Sorry, Business Insider, we just can't let you get away with using the words "intense" and "Rand Paul" in the same sentence like this: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) released an intense new video on Tuesday where he appears to be literally destroying the US tax code.
If the scale is set up and numbers are easy, the political will is there. People despise the tax code because they feel in the pit of their stomach that the entire reason for the volume is to hide the special benefits for those that get to game the system. If I know my rate is 20% and I know the big money guy really does pay 30%, then I think most people are good with that kind of change. When you start in with deductions for a dancing horse or the corporate jet, that is when people start to get wiggy about where they stand in comparison to other.
Thanks, you're correct. Added a disclaimer to that effect in the comment to which you are responding. Wikipedia reminds me that this is the difference between the effective tax rate and the marginal tax rate.
Taking my examples above: $95K is actually $20K at 0%, $30K at 15% ($25.5K after taxes), and $45K at 20% ($36K after taxes) for a total after taxes of $82K. The 10% raise means $50K at 20% ($40K aftertax) and only $4.5K at 35% ($2.925, I think), for a total of about $88K. Likewise, the $18K -> $21K example receives $20.85K after taxes.
If I'm screwing up my math, be kind, 'cause while I can do the numbers in my head easily enough, the dollar signs trigger financial anxiety (even talking about the stuff abstractly) and I make bone-head mistakes.
Also, this is (somewhat indirectly) the reason that they print out schedules (which don't fit onto a single page legibly and at reasonable granularity at the same time). I confused effective tax rate with top marginal tax rate. The rates given in the list/stack are marginal tax rates that apply to the money earned in that bracket only; the effective tax rate for anyone in each bracket is some amount less than the marginal tax rate for the top bracket in which they earn (because they also earn at lower rates in all the lower brackets).
Biel_ze_Bubba suggests that it's a continuous function; the schedules would not be needed if there were "an app for that," as there prolly will be, in some countries, some time this century (I may even live to see it). The schedules exist because asking the average citizen to do any math at all on the return leads to errors. Asking taxpayers to calculate separate percentages on the money earned in each tax bracket is a guarantee of widespread error (deliberate or not). "Look up this number in that table and put the number you find in this box" allows the effective tax rate for a particular bracket to be calculated in advance, and then the filer just fills it in. But calculation (if it were trustworthy) would be better.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that opposition to taxation is that simple, or that somehow creating trust in the system after it's established would permit us to get it passed in the first place.
Ever seen fried chicken where the pieces weren't all readily identifiable? That's "chainsaw chicken", and I wouldn't even trust him to whip up a batch of that...
If the scale is set up and numbers are easy, the political will is there. People despise the tax code because they feel in the pit of their stomach that the entire reason for the volume is to hide the special benefits for those that get to game the system. If I know my rate is 20% and I know the big money guy really does pay 30%, then I think most people are good with that kind of change. When you start in with deductions for a dancing horse or the corporate jet, that is when people start to get wiggy about where they stand in comparison to other.
Dok, I particularly liked the Crazy Eddie reference since both Pournelle and Niven are at least pseudoglibertarians (or at least used to be).
Thanks, you're correct. Added a disclaimer to that effect in the comment to which you are responding. Wikipedia reminds me that this is the difference between the effective tax rate and the marginal tax rate.
Taking my examples above: $95K is actually $20K at 0%, $30K at 15% ($25.5K after taxes), and $45K at 20% ($36K after taxes) for a total after taxes of $82K. The 10% raise means $50K at 20% ($40K aftertax) and only $4.5K at 35% ($2.925, I think), for a total of about $88K. Likewise, the $18K -> $21K example receives $20.85K after taxes.
If I'm screwing up my math, be kind, 'cause while I can do the numbers in my head easily enough, the dollar signs trigger financial anxiety (even talking about the stuff abstractly) and I make bone-head mistakes.
Also, this is (somewhat indirectly) the reason that they print out schedules (which don't fit onto a single page legibly and at reasonable granularity at the same time). I confused effective tax rate with top marginal tax rate. The rates given in the list/stack are marginal tax rates that apply to the money earned in that bracket only; the effective tax rate for anyone in each bracket is some amount less than the marginal tax rate for the top bracket in which they earn (because they also earn at lower rates in all the lower brackets).
Biel_ze_Bubba suggests that it's a continuous function; the schedules would not be needed if there were "an app for that," as there prolly will be, in some countries, some time this century (I may even live to see it). The schedules exist because asking the average citizen to do any math at all on the return leads to errors. Asking taxpayers to calculate separate percentages on the money earned in each tax bracket is a guarantee of widespread error (deliberate or not). "Look up this number in that table and put the number you find in this box" allows the effective tax rate for a particular bracket to be calculated in advance, and then the filer just fills it in. But calculation (if it were trustworthy) would be better.
Seriously? 173 comments and no one has asked this?
Saaaay... you know who ELSE destroyed a paper copy of a document he hated when he was running for national leader???
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that opposition to taxation is that simple, or that somehow creating trust in the system after it's established would permit us to get it passed in the first place.
I'm telling you, this is just gonna get Craaaazier and Craaaaazier. We are all gonna be too exhausted to vote in November 2016, mark my words!
nope . . . people might start thinking he isn't a replicant if he does that.
all tools require a blood sacrifice sooner or later.
[ the sooner you learn this the safer you will (try to) be ]
if you look closely, he's wearing those minimal-protection-but-at-least-i-don't-look-like-a-dork "safety" glasses.
I believe that Senator Paul is self-certified in chainsaw operations.
They make chainsaws much better now. I use them for carving. That was unthinkable in recent memory.
Sinead O'Connor?
Wait, you said he.
Didn't Obama destroy his Kenyon birth certificate and college transcripts?
Apparently Reince Priebus isn't so good at handling a big tool either.
Ever seen fried chicken where the pieces weren't all readily identifiable? That's "chainsaw chicken", and I wouldn't even trust him to whip up a batch of that...
It's almost as if complex things require complex laws and complex laws require complex documents! But to hell with nuance.