Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Wry Catcher]

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

 

[eagle1462010]

The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification. The Flat Tax achieves this. The left complains about too many loop holes. The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.

THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby. It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.

Our debt needs to be addressed. Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem. Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification. The Flat Tax achieves this. The left complains about too many loop holes. The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.

THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby. It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.

Our debt needs to be addressed. Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem. Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.

I agree with most of your post, I disagree completely that a flat tax is the solution, and the call to address our debt is a canard, used to attack SS, Medicare and Medicaid, CHIPS and other government benefits.

 

[Dad2three]

Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).

What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?

A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.

That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.

Yep, between your ears that's probably true, welfare recipients all want to take the food off the plates of Mitt Romney's family.

I said liberals use that definition. I wasn't speaking for anyone on welfare. The liberal uses the term "greed" to refer to anyone who's doing better in life than they are.

DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'

A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS'Regressive Tax'


Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it.




Regressive Tax Definition Investopedia

 

[eagle1462010]

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

We already do Mr. Bonehead......................they buy and sell politicians already to get whatever they want already. BOTH PARTIES.................They then get things passed like the stimulus passed to pay 65 BILLION for a high speed rail that should have cost 15 Billion and stuff their danged pockets..............

They then get favored treatment to Gov't contracts instead of a bid process giving the tax payers the best bang for the buck on Gov't contracts..............and even when they bid lower............they just factor in cost overruns to up the ante for their own pocket books.

If I need a bridge repaired or built............I want a HARD DOLLAR CONTRACT and that's it. Set rate for the project and that's it. What we have now is a hard contract, and when it goes over budget it goes TIME AND MATERIAL so they rape the taxpayers to line their pockets.

 

[Dad2three]

The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification. The Flat Tax achieves this. The left complains about too many loop holes. The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.

THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby. It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.

Our debt needs to be addressed. Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem. Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.

Weird, Clinton got US back to 20% of GDP in revenues (near where Carter had US) and then Dubya took US to less than 15% (Korean war levels), but it's "MORE MORE MORE." that's the problem? Shrug

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

By and for the people? You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.

 

[Dad2three]

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

We already do Mr. Bonehead......................they buy and sell politicians already to get whatever they want already. BOTH PARTIES.................They then get things passed like the stimulus passed to pay 65 BILLION for a high speed rail that should have cost 15 Billion and stuff their danged pockets..............

They then get favored treatment to Gov't contracts instead of a bid process giving the tax payers the best bang for the buck on Gov't contracts..............and even when they bid lower............they just factor in cost overruns to up the ante for their own pocket books.

If I need a bridge repaired or built............I want a HARD DOLLAR CONTRACT and that's it. Set rate for the project and that's it. What we have now is a hard contract, and when it goes over budget it goes TIME AND MATERIAL so they rape the taxpayers to line their pockets.

Just like they used to do right? Oh wait, no they didn't, without fallacies, what would you Klowns have?

 

[Dad2three]

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

By and for the people? You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

...Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

• Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

• Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

• Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes.
  
  
  Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[The sheeple sea]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich

 

[eagle1462010]

The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification. The Flat Tax achieves this. The left complains about too many loop holes. The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.

THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby. It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.

Our debt needs to be addressed. Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem. Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.

I agree with most of your post, I disagree completely that a flat tax is the solution, and the call to address our debt is a canard, used to attack SS, Medicare and Medicaid, CHIPS and other government benefits.

The flat tax is a way to fix one portion of the system. Simplification of the system is just part of the process.

Debt is a canard.....................I didn't say ditch SS, and medicare now did I. There are many ways to cut spending without taking that out of the equation. But we need people out of poverty, working, and not living off the dole.....................You do that by creating jobs not sending them away. Regressive tax policies do this as do regulations that make business leave places like California in droves...........seeking better pastures in lower tax and regulation states............AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY..................for NO REGULATIONS, FREE TRADE, and low taxes..................In these countries much of the time they don't pay for health care either..............

The Free Trade BS has outsourced our jobs for decades and has helped kill the manufacturing base.
You don't encourage growth by taxing the shit out of business as well..............aka California........
To top it off, you can't have a Social Safety net in a country and then OPEN THE FLOOD GATES TO ILLEGALS.................which now stands at somewhere between 11 Million to 45 Million depending on the article you read. They get on the dole and cost us BUTT LOADS OF MONEY.............and that needs to end.

All are part of the problems we face..........including the waste and abuse under the current gov't. And to include the Earmarks which are nothing more than BRIBES FOR A VOTE................

All of this needs to change or we GREECE OURSELFS...............the sooner we deal with it the better...........unless you want the economic destruction of our country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.

Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and allow the other party to buy the elections. Even a bonehead understands that.

Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.

You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.

Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.

 

[The sheeple sea]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

Well, they control 90% of the wealth, so yeah, 90% of the taxes seems fair

 

[eagle1462010]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich

Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that. Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system. So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals. So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............

Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people. As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one. Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law. We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.

 

[David_42]

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich

Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that. Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system. So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals. So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............

Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people. As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one. Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law. We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.

EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,” Ronnie Reagan


Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**


The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz

 

[eagle1462010]

First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.

Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and allow the other party to buy the elections. Even a bonehead understands that.

Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.

You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.

Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.

Fuck you back. You happy now.............
Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.

I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................

To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.

Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

By and for the people? You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.

• Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
• Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
• Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
• The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor

Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many. Which do you think will be

1. Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
2. insure domestic Tranquility, and
3. Promote the general Welfare

 

[2aguy]

[

So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.

.

Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed. It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,

and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.

I don't think that's so.

No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone. Everyone pays the same rate. And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....

Fairness is more than a math measurement.

In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax. Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......

Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask you to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated. Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.

Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.

Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.

the government doesn't deserve more than 10-15% of anyone's income even if they are billionaires. It doesn't matter how much we fucking net....he paid 10-15% and that is all anyone should be asked to give. Hating the ball player because his talent allows him to have a lot of money after he pays 10-15% is your fucking mental psychosis....envy, jealousy on your part doesn't mean we need to give even greedier, even more corrupt people more of our money.


Please, none of you twits has explained how it makes any freaking sense to give politicians even more money when right now you bitch and moan about them giving tax breaks to the rich........do you think these same politicians, these politicians will behave the way you want them too if you give them more of our money?

Please, answer that question...you guys never do...showing you are twits and morons....

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.

I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.

The simplified code ends the BS under the current system. It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already. The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............

Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................