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.
OK, so a flat tax may be a pipe dream, but shouldn't we lift the tax curve from the low end just a little bit? Shouldn't every dollar that is earned end up being taxed (after rebates , exceptions etc.) even if just a small amount? If it is not, then lower wage earners become merely observers rather than real stakeholders in the electoral process. This is not only detrimental to the lower middle class voter, but to the integrity of the process itself.
OK, so a flat tax may be a pipe dream, but shouldn't we lift the tax curve from the low end just a little bit? Shouldn't every dollar that is earned end up being taxed (after rebates , exceptions etc.) even if just a small amount? If it is not, then lower wage earners become merely observers rather than real stakeholders in the electoral process. This is not only detrimental to the lower middle class voter, but to the integrity of the process itself.
Say wha? How many poor people have ever been elected to Congress? What's the last time a poor person was elected to Congress?
People at the low end don't have ANY representation as it is...all we get at best are faux populists like John Edwards.
We already have "without representation" and the Founders wanted it that way.
We definitely need a different tax system. I am not sure that a flat tax is the answer.
What I would like to see is a tax cap. Find a percentage across the board, for lower and upper class. Ill say 10% because it's easier to do the math. So with every 100 subtract 10. Then a person can reduce the cost of work related items from that 10%. Additionally money saved from the previous year would not be taxable, Simply tax the pay check and other received money with in the year.
With a tax cap being the same for the upper and lower class, each would pay their share, the lower class would be able to save more money yet spend adequately to support cash flow and reduce the chance of rescission and the upper class would be able to subtract out the 10% tax to budget payroll.
A tax cap would allow the lower class to work for their money and build a savings and the upper class to use their money to work for them and continue expanding.
OK, so a flat tax may be a pipe dream, but shouldn't we lift the tax curve from the low end just a little bit? Shouldn't every dollar that is earned end up being taxed (after rebates , exceptions etc.) even if just a small amount? If it is not, then lower wage earners become merely observers rather than real stakeholders in the electoral process. This is not only detrimental to the lower middle class voter, but to the integrity of the process itself.
We need maybe a two tiered flat tax.
Maybe 4% up to 15k and the rest 9 or 10%.
There is no money and the issue is the entitlement minded voter keeps voting the OTHER person's wallet to the treasury for THEIR desires.
It is the back bone of the Obama class warfare.
There is no money and the issue is the entitlement minded voter keeps voting the OTHER person's wallet to the treasury for THEIR desires.
It is the back bone of the Obama class warfare.
Or maybe we need a consumption tax instead.
RCCB- I agree with some of what you say. But a 2 tiered tax seems arbitrary to me. Either make it flat or a finely tuned curve, that is, one with many levels. So maybe it starts at 2% and goes up in 2% or perhaps 4% steps until it gets to about 26% for those earning 500K and above. This is not a big change but would be consequential I think.
I don't think a consumption tax would work as it would inhibit consumption and slow the economy.
We definitely need a different tax system. I am not sure that a flat tax is the answer.
What I would like to see is a tax cap. Find a percentage across the board, for lower and upper class. Ill say 10% because it's easier to do the math. So with every 100 subtract 10. Then a person can reduce the cost of work related items from that 10%. Additionally money saved from the previous year would not be taxable, Simply tax the pay check and other received money with in the year.
With a tax cap being the same for the upper and lower class, each would pay their share, the lower class would be able to save more money yet spend adequately to support cash flow and reduce the chance of rescission and the upper class would be able to subtract out the 10% tax to budget payroll.
A tax cap would allow the lower class to work for their money and build a savings and the upper class to use their money to work for them and continue expanding.
Are you saying for every 100 K earned, pay 10K in tax? So if I earn 120K I still only pay 10K, but if I earn 200K I pay 20K? If so , I'm not clear on the advantage of this over a flat 10%.(?)
I wouldn't be so fast to assume we are represented by our elected legislators given that we now know laws are approved without knowing the legal and social implications of the legislation by which we are then bound.
Obamacare is the poster child for this institutional travesty just come to light.
Now if you ask that we provide more tax money to these irresponsible representratives, the answer is, NO, not on your life.
Doesn't matter who bears the tax burden until we clear up this breach of ethics.
I have one problem with a flat sales tax. What if a person saved their whole life for retirement? Their income was taxed as salary. The money was then put into an account. It has already been taxed. I am no longer employed and am living off of dividends thrown off by those savings. Enter the flat tax. Does that mean I'm paying twice?
I have one problem with a flat sales tax. What if a person saved their whole life for retirement? Their income was taxed as salary. The money was then put into an account. It has already been taxed. I am no longer employed and am living off of dividends thrown off by those savings. Enter the flat tax. Does that mean I'm paying twice?
Thats what happens now, except the dividend and "capital gains" tax is at a different rate. This is why W. Buffet can say that he doesn't pay that much tax- its all dividents and capital gains.
Your not paying twice on the money you earned, your paying once on that and once on the income that your stash creates.
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.
representation a scam,
