Question on paying taxes on poker winnings.

[chrisdhal]

A flat tax is a flat percentage, not amount, per person. HUGE difference. If it's a 10% flat tax your ditch digger pays #1200 and your playboy will pay propotionately the same (ie. on interest, earnings, etc.).

In other words, it's fair because everybody pays the same percent.

[Cashcow]

Mr. Ditch digger pays more than $1000 a year in taxes anyway: sales tax, property tax, gas tax, etc.

I agree with the fact that tax is a necessity, and I don't mind paying my taxes, but I believe that paying taxes on gambling (poker) is not really a fair tax. Can you claim losing poker as a deduction? I think not, so why can you be taxed if you win? (not 100% sure, you actually may be able to deduct a small amount as a buisness loss if you are a proffesional poker player/gambler)
I'm all for taxes, and I know my friends, family and I all reap the benefits of these taxes. I also think that there are limits and that those limits may have been exceeded.

Just my 2 cents, I see both sides of the arguement, but lean more to the side of taxing poker winnings wrong.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Say it comes out to $1000 a head. Now take that $1000 from everybody. Well, when you take it from the Poor Schlub who digs ditches for a living and makes $12,000 a year, you are taking a months income. That $1000 probably means the kids don't get new shoes, or they don't eat meat on Wednesdays, or some other sacrifice they must make that really hurts, in order to pay the $1000.

Contrast it to Mr. Never Worked A Day In His Life PlayBoy. Paying that $1000, means a little insignificent digit in one of his many 6-figure bank accounts, or mutual funds, or 1 less T-Bill has changed. The Polo Ponies still get fed the best oats, and it is still Lobster and Champagne at the Country Club on Thursday Nights. He never really even notices the missing $1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK for someone to have up to half of his income seized by the Federal government as long as he has worked hard in life?

That's ridiculous. What about the doctor who sacrificed 8 years of his youth going to school, spending tons of money on tuition/loans to get somewhere? What about the businessman who doesn't know what it's like to get home before the sun sets?

No new shoes? No meat on Wednesdays? Is that your idea of a sacrifice? Boo-hoo - get real.

Also, since you apparently don't know how a flat tax works, I will teach you.

$1,000 is 8.3% of $12,000. How much is your hypothetical Playboy making a year? $250,000? $500,000? $1,000,000. 8.3% of any of those figures is not $1000. Actually, 8.3% of all of any of those figures is more than your hypothetical ditch digger makes in a whole year.

I don't see how someone can have to pay a greater percentage of his income and still have that be declared a "fair share."

[ QUOTE ]
So why is it so wrong to take $2000 from Mr. Playboy, and nothing from Poor Schlub? While Poor Schlub is digging a ditch at Mr. Playboy's new Shopping Center development, he can be relieved that the kids will at least have some new clothes from the thrift store when they go to school, and Mr. Playboy can still easily afford the gas to allow his driver to swing the Limo by the constuction site to see the progress on his newest real estate project, on his way to the morning Squash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of these two highly hypothetical, unlikely extremes is hilarious. I suppose it's perfectly OK to penalize successful people for their hard work and babysitting irresponsible screwups is the right thing to do, eh?

I spent years dealing with irrational authority in public schools, years at college, years working a job underpaid for experience, etc... etc... etc... to get where I am today and to set the stage for where I will be tomorrow, yet I'm expected to put food in the mouth of someone who wasn't responsible enough to do it themselves?

Some people are just too stupid to live in a free society. They need a benevolent dictator or something.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, one is enjoying the fruits of the environment created by this Government more than the other, and by taking an equal flat dollar amount from each, one has to pay far more than the other in Lifestyle choices.
Not "fair" at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said flat tax. Not flat dollar amount. Pay attention. To take $1,000 from everybody and calling it a fair tax would be like.... like.... wow, it's so absurd I can't even think of something worse to compare it to.

[cardcounter0]

Okay, so take 10% from everybody.

10% from the ditchdigger making $12,000 a year = $1,200.
You have deeply changed the quality of life for this guy and his family. That $1,200 (10%) really hurts.

I'm thinking about a former member of Bush's cabinet, who had a little flap a while back. Seems he had about 70 million dollars stashed away in t-bills, that he had forgotten about or was unaware of, for over a year.

But let's take a much poorer slob that that -- $50 million.
10% of $50 million = $5 million dollars!!!

Now compare the changes:
Guy did have $12,000 now has $10,800 - big difference.
Guy had $50 million now has $45 million - uh, can only afford a 120 foot yacht instead of the 130 foot yacht like he really wanted?

[cardcounter0]

Okay, so take 10% from everybody.

10% from the ditchdigger making $12,000 a year = $1,200.
You have deeply changed the quality of life for this guy and his family. That $1,200 (10%) really hurts.

I'm thinking about a former member of Bush's cabinet, who had a little flap a while back. Seems he had about 70 million dollars stashed away in t-bills, that he had forgotten about or was unaware of, for over a year.

But let's take a much poorer slob that that -- $50 million.
10% of $50 million = $5 million dollars!!!

Now compare the changes:
Guy did have $12,000 now has $10,800 - big difference.
Guy had $50 million now has $45 million - uh, can only afford a 120 foot yacht instead of the 130 foot yacht like he really wanted?

[GWB]

Maybe you are suggesting that we take 100% of your income over a certain limit (say $100,000). Would that make you happy?

[Cashcow]

Who's fault is it that he is digging ditches and not doing brain surgury?
Ohh wait, it's his own fault. And don't even give me the line of crap that says, he had a rough childhood, or he didn't get a chance, or some other cop out. We all make our own choices, and the people that work (not that the ditch digger isn't working hard, just that he settled for less pay) and make more money shouldn't get the shaft.

[chrisdhal]

So you penalize somebody for being successful? Why not make it like Great Britain in the 70s where people were getting taxed at rates around 98%. There's a reason why successful rock group members (ie. the Stones, Beatles, etc.) all moved away from there: they couldn't make money from their work. If you want to tax somebody that much then you take away the incentive to do anything.

Your example still lowers both people's standard of living by 10% which is the SAME. Just because your ditch digger didn't go to college or can't improve his life doesn't mean that you punish others for being successful. What if suddenly your ditch digger invents something revolutionary and makes a billion dollars. Should he suddenly be taxed so that he essentially is back at his previous level just to make it fair to his previous crew who wasn't smart enough to figure something out?

[cardcounter0]

No, why would something crazy like that be fair?
That would mean no matter how hard you worked, your lifestyle would be capped at $100,000? Naw.

But to call a system that really causes pain and lifestyle disruption at the low end, and is not noticable at the high end, and calling it "fair" is nuts.

There is a difference between making $10,000/yr and $12,000/yr - that $2000 is significent. The difference between making 10 million/yr. or 8 million/yr. -- would anyone notice? What sacrifices would you have to make?

Obviously, if a flat tax system were implimented the large majority in the middle wouldn't be effected that much. Somebody has to pay for it, and the majority has been paying for it, so splitting it up even isn't going to change that much.

But at the extreme edges -- yeah, the poor have been getting a free ride, right. They are poor, even if you took ALL the money from the poor -- they don't have that much, that's why they are called poor. All the money from the poor would probably equal 1 or 2 tax breaks that some billionaire gets.

So why squeeze the poor more? Why not squeeze the extreme rich were all the money is anyways. If the extreme rich were squeezed so they were effected the same amount as the middle class -- there would be changes in govt. spending damm fast!

[cardcounter0]

Uh, no? A sudden billionaire back to his previous level? How could that happen? That would mean that you would be reducing all billionaires to poverty. Not what I said.

I said taking 10% from someone who makes $12,000/yr creates huge burden and life style change.

Do you honestly think that $5 million from someone making $50 million creates a lifestyle change?

What would it be?