Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am. I dislike progressive taxes for the same reason as you; it penalizes people for being successful. It doesn't give people a reason to try to improve their lives by contributing more to society. An eye-opening for me was when I got into a heated discussion with somebody about parking spaces for residents of housing projects in NYC. This person believed that the housing project residents have a right to and are owed parking spots (in Manhattan where others paying $200+ per month!!). The mayor wanted to lease the land to developers so they could raise money to make repairs to the very buildings these people were living in. Why would you *need* subsidized parking in a city with an extensive public transportation system? These people are in a situation where it doesn't make sense for them to earn more money.
In an ideal world, the taxes we pay would generally be proportional to the services we use. I'd like to see the gasoline tax raised to cover repairs and improvements to roads, bridges and tunnels and not have the funds taken from an income tax. Public transportation would be paid for by fares and not heavily subsidized by general taxpayers.
It's hard to adjust taxes based on services used but, with a simple flat tax that excludes double taxation (capital gains, dividends, estate, etc.), it's a non-issue. If the tax plan of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul (Cruz proposed 10%, Paul proposed 14.5%) were implemented, the economy would take off like a bat out of hell. Of course, that would never happen b/c it limits the power of our rulers, i.e. Congress and lobbyists.
It's hard to adjust taxes based on services used but, with a simple flat tax that excludes double taxation (capital gains, dividends, estate, etc.), it's a non-issue. If the tax plan of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul (Cruz proposed 10%, Paul proposed 14.5%) were implemented, the economy would take off like a bat out of hell. Of course, that would never happen b/c it limits the power of our rulers, i.e. Congress and lobbyists.
I agree about it being difficult to adjust taxes based on services used. Transportation was the only item I could easily think of.
Yes, it can't be fully discussed in 2 paragraphs. I have family members who purposely will not work as many hours as they can so they don't get bumped into the next tax bracket. When that happens, something's not right.
That doesn't even make any sense. That means they don't understand how our tax bracket system works.
That doesn't even make any sense. That means they don't understand how our tax bracket system works.
Using the wording in your earlier post, they "throw their hands up on making more money because they're going to be taxed more as they earn more." They'd rather have a lower net income than pay a higher tax on the additional income. It's unfortunate that this ideology is out there.
Are you OK with flat tax? That would be my route. Don't know the fair tax too well.
I'm not intimately familiar with the fair tax yet either and there would be a lot of things to work out beforehand. A flat tax is an easier transition to make and I think it's a step in the right direction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
