U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2010, 01:28 PM
 
1,432 posts, read 917,735 times
Reputation: 333

Advertisements

This will get a strong reaction depending on where you stand. What should the apprpriate income tax level be? I assume this will depend on upon what level of Govt. service you want?

From my perspective, the Govt should be there to perform services such as Defense, Road Repair, Fire/Police, Education, Prison Services, and perhaps a limited amount of Unemployment. (A limited Govt.)

I believe that we could have a flat tax (20-25%) and remove some of the deductions. Perhaps individuals with lower income levels could have tax credits, but for approximately 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax, I think there should be some "skin" in the game. I paid close to 60K in income taxes last yr, and I wonder what additonal benefit I gain if my taxes go up. I am not rich, but some would argue that I should pay more.

What do people who are in this tax bracket (top 2%) think is fair? I believe in helping others, but why must people who earn more be expected to subsidize others every time? Shouldn't a desired service have an expected cost, even if one's income is lower? A simple illustrative example, I go to a restaurant, and asked to pay more for my steak dinner than someone at the next table - simply because they make less money. The steak cost would be disproportionally hard due to there income. So instead of a flat rate, I would pay a progressive rate.

Paying for the cost of a service should not be based on the dififculty in paying for the service. Understandably those who have real challenges (physically, mentally) should get a helping hand, but many who recieve Govt benefits don't fall in this category. I also realize, in a free market, representative style govt. that high earners will need to pay more, but what is fair?

Could we not spread the bases of taxpayers out to meet some of our budget shortfalls (in addition to cutting spending). I believe that paying 60K in incomes taxes each yr is more than my fair share.

Also - for the record, I did not inherit wealth, but made choices to not marry/have children until a later age, lived with roommates and did without in my 20's, spent 10 yrs in college, and have 75K in school loans. I did not aks for "aide" then.
So I know I worked hard to get where I am at today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2010, 02:23 PM
 
63 posts, read 30,664 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98 View Post
This will get a strong reaction depending on where you stand. What should the apprpriate income tax level be? I assume this will depend on upon what level of Govt. service you want?

From my perspective, the Govt should be there to perform services such as Defense, Road Repair, Fire/Police, Education, Prison Services, and perhaps a limited amount of Unemployment. (A limited Govt.)

I believe that we could have a flat tax (20-25%) and remove some of the deductions. Perhaps individuals with lower income levels could have tax credits, but for approximately 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax, I think there should be some "skin" in the game. I paid close to 60K in income taxes last yr, and I wonder what additonal benefit I gain if my taxes go up. I am not rich, but some would argue that I should pay more.

What do people who are in this tax bracket (top 2%) think is fair? I believe in helping others, but why must people who earn more be expected to subsidize others every time? Shouldn't a desired service have an expected cost, even if one's income is lower? A simple illustrative example, I go to a restaurant, and asked to pay more for my steak dinner than someone at the next table - simply because they make less money. The steak cost would be disproportionally hard due to there income. So instead of a flat rate, I would pay a progressive rate.

Paying for the cost of a service should not be based on the dififculty in paying for the service. Understandably those who have real challenges (physically, mentally) should get a helping hand, but many who recieve Govt benefits don't fall in this category. I also realize, in a free market, representative style govt. that high earners will need to pay more, but what is fair?

Could we not spread the bases of taxpayers out to meet some of our budget shortfalls (in addition to cutting spending). I believe that paying 60K in incomes taxes each yr is more than my fair share.

Also - for the record, I did not inherit wealth, but made choices to not marry/have children until a later age, lived with roommates and did without in my 20's, spent 10 yrs in college, and have 75K in school loans. I did not aks for "aide" then.
So I know I worked hard to get where I am at today.
12% should be ample. If it isn't, cut spending. Congrats on your success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 02:27 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 10,315,099 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98 View Post
This will get a strong reaction depending on where you stand. What should the apprpriate income tax level be? I assume this will depend on upon what level of Govt. service you want?

From my perspective, the Govt should be there to perform services such as Defense, Road Repair, Fire/Police, Education, Prison Services, and perhaps a limited amount of Unemployment. (A limited Govt.)

I believe that we could have a flat tax (20-25%) and remove some of the deductions. Perhaps individuals with lower income levels could have tax credits, but for approximately 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax, I think there should be some "skin" in the game. I paid close to 60K in income taxes last yr, and I wonder what additonal benefit I gain if my taxes go up. I am not rich, but some would argue that I should pay more.

What do people who are in this tax bracket (top 2%) think is fair? I believe in helping others, but why must people who earn more be expected to subsidize others every time? Shouldn't a desired service have an expected cost, even if one's income is lower? A simple illustrative example, I go to a restaurant, and asked to pay more for my steak dinner than someone at the next table - simply because they make less money. The steak cost would be disproportionally hard due to there income. So instead of a flat rate, I would pay a progressive rate.

Paying for the cost of a service should not be based on the dififculty in paying for the service. Understandably those who have real challenges (physically, mentally) should get a helping hand, but many who recieve Govt benefits don't fall in this category. I also realize, in a free market, representative style govt. that high earners will need to pay more, but what is fair?

Could we not spread the bases of taxpayers out to meet some of our budget shortfalls (in addition to cutting spending). I believe that paying 60K in incomes taxes each yr is more than my fair share.

Also - for the record, I did not inherit wealth, but made choices to not marry/have children until a later age, lived with roommates and did without in my 20's, spent 10 yrs in college, and have 75K in school loans. I did not aks for "aide" then.
So I know I worked hard to get where I am at today.
I would not be opposed to flat "income tax" if the income included all income including capital gains. Right now capital gains is taxed lower than regular income and we know the very wealthy don't receive pay checks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,745 posts, read 9,857,114 times
Reputation: 9867
If the income tax was limited to income (gain derived from usury), I have no objection to a high rate (and uniform).
But the current incarnation is a bit more slippery, being extended to wages (as a source of "income"), via a compact (FICA).
Compound that issue with the fact that there have been no dollars since 1933.
(See Title 12 USC Sec. 411 versus the Coinage Act of 1792, et seq)

And then you throw in the fact that the government has used all our property to "back" their worthless notes.

U.S. Treasury - FAQs: Legal Tender Status of currency
"Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
Which means that everything you thought you owned has been pledged as collateral on those worthless notes, that Congress keeps authorizing. And can tax everything from you - to "back" those "dollar bills".(Look up the legal definition for "contributor", and then review FICA)

Let's not forget that the "honorable" Congress has borrowed MORE than it paid in debt service (interest). That's what Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing - in the private sector.

Talk about impossible - have you looked at the public debt? Soon to surpass 14 trillion dollars (not payable with dollar bills). Why that computes to only 700 billion ounces of gold, stamped into coin. Problem? The world wide supply of gold (est. 2009) is only 5.3 billion ounces. We know Congress has the constitutional power to borrow money on the credit of the U.S., but where's the 694.7 billion ounces loaned to Uncle Sam? Has anyone ever audited the books?

So when someone asks what tax rate is "appropriate", one must wonder if anything government does is worthy, since it hasn't adhered to the USCON since 1933, when the State of Emergency was first declared.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/16580353-post3.html
For 40 years [the report spans 1933-1973], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.
So, here we are, after 77 years of continuous "emergency rule", abrogations of the terms of the constitutional compact, confiscation of all lawful money, and a complete disregard for the property rights of the American people, and one has to marvel at the success.
What success?
The success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry that has effectively distracted over 300 million people.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that by the law on the books, all of this was done by YOUR consent.

----------------
More info:
The Great Gold Robbery of 1933 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Daily
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 05:42 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,715 posts, read 11,615,044 times
Reputation: 4141
Abe Lincoln was asked how long he thought a man's legs should be. He answered something like "long enough to reach from his waist to the ground."

Taxes should be just enough to pay the bills. The question is how much should we be spending and on what.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 05:48 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,433,702 times
Reputation: 5453
There should be no income tax. I am fairly supportive of a flat sales tax to replace income tax. You spend more money, you pay more in taxes. A flat sales tax naturally adjusts itself for all income levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 06:08 AM
 
2,944 posts, read 3,008,782 times
Reputation: 1109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98 View Post
This will get a strong reaction depending on where you stand. What should the apprpriate income tax level be? I assume this will depend on upon what level of Govt. service you want?

From my perspective, the Govt should be there to perform services such as Defense, Road Repair, Fire/Police, Education, Prison Services, and perhaps a limited amount of Unemployment. (A limited Govt.)

I believe that we could have a flat tax (20-25%) and remove some of the deductions. Perhaps individuals with lower income levels could have tax credits, but for approximately 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax, I think there should be some "skin" in the game. I paid close to 60K in income taxes last yr, and I wonder what additonal benefit I gain if my taxes go up. I am not rich, but some would argue that I should pay more.

What do people who are in this tax bracket (top 2%) think is fair? I believe in helping others, but why must people who earn more be expected to subsidize others every time? Shouldn't a desired service have an expected cost, even if one's income is lower? A simple illustrative example, I go to a restaurant, and asked to pay more for my steak dinner than someone at the next table - simply because they make less money. The steak cost would be disproportionally hard due to there income. So instead of a flat rate, I would pay a progressive rate.

Paying for the cost of a service should not be based on the dififculty in paying for the service. Understandably those who have real challenges (physically, mentally) should get a helping hand, but many who recieve Govt benefits don't fall in this category. I also realize, in a free market, representative style govt. that high earners will need to pay more, but what is fair?

Could we not spread the bases of taxpayers out to meet some of our budget shortfalls (in addition to cutting spending). I believe that paying 60K in incomes taxes each yr is more than my fair share.

Also - for the record, I did not inherit wealth, but made choices to not marry/have children until a later age, lived with roommates and did without in my 20's, spent 10 yrs in college, and have 75K in school loans. I did not aks for "aide" then.
So I know I worked hard to get where I am at today.
I am into a flat tax, but it must be simple. By what it mean simple is, there will be 1 tax system for all, both individual and entity. There will be no deductible of any kind whatsoever. This will eliminate income shifting or loophole. Tax will be a percentage of total income. There will be no added "fee" such as DMV fee, etc. There will be no FICA, no unemployment, no state tax, etc.

The rate I am purposing is 15% flat. 1/3 of 5% goes to the Federal, 2/3 or 10% goes to the state. This will be more than enough for the government to run the necessities. All other non-necessities, such as education will return back to the private sector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Orlando
8,233 posts, read 11,279,795 times
Reputation: 4064
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
I am into a flat tax, but it must be simple. By what it mean simple is, there will be 1 tax system for all, both individual and entity. There will be no deductible of any kind whatsoever. This will eliminate income shifting or loophole. Tax will be a percentage of total income. There will be no added "fee" such as DMV fee, etc. There will be no FICA, no unemployment, no state tax, etc.

The rate I am purposing is 15% flat. 1/3 of 5% goes to the Federal, 2/3 or 10% goes to the state. This will be more than enough for the government to run the necessities. All other non-necessities, such as education will return back to the private sector.

You have far more confiodence in the states than I... I'm not seeing any shining examples of thrift.

I am also not seeing any gov in education as helping that situation... seems to be a downward spiral.

15% sounds like the chance to squander 13.5%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 06:29 AM
 
20,976 posts, read 16,277,947 times
Reputation: 10270
15-20%.

IF they begin to be good stewards of our money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,482 posts, read 8,843,889 times
Reputation: 2527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secchamps98 View Post
This will get a strong reaction depending on where you stand. What should the apprpriate income tax level be? I assume this will depend on upon what level of Govt. service you want?

From my perspective, the Govt should be there to perform services such as Defense, Road Repair, Fire/Police, Education, Prison Services, and perhaps a limited amount of Unemployment. (A limited Govt.)

I believe that we could have a flat tax (20-25%) and remove some of the deductions. Perhaps individuals with lower income levels could have tax credits, but for approximately 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax, I think there should be some "skin" in the game. I paid close to 60K in income taxes last yr, and I wonder what additonal benefit I gain if my taxes go up. I am not rich, but some would argue that I should pay more.

What do people who are in this tax bracket (top 2%) think is fair? I believe in helping others, but why must people who earn more be expected to subsidize others every time? Shouldn't a desired service have an expected costshould be no icome or federal taxes we should have the fair tax, even if one's income is lower? A simple illustrative example, I go to a restaurant, and asked to pay more for my steak dinner than someone at the next table - simply because they make less money. The steak cost would be disproportionally hard due to there income. So instead of a flat rate, I would pay a progressive rate.

Paying for the cost of a service should not be based on the dififculty in paying for the service. Understandably those who have real challenges (physically, mentally) should get a helping hand, but many who recieve Govt benefits don't fall in this category. I also realize, in a free market, representative style govt. that high earners will need to pay more, but what is fair?

Could we not spread the bases of taxpayers out to meet some of our budget shortfalls (in addition to cutting spending). I believe that paying 60K in incomes taxes each yr is more than my fair share.

Also - for the record, I did not inherit wealth, but made choices to not marry/have children until a later age, lived with roommates and did without in my 20's, spent 10 yrs in college, and have 75K in school loans. I did not aks for "aide" then.
So I know I worked hard to get where I am at today.
No income or federal taxes. we should have the fair tax
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top