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.
We've had this discussion on C-D before. Smith addresses that concern specifically through the real estate tax...
"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, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Notice how he discusses taxing the rich in proportion to their income - a flat tax - and endorses the property tax as a way to get the rich to then pay more than others in property taxes. The more valuable the home/property, the higher the tax one must pay. Very much like the system we have now.
Not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion is talking about a flat tax?
A flat income tax for the 10% that are unemployed(or poor) generates how much revenue? According to my math that figure is minimal. An elevated flat sales tax for the unemployed (or poor) places them more in the red, paying elevated taxes without earning (much) income.
As unpopular as this is, if you want tax revenue you have to tax the folks with money, not without. It ain't fair, but it is reality, at least in our current situation.
Perhaps my thinking is flawed, but I consider effect when contemplating a flat tax. A 10% flat tax on the poor has a considerable more effect than a 30% tax on the rich. Fair? Not at all. Reality? Without a doubt.
A quick way to get the poor to pay more taxes would be to place a 5% tax on lottery tickets.
A quick way to get the rich to pay more taxes would be to close just several of the loopholes in the tax code specifically designed to 'shelter' money.
(I don't see either of those quick fixes coming to fruition.)
By the way, I am a 53 percent-er. I forked over a big chunk of change last year. Those of you who actually paid nothing can thank me anytime.....
Those child credits are nothing compared to what has to be spent to raise a child.
That's like the mortgage deduction..it's not $1 for $1 so having a big mortgage with a hefty interest portion does not put you ahead of anything..you are still losing.
Folks with kids need a break. Families cannot survive on a single salary these days; most are two income families and they still struggle.
If you cant afford kids...then don't have kids. Don't expect a handout for not being able to wrap it up.
I would be interested to see how many taxes most of the posters on here pay. We are retirees and pay more than we did when we were making house payments and bringing up our family.
Maybe someone who knows how can post a poll on the subject. It would be good on this thread. Lets see how the age of posters affect the amount of taxes they pay.
I know sales tax probably cannot be included, but it is simple to look on last years tax record and add real estate taxes and see what the bigger taxes are. We pay food tax too. We have a pie chart on our computer that tells us where the money goes and some months charity and taxes take about half of our income.
What federal tax that you're paying has changed? None? If your state/county/city charges too much then move.
I have to see how they define "owe." I never "owed" any income tax on April 15 because I had more withholding deducted from my paycheck throughout the year so I wouldn't owe any money on April 15. That doesn't mean I didn't pay any income tax.
Excellent point. I haven't "owed" any federal income tax for years, but every year I pay federal income tax. In fact, I always pay a bit more than required, so I get back a small refund each year.
It would have been helpful if the OP had included a link to the article being quoted. It may have been this:
Nearly half of all tax units will pay no income tax in 2009.
And in the introduction, it says:
... 47 percent of tax units will owe no income tax in 2009
Paying income tax, and owing income tax, are not the same thing, and I'm disappointed that an organization "... made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government" would be so sloppy with their terminology.
When I sat down to figure out my 2009 federal income taxes, I didn't owe Uncle Sam any money, but that's because I already paid him.
It is a non issue, the money is better spent by the lower classes in the marketplace, which improves the economy and in turn generates more taxes. They are already overtaxed by the multiple other taxes which take a disproportionate amount of their income. It is better for the country to have the majority of the tax burden rest on the rich, as it will have little affect on their spending. The lower classes have to restrict spending to pay taxes; the rich can pay taxes and spend. Simple math.
If you cant afford kids...then don't have kids. Don't expect a handout for not being able to wrap it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Excellent point. I haven't "owed" any federal income tax for years, but every year I pay federal income tax. In fact, I always pay a bit more than required, so I get back a small refund each year.
Paying income tax, and owing income tax, are not the same thing.
When I sat down to figure out my 2009 federal income taxes, I didn't owe Uncle Sam any money, but that's because I already paid him.
It's all about budget. If you can't afford it, don't try to buy it.
I am 59 years old and only paid once at the end of the year,
and that's when I retired.
It is a non issue, the money is better spent by the lower classes in the marketplace, which improves the economy and in turn generates more taxes. They are already overtaxed by the multiple other taxes which take a disproportionate amount of their income. It is better for the country to have the majority of the tax burden rest on the rich, as it will have little affect on their spending. The lower classes have to restrict spending to pay taxes; the rich can pay taxes and spend. Simple math.
First, what do you consider rich??
Also, I disagree with your post.
The "lower class" (your term) may spend hundreds.
I spend hundreds of thousands and hire people. This month's bills were a little over $100,000. Which one do you really think helps more??
When you add in the fact the "lower class" likely gets back more than they paid in, I am sure they would not want to change things.
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.
