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.
I don't understand why people are opposed to a flat tax income system.
0-100K =10% income tax (still keep the earned income tax credit for poor)
100K-250K=15% income tax
$250-500K=20%
500K-1 mil =25%
>1 mil =30%
1. Index the taxes for inflation
2. Eliminate all deductions (housing, retirement, business losses/stock losses etc).
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes (obviously don't allow the hedge fund manages to pay only 15% tax on their income like they have been doing).
4. Eliminate all estate taxes
This seems like the fairest way to generate income. The Dems would be happy since the rich can't circumvent taxes by shielding money in trusts etc.
The rich are happy because their capital gains are taxed free (since they can't deduct losses either). Your retirement funds would be tax free (since it's all considered after tax money anyways)
The middle class should be happy since they won't be paying more than 10% income taxes. This will offset most losses they would incur by losing the property tax deduction. Most of all, this all but eliminates the AMT trap many middle class citizens in high property tax states/high state income tax like New Jersey, NY, California face
The poor still get shielded because the earned income tax credit would still be around. Most would have very little tax liability.
People have to realize, most "rich or uber rich" people barely pay more than 10-15% "effective tax rates". This would make the rich more accountable for their "fair share." But they would still be happy since they wouldn't be taxed on investment gains.
I believe you would generate even more tax revenue this way. Everyone sees where their true tax bracket it.
I don't understand why people are opposed to a flat tax income system.
0-100K =10% income tax (still keep the earned income tax credit for poor)
100K-250K=15% income tax
$250-500K=20%
500K-1 mil =25%
>1 mil =30%
Technically, that's not a flat tax, but a more gradual progressive tax. A flat tax would be something like 18% regardless of income.
I am every bit for a more gradual progressive tax, and indexing the AMT to catch up with the 40+ years of inflation that has occurred since its inception. However, the elimination of deductions will face strong opposition.
Because the SS fund will be depleted before the millenials retire, the government wants to encourage individuals to save for their own retirement, which is the reason that 401k contributions are made before tax, and the employee matching portion is not taxed.
Capital losses are deductible because the government wants to encourage investments into businesses, hoping that those business will eventually generate tax revenue for them. Making the loss tax deductible attempts to negate the risk the investor faces of the business not being profitable.
Mortgage interest and property taxes are deductible because the IRS has discovered that homeowners generally have a more stable lifestyle than renters, which results in a higher level of income, which results in more tax revenue.
I am completely for a flat tax. I think people should be allowed to keep most of what THEY earn and not be punished for achieving success. The plans as presented by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes had 17% tax across the board. People who made under 37,000 did not get taxed at all so they are "protected". No deductions, no loopholes, no shelters. The tax return is a simple one page post card. The IRS could, for all intents and purposes, be dismantled.
People in the public who are against it are mainly against it because they think that poor people will get hit hard. Clearly not the case as they are exempt. Other are against it due to class envy. The ones who are really against it are the American Bar Association. Who would need a tax attorney anymore? This they will not stand for.
So which is most unfair? Flat income tax or flat sales tax? Again, I still don't see how these taxes have any relationship to one's liability to the State.
I personally find the flat income tax more immoral as it is still saying that every person who earns income owes a set portion of his life to government regardless of what services they recieved.
I don't understand why people are opposed to a flat tax income system.
0-100K =10% income tax (still keep the earned income tax credit for poor)
100K-250K=15% income tax
$250-500K=20%
500K-1 mil =25%
>1 mil =30%
1. Index the taxes for inflation
2. Eliminate all deductions (housing, retirement, business losses/stock losses etc).
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes (obviously don't allow the hedge fund manages to pay only 15% tax on their income like they have been doing).
4. Eliminate all estate taxes
This seems like the fairest way to generate income. The Dems would be happy since the rich can't circumvent taxes by shielding money in trusts etc.
The rich are happy because their capital gains are taxed free (since they can't deduct losses either). Your retirement funds would be tax free (since it's all considered after tax money anyways)
The middle class should be happy since they won't be paying more than 10% income taxes. This will offset most losses they would incur by losing the property tax deduction. Most of all, this all but eliminates the AMT trap many middle class citizens in high property tax states/high state income tax like New Jersey, NY, California face
The poor still get shielded because the earned income tax credit would still be around. Most would have very little tax liability.
People have to realize, most "rich or uber rich" people barely pay more than 10-15% "effective tax rates". This would make the rich more accountable for their "fair share." But they would still be happy since they wouldn't be taxed on investment gains.
I believe you would generate even more tax revenue this way. Everyone sees where their true tax bracket it.
I am completely for a flat tax. I think people should be allowed to keep most of what THEY earn and not be punished for achieving success. The plans as presented by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes had 17% tax across the board. People who made under 37,000 did not get taxed at all so they are "protected". No deductions, no loopholes, no shelters. The tax return is a simple one page post card. The IRS could, for all intents and purposes, be dismantled.
People in the public who are against it are mainly against it because they think that poor people will get hit hard. Clearly not the case as they are exempt. Other are against it due to class envy. The ones who are really against it are the American Bar Association. Who would need a tax attorney anymore? This they will not stand for.
The same can be said for the national sales tax. However because there would be no distinction between poor or rich in regards to paying a tax on new goods - there would be no animosity between such groups, thus eliminating the drive for special interests in politics. Unlike the $37,000 income exemption under the flat tax - poorer folks can still be a part of contributing as well - even though some would get a tax rebate if they fall under poverty income standards set by DHHS.
If you buy something - you pay a tax
Simply put - we all would contribute
Not to mention the money the Government would save by not having the IRS -Their budget is 12.1 Billion
And get them out of our LIVES
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.
