It's Time For A Flat Tax.

[Skull Pilot]

Piloting a project like the flat tax is certainly a challenge and one that might encourage overlooking facts.
Although the recent illegal war in Iraq was fought by an army that is technically volunteer, the fact is that the social classes most involved have very few alternatives to military service as a beginning career path. It should also be remembered that past wars, upon which the current US society depended for its survival, were fought by conscripts from the poorer levels of the system.
But the flesh of their children is not the only contribution the working class makes disproportionately to the rich. Every echelon of infrastructure emplacement and maintenance is provided by the same group.

For which they get paid. No one works for free so don't make it sound like people are fixing roads for free. And you forgot to mention the most important thing: People are free to choose the work they do. No one is forced to fix roads or build bridges.

And engineers get paid. Surveyors, draftsmen, secretaries, Resident Inspectors, contractors, laborers, material providers, equipment manufacturers, property developers, real estate agents, landscapers and every single person driving across the public highways all benefit from them.

And all those folks now will have disposable income. And that leads to consumer spending. And THAT leads to job growth. Shoveling money to the rich ain't gonna make any jobs, save tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. American consumers are the engine of job creation. The more they have to spend, the more jobs get created. Take away government spending and all you have left are those tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. The jobs get created in Asia and Latin America.

Taxing people at the same rate is not shoveling money to the rich it's letting millions of people keep more of their own money.

Taxing business at the same low rate would result in the repatriation of billions of dollars because the incentive to have it sheltered from taxes in a foreign country would be gone.

 

[Nosmo King]

For which they get paid. No one works for free so don't make it sound like people are fixing roads for free. And you forgot to mention the most important thing: People are free to choose the work they do. No one is forced to fix roads or build bridges.

And engineers get paid. Surveyors, draftsmen, secretaries, Resident Inspectors, contractors, laborers, material providers, equipment manufacturers, property developers, real estate agents, landscapers and every single person driving across the public highways all benefit from them.

And all those folks now will have disposable income. And that leads to consumer spending. And THAT leads to job growth. Shoveling money to the rich ain't gonna make any jobs, save tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. American consumers are the engine of job creation. The more they have to spend, the more jobs get created. Take away government spending and all you have left are those tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. The jobs get created in Asia and Latin America.

Taxing people at the same rate is not shoveling money to the rich it's letting millions of people keep more of their own money.

Taxing business at the same low rate would result in the repatriation of billions of dollars because the incentive to have it sheltered from taxes in a foreign country would be gone.

Without exemptions a flat tax rate does not let people keep more of their own money. It takes money from those who cannot afford it and lowers the rate on those who can. Your argument makes no sense, unless I drape Conservative bumper stickers across my eyes!

Follow me here: I'm making $1,000,000 as a single person. My marginal tax rate is 35%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay the IRS $35,000 in taxes.

I lied. I don't make $1,000,000. I make $35,000. My marginal tax rate is 15%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay $5,250 to the IRS.

Now, under current conditions, the millionaire me could dodge an even bigger chunk of that $35,000 tax bill. I may, with some creative accounting (which I can afford) get that bill down to under $15,000.

But, since i make only $35,000, things are much tighter. Pricey accountants do not factor into my spending as the mortgage, car payment, insurance, gas, electric, water & sewer, cable and internet, health coverage, food, clothing and other living expenses take a cut out of that meager $35,000.

Why should I support cutting the millionaire taxes from 35% to 10% if the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions and the personal exemption gets taken away from me?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And engineers get paid. Surveyors, draftsmen, secretaries, Resident Inspectors, contractors, laborers, material providers, equipment manufacturers, property developers, real estate agents, landscapers and every single person driving across the public highways all benefit from them.

And all those folks now will have disposable income. And that leads to consumer spending. And THAT leads to job growth. Shoveling money to the rich ain't gonna make any jobs, save tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. American consumers are the engine of job creation. The more they have to spend, the more jobs get created. Take away government spending and all you have left are those tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. The jobs get created in Asia and Latin America.

Taxing people at the same rate is not shoveling money to the rich it's letting millions of people keep more of their own money.

Taxing business at the same low rate would result in the repatriation of billions of dollars because the incentive to have it sheltered from taxes in a foreign country would be gone.

Without exemptions a flat tax rate does not let people keep more of their own money. It takes money from those who cannot afford it and lowers the rate on those who can. Your argument makes no sense, unless I drape Conservative bumper stickers across my eyes!

Follow me here: I'm making $1,000,000 as a single person. My marginal tax rate is 35%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay the IRS $35,000 in taxes.

I lied. I don't make $1,000,000. I make $35,000. My marginal tax rate is 15%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay $5,250 to the IRS.

You don't understand the tax code. You don't pay your marginal rate your entire income.

If you were single and took no deductions you would owe $3471. With a flat 10% tax you would owe 3500.

Now, under current conditions, the millionaire me could dodge an even bigger chunk of that $35,000 tax bill. I may, with some creative accounting (which I can afford) get that bill down to under $15,000.

Speculation.

But, since i make only $35,000, things are much tighter. Pricey accountants do not factor into my spending as the mortgage, car payment, insurance, gas, electric, water & sewer, cable and internet, health coverage, food, clothing and other living expenses take a cut out of that meager $35,000.

I already showed you your tax burden would be almost identical with a 10% flat tax. You would have 31500 in take home pay. And if you can't live on 35K I suggest you get a second job or consider giving up some nonessential crap like internet and cable. Dump the land line and only keep a cell phone etc.

Why should I support cutting the millionaire taxes from 35% to 10% if the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions and the personal exemption gets taken away from me?

Because the tax code isn't supposed to be about who owns a home, or who has kids, or who gives to charity.

It's supposed to be about raising revenue to pay the bills. Period.

We seem to have forgotten that which is why our tax code has been bloated to 70 some odd thousand pages of drivel that no one understands

 

[Nosmo King]

Taxing people at the same rate is not shoveling money to the rich it's letting millions of people keep more of their own money.

Taxing business at the same low rate would result in the repatriation of billions of dollars because the incentive to have it sheltered from taxes in a foreign country would be gone.

Without exemptions a flat tax rate does not let people keep more of their own money. It takes money from those who cannot afford it and lowers the rate on those who can. Your argument makes no sense, unless I drape Conservative bumper stickers across my eyes!

Follow me here: I'm making $1,000,000 as a single person. My marginal tax rate is 35%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay the IRS $35,000 in taxes.

I lied. I don't make $1,000,000. I make $35,000. My marginal tax rate is 15%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay $5,250 to the IRS.

You don't understand the tax code. You don't pay your marginal rate your entire income.

If you were single and took no deductions you would owe $3471. With a flat 10% tax you would owe 3500.



Speculation.

But, since i make only $35,000, things are much tighter. Pricey accountants do not factor into my spending as the mortgage, car payment, insurance, gas, electric, water & sewer, cable and internet, health coverage, food, clothing and other living expenses take a cut out of that meager $35,000.

I already showed you your tax burden would be almost identical with a 10% flat tax. You would have 31500 in take home pay. And if you can't live on 35K I suggest you get a second job or consider giving up some nonessential crap like internet and cable. Dump the land line and only keep a cell phone etc.

Why should I support cutting the millionaire taxes from 35% to 10% if the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions and the personal exemption gets taken away from me?

Because the tax code isn't supposed to be about who owns a home, or who has kids, or who gives to charity.

It's supposed to be about raising revenue to pay the bills. Period.
We seem to have forgotten that which is why our tax code has been bloated to 70 some odd thousand pages of drivel that no one understands

As if tariffs are supposed to help American enterprise at the expense of imports. Or high taxes on liquor and cigarettes aren't supposed to discourage their consumption?

The system of taxes and fees is primarily about raising revenue, but don't be so naive to think that charitable deductions, mortgage interest deductions and other stipulations written into the tax code are not beneficial and designed to encourage certain behaviors.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Without exemptions a flat tax rate does not let people keep more of their own money. It takes money from those who cannot afford it and lowers the rate on those who can. Your argument makes no sense, unless I drape Conservative bumper stickers across my eyes!

Follow me here: I'm making $1,000,000 as a single person. My marginal tax rate is 35%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay the IRS $35,000 in taxes.

I lied. I don't make $1,000,000. I make $35,000. My marginal tax rate is 15%. Without loopholes, tax shelters and deductions, I pay $5,250 to the IRS.

You don't understand the tax code. You don't pay your marginal rate your entire income.

If you were single and took no deductions you would owe $3471. With a flat 10% tax you would owe 3500.



Speculation.



I already showed you your tax burden would be almost identical with a 10% flat tax. You would have 31500 in take home pay. And if you can't live on 35K I suggest you get a second job or consider giving up some nonessential crap like internet and cable. Dump the land line and only keep a cell phone etc.

Why should I support cutting the millionaire taxes from 35% to 10% if the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions and the personal exemption gets taken away from me?

Because the tax code isn't supposed to be about who owns a home, or who has kids, or who gives to charity.

It's supposed to be about raising revenue to pay the bills. Period.
We seem to have forgotten that which is why our tax code has been bloated to 70 some odd thousand pages of drivel that no one understands

As if tariffs are supposed to help American enterprise at the expense of imports. Or high taxes on liquor and cigarettes aren't supposed to discourage their consumption?

The system of taxes and fees is primarily about raising revenue, but don't be so naive to think that charitable deductions, mortgage interest deductions and other stipulations written into the tax code are not beneficial and designed to encourage certain behaviors.

Ham handed social engineering with the blunt instrument that is the tax code should be ended.

People bought houses before the mortgage deduction people will but houses if it is done away with. I remember when people could deduct interest on credit cards. That was done away with but people still charge stuff

People will still smoke and drink regardless of the sin taxes. People in government know this which is why they love sin taxes.

If an activity is legal then there should not be a punishment associated with it.

That's a bit off topic.

But as I showed a 10% flat tax would result in a nearly 50% gain in government revenue. Some of that could be used to pay down the debt. If you don't care about the debt then you could lower the rate to keep revenues equal to what they are now or the additional revenue could be used to offset SS taxes.

The possibilities are endless but the results of keeping the same confusing tax code as we have now will only lead us down the road to financial ruin.

 

[dblack]

The system of taxes and fees is primarily about raising revenue, but don't be so naive to think that charitable deductions, mortgage interest deductions and other stipulations written into the tax code are not beneficial and designed to encourage certain behaviors.

I don't think naivete enters into it. We're perfectly aware it's deliberate manipulation, we're just questioning it as a legitimate power of government. To me, it's a real stretch to imagine that the grant of the taxation power to government was ever intended to broadly legislative behavior. Moreover, many of the mandates they implement with tax incentives would be obviously intolerable if implemented as straightforward laws (as we saw with the health insurance mandate). That's particularly frustrating because they are equivalent - only a psychological difference exists between a tax incentive that 'rewards' certain behavior and a fine the penalizes it's opposite.

Imagine, for example, the reaction if it were announced that the government would impose a penalty on people who failed to maintain a home mortgage, or raise children - yet in point of fact, that's what we do via the tax code. It's underhanded crap as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Widdekind]

How does ceding power to the corporate elite factor into your limited and simplistic political science?

Because by creating a flat tax system, we will, in effect, be ceding power to corporate interests over the interests of the majority of the people. Flat tax policies dramatically reduce the tax rates of those with means while exponentially raising the tax burden on those with limited means.

to maintain government spending, at trillions of dollars per year, requires taking enormous amounts of money. If lower income earners were forced to foot those bills, then their tax rates would be sky-high. If lower income earners were forced to share equally in the costs, with a proportional flat-rate tax, then their tax rates might still increase. What about lower taxes for everybody, and less government spending?

And need we mention that the thousands of billions of dollars paid for the errors of the uppermost income brackets in the recent crisis are moneys channeled from the middle and working classes? The rich do benefit more and should pay more, especially since they lack the social consciousness to spred the wealth with intervention from authorities.

seemingly, you are paying allot of attention, to other people's money, trying to make their wealth, your business. Seemingly, stereotypically, and generally, (people like) you say they "should" spread the wealth; and they say (people like) you "should" get a job. Whose finger-pointing "should-and-ought" wins?

The fact remains, they have money. Why does anybody else get to take it from them? If you were willing & able to do something worthwhile for them, would they not pay you? What other property rights "should" we consider transgressing? My common good derives from "oughts and shoulds on O.P.M." ?

Technically, it may be called a proportional tax, but the reality is that it functions regressively.

a flat-rate tax takes money from everybody, at the same flat rate. That is not, and cannot logically be called, "regressive". A regressive tax would be a high rate on low incomes, and a low rate on high incomes. A flat-rate proportional tax functions proportionally. (Psychologically, "my money" is always worth more than "their money"; and so a tax on "my money" seems much more onerous, than the same tax on "their money". Neither logically legitimate, nor neighborly. Citizens in the same society are "supposed" to put themselves in each others' shoes, and ask no more than they (actually) give.)

 

[Widdekind]

they are equivalent - only a psychological difference exists between a tax incentive that 'rewards' certain behavior and a fine the penalizes it's opposite.

a "progressive" tax takes as much money as possible, from a small demographic, who can be outvoted every election. A tax code is two things, taxing & spending. Taxing can be done equitably & neutrally (proportional flat-rate taxes); whilst spending can be absolutely partial and "progressive", for Public benefit, e.g. Public assistance for unemployed persons to help them through "structural unemployment" as the economy constantly modernizes, sector by sector, and workers in shrinking sectors lose jobs, today; until they find new jobs, tomorrow.

Taxation is about taking wealth from (other) people. There is allot of debate about how much is "acceptable" to take from (other) people. Why not nothing (and yield, perhaps, slightly, from there) ?

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? Germany, Spain, Chile and Argentina were manifestations of Fascism; Russian, Cuba and China manifestations of Communism. In fact all were forms of Authoritarianism which I do not support in any shape or form, be they authority framed in a military uniform, a clerics collar a grey suit and tie, or jeans and a 'T' shirt.

Authoritarianism is a system. Communism is the guiding philosophy on how it was applied. That is why the leftist rainbow is true.

Liberalism = Progressivism = Communism = Marxism = Socialism = Fascism.

They all see authoritarian control over the populations for implementation of their philosophy. The methodology in how the system is applied may vary, but the end results is ALWAYS the same.

How does ceding power to the corporate elite factor into your limited and simplistic political science?

Because by creating a flat tax system, we will, in effect, be ceding power to corporate interests over the interests of the majority of the people. Flat tax policies dramatically reduce the tax rates of those with means while exponentially raising the tax burden on those with limited means. Follow the money! Where it goes, so goes power.

It's a tough concept for someone who lumps all those "isms" together. But nuance and thoroughness of thought aren't hallmarks of the Conservative mindset.

Unless you have a monopoly, you can fire them. Can you fire a government? Oh that's right. It's called a revolution.

Fire the business? Nobody dies.
Fire a government? LOTS of people die.

 

[there4eyeM]

Oil companies have a virtual monopoly on politics, foreign policy, transportation and consumption in America. They benefit disproportionately to the others in the system. Where is the program to 'fire' them? Should they be nationalized?

And the 'discussion' of authoritarianism is laughable, as if 'communists' (whatever that means) invented it and perfected the road there. What are monarchies and empires? Genghis Khan was a commie? Alexander 'the great' was leftist? The Roman Empire prefigured Stalin? A grip, people; get one!

A flat tax is an evil idea. Look at what the Constitution and great thinkers, such as Lincoln, say about labor and wages. There is no justification for the working class to pay for the rich and every argument for the excessively money-gloated to pay proportionately. If they were truly just, it would not even be necessary to ask them to pay; they would be doing the right thing.

 

[Widdekind]

A flat tax is an evil idea... There is no justification for the working class to pay for the rich

in what way, shape, or form, have working classes ever "paid for" wealthy people? Wealthy people live off of (personal) welfare? Their businesses are funded off of (corporate) welfare? In 2005, "subsidies" to corporations were less than $60B (per year), half a percent of GDP. Meanwhile, welfare -- i presume for poorer people -- were over $1,500B, or twenty-five times more.

i want a straight answer -- what government "dole" do wealthy people take, that is funded "from below"?

one one-thousand...
two one-thousand...
two and a half...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oil companies have a virtual monopoly on politics, foreign policy, transportation and consumption in America. They benefit disproportionately to the others in the system. Where is the program to 'fire' them? Should they be nationalized?

And the 'discussion' of authoritarianism is laughable, as if 'communists' (whatever that means) invented it and perfected the road there. What are monarchies and empires? Genghis Khan was a commie? Alexander 'the great' was leftist? The Roman Empire prefigured Stalin? A grip, people; get one!

A flat tax is an evil idea. Look at what the Constitution and great thinkers, such as Lincoln, say about labor and wages. There is no justification for the working class to pay for the rich and every argument for the excessively money-gloated to pay proportionately. If they were truly just, it would not even be necessary to ask them to pay; they would be doing the right thing.

A flat tax is the only equitable tax. No one is asking the poor to pay for anyone but themselves.

Why is it you think people who succeed should foot the bill for others?

 

[Nosmo King]

Oil companies have a virtual monopoly on politics, foreign policy, transportation and consumption in America. They benefit disproportionately to the others in the system. Where is the program to 'fire' them? Should they be nationalized?

And the 'discussion' of authoritarianism is laughable, as if 'communists' (whatever that means) invented it and perfected the road there. What are monarchies and empires? Genghis Khan was a commie? Alexander 'the great' was leftist? The Roman Empire prefigured Stalin? A grip, people; get one!

A flat tax is an evil idea. Look at what the Constitution and great thinkers, such as Lincoln, say about labor and wages. There is no justification for the working class to pay for the rich and every argument for the excessively money-gloated to pay proportionately. If they were truly just, it would not even be necessary to ask them to pay; they would be doing the right thing.

A flat tax is the only equitable tax. No one is asking the poor to pay for anyone but themselves.

Why is it you think people who succeed should foot the bill for others?

Class warfare as waged by the modern American Conservative.

You claim the flat tax is fair in one sentence, then use it to take more money from the poor. How is that line of thinking any different from asking the rich to pay their fair share? They benefit more from the economic policies in place under Conservative support. Or perhaps you think the poor are living large. Too large for their station in society.

$2,000 out of a $20,000 W-2 is a lot tougher bite than $20,000 bite out of a $200,000 W-2.

Consider your own property values should the poorest in your town be knocked down a peg or two in order to find the 'equitable' way.

 

[Widdekind]

You claim the flat tax is fair in one sentence, then use it to take more money from the poor.

how does taking less from rich people, take more from poor people (or anybody) ?

perhaps you think the poor are living large. Too large for their station in society.

Overall, the Public receives trillions of dollars per year in welfare ("transfer payments"). All of which is spent ("personal consumption expenditures"), for the personal savings rate is negligible to negative. Those trillions translate to $10-20K per year per household (on average). At what point would you acknowledge "spending beyond means" ? Before 2008, net personal taxes averaged around zero. That means rich people pay trillions of dollars per year, that are routed through government, to poor people, for welfare. (Actual government expenditures must be funded by taxes on trade, and on businesses.)

$2,000 out of a $20,000 W-2 is a lot tougher bite than $20,000 bite out of a $200,000 W-2.

says you. What if i ask "that other guy over there", though? If he says otherwise, why do i take your side?

should we have "progressive" sales taxes, too? Two guys, in the same store, one wears a nicer hat; he pays twice the sales tax?

everybody pays the same tax rate is fair. Every dollar is taxed equitably, and neutrally, without bias based upon any personal characteristic. If our hypothetical "white collar" worker doesn't need an extra entertainment center, and addition to the upstairs ($20K --> taxes); then our hypothetical "blue collar" worker doesn't need an extra TV for the bedroom too ($2K --> taxes). Everybody cinches their belts, for Public benefit. No, it's not fun, for anybody. But, everybody still pitches in, all the same, yes?

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
(right, guys... hey where's everybody headed...)​

Demanding trillions of dollars per year, from rich people, to pay poor people, amounts to a country-wide strike, "sitting in on all their greener lawns" until they pay up. Meanwhile, Mexicans & Chinese (stereotypically) keep on working. And even once the "sit in" ends, and trillions of dollars are distributed, everybody takes their fistful of cash... and buys Mexican & Chinese. The US trade deficit is proof, that Americans themselves do not value their own domestic production, at the wages-and-prices that they demand, when producing the domestic products, that they then pass over on the shelf, and refuse to buy, at the store.

The US has a trade deficit today. That may "metastasize" into trade and interest deficits, tomorrow, when all the foreign loans come due. Does the bogusness end, before "bad" (trade deficit) becomes "worse" (trade & interest-on-debt deficits) ?

widdy, 'tis more likely that all earth is destroyed, by "The Gods in the heavens", on 21 December, in Maya 2012...​

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not that the rich receive direct government aid (though that occurs in certain instances), it is the obvious fact that they function as big fish in the reservoir built by the workers. It is not necessary to be Marxist to see the place of labor in the social scene. Entrepreneurship is working-class capitalism. Derivatives and other distorted forms of creating profit without wealth is capitalism on psychedelics. They exist in a context built and supported by the vast majority, the 'little people' who carry them patiently and uncomplainingly on their backs. Perhaps it is time to back off!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oil companies have a virtual monopoly on politics, foreign policy, transportation and consumption in America. They benefit disproportionately to the others in the system. Where is the program to 'fire' them? Should they be nationalized?

And the 'discussion' of authoritarianism is laughable, as if 'communists' (whatever that means) invented it and perfected the road there. What are monarchies and empires? Genghis Khan was a commie? Alexander 'the great' was leftist? The Roman Empire prefigured Stalin? A grip, people; get one!

A flat tax is an evil idea. Look at what the Constitution and great thinkers, such as Lincoln, say about labor and wages. There is no justification for the working class to pay for the rich and every argument for the excessively money-gloated to pay proportionately. If they were truly just, it would not even be necessary to ask them to pay; they would be doing the right thing.

A flat tax is the only equitable tax. No one is asking the poor to pay for anyone but themselves.

Why is it you think people who succeed should foot the bill for others?

Class warfare as waged by the modern American Conservative.

You claim the flat tax is fair in one sentence, then use it to take more money from the poor. How is that line of thinking any different from asking the rich to pay their fair share? They benefit more from the economic policies in place under Conservative support. Or perhaps you think the poor are living large. Too large for their station in society.

$2,000 out of a $20,000 W-2 is a lot tougher bite than $20,000 bite out of a $200,000 W-2.

Consider your own property values should the poorest in your town be knocked down a peg or two in order to find the 'equitable' way.

Define "fair share"?

It is "fair" that some people pay no income tax and others pay up to 30% or more.

And a flat tax would end special treatment and replace it with a simple and fair tax code that treats everyone exactly the same.

 

[there4eyeM]

"It is not "fair" that some people pay no income tax and others pay up to 30% or more."

If that is the case, then perhaps all such taxation should be abolished. No tax on income.
Tax purely on purchase.
With modern technology, one's purchasing power could be en-registered on her/his payment card. The 'sales tax' would be in proportion. That way, it would be simple, immediate and progressive at the same time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"It is not "fair" that some people pay no income tax and others pay up to 30% or more."

If that is the case, then perhaps all such taxation should be abolished. No tax on income.
Tax purely on purchase.
With modern technology, a one's purchasing power could be en-registered on her/his payment card. The 'sales tax' would be in proportion. That way, it would be simple, immediate and progressive at the same time.

So you want some people to pay more for goods and services than others?

Tell me would you be willing to pay twice as much for a pair of sneakers than someone else simply because some idiot in Washington says you can afford to?

 

[there4eyeM]

Absolutely not! I want people to pay the same - percentage of their buying power.
Since they are not taxed on income, wouldn't a rational populace realize its necessary services had to be paid for?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Absolutely not! I want people to pay the same - percentage of their buying power.
Since they are not taxed on income, wouldn't a rational populace realize its necessary services had to be paid for?

Define buying power.

Is it my income?
Is it my savings?
Is it my net worth?

What if I don't want every clerk in every store I visit knowing the balance of my savings account?