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.
The essential problem with a flat tax is that it is regressive. Those on the lower income scale while paying taxes at the same rate would pay a higher percentage of disposable income.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.
dont pass out. I dont disagree with you.
protection of those at the bottom must always be number one in discussing whatever plan gets implimented.
I have never had a major issue with a progressive tax. however, there are ways to deal with this and still have a flat or flatter tax.
a standard exemption equal to some agreed on number, like $40K or higher or lower depending on what is determined is needed would be a good thing.
The thing I am just tired of is this continual arguement about tax rates. I believe in the Laffer curve. why shouldnt we just find where on that curve, we get max revenue with the smallest damage to the private economy.
Where we disagree I am sure, I dont care one bit how much rich people get.
Where we likely do agree, I care a great deal about looking at the purchasing power of the lower and middle income people. When that is moving up in the private economy, I am happy regardless of how much rich people are making.
I really don't know who these poor people are, unless you are making assumptions based upon race or where they live. Most of the "poor" people that I come into contact with are incredibly frugal shoppers. Right now I am looking at a Samsung Galaxy for $80.00, you can find designer close at TJMax, Marshalls for next to nothing and god knows there are enough counterfeit D&G, Louis Vitton bags and accessories that you can find at inner city boutiques, not to mention out of the back of the van sales.
Now I'm not denying that in inner city neighborhoods where street corner entrepreneurs ply their trade members of their family sport the real deal in the latest fashions but believe it or not such individuals have too much pride to have their babymama or their kids wearing knockoffs or even in many cases receiving any kind of government largess. It would be considered a knock on their game and loss of face and respect. Things that can result in a serious diminishment in one's market share.
I know who these poor people are cause I have worked and grew up in a poor area of Los Angeles--Compton. So I am not making any assumptions based upon race. So I don't know how you would think that I was talking about minorities, unless you are assuming that only poor people are minorities. I was just basically making a statement about people who claim to be broke or poor (be it any racial group), and yet some of the same people are still able to buy those expensive items making me think hummmmmmmmmmm? Are you really as poor as you say you are or is it that by being poor, you still some how can take your SSI, GR, minimum wage check to buy those high ticketed items that you say you are too poor to afford, but buying them anyway. To me, if you are truly poor, that means you can't afford those high end items in the first place---and I am not talking about buying knock offs.
The poor people I know, including my mom who was on welfare when I was growing up, was also frugal. She didn't buy expensive things with her welfare check or expensive food with her food stamps, or lived above her means. When she did go to work, when I was in middle school after realizing that she wanted more than just a welfare check, she still remained frugal. She basically taught me, that just because a person earns six figures, that doesn't mean that he or she spends money like a person earning seven figures. Again, we live in a country where the poor seems to be defined by the expensive things that they aren't able to buy that the middle class or rich can buy.
Lately, there is this idea that people who can pay more taxes is the moral thing to do over people who don't pay any taxes or can't afford to pay taxes at all. If I am not mistaken a recent survey says that about 60% of Americans feel that it's okay to tax the rich and wealthy more because they can afford it, and somehow it's the right thing to do while most of the people in that 60% earn less that $100,000.
First all, I am a school teacher who is no where rich or wealthy, but I used to think like the 60% of Americans who think that it is okay to tax the rich more. When the rich only make up about 3% of the nation, I don't see how taxing them would generate enough revenue to help reduce our deficit as well as increase the revenue that our government needs to run the country. So again, we need the revenue to keep our medicare going, social security, military, schools, and government opened.
I am starting to lean towards eliminating deductions for tax filers and just use a flat tax on all income tax filers so that no one could get away with paying less taxes. This whole tax debate has become a moral issue too rather than an issue about the US government fairly taxing ALL Americans for the services that Americans obviously feel entitled to have (social security, home mortgage deductions, child credit, rental property deductions, job expenses etc). What do you think?
Instead of 'feeling', why not take some courses in macroeconomics from unbiased professors who can explain to you how this stuff works. Higher taxation on the wealthy is not just a moral issue; it's good economics - provided that there's economic growth and that the money isn't spent wisely.
Look, Obama is winding down two of the wars that Bush started - wars that cost trillions of dollars and added trillions to the debt. Raising the effective tax rates four percent is just putting taxes back to where they were when Clinton was president - you know, during the time when the U.S. had its longest economic expansion and during the time when there was an actual budget surplus.
Republicans are now having to eat higher taxes in no small part because they are the f*ckers who made the deficit *the* issue! They made their own dinner...time to eat it.
The essential problem with a flat tax is that it is regressive. Those on the lower income scale while paying taxes at the same rate would pay a higher percentage of disposable income.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith was probably a closet socialist. The problem with Adam Smith is that he's not Ron Paul. Ron Paul knows Adam Smith better than Adam Smith knew himself.
Instead of 'feeling', why not take some courses in macroeconomics from unbiased professors who can explain to you how this stuff works. Higher taxation on the wealthy is not just a moral issue; it's good economics - provided that there's economic growth and that the money isn't spent wisely.
Look, Obama is winding down two of the wars that Bush started - wars that cost trillions of dollars and added trillions to the debt. Raising the effective tax rates four percent is just putting taxes back to where they were when Clinton was president - you know, during the time when the U.S. had its longest economic expansion and during the time when there was an actual budget surplus.
Republicans are now having to eat higher taxes in no small part because they are the f*ckers who made the deficit *the* issue! They made their own dinner...time to eat it.
I appreciate your comment. But let me make this point clear. The Democrate nor the Republicans have a clear solution to this budget mess that we are in. I am hearing arguments on both sides from the so called economic experts who still aren't sure what tax code if any change to it would benefit our nation. So again, you put the Republicans in charge, they put us in war and ask us to pay for it later. You put the Democrats in office, they want to spend more and worry about paying for it later. So who wins? NO ONE!!!!!!
I appreciate your comment. But let me make this point clear. The Democrate nor the Republicans have a clear solution to this budget mess that we are in. I am hearing arguments on both sides from the so called economic experts who still aren't sure what tax code if any change to it would benefit our nation. So again, you put the Republicans in charge, they put us in war and ask us to pay for it later. You put the Democrats in office, they want to spend more and worry about paying for it later. So who wins? NO ONE!!!!!!
Nobody wins because the people don't hold them accountable. I used to believe in being 'bipartisan', but republicans have made me partisan. Seriously, I tried to work with this "It's both sides' fault" - except it ain't. It's one side's fault. Democrats are not perfect. I wouldn't want Democrats having unfettered discretion to run the country however they see fit, but for the next ten years or so, I'm all in on having a Democratic super majority and a politically neutered republican party. The sooner than we can get 75 percent of this country to agree with me, the better. Maybe going over the fiscal cliff will do the trick.
And if American people withdraw from FICA, and collapse the socialist insecurity system, what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by antredd
I thought you go to jail when you try that.
There is no law compelling all Americans to enroll in FICA.
There are no laws punishing any American who does not participate.
Do not believe me - write a polite letter to your congressman and ask for a copy of the laws.
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.
