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.
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
Taxes are a thin line. It is part economics, but also part social pact/agreement. People can cheat on taxes. People can like, or hate their government. What they think about taxes are important - just as much as the economic impact
I'm no liberal, of course. I think that unemployment insurance just keeps people unemployed longer. . .and that minimum wage isn't really necessary (freedom/liberty between employer employee trumps it)
WIth that being said, I know the facts/evidence/reality. I know the studies from countries and their impact. Here is what they say
1 - progressive tax systems have not hurt economic development
2 - progressive tax systems (as you get richer pay more) are thought to be fairer by general populace
3 - progressive tax systems, therefore, have more happy citizens and people who are happy are more honest when they pay taxes.
You can look at states with very progressive systems, and high tax burdens. The thing is, at the end of the day, you would have to go really crazy with taxes to move these people out of country. So the spare change that "liberals" often talk about (such as Obama's plan) won't have any real impact. . .
its like these minimum wage laws that are lower than the prevailing lowest wage. wtf cares. if you moved it up to the prevailing wage - people would moan/gripe - but it wouldn't change anything.
I don't know all of the deal with taxes, but I think if everyone paid some set percetnage of their income that would make sense.. I think the more wealthy someone gets there seems to be more loopholes and other nonsense.
Flat tax...
You pay X pecent whether you make 25K a yr or 1M a yr... I don't know why we can't get some straight answers on why this wouldn't work...
Thank you Chowhound. I'm very new on this site and I'm sure someone else has said it here, but you're the first one I've ran across.
FLAT TAX, everybody pays the same percent. Period. Very simple.
There is only one reason why it's not that way. The powers to be, that have been creating the tax laws, are the ones who have huge amounts of money and they are in bed with the powerhouse corporations that also have huge amounts of money. Together, they have been having trouble with the concept of paying out such large sums of their money in taxes. So, they've been adjusting their percent a bit over the years, loopholes have been created. They still pay in the most money in taxes, but it's not as much as they would've had to pay. So, they justify those little gradual adjustments.
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
Sort of like Trickle down in reverse....O.K. here's the answer , because they can afford to pay it without suffering a whole lot of financial misery and grief .......and unselfish persons like the POTUS who is taxing himself being a Multi - Millionaire himself is willing to bring down the debt by taking from those that can actually afford to pay down the national debt...
Why Should The Rich Pay More In TAXES
Sort of like Trickle down in reverse....O.K. here's the answer , because they can afford to pay it without suffering a whole lot of financial misery and grief .......and unselfish persons like the POTUS who is taxing himself being a Multi - Millionaire himself is willing to bring down the debt by taking from those that can actually afford to pay down the national debt...
Yes it will. Increase taxes and it will hurt the middle class. You obviously have to see it to believe it but by then Obama will give you talking points to rant.
And since you have a 7th grade math education like Obama admitted to, just an fyi, $250K is not a millionaire.
Thank you Chowhound. I'm very new on this site and I'm sure someone else has said it here, but you're the first one I've ran across.
FLAT TAX, everybody pays the same percent. Period. Very simple.
There is only one reason why it's not that way. The powers to be, that have been creating the tax laws, are the ones who have huge amounts of money and they are in bed with the powerhouse corporations that also have huge amounts of money. Together, they have been having trouble with the concept of paying out such large sums of their money in taxes. So, they've been adjusting their percent a bit over the years, loopholes have been created. They still pay in the most money in taxes, but it's not as much as they would've had to pay. So, they justify those little gradual adjustments.
The problem I see with a flat tax is, say for example, the flat rate is set at 15%. 15% from someone raising a child making $20,000 would no doubt be hardest hit, extremely so than someone making $1,000,000 who may not be able to buy that new boat for now.
Thank you Chowhound. I'm very new on this site and I'm sure someone else has said it here, but you're the first one I've ran across.
FLAT TAX, everybody pays the same percent. Period. Very simple.
There is only one reason why it's not that way. The powers to be, that have been creating the tax laws, are the ones who have huge amounts of money and they are in bed with the powerhouse corporations that also have huge amounts of money. Together, they have been having trouble with the concept of paying out such large sums of their money in taxes. So, they've been adjusting their percent a bit over the years, loopholes have been created. They still pay in the most money in taxes, but it's not as much as they would've had to pay. So, they justify those little gradual adjustments.
Flat tax is regressive, period. If cost of living for one person is $15K, a flat tax on $15K income obviously leaves then with not enough to adequately live on.
Living costs are also (obviously) regressive, and a regressive flat tax only exacerbates the regressivity of life.
The regressivity of life includes the regressivity of renting as opposed to owning, which suggests the least we can do - if we're going to have regressive taxes - is to facilitate - instead of hindering - ownership for low earners.
That doesn't mean subsidizing ownership but it does mean government has a moral obligation to get out of the way and to not prevent the private sector from providing affordable ownership options.
You with me on this, or do you oppose allowing the private sector to provide affordable ownership options?
The problem I see with a flat tax is, say for example, the flat rate is set at 15%. 15% from someone raising a child making $20,000 would no doubt be hardest hit, extremely so than someone making $1,000,000 who may not be able to buy that new boat for now.
Not hardest hit, dear, equally hit.
It's just harder to live off $17,000.00 after taxes, the financial stresses are immense even for someone with no children, compared to the $850,000.00 the one making a million would have after taxes. (using your 15% example) Hands down, there is no doubt of the struggles of the poor one making only $20,000. I am one of those people who have had to do it, Hell I'm still poor. :-)
Actually, it's my belief that if the rich paid the same percent as the poor the extra tax money collected might even allow a drop in the tax percent for everyone across the board, or perhaps, the extra tax money could be put into offsetting this astronomical deficit of, what is it now?, 17 trillion dollars. ABSOLUTELY PITIFUL MONEY MANAGEMENT.
Couldn't find the article in my archives but there was an article where millionaires went to the capitol to demand to pay higher taxes. They felt they weren't being taxed enough.
That's pretty strong evidence against anyone who thinks the rich are paying too much in taxes.
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.
