A 15 % FLAT TAX

gene how would you have it? tax the wealthy more than others? how is that by any stretch of the imagination fair?

anytime you single out a group for special treatment be it unfair or fair, you are on the road to totalitarianism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1051

Why don't you go answer the question of how much each "class" should pay in taxes?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Gene, did you take into account deductions?

Successfully updated karma reason!

First, to not consider what it takes to just live is NOT FAIR. The impact of a person' making$20,000 or $35,000 would be negative. We have had a progressive tax rate since the Federal income tax was passed. The wealthy in the 1990's did BETTER than at any other time with the higher tax rates prior to the Bush tax cuts. To push a flat tax that would increase taxes on low to average income worker while granting more tax cuts to people at the income level of Bush and Cheney is WRONG. I also suspect the 15% tax would not come close to balancing the budget.

Bush is saying the Annual deficit this year, with the imporved economy, will be $330 Billion. However, that is after he has deducted the $200 Billion surplus from Social Security and Medicare this year. The real Federal Budged Deficit for the year that ends Friday is $530 Billion without Social Security and Medicare surplus.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm agreeing with a flat tax because:

1) It's consistent. If I make $10,000 I know that I'll be able to keep 85% the majority of it. No more guessing whether that contract that I just took on the side to pay off a couple medical bills will cost me more in the long run (currenlty, it might bump me into a higher bracket and cost me having to pay additional taxes later).

2) It's fair. Everyone has to pay the same percentage of their income as taxes. So, if someone makes $10,000, they'll only have to pay the same PERCENTAGE as someone makeing $100,000 or $1,000,000. Sure, they'll end up paying LESS than the person making $100,000 or $1,000,000, but isn't it a given that the poor are less able to pay a larger share of the taxes? Aren't people screaming that the wealthy should pay more in taxes than the others? This will cause them to do so.

Also, that person making $4,700,000 in a year should pay a large chunk of money in taxes. Not 40%.

3) It eliminates any loopholes or other ways to avoid paying. Everyone pays, noone cheats the system. If it's everyone paying the same RATE (note it is not the same $$$ amount), then it's fair. If you cannot avoid paying these taxes, then it becomes fair. There are currently too many ways to avoid paying most of the taxes that are due.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, I used the Standard deduction of $9,700 for a couple filing a joinr return. For the $20,000 couple that showed a line 42 Taxable income of$10,300 and $25,300 for the $35,000 couple.

What amount should we return to: The rates in effect prior to 2001 except for the elimination of the marriage penalitty, 10% bracket and Child care credit of $1,000 per child. We should also increse the point where the minimum tax takes effect and then index that higher amount to inflation in the future. Then we should cut the PORK and more fully enforce the tax laws. After we have done all that, we need to see if we have balanced the budget.

Successfully updated karma reason!

At least everyone would be paying their equal share in taxes as a percentage of their income. I find this more fair than the bracketed system. At least I'll know that the guy making $1m will be contributing his $150,000 and the guy making $15k will be ponying up his $1500. I make $40k/yr. and a flat tax sounds just grand to me. Why should the rich have to pay more of a percentage of their income just because they're rich? Because they can afford it? Please.

With a flat tax, everyone would be chipping in their fair share. If a flat tax was considered, I only think it was a good idea if exemptions were done away with, or reduced so only a certain amount of that 15% could be deducted (say, maximum exemptions only equal to 10% of the total tax owed). That way there is still a way to get a "discount" on your tax bill, but everyone is still chipping in according to their income.

Maybe this would give the lesser people more of an incentive to live within their means, and stop trying to live off the government tit (disclaimer: blanket statement, take at face value).

-- B

Successfully updated karma reason!

The issue is NOT to be CONSISTANT but to be Fair. The wealthy pay higher taxes from THEIR SURPLUS the poor and Middle income would pay it from their HIDE.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Have each state place the question on the ballot. See is the majority want a flat tax knowing what it will mean. We would also have to determine if 15% would belance the budget. Hell it might take 25%.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1051

The issue is NOT to be CONSISTANT but to be Fair. The wealthy pay higher taxes from THEIR SURPLUS the poor and Middle income would pay it from their HIDE

How is it fair for someone who is successful to pay more money?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoomba

Join Date 11/2002

+114

You're not taking into account deductions and loopholes and welfare and other assistance programs offered to low-income families either. It's not as clear-cut as you would make it out to be Gene. And just because someone can afford to pay more doesn't mean they should or that they're obligated to. A system that over-taxes the wealthy in an attempt to level the playing field results in stagnation since there is no longer any incentive to do well beyond a certain level. Many people who have money had to earn it the hard way just ike the rest of us.

I worked hard to get a college education so that I could get a better job that pays more money. I work hard at my job so I can get a raise. Should I be penalized for my hard work? Should Brad be penalized because he busted his butt to build a successful company? Should my father be penalized for spending the past 30 years working to expand our knowledge of science, teaching, and international outreach education?

It sounds great in theory, make the rich pay more... until you think about what it means... it's punishing success. It hurts the drive to succeed and do better. I know if I knew making over X amount would cause me to get taxed significantly higher, I'd actually work to stay BELOW that line. That's less money in the economy circulating as I have less to spend. How would THAT solve any problems?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok, so we'll excempt the first $40,000 (indexed for cost of living by area since there is a world of difference between what $40k is worth in Sheboygan and what it is worth in Anchorage), then tax everyone else 15% of everything else. The same for everyone, no deductions, breaks, loopholes or any other weapon of class warfare warriors. The government wouldn't be entitled to any bigger cut from anyone than anyone else.

No wonder everyone with a brain should prefer a flat tax... But that wouldn't play into your bigoted Class Warfare now would it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Everybody paying the same amount is fair.

Everybody paying the same percentage is fair.

Everybody paying nothing (i.e. the same amount and the same percentage) is fair.

A progressive tax is NOT fair.

What you want is not fairness but forced assistance. Whether forcing people to help others in a society is a good thing or not is a good question. But calling it fairness doesn't help.

A regressive tax is also not fair, and for the same reasons too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It sounds great in theory, make the rich pay more... until you think about what it means... it's punishing success

Well aren't you punishing success with a 15% flat tax too since the more you make the more that 15% rate will take?

COL Gene, apparently I'm the only one on your side here. And no one has said anything about the failure of our government to ask the public to make any sacrifices for our forces at war in Iraq. I don't think yellow magnets are getting the job done at supporting the troops if continued military involvement is bankrupting our country without a tax system to support it.

Suspeckted Returns!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: SuspecktedPosted: Monday, September 26, 2005

nice to see yer around again sus, look forward to future headbanging with ya.

welcome back.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoomba

Join Date 11/2002

+114

Suspeckted,

True a tax of any sort punishes anyone who earns any money, but the point of a flat tax is to make the punishment fair regardless of income levels. A progressive tax such that we have now can act as a disincentive to achievement if it's increased the way people like Gene keep calling for.

15% across the board (or any other percentage as long as it's equally applied) means everyone's paying an equal share of their income into the federal govt. Raising taxes on upper class doesn't actually do anything meaningful. A simple tax hike will not come close to fixing the budget issues... and another thing is since when has the govt even considered tax income as a limiter to spending? They just spend what they like, and if it happens to fall in line with taxes, then great... but it almost never does. If they had more money, if anything they'd just spend more. Taxes are half of the budget equation, the other half is spending, and you can do a LOT more if you address spending over if you address taxes. It's realtively easy to cut wasteful programs and departments to make a big dollar save at the end of the year. It's much harder to increase taxes to the point where you'd see an income hike equivalent to budget save through cuts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1051

15% across the board (or any other percentage as long as it's equally applied) means everyone's paying an equal share of their income into the federal govt.

It really could be that simple. That's what I would call fair.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Little_whip

Not at all. Lets take it to ALL Taxpayers and see what the MAJORITY WANT. I doubt that 15% flat tax would come close to a balanced budget given the size of the deficit. Setting an amount before knowing how much it will take to balance the budget and begin paying down the $ 8 Trillion on the National Debt, would be foolish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Here's the thing, though Gene. There are a lot of folks that don't pay their full amount of taxes due. I know this for a fact.

See, I'm a working father of 4. We have only my salary to live on (and subsequently, to be taxed). With everything that's going on (educator's tax credits, educator's expenses tax writeoff's, child tax credits for 4 qualifying children, ... ), I end up not having ANY tax liability. So, here I am, a middle-class working stiff that doesn't pay taxes. Oh, I have them taken out, and I file my 1040A (and all other necessary forms, as required) every February. And then Uncle Sam (via that lovely agency, the IRS) returns everything that was withheld. Is this fair? Not in the least. Is this what happens under the current tax system? Most definitely.

To be fair, every person that works should have to put into the pot a portion of what they have earned. Make it a flat percentage so that the amount put by Party A is proportional to the amount put in by Party B. The actual numbers don't matter because the proportions of taxes paid to earnings kept will be the same. That's fair. It only seems unfair (and where most opponents to a flat tax latch on to) when you look at Party A only paying $2700 in taxes (off a base earnings of $18,000, keeping $15,300) versus Party B paying $27,000 (off a base earnings of $180,000, keeping $153,000).

Seems like Party B is getting to keep so much more money than Party A, right? In raw numbers, yes, he is. Why does Party B get to keep 10 times more money than Party A? Because Party B earned 10 times more money than Party A. The proportion of taxes paid is the same, though.

How does this help get the deficit down? More people paying taxes. No more loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Therefore, no way to avoid paying taxes = more money coming in.

Think of it like a company. On paper, I might have $2.5 million dollars in revenue. But, I can't actually spend it if my Accounts Receivable folks drop the ball and don't actually collect the money that I'm owed. Same here, if the people that are currently not paying any taxes (because of refunds or simple avoidance or other loopholes), then revenue goes up.

Also, measures would need to be put in place to curtail not filing, at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Another way to avoid this whole deal is to kill the Federal Income tax entirely. Move to a national sales tax. You aren't actually taxed on the money that you earn. You pay an additional fee when you purchase something. This way, you're only hit once for your money - when you use it. If you can only afford the little stuff, that's all you pay taxes on. If you can afford the huge $$ luxery items, then you get taxed on that. And this national sales tax would be required on all transactions - sales, services, and trade. Oh, this also puts into play a tax-free savings plan - any money that you don't spend, you don't get taxed on. Simple enough.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I was out of work for one month.

Since my last paycheque was twice the usual amount, the Irish tax office taxed me as if my income had doubled. This is necessary in a progressive tax system since the tax office cannot know why my paycheque had doubled.

It effectively meant that I suddenly paid more taxes when I was unemployed.

It wouldn't have happened in a flat tax system.

I only got the money back two months later, when I had a new job and didn't need the money as urgently as during the month I was unemployed.

How is that fairer than a flat tax system?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Move to a national sales tax.

What's so great about a sales tax?

If you can afford the huge $$ luxery items, then you get taxed on that.

Ah, you mean a luxury tax. That is a good idea. The second best tax according to Adam Smith.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What the col doesn't realize is that most people in the first two sections of his list pay no taxes at all, since they get it all and more back on refunds.

What I don't understand is why the Col feels that the majority of people who USE government resources shouldn't have to pay for them. The bill should be handed to the small, wealthy minority who we rely upon to invest and create businesses and jobs. It doesn't make sense.

Successfully updated karma reason!

First, for a flat tax to work it would first have to allow a deduction that reflects the reality of the taxpayer-- Mortgage interest real estate taxes, children, cost of living in the area where you live, any medical expense paid by the taxpayer and contributions. After those deductions we would need to calculate what % would be required, after the above deductions, to balance the budget. I am sure it would be a lot more the 15%.

The national sales tax would not work because the low and middle income workers could not affort that tax added to the cost of the goods and services they purchase. They already spend alomst 100 % of their take home pay. The savings rate in this country is almost zero. The Fair Tax Group estimates a sales tax would require 23% on Everything including, health care, legal, all services and all things you purchase.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

I do not support a flat tax. I believe the wealthy should pay disproportionately more because they benefit disproportionately more from living in a stable, free, open society.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A 15 % FLAT TAX

Who gets What?