Would you work if over 50% of your income was taken from you??

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

I'm a proponent of a modified flat tax. I wrote the following in an article entitled "A Lincolnian Party Vision for America":

Establish a fixed rate of tax on all income, interest, and dividends above the defined poverty level less any approved deductions, exemptions, or credits.
Change the capital gains schedule to reflect long-term investment according to the following:
< 1 year 100% of gain taxable
1 year but < 2 years 80% of gain taxable
2 years but <3 years 60% of gain taxable
3 years but <4 years 40% of gain taxable
4 years but < 5 years 20% of gain taxable
5 years and up the gain is tax free
Limit the deductibility of Real Estate interest for an individual to $7500 and $15,000 annually for joint filers (Primary and secondary residences only).
Review small business and corporate tax laws to develop policy that encourages long-term investment, expansion, and jobs within the United States especially in the areas of higher technology.

Keep in mind that a flat rate of 17% to 22% even at the 100% taxable rate would still be lower than what most people pay today. Small investors would be rewarded for holding long term to have their investment gains tax free.

Nobody has chimed in on my proposal for a modified flat tax? Anybody willing to debate the pro's and con's of this proposal?

[KevK]

If it were up to me, ALL income would be just INCOME no matter where it came from- wages, tips, capital gains, dividends, inheritance ect. It would be taxed simply with no deductions at all including home mortgages (why should renters subsidize homeowners?). It would work simply: The FIRST $30,000 of every American's income pay NO taxes other than Social Security. So whether you make $20,000 or $20,000,000 you get the first $30K free of taxation and this would be indexed for inflation. At $30,000 taxes would start at 3% and go to to a maximum of 65% of those making over 3 million a year.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

Nobody has chimed in on my proposal for a modified flat tax? Anybody willing to debate the pro's and con's of this proposal?

Do that in a separate thread, don't redirect this one.

[theroc5156]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

It doesn't matter that he pays more in total dollars, because he has more to pay in the first place. Government services are generally considered to be those that people have an equal entitlement to, regardless of income -- people with more money don't therefore deserve better police protection, better infrastructure, better access to highways, etc., and plus they have far more to lose in the event of the collapse of government protections/monopoly on the use of force, so we attempt to base taxation on the ability to pay, rather than eveyone paying equally, in consistency with the above "philosophy." This may sound "socialist" to some of the various law-of-the-jungle minded libertarianervatives on this forum, but only if the great and exalted Prophet of Capitalism Adam Smith was a socialist:

"The subjects 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. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

from The Wealth Of Nations

Income taxes are unconstitutional and penalize success. Taxes should be based on consumption and usage. Your point about a rich person not deserving more protection, better infrastructure, better access is taken. However, didn't they pay more for it than the people who made less or no money? I love capitalism, however, it only works with a bit of "socialism" (welfare, social security, unemployment, utilities, fire, police, etc.) That being said, taxing the rich a bit more than the poor is fine. However, taxing the rich at 50% and the middle class and poor at 20% still isn't fair. The rich person may have made some risky investments that paid off. Will the government give them their money back if those investments didn't pay off??