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.
Shouldn't we all pay the same tax rate? I understand the government needs revenue to operate, but in a country that prides itself on treating everybody as fairly and equally as possible, I don't see how a progressive income tax is acceptable. In fact, I'd call it discrimination against people with higher incomes. And the more you make, the more the government discriminates against you.
A flat tax sounds good on paper, but it would unfairly penalize the poor, while giving the rich an unfair advantage. 17% of 5000 is a lot more punishing to someones finances than 17% of 5,000,000.
I remember Warren Buffet saying that it was unfair that his tax rate was 16% while his secretary was paying 35%. It seems very obvious that if Buffet paid the same flat tax the secretary would have more money and Buffet would be paying his fair share of taxes and the government would be rolling in the dough.
A flat tax sounds good on paper, but it would unfairly penalize the poor, while giving the rich an unfair advantage. 17% of 5000 is a lot more punishing to someones finances than 17% of 5,000,000.
If you're worried about tax rates on the poor, then you could exempt the first $15,000 from being taxed, and then have a flat tax rate on all income above that amount.
I remember Warren Buffet saying that it was unfair that his tax rate was 16% while his secretary was paying 35%. It seems very obvious that if Buffet paid the same flat tax the secretary would have more money and Buffet would be paying his fair share of taxes and the government would be rolling in the dough.
Except Buffet didn't bother telling people the way his wealth is acquired, he's not subject to income tax. He's not earning wages or salary
I've seen a number of conservatives proposing a "flat-tax" solution which involves getting rid of the complicated tax system and replacing it with one simple tax. Basically, sales taxes would be increased substantially while all other forms of taxes are abolished completely. As a moderate democrat, I really like this idea and don't understand why it isn't a more bipartisan idea. Both sides should be happy with this. From the conservative's standpoint, all other taxes are abolished and replaced with one simple tax that is reasonable and will provide just as much revenue to the government. From the liberal's standpoint, a person who is rich will most likely consume and spend more money than a poor person. Therefore, he will inevitably end up spending more in taxes anyway. The conservative will still be OK with this because they know that everyone is paying the same tax rate regardless of how much money they make or other circumstances. What am I missing here? The part I like most about this is that it makes it much more difficult for anyone to evade paying taxes. This would also solve the issue of people not paying taxes to the government because they would have to in order the buy the things they need or want in life.
I understand that realistically, this isn't something that will happen in a year or even in several years. However, I would support a plan that involves phasing out the current tax system and replacing it with this one over several years. Why would anyone want to keep the tax system that we have today anyway? To keep both parties happy, make sure that whatever is proposed would realistically be able to provide the same amount of revenue that is currently being received. No more and no less.
If you're worried about tax rates on the poor, then you could exempt the first $15,000 from being taxed, and then have a flat tax rate on all income above that amount.
I would be in favor of something like that. Maybe use the federal poverty level or something similar for the exemption.
I remember Warren Buffet saying that it was unfair that his tax rate was 16% while his secretary was paying 35%. It seems very obvious that if Buffet paid the same flat tax the secretary would have more money and Buffet would be paying his fair share of taxes and the government would be rolling in the dough.
You don't know much about Warren Buffett. Yes he said that. But almost all of his wealth is tied up in Berkshire Hathaway stock. Buffett's annual salary is less than $1M per year. His only significant income occurs via long term capital gains from selling stock. Unless the government enacts a wealth tax (vs. an income tax), Buffett won't pay much in taxes even if they raise the income tax rates substantially.
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.
Why is flat-tax not a bipartisan idea?
