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.
Wait... didn't you just claim that the rich are able to get around the taxes they owe? How would their tax burden be reduced if they already 'got around' the taxes they owe?
Those who have little to no income would pay little to no tax. Those who earn A LOT of income would pay A LOT of tax. Where's the problem?
They are able to get around what they owe, that doesn't mean they all don't pay taxes, just pay at amounts lower than what they actually make Under this 'plan' their taxes would be reduced sharply and it would be offset by sharp increases in taxes to those who can least afford it.
Their taxes would increase drastically. They are the ones who can least afford a tax cut.
It would not be a drastic increase. It would be a proportionate amount to what any earner pays. Earn little to no income; pay little to no tax. What do you not get about that?
Plus, they benefit from government services. Why shouldn't they contribute?
Quote:
They are able to get around what they owe, that doesn't mean they all don't pay taxes, just pay at amounts lower than what they actually make Under this 'plan' their taxes would be reduced sharply and it would be offset by sharp increases in taxes to those who can least afford it.
Actually, if the rich get around their taxes as you claim, the flat tax would ensure that the rich pay taxes in direct proportion to their earnings.
It would not be a drastic increase. It would be a proportionate amount to what any earner pays. Earn little to no income; pay little to no tax. What do you not get about that?
Those increases would be DRASTIC to the poor and middle class (especially those with families) triple, quadruple, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Plus, they benefit from government services. Why shouldn't they contribute?
Just because they aren't paying as much income tax, does not mean they aren't contributing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Actually, if the rich get around their taxes as you claim, the flat tax would ensure that the rich pay taxes in direct proportion to their earnings.
They would still be paying FAE FAR less than what they are, and the poor would be paying FAR FAR more. You would be crippling the most vulnerable even more in order to help the very wealthy few.
Btw, what is the % of this tax you would be in favor of??
When you consider that the upper income levels average net tax benefit is in excess of 300 times larger than the averaged middle class benefit, you can see why Repubs would oppose extending them for the middle class but not for the upper levels. Not to mention, that it is the upper 2 levels that get about 65% of the value of all the cuts. In simple terms, if the total tax savings were $100 and there were 100 taxpayers, 3 of the taxpayers would share $65, while 97 of the taxpayers would share $35.
Those increases would be DRASTIC to the poor and middle class (especially those with families) triple, quadruple, etc
Exactly what about earn little to no money; pay little to no tax do you not understand?
Quote:
Just because they aren't paying as much income tax, does not mean they aren't contributing.
As much?
47% pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL.
Quote:
They would still be paying FAE FAR less than what they are
Not possible. Lefties always scream that the rich don't pay taxes.
Quote:
and the poor would be paying FAR FAR more. You would be crippling the most vulnerable even more in order to help the very wealthy few.
Again... I'll refer you to this concept: earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax. And how is finally requiring the very wealthy to pay taxes 'helping them?'
Quote:
Btw, what is the % of this tax you would be in favor of??
When you consider that the upper income levels average net tax benefit is in excess of 300 times larger than the averaged middle class benefit, you can see why Repubs would oppose extending them for the middle class but not for the upper levels.
Incorrect.
the Bush tax cuts gave middle quintile (middle 20%) earners a 40% tax cut, while giving the top 1% earners only a 21.2% tax cut. The middle class benefits nearly twice as much.
Data:
The effective tax rate of the top 1% for years 2000-2006 were as follows:
24.2%
24.1%
23.7%
20.4%
19.7%
19.3%
19.0%
The effective tax rate of the middle quintile (middle 20%) for years 2000-2006 were as follows:
Exactly what about earn little to no money; pay little to no tax do you not understand?
That would still be MASSIVE increases from what they pay now, under this flat tax garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
As much?
47% pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL.
Quite a bit actually pay, especially those who don't have kids or those who rent and don't have mortgage deductions
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not possible. Lefties always scream that the rich don't pay taxes.
They take massive deductions which put their taxable incomes at much lower amounts than it should. They would still pay FAR less under the flat tax than they do now, while the poor would be paying FAR FAR FAR more than they do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Again... I'll refer you to this concept: earn little to no money; pay little to no tax. Earn A LOT of money; pay A LOT of tax. And how is finally requiring the very wealthy to pay taxes 'helping them?'
They shouldn't be able to deduct all the crap they can now, but having MASSIVE decreases in their tax rates while having MASSIVE increases in the poor tax rates isn't the way to do it.
What a load of garbage. Take a look at the mid 90's for example, did quite fine then. Tax rates are already at pretty much near all time lows. Sharp decreases in taxes to the wealthy while sharply increasing the taxes on the poor is pure disaster.
1. Rich or poor do you think any exemptions, deductions should be given. Personal exemptions per dependent, child tax credits, mortgage interest deduction, etc? Or should it just be based on pure income whether its $15,000 or $15,000,000?
If the deductions for business expenses were gone, prices would go up three or four times what they are now.
Be careful what you wish for.
On another forum we tried to figure the cost of a loaf of bread.
We came out with $20/22 per loaf.
You're getting too complicated for the anti-business crowd.
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.
that the rich are able to get around the taxes they owe? How would their tax burden be reduced if they already 'got around' the taxes they owe? 
