When would a 10% tax rate generate more revenue then the current tax rate?

[SAYIT]

What about fed gas taxes and various fees . Where does that money fit ?

Just cut the military 20% .

Obama has cut military spending by 25% over the last 6 years (he recommends increasing it over the next 10 years ... after he is gone).

Despite the cuts and rising tax revenues we still have run huge deficits in each of those years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, the rich pay enormous amounts in taxes. The top 1% actually pay about half of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

That's actual taxes paid. Not tax rates.

Thank you Sky.

To take that a bit further. the top 25% of American earners pay over 86% of all the federal personal income taxes Washington collects.

To those here who scream for more from "the rich" I often ask (but they never answer) what would be satisfactory to them?
96%?
106%

The share of taxes the top 25% pay would fall if we saw better paying jobs for the lower 25%.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Depending on the rate (10% or 20%) at which income is taxed in a flat rate scenario, and depending on the level at which the income begins to be taxed, how much "revenue" the gubmint is able to collect on a "flat" tax depends on some additional factors.

1. Will businesses (large and small) also pay on their net pre-tax profits? If so, at what rate?

2. Will there be add-ons and schemes which confuse the numbers, such as depletion allowances and exemptions and deductions?

3. Will the overall economy [un-plagued by an IRS and endless paperwork (like 80,000 fucking pages of income tax gibberish)] improve to the point that the "revenues" (at whatever the flat rate might turn out to be) meet our ongoing fiscal obligations?

4. Will it be coupled with a law or amendment that requires balanced budgets?

Once we know all those things (and a few other things, too, no doubt) we can determine if it will "work."

I am sure that a flat tax (after a certain income level) equally applicable to all (business and individual) can be crafted and would work IF -- and ONLY IF -- we curtail spending and couple it all with a balanced budget requirement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that 47% of households that pay no federal income tax number is still here,

Carson is going to run on their tax going from 0% to 10%. Talk about making the poor poorer!

Among other things, all those Republicans who have pledged not to raise taxes will have to break that pledge to support Carson.

 

[Freemason9]

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

 

[Freemason9]

If that 47% of households that pay no federal income tax number is still here,

Carson is going to run on their tax going from 0% to 10%. Talk about making the poor poorer!

Among other things, all those Republicans who have pledged not to raise taxes will have to break that pledge to support Carson.

Also, that "47%" figure only applies to federal income taxes. I guarantee you they still pay plenty of taxes.

Republicans are essentially liars when they continue to wail about how poor folks pay no taxes.

 

[SAYIT]

How they hell can you dump deductions . Do you even want to ? They are a great way to spur good behavior and inovation.

And good luck to any pol who tries to dump the mortgage or child tax breaks !

People care about their tax liability. If a flat tax would not increase that liability, they would have no problem with the loss of deductions.

Consider for a moment the time and effort required to comply with the thousands of pages of our current tax code.

Give every filer a standard deduction of $30,000 or so and then apply 10% to the first $100,000 over the deduction, 15% to the next $100,000, and 20% to all income above $230,000.

The working poor who make less than $30,000 would, as they do now, pay nothing.

Just call it SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan.

 

[Freemason9]

How they hell can you dump deductions . Do you even want to ? They are a great way to spur good behavior and inovation.

And good luck to any pol who tries to dump the mortgage or child tax breaks !

People care about their tax liability. If a flat tax would not increase that liability, they would have no problem with the loss of deductions.

Consider for a moment the time and effort required to comply with the thousands of pages of our current tax code.

Give every filer a standard deduction of $30,000 or so and then apply 10% to the first $100,000 over the deduction, 15% to the next $100,000, and 20% to all income above $230,000.

The working poor who make less than $30,000 would, as they do now, pay nothing.

Just call it SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan.

Answer this, please . . . just who benefits from this "flat tax" system of yours, and who loses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As has been noted, and touted, on this forum many times,

Russia has a flat tax.

Russia also has this:

If You Think Wealth Disparity Is Bad Here, Look At Russia

"...while income inequality in this country may be growing, the U.S. has nothing on Russia, according to a new report by investment bank Credit Suisse.

Russia, the bank says, has the highest rate of inequality in the world – barring some small Caribbean islands.

Just how bad is it? Thirty-five percent of household wealth in the country is in the hands of 110 people (Yes, that's right — 110.).

There's more: There's one Russian billionaire for every $11 billion in household wealth in the country. Worldwide, that number is one for every $170 billion in household wealth."

Of course, we shouldn't expect American conservatives to see that as a bad thing. They love income inequality.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

coupled with a lw

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

coupled with a lw

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

coupled with a lw

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

coupled with a lw

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

coupled with a lw

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

coupled with a lw
There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

 

[healthmyths]

coupled with a lw

Let there be no mistake about this . . . wealth concentration, left unaddressed, will be the ultimate fatal flaw of any capitalist economic system. It is not sustainable in the long run, and I don't understand how conservatives continue to stick their heads in the sand regarding this.

In addition, cutting spending will necessarily reduce infrastructure, research, education, seed financing, and monetary circulation. In a globally competitive economy, the U.S. would quickly fall behind more progressive international economies. Why would you promote that?

To remain a world-class economy, we need to be progressive in our governance!

There is nothing good to be said about the left wing's implicit call for income EQUALITY.

As a side-bar comment, it should not go unnoticed that when lefties refer to "progressive" what they are truly saying is "socialist."

To whatever extent income INequality might be a problem, their proposed "solutions" tend to be CONFISCATION of the other guy's property.

If we are ever to have a serious conversation about the alleged evils of "income inequality" (under any of its various names or guises), then we'd be better served by first insuring that we don't abandon some of our hallmark founding principles, as a first order of business.

We didn't found this country, so whatever you think the 'principles' are is irrelevant.

What was "this country" called before it became the United States?

Do you really think you could send smoke signals as fast as you can type on your computer and send/receive SMAIL??? (smoke mail)!

The point of my making fun of you is that idiots like you are so romanticized by the "Native American" that you totally forget that
was their method of communicating! Now maybe smoke signals might work for saying "HI idiot" but please leave the totally fanciful
pathetic pity for American Indians (I'm part Indian so I can say these things!) to the stupid people who forget if it weren't for the
"founding" of the United States by those evil white Europeans, American Indians wouldn't live to 70 years old today!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

^ a very stupid comment from a truly pathetic person.

We need not have been here at the time of the Founding of this Republic to know what the Founding principles are.

And those principles remain quite relevant despite the fact that schmucks like you find them inconvenient, annoying or otherwise objectionable.

And I'm sure you're going to decide for the rest of us what our founding principles were and in the process reject the ones that don't fit your nutty rightwing agenda.

See the problem with you and your obtuse "thinking" is that you imagine that you need to be told what the principles are.

It's not hidden under a pile of arcane code, carbuncle.

Certain lunatic and dim-witted elements of the liberal leftist universe cannot manage to fathom the FACT that the Founding principles were rather clearly laid out a long time ago.

And as for rejecting them, that is a HALLMARK of the lunatic left. That is to say, you and most of the other modern American liberals and left wing Democratics.

Do you agree that protectionism and strict government control of corporations were principles of the Founders?

Why would anyone "agree" with that nonsense?

What "protectionism" apparently means to you and your like-thinking pals is one thing. What the notion of protecting American interests may have meant to the Founders is another.

And no. There is no doubt at all that the Founders NEVER envisioned a U.S. government which would or legally COULD "strictly control" corporations. I don't doubt for a moment that they would have acknowledged some legitimate (and necessary) governmental authority over corporations, however.

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

 

[SAYIT]

Oh, the rich pay enormous amounts in taxes. The top 1% actually pay about half of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

That's actual taxes paid. Not tax rates.

Thank you Sky.

To take that a bit further. the top 25% of American earners pay over 86% of all the federal personal income taxes Washington collects.

To those here who scream for more from "the rich" I often ask (but they never answer) what would be satisfactory to them?
96%?
106%

The share of taxes the top 25% pay would fall if we saw better paying jobs for the lower 25%.

Those in the bottom 25% generally have the same opportunity and right to enhance their job skills - and thus their earning potential - as those who already have. More education and fewer babies might help in their quest. In any event, it isn't for you or me to decide how they CHOOSE to live their lives and not for me to pay for their life CHOICES. However you are perfectly free to write 'em a check.