Welcome to Thunderdome

I think you both have very valid points.

Catt, you skipped the flat tax question. If you threw out the tax code and simply implemented a 15% flat tax, would that work? Everyone would pay their "fair share", but the totals would obviously be different. What's the argument against?

Leisher wrote: Catt, you skipped the flat tax question. If you threw out the tax code and simply implemented a 15% flat tax, would that work? Everyone would pay their "fair share", but the totals would obviously be different. What's the argument against?

1) 15% is too low to balance a budget. It'd probably need to be 22% or so.

2) The marginal tax dollar from the 80% provides more utility to them than the marginal tax dollar from the other 20% (ie: The poor/middle class feel more pain in a 15% system marginally). From an economic perspective, societal welfare is maximized using a progressive system.

3) Rich will still just keep getting richer, wealth inequality, etc.

Leisher wrote: I think you both have very valid points.

I agree, both sides make good arguments.

If pressed, I would lean toward the side that says income growth hasn't kept up with whatever. There's a lot of good that could be done with some massive wealth redistribution, and personally I'd like to see a "Guaranteed Minimum Income" tried for a decade, or so. See what happens.

As long as it doesn't fuck me personally, of course.

Problem is a lot of "wealth" is in intangible paper like "owns a lot of Google, owns a lot of amazon." That can't really be redistributed without tearing it down? I dunno. Spread out half of google to the citizens, and watch 80% of them sell off their stock on day 1 in order to get drunk as fuck, then the same people own it again.

Ignore the inflammatory headline, but this provides a more detailed picture of tax burden.

The bottom 50% pay little in income tax, yet still have a high tax burden due primarily to sales taxes and payroll taxes.

TheCatt wrote: The bottom 50% pay little in income tax, yet still have a high tax burden due primarily to sales taxes and payroll taxes.

Let's say we made a flat tax of 21% for the feds, 3% for the state, and 1% for your city. Now eliminate the sales tax.

Could those numbers work? Would it help to reduce the burden for the poor versus the rich? I would also consider keeping certain deductions to further reduce the burden, like kids, education, healthcare costs, and home payments. Yes, the rich could still claim those deductions as well, but the percentage of their tax bill it knocks off versus a poor person would be vastly different.

If that's not enough cash for the government, let them take earn their cash via sins. Marijuana, legalized gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, legalized prostitution, strippers, etc. all represent industries that people want to be legal, and those that don't can justify allowing them because of the tax revenue they generate. The government can not only tax this stuff, but they can sell licenses for growers, sellers, etc. and regulate it all to ensure safety.

Obviously, this is a gross simplification of taxes, but I'm just curious if such an idea could theoretically work.

Leisher wrote: Could those numbers work? Would it help to reduce the burden for the poor versus the rich?

I think those #s are probably too low. Total tax burden (for state/local) varies from 5% to 13%, and the 2 rates below 6% are kept low from 1) oil (Alaska) and 2) corporate revenue (all those companies HQd in Delaware)

But, conceivably, moving purely to income taxes would reduce the burden on lower income people.

Still leaves payroll taxes out there, which don't get impacted by investment income, which most wealthy have.

TheCatt wrote: (all those companies HQd in Delaware)

Lil' Dickey specifically references registering his company in Delaware in his song "Save Dat Money".

TheCatt wrote: I think those #s are probably too low.

I figured the state number would be low, but if the feds, states, and cities could properly split up the "sin money", I figure they would recoup their losses from lower taxes, and then some.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I would completely eliminate any sort of death tax. That'd be a bone I'd throw to the rich for the new tax code. Now they don't have to try hiding their money everywhere.

I wish candidates would be willing to actually discuss this stuff. In a deeper, more meaningful way than just "tax cuts" or "tax everyone except you if you vote for me".

TheCatt wrote: Still leaves payroll taxes out there

Medicaid, medicare, SS?

Leisher wrote: Medicaid, medicare, SS?

Yes.

Leisher wrote: Oh, and I forgot to mention that I would completely eliminate any sort of death tax. That'd be a bone I'd throw to the rich for the new tax code. Now they don't have to try hiding their money everywhere.

That tax code is still pretty sweet to the rich. Lack of estate taxes would just make it moreso

TheCatt wrote: Yes.

Not sure what the fix is for those things aside from a culling of retired people. I do know it should immediately be made illegal for Congress to touch SS.

TheCatt wrote: That tax code is still pretty sweet to the rich. Lack of estate taxes would just make it moreso

Good. It should be awesome to be rich. That inspires people to create and work hard.

Leisher wrote: Good. It should be awesome to be rich. That inspires people to create and work hard.

Yeah, I've always had a problem with taxing the same dollar more than once.

Leisher wrote: Job market is so good people are leaving jobs without ever starting.

Hopefully they never need to re-apply to those companies when times are less good.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Job market is so good people are leaving jobs without ever starting.

Hopefully they never need to re-apply to those companies when times are less good.

I gotta imagine this happens in lower wage, fill-a-seat type jobs. "I was going to work at McDonalds but Chipotle offered me 50 cents more over the weekend" type deals. Or the same deal but someone working with multiple staffing agencies. Basically the type of people who would never be bit in the ass by this. I wouldn't have any loyalty for the company in these situations either, having seen the agency side of things.

Troy wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Job market is so good people are leaving jobs without ever starting.

Hopefully they never need to re-apply to those companies when times are less good.

I gotta imagine this happens in lower wage, fill-a-seat type jobs. "I was going to work at McDonalds but Chipotle offered me 50 cents more over the weekend" type deals. Or the same deal but someone working with multiple staffing agencies. Basically the type of people who would never be bit in the ass by this. I wouldn't have any loyalty for the company in these situations either, having seen the agency side of things.

Happened to me once in software dev. Guy applied for a job back in 2000(?) then applied for another job in 2010 (Different companies), but I remembered him!

And I don't think they're asking for loyalty, but a "sorry I took another job" thing would be great.

Troy has to be right or those people are fucking nuts.

Still, you'd think they would learn some common courtesy and just call the original job to tell them what's up.

TheCatt wrote: And I don't think they're asking for loyalty, but a "sorry I took another job" thing would be great.

Eh.

Almost every company ghosts applicants when they decide to pass, even if there had been a few steps in the process. Not cool waiting for calls that never come.

GORDON wrote:

TheCatt wrote: And I don't think they're asking for loyalty, but a "sorry I took another job" thing would be great.

Eh.

Almost every company ghosts applicants when they decide to pass, even if there had been a few steps in the process. Not cool waiting for calls that never come.

*gets vague generic rejection email 2 months later *

GORDON wrote:

TheCatt wrote: And I don't think they're asking for loyalty, but a "sorry I took another job" thing would be great.

Eh.

Almost every company ghosts applicants when they decide to pass, even if there had been a few steps in the process. Not cool waiting for calls that never come.

I interview for jobs every year, to make sure my resume/etc are up to date. SO my sample size is small, and the jobs are professional ones, but everywhere has given me a clear resolution.

They probably appreciate the nudes you include.

I'm torn. I think it's common courtesy to let them know you're going with another position elsewhere. But I also can't help but feel that'd be a ding against you if you applied for another position at said company at a later date anyway.