Flat Tax, When we going to finally just do it?

No loop holes either.

from JoeUser Forums

While Campaigning for President in 2004 Mr. Bush promised he would do something about tax reform. True to his word shortly after election he did appoint a bi-partisan Advisory panel on Federal Income Tax Reform, in January 2005, but the present congress is NOT likely to act on any legislation, as tax reform.

Americans are currently spending over 200 Billion dollars a year trying to comply and avoid paying taxes in what is now such an incredibly complex tax system. Bush is spending most of his time fighting off Democratic attacks on his administration and gathering support for the war to do anything forward thinking on the American tax situation.

Every year the tax code gets more and more complex, we do not need another panel or congressional inquiry into tax reform, we need something to simplify it and make everyone pay their fair share.

A simple flat tax would solve all these problems, many nation already have successful flat tax systems in place, the more you make the more you pay, simple as that. A few of the countries that already have flat taxes are, Jersey, Hong Kong, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, and the Ukraine. China is thinking about imposing a flat tax to do away with their tax code. Removal of the income tax would give more incentive for people to save money.

We fought a long and hard war to get away from England's unfair taxation, America is supposed to be a free country with little government interference, however with our current tax system WE MUST PAY A SIGNIFICANT portion of OUR EARNINGS, whether we use government services or not, where is the freedom and justice in this?

 

9,740 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
A flat tax may be simple but it would benefit the wealthy and harm the poor and middle income taxpayers. We do need to simplify the tax system. However every time a change is made to the tax laws, including the changes and cuts Bush and the GOP made, the tax code gets worse.

We first need to develop a tax system that is simple, progressive which recognizes the "Ability To Pay" and that develops the same amount of revenue as we agree to spend!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

When?

When the grass dont grow, the rivers dont flow, and the winds dont blow.

That one is the toughest yet.  It is opposed by the MOrtgage industry, and that is going to kill it every time.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brownback has proposed an alternative flat tax. The problem with doing away with the system as is is that all the special interests would fight it because they want to keep getting their deductions etc. such as the mortgage industry but dozens and dozens more too. What Brownback proposes is that you could choose to file under the current system or chose to pay a flat tax. It's an interesting idea. I think if they proposed it as an alternative then maybe it would fly.

Link

 Guiliani was jeered at a recent appearance because he opposed the flat tax.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
When?

Have you ever seen the program "The Highlander"? It's a group of immortals living amongst people who fight each other and win the "essence" of the loser by cutting off their opponants head (the only way to kill these immortals...or send their shell back home). Anyway, their motto is "There can be only One".

See, to me, world finance is just like the highlanders. They will work together to gain all the essances they can as a team, but when its oppurtunistic or all the "weaklings" are gone, they'll work at cutting each others heads off.

Finally, in the end, there will be only One, standing atop a mountain of all the wealth there is, with the litter of her/his bravado at the base of the mountain.

Thats when.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

What Brownback proposes is that you could choose to file under the current system or chose to pay a flat tax. It's an interesting idea.

They already have it - it is called form 1040ez.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
They already have it - it is called form 1040ez


That's just a simplified form. It doesn't change the way the taxation is handled and has nothing to do with a flat tax whatsoever.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I think we'd be far better off to eliminate any income tax on private citizens completely and instead opt for an income tax on companies as already exists and a Federal sales tax for the rest of us. Why should we be taxed on our income, even a flat tax, and then pay additional taxes when we spend what's left over?

A Federal sales tax would mean everyone, including the wealthy, would pay a tax for every dollar they spend. The poor spend little and so would pay little, while the wealthy who spend the most would pay the most. Fair to everyone.

It wouldn't harm the poor or middle class as their spending power would remain roughly the same as they would actually receive more of their pay instead of having the Federal tax deductions taken out, it would save the government billions of dollars spent every year to administer and process the insane system we currently have, and would also motivate the government to ensure a healthy market economy as government revenues would be directly linked to doing so.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sales tax is a regressive tax. The wealthy are more able to save their money, thus they do not spend it all, and therefore would pay less percentage tax than someone who has to spend most of their money on goods just to survive.

For example, someone making 40K a year probably has to spend that much to maintain their standard of living, while someone making $1 million per year most likely will not need to spend that much. However, they will probably pay more property taxes. Perhaps it all works out in the end.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sales tax is a regressive tax. The wealthy are more able to save their money, thus they do not spend it all, and therefore would pay less percentage tax than someone who has to spend most of their money on goods just to survive.

For example, someone making 40K a year probably has to spend that much to maintain their standard of living, while someone making $1 million per year most likely will not need to spend that much. However, they will probably pay more property taxes. Perhaps it all works out in the end.


It's not about percentages but in actual dollars spent and taxed. If a wealthy person spends only a small percentage of their income they are still spending far more dollars than that 40k/year person would.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Wednesday, August 01, 2007
A flat tax may be simple but it would benefit the wealthy and harm the poor and middle income taxpayers. We do need to simplify the tax system. However every time a change is made to the tax laws, including the changes and cuts Bush and the GOP made, the tax code gets worse.

We first need to develop a tax system that is simple, progressive which recognizes the "Ability To Pay" and that develops the same amount of revenue as we agree to spend

How would it benefit anyone over anyone else gene? Explain, if 10 cents came out of every dollar earned how would that benefit the wealthy.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, August 01, 2007
When?
When the grass dont grow, the rivers dont flow, and the winds dont blow.
That one is the toughest yet. It is opposed by the MOrtgage industry, and that is going to kill it every time.

From what I read there are so many special interest groups against it with lobbyist greasing so many senate and house palms to make sure the flat tax never happens.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: XythePosted: Thursday, August 02, 2007
When?

Have you ever seen the program "The Highlander"? It's a group of immortals living amongst people who fight each other and win the "essence" of the loser by cutting off their opponants head (the only way to kill these immortals...or send their shell back home). Anyway, their motto is "There can be only One".

See, to me, world finance is just like the highlanders. They will work together to gain all the essances they can as a team, but when its oppurtunistic or all the "weaklings" are gone, they'll work at cutting each others heads off.

Finally, in the end, there will be only One, standing atop a mountain of all the wealth there is, with the litter of her/his bravado at the base of the mountain.

Thats when.

Interesting analogy.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Thursday, August 02, 2007
What Brownback proposes is that you could choose to file under the current system or chose to pay a flat tax. It's an interesting idea.

They already have it - it is called form 1040ez.

If you have many write off the 1040 ez is useless.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
i think we need a sales tax. no deductables.

we do away with all other taxes federal and state. except gas tax. and instead of useing gas tax to pay for everything. use it for what was meant to be used for roads.

here comes gene
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting thought inspired by Danielost:

What would happen if the taxes went back to what they were designed for? Gas tax was for road maintenance. That way CDOT (Colorado Dept of Trans) can actually FIX the roads and keep them better maintained (especially in my mountainous region). The fees for immigration paperwork (which recently doubled and tripled!) actually are used to improve their database and inefficiencies.

Companies are forced to continuously work on their inefficiencies or else they get caught in the middle of the road. The Sad thing the gov't gets money they DO VERY Little to deserve. Hmm, I'll have to ponder on this one a bit.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Demosthenes Locke

I guess my sarcasm was lost.

But think about it.  To the end user (the taxpayer), what is the difference?  They write down how much they made, cross to the table, and write down how much they owe.  Flat or not, it is the same.  ANd if it is going to be an option (leaving the old 1040 as it is), then it is no different from today.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your sarcasm was lost, Dr. Guy. Looks like we found it!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply from drguy to desmoniouslocke {SP?}

I guess my sarcasm was lost.
But think about it. To the end user (the taxpayer), what is the difference? They write down how much they made, cross to the table, and write down how much they owe. Flat or not, it is the same. And if it is going to be an option (leaving the old 1040 as it is), then it is no different from today.

The difference is today there are loopholes that the very rich can take advantage of.
With a flat tax, period it just comes down to you made X you pay 10% of X no escape clauses, no need to spend Billions a year to CPA'S trying to figure out how to get by paying less, the very rich can afford to pay someone 1,000,000 dollars if they can save 2,000,000 in taxes and for sure they do it all the time.


Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
We fought a long and hard war to get away from England's unfair taxation


It was unfair, because the 13 colonies were taxed to provide money to England.

Anything the U.S. Gov taxes is somewhat given back to the U.S. citizen (except money sent oversea). Be it in the form of salaries (which helps the economy roll), subventions, infrastructure development, etc...

When you pay tax, this money is not "lost".

I mean, you right-wing people want a more powerful military, but lower taxes. How are you supposed to pay the former in the same time you cut taxes?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)JythierAugust 2, 2007 14:36:21


Your sarcasm was lost, Dr. Guy. Looks like we found it!


someone really needs to invent a 'SARCASTIC FONT' SO PEOPLE can read it and know what it is!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tax code is much more important than you would think. After all, if there was no financial benefit for giving to charity, then less people would give to charity. Also the tax benefits of owning a house and paying a mortgage would be reduced, and the credits for going to college and paying student loan interest would disappear. Tax code says a lot about what a nation really cares about. But, it seems that lately all we care about is nothing.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
How would it benifit anyone over anyone else gene? Explain, if 10 cents came out of every dollar earned how would that benifit the wealthy.


Knowing the logic of gene, it's because poor people will actually have to pay taxes and the "rich" will be equal with everyone else.  That goes directly against his stances on class warfare.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The difference is today there are loopholes that the very rich can take advantage of.
With a flat tax, period it just comes down to you made X you pay 10% of X no escape clauses, no need to spend Billions a year to CPA'S trying to figure out how to get by paying less, the very rich can afford to pay someone 1,000,000 dollars if they can save 2,000,000 in taxes and for sure they do it all the time.


I understand a true flat tax, but I was discussing the option that Sam Bronwback was proposing.

I mean, you right-wing people want a more powerful military, but lower taxes. How are you supposed to pay the former in the same time you cut taxes?


By Limiting the government to what the constitution expressly says it can do. Beleive it or not, the Defense budget is a very small percentage of the total federal budget (less than 25%).

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Island DogAugust 2, 2007 14:56:00


How would it benefit anyone over anyone else gene? Explain, if 10 cents came out of every dollar earned how would that benefit the wealthy.


Knowing the logic of gene, it's because poor people will actually have to pay taxes and the "rich" will be equal with everyone else. That goes directly against his stances on class warfare.


this two Americas thing the Democrats love to throw around so much is just another way of keeping the country divided., Try to remember in the 2004 Election George Bush was the poorest of the candidates having only 13 million dollars, then came Dick Cheney, then came John Edwards, then came Hanoijohn Kerry with assets over one billion
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
then came Hanoijohn Kerry with assets over one billion


But he EARNED that money the old fashion way!

He married it.