Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
YupSo you should be in favor of the flat tax then so everyone pays the same percentage
So capital gains would be taxed the same as earned income?
Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
YupSo capital gains would be taxed the same as earned income?
Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"[/quote]
Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
are you saying that the rich don't buy food or pay for shelter? I'm sorry you're confusing me.
BTW, do the poor pay property taxes? How about the rich?
sure you are, you claim that only the poor depend on food and shelter I posted your quote. You wish to change your quote?Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
are you saying that the rich don't buy food or pay for shelter? I'm sorry you're confusing me.
Nope. That's not what I'm saying. If you believe that's my claim, feel free to quote me saying as much.
BTW, do the poor pay property taxes? How about the rich?
Depends on the poor person. Do they own property to tax? Or are they renting?
sure you are, you claim that only the poor depend on food and shelter I posted your quote. You wish to change your quote?Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
are you saying that the rich don't buy food or pay for shelter? I'm sorry you're confusing me.
Nope. That's not what I'm saying. If you believe that's my claim, feel free to quote me saying as much.
BTW, do the poor pay property taxes? How about the rich?
Depends on the poor person. Do they own property to tax? Or are they renting?
Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.
So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
We disagree on the marginal utility theory
I think it's bunk and is rife with subjective value judgements
It's you telling me I don't need something so you should be able to take it from me
That doesn't work with any other type of property and it shouldn't work with money
Mine.
It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
We disagree on the marginal utility theory
I think it's bunk and is rife with subjective value judgements
It's you telling me I don't need something so you should be able to take it from me
Most law involves at least some subjective value judgements. And the new 143 foot super yacht to replace the 137 foot super yacht isn't the same thing as say, struggling to pay the rent.
You may not acknowledge any distinction. Most people would. With that sentiment reflected in the taxation policies of virtually every 1st world country. And I use the word 'virtually', just to allow for an errant exception I'm unaware of. As far as I know, its the tax policy of every 1st world nation on the planet.
That doesn't work with any other type of property and it shouldn't work with money
I disagree. I think its perfectly reasonable, fair, and intelligent to base a tax policy on one's ability to pay. A sentiment reflected essentially universally in 1st world tax policy.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are. If its tax money you're looking for, go where the money is.
Certainly not 'liberals.'If the rich pay "virtually nothing" in taxes, as liberals continue to claim, how is it that they pay the majority of federal personal income taxes? According to federal income tax data, the top 1% pay about 45% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay at least 60% of all federal income taxes. And the top 20% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes
Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax
STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes?
Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21
What's more, the top 1% pay around 24% of all federal taxes (income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc.). The top 10% pay over 50% of all federal taxes.
1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 Percent of All Federal Taxes
And this is on top of the huge amount of county and state taxes that the rich pay, especially rich people who own businesses. I have two relatives who own businesses, and I can't believe how much they get soaked in county and state taxes, especially property taxes.
Liberals who go around peddling the kool-aid myth that "the rich pay virtually no taxes" or that "the average rich person pays less than a middle-income earner" obviously don't know any rich people and/or any business owners and are basing these silly claims on grossly misleading "studies" churned out by liberal think tanks and economists.
Who says the Rich pay 'virtually no' taxes?
Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.
Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.
I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.
I'm not a member of the GOP
And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?
Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.
Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"
Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.
BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax
Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.
A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are.
We disagree on the marginal utility theory
I think it's bunk and is rife with subjective value judgements
It's you telling me I don't need something so you should be able to take it from me
Most law involves at least some subjective value judgements. And the new 143 foot super yacht to replace the 137 foot super yacht isn't the same thing as say, struggling to pay the rent.
You may not acknowledge any distinction. Most people would. With that sentiment reflected in the taxation policies of virtually every 1st world country. And I use the word 'virtually', just to allow for an errant exception I'm unaware of. As far as I know, its the tax policy of every 1st world nation on the planet.
That doesn't work with any other type of property and it shouldn't work with money
I disagree. I think its perfectly reasonable, fair, and intelligent to base a tax policy on one's ability to pay. A sentiment reflected essentially universally in 1st world tax policy.
If you want fish, fish where the fish are. If its tax money you're looking for, go where the money is.
I really don't care what other countries do
My only aim is to have laws that are actually nondiscriminatory and fair
'The Liberal Myth that the Rich Pay "Virtually No Taxes"'
This fails as a straw man fallacy.
see, here you go, the libturds just don't understand math. Campbell, Thanks for proving my point. you wouldn't know the difference between a dime and a million would you? funny stuff the libturds.So if it is your only dollar it gets taxed ten cents and if it is your hundred millionth dollar it gets taxed ten cents
I'm alright with that. Everyone should have skin in the game, not just those with cash.
Fair share means fair share, not let that guy pay the tab for everyone.
So a massive, massive tax cut for the wealthy and a huge tax hike for the poor and middle class is 'fair'?
Yes because everyone will be paying the same percentage of their income
That's the most stupid tax plan I've ever heard. You think someone who's earning barely enough to feed the family should be taxed at the same rate as a bastard who lives in a 20 room mansion with two dozen bathrooms. It's never been that way and as long as there are enough Democrats around it never will be.
What a stupid op.
Where are those liberals who make the claim that the ultra rich pay virtully nothing in the way of income taxes....where are those people other than in the head of the OP.
Uhhhh, there are two threads going right now in which liberals have claimed that the rich "pay virtually nothing" in taxes and/or that "the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class," etc., etc. Those comments, and many others I've seen/heard in recent years, prompted me to write this thread.
If the wealthy are paying 17% effective tax rate compared to the 50% they should be paying, does that qualify as "virtually nothing"?
You make two dubious assumptions and then proceed from there.
Why should anyone have an effective tax rate of 50%?
Does your fuzzy-math claim about a 17% effective tax rate include all the taxes that the rich pay in state and county taxes? I am barely in the top 20% and my state takes about 5% of my gross income and refunds about $100 of that money to me each year. And, good grief, I pay many thousands of dollars in state sales tax and county property tax. Two of my relatives own businesses, and they pay a huge amount in state and county business and property taxes. Does your 17% figure include state and county taxes?
Why?
Because that is where our tax rate used to be before we were running up record debt. It is where our tax rate used to be when taxes actually paid more for infrastructure, education and healthcare. It is where our tax rate used to be when the Government actually accomplished things
We have seen what Supply Side tax rates have done for this country...time to fix the mistake
