tax for example if they’re buying/using more with their higher income.
How is a school voucher funding private schools? If a tax paying parent wants to spend the money their child would get to attend a public school, to send their child to a private school instead, sounds like a rational idea. Why should a child be forced to go to a public school? The public school education has gotten worse and worse over the years so giving parents an option for their children seems smart.What about school voucher waste? Why are taxpayers footing the bill for private schools?
Pat yourself on the back. I would rather keep more of my own hard earned money.Why is it a punishment? I don't understand this feeling of grievance.
You are INVESTING in a society/community/government structure that is designed to support your business, your livelihood, etc. Better schools mean better and smarter workers. A better environment means better recreational opportunities, safer drinking water, etc., etc.
A real world example: Mrs. Torbee's company has a fleet of trucks that take product between branches in 3 states. Better infrastructure means less wear-and-tear on the trucks, less frequent replacement, etc. A better healthcare system that is affordable for her workers means less days missed and higher efficiency from workers. Those types of expenditures by government save money to businesses and individuals in the long term.
My wife and I are in a fairly high tax bracket here in Iowa -- but Iowa has been a FANTASTIC place for us to raise our family and for us to work and build wealth. We want to see it remain fantastic -- and since we can afford it, we don't feel overly burdened by being asked to contribute more than others who have not been as privileged or lucky or - gasp - even as hardworking as we have. We consider it part and parcel of being good citizens.
\
Why should a child be forced to go to a public school?
Right, because you care more about yourself than the society you live in.Pat yourself on the back. I would rather keep more of my own hard earned money.
And childless people are also forced to fund public schools -- because it is good for everyone to have an educated populace.The child isn't forced to attend a public school,... the child's parents are forced to fund the public school.
Why? When the public schools have abdicated their mission to teach reading writing and arithmetic and are more concerned with teacher unions, CRT and the like, parents deserve an option. It's their tax dollars after all.The child isn't forced to attend a public school,... the child's parents are forced to fund the public school.
No you aren't bright enough to be a conservative. That's okay the world needs ditch diggers too.Right, because you care more about yourself than the society you live in.
Which is why I will never be a conservative.
Well this will be a nice financial boost to Mrs. Torbee and I at least.
For those who were sorta hoping Iowa would still have top notch public schools and robust social services, you have my Ts and Ps. Hey, we tried to vote for the folks that would have taxed us higher, but I guess ya'll know better. God bless and good luck!
Why? When the public schools have abdicated their mission to teach reading writing and arithmetic and are more concerned with teacher unions, CRT and the like, parents deserve an option. It's their tax dollars after all.
Private schools are for-profit schools. I don't think public tax money should go to fattening some schools' bank account. Another aspect that I have a severe problem with is that a lot of private schools are religious-based. Public tax money should not be funding Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, etc schools.Lol. The conservative stance is the money follows the child. Not sure how I can help you anymore than that. You just come back with those are private schools. That's your only argument.
Sorry, already helping pay for the ACA.I have an account that you can donate to for my surgery.
Sorry, already helping pay for the ACA.
You can thank President Obama.
ACA doesn’t pay for my heel implants. Trying to get about 3” taller.
The CR Municipal golf courses are a pretty good value, especially if you play a lot and get a season pass. And, the last time I heard, the City loses money on the golf courses.So, we pay taxes for all kids, not just those who don't go to private schools. Give a better argument.
As a society, we have a vested interest in a well educated youth. They pay back that education by working later in life and paying taxes. if a private school can do it more efficiently, I’m all for them doing it. They have to take everyone. The delinquents. The learning disabled. The kid with autism. The kid with cerebral palsy. I’m against finding two separate systems. It’s a waste of taxpayer money.The argument is the money follows the child. You don't like it because it could go to private schools if the parent chooses. If I don't use the public school system, then I shouldn't have to pay the tax. Either that or the money I pay goes with my kid. Liberal hive minds.
Full of 💩💩💩💩. You have no interest in my kind of intelligent discussion and are only looking to troll. Literally, not one secondary school in Iowa teaches CRT. Teachers unions in Iowa are simply powerless, neutered by an extremist Republican agenda.Why? When the public schools have abdicated their mission to teach reading writing and arithmetic and are more concerned with teacher unions, CRT and the like, parents deserve an option. It's their tax dollars after all.
So to get this straight. Iowa over charged working class taxpayers so are giving back by giving tax cuts to the rich? Is this really the moronic angle the Rs are using?
Those will looks sweet on you!
You might want to compare public pension liabilities.It's a good thing Iowans like to make fun of Illinois's finances and are now going to the same basic system of taxation that Illinois uses.
In reading this Iowa should become the model for the rest of the U.S.The Iowa House has approved a plan to gradually move to a “simple, responsible” income tax rate of 4 percent for all Iowans despite warning that it will increase the gap between haves and have-nots and reduce the state’s ability to support services such as education and public safety.
“This is a historic tax bill that will change the climate in the state of Iowa for years to come,” Ways and Means Chairman Lee Hein, R-Monticello, told the House before House File 2317 was approved with bipartisan support, 61-37, Wednesday.
The bill, one of three GOP tax relief plans under consideration, would phase in a four-year gradual reduction in Iowa’s personal income tax rate from the current top rate of 8.53 percent for the highest wage earners to 4 percent for all taxpayers.
Those highest earners will reap the most benefits, according to 39 of 40 Democrats who voted against the bill.
“I am not a millionaire. I do not make a million dollars a year,” House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst, D-Windsor Heights, said. “But if I did, I would sure like the tax cuts we've had the last few years.”
Tax relief should focus on middle-class Iowans “who deserve a tax cut most because they've been left behind in other tax cuts,” Konfrst said.
Millionaires will pay more, Hein said. An Iowan with a gross income of $1 million or more would pay “well over $40,000 in taxes” under the plan. A working couple with one child with wages somewhere around $70,000 would pay $3,600.
“Who will pay more taxes? Obviously the rich,” Hein said.
Older Iowans will see a “huge benefit” because the bill exempts retirement income from income taxes. Iowa would become the 13th state to make retirement benefits tax-free.
Tax relief is a priority of Republicans who argue the state can afford to return taxpayers’ “overpayment” by lowering tax rates.
HF 2317 is nearly the same as Gov. Kim Reynolds’ plan in that it would lower the state income tax to 4 percent. Unlike her plan and the Senate bill, the House doesn’t include any corporate income tax relief. The Senate would go further by lowering the tax rates to 3.6 percent and using a state taxpayer relief fund to eventually eliminate the income tax altogether.
Senate File 2206 has been approved by the Ways and Means Committee. The governor’s plan, House Study Bill 551, has been assigned to a House Ways and Means subcommittee.
According to a Legislative Services Agency analysis, the House bill would lower income tax collections by $5.8 billion from fiscal 2023 through fiscal 2028. That would be partially offset with transfers of $829 million from the taxpayer relief fund for a net impact on state revenue of $5.002 billion over six years. Republicans have proposed an $8.2 billion general fund budget for the fiscal year starting July 1.
A 4 percent flat tax, according to House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, “doesn't pick winners and losers. We've been clear since beginning of session, we have the money to pass a tax cut without raising taxes on others.”
“Picking winners and losers. That's what we've been doing for a long time and I think it's time the middle class won,” Konfrst said.
Democrats filed amendments seeking to improve the GOP plan. One by Rep. Steve Hansen, D-Sioux City — who voted for the bill — would lower the tax rate to 4 percent for couples filing jointly with incomes up to $150,000 and 6 percent for others. The top bracket would gradually decrease to 4.82 percent.
Konfrst proposed a new tax bracket that would cap the 4 percent rate at $1 million so those with higher incomes would be taxed 6.5 percent.
Other proposed amendments would have expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, the credit for emergency medical services personnel, the deduction for teachers’ expenses and increase the Iowa Child and Dependent Tax Credit to 100 percent of the federal credit for those making less than $45,000 a year.
Iowa GOP’s 4% flat tax plan gets bipartisan support
The bill, one of three GOP tax relief plans under consideration, would phase in a four-year gradual reduction in Iowa’s personal income tax rate from the current top rate of 8.53 percent for the highest wage earners to 4 percent for all taxpayers.www.thegazette.com
Might want to double check that public school number.I did some research into exactly how much tuition costs at places like Regina and then compared them to the public costs. The Regina information was found from a PDF on tuition rates from the Diocese of Davenport for 20-21 school year, the other from US Public Education Spending.
Regina K-6th - $9,630 a year.
Regina 7-8th - $11,915 a year.
Regina 9-12th - $17,995 a year.
Iowa Public K-12th - $11,656 is spent a year. 3.96% of our state taxes go towards public education so a 4% flat tax would absolutely cripple public education. One thing to note is that nothing was listed for how many students were special education needs students, I suspect if that was removed it would be even cheaper.
Btw, stop bringing CRT into the discussion. CRT being taught in elementary/middle/high school is a red herring made up to scare gullible fools. CRT is only being taught in a high-level college course and would be something a regular Bachelor's degree wouldn't even sniff at. It would only be seen at the Masters or Ph.D. level.