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.
Every income earner who lives in this country should fund it. That's the point. They live here. They receive federal protections, benefits, and services.
No it will not. What it WILL do is spread the costs of our federal government much more equitably with everyone having a stake in a fiscally responsibile government. The politicians WON'T be able to get away with nonstop spending on pork and corporate giveaways, the tax rate if ALL are paying will be low, and money will STILL circulate into the economy.
I do not agree. You have every right to your opinions, but if you insist on presenting them in an inappropriately insulting manner to hardworking people, don't be surprised if they refuse to listen to your ideas, and see you as someone who is just bitter that poor struggling people don't pay something that you don't like paying, and that you don't care whether it deeply hurts or destroys their lives. Life isn't fair, incomes are not fair, that's just life, many would love to trade places with the 53% and pay those taxes, but there will always be an underclass. It's classist to assume that people who make less money don't care about how the govt. runs and spends, I know that they do just as much if not more than the upper middle class. We are one country, policies affect everyone. I'm hearing a lot of "gimme gimme" from the upper as well as the welfare classes, as a country we should respect and consider how any policy effects all citizens, and certainly all working and rightfully retired citizens.
As does everyone else, so I'm not buying that lame excuse for freeloading by paying no federal income tax.
Flat tax. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT. That's the only modified fair way to do it. Completely fair would be a head tax with everyone paying the same amount - everyone sharing the cost equally. Would you rather a head tax?That's the epitome of paying your fair share.
A head tax, huh? Then you should start to use yours because your plan makes no sense.
If you divide the federal budget by the number of taxpayers, the amount levied by a head tax would be about $17,000 per filer. How can a person earning $15,000 per year afford $17,000 in taxes? What you did is to precisely illustrate why we have a progressive income tax system.
A head tax, huh? Then you should start to use yours because your plan makes no sense.
If you divide the federal budget by the number of taxpayers, the amount levied by a head tax would be about $17,000 per filer. How can a person earning $15,000 per year afford $17,000 in taxes? What you did is precisely illustrate why we have a progressive income tax system.
What they did was point out the completely unsustainable nonsense the current system has set up.
What they did was point out the completely unsustainable nonsense the current system has set up.
What they are is suffering under the delusion that government spending has grown over time while the reality is that revenue has dropped over time -- mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Don't believe me?
Look at the ratio of government spending (all levels) to potential GDP (potential to correct for the effects of the business cycle on the denominator):
So, there was a big rise for about 30 years after World War II. Was that about stimulus? No, it was about higher state and local spending on education, plus expansion of Social Security and the coming of Medicare and Medicaid. Then it was more or less flat once you take account of the fall in defense spending.
Government has not grown vastly bigger since the days of Reagan. And there has been a recent rise but most of that rise reflects safety net programs that will automatically shrink when the economy recovers. There’s a bit of stimulus spending too, but that's all but faded out.
A head tax, huh? Then you should start to use yours because your plan makes no sense.
If you divide the federal budget by the number of taxpayers, the amount levied by a head tax would be about $17,000 per filer. How can a person earning $15,000 per year afford $17,000 in taxes?
The question SHOULD be why is the federal government spending so much money that U.S. citizens cannot afford to fund the federal government.
What they are is suffering under the delusion that government spending has grown over time while the reality is that revenue has dropped over time -- mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Don't believe me?
Look at the ratio of government spending (all levels) to potential GDP (potential to correct for the effects of the business cycle on the denominator):
So, there was a big rise for about 30 years after World War II. Was that about stimulus? No, it was about higher state and local spending on education, plus expansion of Social Security and the coming of Medicare and Medicaid. Then it was more or less flat once you take account of the fall in defense spending.
Government has not grown vastly bigger since the days of Reagan. And there has been a recent rise but most of that rise reflects safety net programs that will automatically shrink when the economy recovers. There’s a bit of stimulus spending too, but that's all but faded out.
And this is where you're dead wrong. The ratio has decreased because that was the only way to keep the American system going as it was setup by progressives in the early 20th century. They set the course of events you now currently hate and can't seem to figure out how to solve it. But it's not just our system, see all other "westernized" countries and their completely unsustainable debts and there is one thing you can count on. As time goes on and the "eastern" countries gain a higher standard of living the entire planet declines for the very simple fact that we're on a planet with finite resources and we already use way more than the rest of the planet.
Give 2/3 of China our standard of living and 5.4 billion people go without any of the resources on the planet.
Why is it insulting to ask them to pay their fair share?
What you proposed above was a head tax, which I explained would levy a tax of $17,000 on all taxpayers, even if they earned less than $17,000. No rational person would conclude that was fair.
No rational person would suggest that Bill Gates should pay $17,000 tax, the same as a bus driver -- not even Ronald Reagan:
Not even Adam Smith:
"The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."
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.
Bearer of bad news...
