Flat tax is going to pass in both Iowa House and Senate
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
^^^^Pushing the costs to local govt entities.
Property taxes, local option sales taxes, likely removing the homestead exemption...all tricks to make local government the villian.
This just makes no fvcking sense and Dim Kim will be long gone before residents of Mississippi North realize how corrupt she is/was.
Not exactly a hot take there. We dont choose a lot of stuff but those things affect the rest of our lives.
Then its all about what we make out of those circumstances right?
More importantly, instead of complaining about how some are less fortunate, what is your solution? Taking from those you find have more advantages? Levelling every one down rather than everyone up?
I'm thinking you have a few too many 0s in that US population number....
I've posted graphs in a prior post. Didn't you look at them?
Our system is highly progressive. Just not progressive enough for you right?
25% of ones income is the maximally reasonable amount. No one, I repeat, no one should pay more than that to the federal government.
So if you think we aren't progressive because those making over 1 million aren't paying 30-40-50% then we aren't ever going to agree.
I believe in making your own way. One can be granted advantages to give them a hand up but taking from those that have worked hard, and this is the vast majority of the rich, only to have the all knowing government decide who gets what is immoral.
I freely pay my tax as an agreement with being a citizen of the US. But there has to be a limit.
What is your upper limit?
So I do. Thank you. So the corrected math, and post, is 2500 per person not 3 dollars.
That is a massive difference true. But I stand by it. A family of 4 pays 10k. Shouldnt we all have to pay for that?
You keep talking about something different. We're talking about the state of Iowa going to a flat tax. The flat tax is not a progressive tax system.
That 380K affects them a helluva lot less than $3800 does to most middle class people. Republican tax cuts save them millions. It saves the middle class a few hundred if we're lucky. Trump's tax cuts did basically nothing for me at all. That's the part that isn't "fair".
It is my understanding that the state tax reductions are related to a state surplus. As long as that is true, the taxes would be intended to reduce individual tax burden to balance out the surplus.
Otherwise, wouldn't Kim just make it zero now.
Otherwise, wouldn't Kim just make it zero now.
I am completely fine with putting money towards Ukraine - I'm a child of the 70s and 80s and I know Russia is NOT our friend. I like being in NATO. Having said that, you are right in many ways because we send billions to other countries that doesn't always make sense to me...feels more like payoffs. There are billions that should stay here in the US. Not for tax breaks for the wealthy but to be invested back into the country. IMO.
Ok. No more discussion here until everyone admits to the following:
“When I say ‘flat tax’, what I REALLY mean is, ‘To tax gross income (meaning, ALL income)’, not some ‘taxable income’ number arrived at after deductions and adjustments. Hell, I’m really fine with varying (progressive) rates on income levels. It’s the write offs that piss me off”.
“When I say ‘flat tax’, what I REALLY mean is, ‘To tax gross income (meaning, ALL income)’, not some ‘taxable income’ number arrived at after deductions and adjustments. Hell, I’m really fine with varying (progressive) rates on income levels. It’s the write offs that piss me off”.
An income of $250,000/year puts you in the top 4% for household income in the country. What do YOU define as “rich”.
You understand that to collect 25% of a million…or more…dollars, the top rate has to be higher than 25%, right? For billionaires, their top rate would have to be much higher. You don’t expect someone making $30K to pay 25% in federal taxes, I assume.
I’m good with that plan.
To be clear, I have issues/concerns on both sides of this debate. In this case though you have to define deductions when talking gross income. So, someone farming sells all of their grain at the end of the year and that is worth $2M. The inputs (seed, fertilizer, fuel, etc.) are $1.5M. What is your gross income in that scenario.
You make so much more sense to me now.
In my experience people go one way or another when they come from nothing and make something of themselves.
I know the way you’ve chosen very well. And if you need to ask which way I mean, you’re bad at introspection.
More liberal jibberish. Governor Reynolds and the legislature know better than you creeps by about 1,000,000x
Wish that were true, but we know the motives of Terrace Hill.
Mississippi North is fvcked!
Do you currently live in Iowa?
I live here and the state is financially stronger than ever before. The residents of Iowa are reaping the benefits of a well run state.
I take it you prefer a California type model of state government, one where the freebies never stop and the state is bankrupt because of it.
How would Iowans know if the State's finances are fiscally sound???
Dim Kim won't allow audits to verify our situation.
Just take her word for it?
My IPERS is pretax contribution and I won’t pay any iowa tax. So is an ira.
Someone who is better at the investing stuff could chime in on this. Social Security is more than retirement it’s also disability. Would you also come out ahead if you had to buy disability insurance?
I'm a little groogy after a fun night but I believe IRAs go in pre tax but get taxed coming out.
You pay tax on any investment it's just a matter of paying it when it goes in or when it comes out, that's why the power of zero is what it is.
A flat tax is not even part of the reason for why Illinois has high taxes and is broke...
I don't disagree with a lot - and this has likely been discussed in this thread - but the definition "rich guy" is rather important. For example, some people here like @Hoosierhawkeye thinks making $80K per year is being a rich guy. Other people might say $250K per year is "rich"." Others might say $500K per year. Yet others can reasonable argue rich depends on where you live and what your expenses are. Defining a "rich guy" as a household with a $500K income, I doubt anything more than a small percentage of those family got assets from Daddy with a stepped up basis. To that point, while not mutually exclusive, that would run counter to having most of his wealth in tax-deferred assets (like a 401k).
So, if there is a reasonable upper limit there should be a reasonable lower limit as well. Correct? One that would apply to billionaires as well. Like Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. They shouldn’t have billions on gross income and pay little to no taxes, correct? The deductions that are carved out only for the wealthy should go away, correct?
It may be different with state income tax in Iowa. I'm not an expert or enjoying any such revenue stream, so I don't have first-hand knowledge, but that is what Joel indicated.
He’ll be taxed at the federal level but if he’s over 55, he’s exempt from state taxes on retirement income.
IDoes that also apply to principal that was never taxed on the way into the account?
For the record I wouldn't define 80k a year as rich unless maybe you are a single person, but generally I don't look at that as "rich".
I mean it's richer than I am but not rich. That's somewhere around median house hold income for today.
My contention however is the line where someone stops being considered middle class should be much lower than it is in the popular imagination.
Reason I say that is people will say something like 50k to 250k is middle class. My issue with that is that 50k is about 37.5% lower than median household income. So in my view that means that the upper limit of "middle class" should be about 37.5% higher than median which would put it at 110k.
My other reasoning is that the middle class should be smaller because if we are defining class we should define it by similar lived economic experiences. And the only thing in common between someone who makes 50k and someone who makes 250k is that neither of them can afford a private jet. But that's just not very much in common. Outside of that small stupid little example their lived economic experiences are VERY VERY different.
I think that might be where you are going with that. But no I don't think 80k is rich. I just detest this idea that someone making 250k is middle class. If you are making more in one year than my house is worth, you and I are not in the same economic class. And quite frankly I believe the reason we go with that is because the people making 250k want to see themselves as like the common man despite their privileged position in society. I believe it's a very weird and difficult thing to admit you are extremely wealthy so those who are wealthy often try to act like they arn't in superficial ways like trying to call themselves "middle class"
Sorry, I thought you made that point in another thread awhile back. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
I also had a thread where I posted what I thought tax rates should be which is pretty out of line with normal even leftist thought. However one should keep in mind that the numbers I was using for that was "taxable income" and not gross income. So I was talking about income only after all deductions one typically receives. And quite frankly I wouldn't be opposed to increasing deductions people receive. My view is that taxes objectively should aim as much as possible a person's disposable income.
And also I was sort of making some stuff up off the cuff so it probably wasn't one of my best posts.
I wonder if people actually believe this or if it’s just something they like thinking.
Similar threads
