I believe the rich should pay more in taxes (illegals, school, elect)

[djmilf]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

It's called an "inclusive tax", I believe. No sleight of hand--you just pay the tax up front.

Yes, they use the terms 23% inclusive and 30% exclusive. The inclusive does make it a fair comparison to the current income tax methodology, but it's at best disengenious to not flip it around so that people can compare it to the familiar city and state sales tax rates.

Where do those corporations get the food, cars, housing, etc? They buy them....and pay tax on them.

It says right on the website that corporations pay no Fair Tax on any item that is purchased and used towards the creation of the company's products and/or services. That leaves an awfully large loophole for executive perks.

The rich people spend money, right? You get taxed on what you buy. Isn't that fair? Warren Buffet covers his income in corporate tax breaks. With the "Fair Tax" he would pay for what he buys.

The poor spend all of their income on new goods and services. The middle class spends a large fraction of their income on new goods and services. The wealthy spend a relatively small fraction of their income on new goods and services.

A poor person might spend $500 on rent, a service that is entirely subject to the 30%+ Fair Tax. A middle class person might buy a $200K existing home and pay Fair Tax on the interest paid (a service rendered). A wealthy person might buy a mansion for $5 million cash, subject to NO Fair Tax. The wealthy person makes out like a bandit.

How so?

The Pre-Bate checks that go out every month. Do the math - it's like $400 billion dollars each year (at least back in 2005, I haven't bothered to go thru the updated web site).

OK?

So...you have no problem with prices suddenly rising 40% for all new goods and services purchased in this country. Think we have a recession now, wait until this hits.

And IRS agents are free?

No, but I'm certain that they'll all find new jobs either in the part of the federal government that verifies elegibility for the Pre-bate or that prints and mails the Pre-bate checks each month or they'll find work in all of the state governments tracking down vendors who screw up their Fair Tax collections.

Is that a problem?

For some, no.

For others, yes.

But repealing the amendment is a requirement for the Fair Tax, which itself is only a law. The Fair Tax could miserably fail, but the amendment would be repealed and incredibly difficult to reinstate.

But then deficits don't matter, I suppose....

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by WillynillyTalc

Reality cares about your beliefs over mine?

None of what I posted to which you are quoting is belief, but facts.

Laughable. I speak from my own experience, which is all any of us really have to go on. I speak from my heart.

Damn evidence, damn reason. All we need is meaningless emotional responses to questions we don't understand but want to answer anyway because our heart always has answers.

Try reason or leave the argument.

I don't share your pessimistic view of humanity. I realize some things that happen to people are out of their control. I thought I mentioned that, but I tend to lose track of things sometimes. It's how we react and deal with those things out of our control that defines our lives.

I may be more positive in my view of humanity than you, I believe that people can do anything they set their minds to regardless of outside circumstances. I believe in the nobility of humanity. I don't make excuses for it's shortcomings.

Again, reality doens't care. You can feel all warm and fuzzy believing you are where you are because of some incredible skill you have. You can patronize those below you because they didn't work hard enough in college. Nobody told you that the peons you're walking on went bankrupt paying for cancer treatments.

I don't thing Bill Gates was "lucky" as you put it. He was a smart and shrewd business person. He saw something that would be useful to us and gave us a means to use it. Then he profited from it. Bill Gates is not the rich man he is today because he was male and white. To say so would be to diminish his accomplishments and his intellect.

Quantum causation. I never stated he was specifically successful because of being male and white, but he did get into the market at the right time as just a college-aged kid. As stated before, rags-to-riches stories are extraordinary rare, and people tout them like they happen all the time. Bill Gates really didn't code the software he originally sold. He bought DOS from another company, wrote in some quick bits, and sold it as MS-DOS. He got lucky in many many respects.

You're right.

I always am

Taxes are the cost of enjoying the benefits of American society. Not punishment, that was wrong of me to say. All people who enjoy those benefits should have to pay. Taxation is the payment. It's the rate of taxation that we don't seem to agree on.

If I earn the money I have who has the right to any dime of it?

Because the money is collected as an aggregate. It is pooled from the wealth of some 300+ million people, and redistributed to provide services. Once it leaves your hands (or paycheck) it is no longer your money.

Those taxes pay for a number of government programs which benefit society as a whole, which is the duty of the government, even if it doesn't to directly benefit you. You can't leverage the entire expenditures of the U.S. onto the majority of the people. 40% have less than a single percentage of the nation's wealth. 80% less than 20% of the wealth. 10% of the United States controls 80% of the wealth, and 1% controls just under 40%.

They make and possess a tremendous amount of wealth in the United States. A responsibility of exceptional success is exceptional taxation.

A great infographic showing just how despair the gaps are.
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones
And a study I originally linked no one probably even bothered to look at.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Who else earned that money for me? No one. I earn my living by legal means and pay proper taxes. Who has any kind of right to any of my profit?

Government, we've established this.

Because I make more I should pay more? No. A flat tax is the only reasonable solution.

A flat tax robs the poor and benefits the wealthy. It is not a fair taxation by any sane means because of the very simple fact that costs do not scale with income. If you make a million dollars, you'd be looking at buying $100,000 bread, $2,000,000 cars, etc, $15 million dollar homes, etc. You wouldn't, you, like every other poor person in the country, would still be buying $3 bread. You would still be buying $20,000 cars (well, maybe spring for a nice $55,000 BMW) be moving into a $500,000 home.

You have nothing but emotion to cling to at this point. "It's my money, and I want it now!"

Originally Posted by geeoro

Here we go with the "So you're a socialist, then?" B/S as soon as someone wants a fair and balanced tax code.
People earning low income cannot afford to pay the same percentage tax as someone earning $250,000 or more. They simply cannot survive on a low income and pay the same or in many cases more of a percentage of their income than much higher earners wno get increadable tax breaks and have accountants who can "play" the system.
Doesn't make someone a Sociaist just because he/she wants a level playing field when it comes to pay scale and taxation. Giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy is no different to giving tax exemption to low earners but of course it is "Socialism" that is the motive for wanting a fair and balanced tax code.
Sick of hearing how "I worked my way through college" or ' I have never asked for a penny" or " If you can't afford to pay your bills, get three jobs" B/S. Many poorer workers in the USA do indeed have 2 or 3 or even more jobs just to "stand still" and not even be able to pay bills or get healthcare. To take even 10% from someone earning next to nothing leaves .... Nothing. To take 40 or 50% from someone earning mega money leaves.... mega money.
Let's get real here and stop this " I worked my butt off to get where i am" and the looking down on people who do hard work for very small pay and start making sure that everyone who works has the opportunity to benefit from their labour. I know people at Disney, for example, who work ten hour days in the b lazing heat, bringing in huge profits for Disney and Florida yet after Tax,Gas,food etc come home with not enough to pay their bills. these people probably work harder than most of the people on high wages yet get taxed to death and end up leaving or getting welfare just to survive. NO they can't just pick and choose their jobs and NO they do not have time to get extra employment. All they want is a fair days pay for a hard days work. They and millions like them are trapped in a bad system. Maybe we should start paying people for what they actually do for the Country and not how prestigous their job is or how they can scam the system by tax breaks etc.
Nurses would be earning fortunes while IT techs, Footballers etc would earn pennies.
Trying to get fairness does not mean it's Socialism but if you can ONLY get fairness by having Socialism then so be it.

Deep breath. Sports stars actually work a tremendous amount. That is a significant amount of physical labor they go through. Should they be making 22 million dollars? No. But the entertainment industry has always paid very well, because it collects very little funds from a very large number of people. This is what every business owner wants, to have millions of people buying something cheap from them. It adds up down the road.

Entertainment just has it easy in the profit-making part because of mass-distribution of media through things like radio, TV, computers, etc.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong. Taxing someone to pay for services they demand is the only way to substain a society. Tell me how its the fault of those who earn $100K, that those who earn $10K settle for such poverty livelyhoods? Why should those who earn $100K have to support those who earn $10K because they refuse to earn more? Taxing people, EVERYONE, is the ONLY way to stop punishing those for success which results in more economic gain FOR ALL.

Again the false belief that people are where they are because of their own merits. Working sixty hours a week at two minimum wage jobs nets you just 22,620. Be a father of two and support a family on that, while trying to save up enough to get out of the city, get an education, and pay your medical bills, insurance, and loans.

The cost of being successful is the cost of taxation. It isn't punishment, it's responsibility. Someone making $100,000 pays about 20-22 percent in taxes. You can survive rather easily on $80,000. You can even afford to live in the suburbs.

ooh I see another communist has joined us here on cd.. woo hoo, never get tired of those here..

Nothing I have posted here is communist. I have never once advocated for removing wages. I have never once suggested common ownership of production.

If you want to reduce yourself to ad hominem attacks, do so, but nothing you say will have any weight in this argument.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I very well could afford to pay taxes, I just choose to live in a manner that doesnt require me to.. Guess what, you cant afford to pay taxes, then STOP DEMANDING new services that cant be paid for!!

Like what?

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Some of the flat tax plans I have seen actually do scale a bit.

But why is it that we need to have a sliding scale to pay taxes, but not for paying rent, or going to a movie, or buying a car? When you pay rent for your house and the landlord says its $500 a month, that is the price, no matter what your income is, so why should paying taxes be any different?

Because costs. DO. NOT. SCALE.

That $500 applies equally to anyone getting that apartment, sexual favors aside.

For someone making 20,000 a year, that's 6,000, leaving just $12,000 to do things like pay electric bills, eat food, and pay of loans.

For someone making $280,000 a year, that's $6,000, leaving $274,000 for things like buying a house in cash.

The FairTax leverages more of the tax-burden on the middle class, that lower 80% of the population who just has 20% of the wealth. Meanwhile, the top 20%, owning 80% of the wealth of the country, has a tax burden of (drum roll please) 69%. Top 1% of the country, owns 38% of the wealth and pays in taxes (Johnny?) 28% in taxes.

The middle-class is ****ed because only liberals seem to see that taxing those with the most wealth is fair. Of all the quotes that conservatives love to throw out, it's that the top 50% of the country pays 97% of all income tax. They forget to include every other tax that this country has, and how in the long-run, the richest people in this country are making out like bandits because they are not paying their fair share. Meanwhile, the middle class is being slowly crushed into the lower class by the "burden" that should be those with the 38% of our money.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf (broken link)

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Is there a large class of people that aren't given the chance to learn at a free public school?

Public schools aren't all equal, and a high-school education will not get you a living-wage job anymore. Some kind of post-secondary education is required by this point to earn a living wage.

Is there some hidden force keeping them from studying on their own time?

Yeah-trying to feed a family. Someone working 60 hours a week doesn't have a lot of time to go to school, especially when they can't pay for the schooling, or pay someone to watch their children while they go. It's why we need to invest in post-secondary education.

Someone keeping them from applying for a good paying job? I know plenty of people that came from the hood and are quite successful. They were motivated to get out of it. Self motivated.

Not only is this an incredibly weak anecdotal argument, it completely neglects the scarcity of "rag-to-riches" events.

Originally Posted by oz in SC

If they don't make enough to survive,they would be dead already...

How cynical. Since they still have a pulse, let's condemn them to poverty and welfare forever.

Originally Posted by kevinm

If the cost of living is $35K and they only make $10K then THEY SHOULD MOVE.

If they are making $10,000, they can't afford to move. Every penny they earn is going towards food and shelter in the first place!

Originally Posted by southbel

What is it with this 10K a year nonsense? Even a job at McDs will pay more than that.

The 10k is merely a speculative number brought up by the OP to demonstrate flat-taxation. Actual income for someone working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job would be 15,080. Assuming they worked exactly 40 hours a week at 52 weeks a year. Of course, nobody wants to give their employees any kind of benefits, so they might be working just 20 hours at McDonalds, and 20 hours at Wal-Mart.

Even still, You're looking at an incredibly low, non-livable wage. You cannot rent an apartment, eat, and for many, raise children on just 15,000 a year.

Anyway, the idea of a flat tax system is to eliminate all of those loopholes that the left scream about daily.

You can eliminate loopholes and maintain a progressive tax system.

Isn't that what you want, everyone to pay? That system would ensure everyone pays. But, in reality, that's not what the left wants. They want to punish the rich for their successes while rewarding the unsuccessful.

And only conservatives align themselves with social Darwinism. "We"--because somehow the left operates as a singular collective--want the wealthiest people to pay their share. They aren't. And for the thirteenth time in this thread, it isn't punishment. Quit believing you'll be rich some day (if you already aren't) because you work really really hard. Socially mobility is almost non-existent. You can safety believe in taxing rich people.

And let's be honest here, those 50% that pay no tax at all are not all in that situation because of circumstances beyond their control or bad luck.

Many of them are, and they don't pay income taxes. They pay about .8% of their income in federal taxes, which is about right considering they control less than 1% of all wealth in the country.

That would be a whole heck of a lot of bad luck, which is statistically improbable, if not impossible.

Again, to repeat what I've mentioned earlier. It is not a man's fault for being a man, nor a woman's fault for being a woman. Glass ceiling do exist. Despite being illegal, many companies still red-line black and minority districts. "The system" is built against the poor. Many people can't afford to move out of the district in which they live. Some lose their homes and are left on the streets, others live three families to a single-family home. We shouldn't sit around and say "oh, too bad" when we can't exactly blame them for being there.

So, I ask this, why is the left not in support of a tax system that would ensure people pay their fair share and not have the loophole method to circumvent taxes? Or do you really just want to punish the rich? That's class warfare...at least be honest about your intentions.

Both flat taxes and the FairTax do not benefit the poor or the middle-class. They are demonstrably harmful to them. How is opposing them with evidence and logic "class-warfare?"

Want me to be honest? Rich people make a lot of money and pay the same we do for everything. When they control 83% of the wealth of this country, they should be paying 83% of the taxes. But they don't.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Actually, 51% now pay NO Federal Income Tax.
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef

Only 49% pay any Federal Income Tax.

Sure, you can make it look like the rich are overburdened by citing income tax rates, but that's not the only tax people pay. In fact, over-all, the middle-class pay more than their share in all federal taxes than the wealthy do.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf (broken link)

Look at the numbers again and quit parroting your conservative overlords.

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Lets continue with the OPs thought process...

I think the rich should pay more in taxes, well, because they can "afford" it. Never mind that they currently carry the vast majority of the tax burden in this country.

They carry the most wealth too. Their tax burden is less than their wealth holdings, where as the middle class is the opposite. They pay more than what they actually have.

I think the poor should pay more...47% pay no income tax, many others get money back (EITC) as a welfare check at tax time.[/quote]

They pay other taxes too. I've had to repeat this a dozen times in this post alone, because nobody actually seems to do the research.

I think I should have a tax cut..MY taxes are too high. Whimper...

Maybe, if you earn between 25,000 and 150,000, you're probably right.

Originally Posted by crunchman

I think the real problem is Big Money hiding from the tax man, the "Rich" have legalized tax evasion, start with or abolish the tax code.

We can close loopholes, raise taxes on the wealthy, and lower taxes on the middle-class and do it all without destroying the tax code.

Originally Posted by zugor

Theoretical situation:

At Acme Manufacturing the Shop Floor Supervisor is going to be retiring soon. There are 47 people working under him. The company will promote from within because they have a number of well qualified employees to fill the position. So lets say that number is 6. All 6 are considered and their abilities are about comparable but the company only needs one Supervisor and one of them gets the position.

Must the other 5 quit and find some other supervisory position if they want to get ahead?

Originally Posted by Driller1

The five should start looking...yes.

Originally Posted by hnsq

The other five should absolutely have to quit if they want to get ahead. How is this even a serious question?

How is that a serious answer? The three of you are in the wrong argument. There is a difference between "getting ahead" and "making a livable wage.

Originally Posted by brainwrek

Yea, because when government takes 60,70, 80, or even 90% of what a person makes that is always symbolic of a free country right?

Confiscatory tax rates are unconstitutional and go against the very foundations that this nation was founded upon.[/quote]

We call this in the logic industry a "non-sequitur."

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Regardless of tax rates, tax revenue has remained fairly consistent as a percentage of GDP.

The tax burden has shifted from the wealthy to the middle-class and poor. You might be bringing in the same amount, but it's because the rich aren't paying enough, and the middle-class are paying too much.

Go ahead and raise tax rates, but you're likely to kill the economy as the producers scale back to avoid draconian taxation. We'll still only get tax revenue somewhere between 15-20% of GDP.

It isn't about the revenue, it's about the burden. You can't support a country on people who can't afford the taxes. It's pretty simple. Meanwhile, the economy has always seemed to do well when taxes on the wealthy were high--not low.

Originally Posted by djmilf

Ever notice certain posters can't explain their concepts, so the best they can do is post a link to a website?

I've been to the "Fair" Tax web site.

• It uses a sleight of hand to hide the fact that it's actually a 30%+ sales tax on new goods and all services.
• It doesn't tax any expenses incurred by corporations, making all corporate perks (food, housing, cars, vacation, health insurance, club memberships, etc) un-taxed.
• It shifts the tax burden from the top 5% of income earners to the middle 60%.
• It actually grows entitlements - back in 2005 it would be bigger than Social Security.
• It's supporting economists baked the numbers to make them appear revenue neutral. Neutral economists expect that a rate of at least 35% and possibly 40% would be required for the Fair Tax to be revenue neutral.
• It adds a new layer of unfunded mandates on the state governments as they would be the ones responsible for collecting the Fair Tax from all vendors of goods and services.
• And it's all a smoke screen for repealing the 16th Amendment.

This is a great breakdown. Did you develop it yourself or grab it from somewhere else? If the latter, I'd love to read more.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

It's called an "inclusive tax", I believe. No sleight of hand--you just pay the tax up front.

The incredible increase in prices would kill an economy. Of course, this is still a flat tax which is disadvantageous to the poor and middle-class, who can't burden a flat-tax.

Where do those corporations get the food, cars, housing, etc? They buy them....and pay tax on them.

The flat-tax says right there on its page that anything for the corporation's products or services are not taxable. It's only the "end-goods." The potential for abuse is astronomical.

The rich people spend money, right? You get taxed on what you buy. Isn't that fair? Warren Buffet covers his income in corporate tax breaks. With the "Fair Tax" he would pay for what he buys.

Costs don't scale. The average person would get a tax credit (it's actually a pre-bate, which is essentially a social security check for our purposes) of about 10,000 a year for each person (poverty level). The rest after that is taxed at a WHOPPING 30% of everything you buy. You wouldn't be able to afford very much.

Meanwhile, the wealthy are paying the same 30% on whatever they buy, like the same 3$ bread, the same $20,000 car, etc. Costs don't scale, so no flat-tax system would work.

And, projections show the FairTax lowering the already low rates of the top ten percent, and distributing that burden onto the middle-class, again. The following chart is from the President's advisory panel on this exact subject.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/NRST-percentile.png (broken link)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Sure, you can make it look like the rich are overburdened by citing income tax rates, but that's not the only tax people pay. In fact, over-all, the middle-class pay more than their share in all federal taxes than the wealthy do.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf (broken link)

Look at the numbers again and quit parroting your conservative overlords.

I looked at the numbers. They DO NOT support your ridiculous assertion, at all.

Share of total Federal Tax Liabilities:

The top 1% pays 28.1%
The top 5% pays 44.3%
The top 10% pays 55%
The middle quintile (middle 20%) only pays 9.2%

They carry the most wealth too. Their tax burden is less than their wealth holdings, where as the middle class is the opposite. They pay more than what they actually have.

There is no Federal tax on wealth. Income is taxed. As such, the top 1% pays TWICE their fair share of the Federal Income Tax - they earn 20% of the income, but pay 38% of the Federal Income Tax revenue.

I think the poor should pay more...47% pay no income tax, many others get money back (EITC) as a welfare check at tax time.

It's actually 51% now. 51% pay NO Federal Income Tax.
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef

Everyone should pay equitably. That means a flat tax. Everyone should have to suffer equally under our Federal Government's fiscal irresponsibility.

[VLWH]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

My main beef is with people worth more than a billion. They are not job creators, but leeches off society and they are the ones that corrupt government. I am talking about people like Soros, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Warren Buffet, the Rothschilds, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc. Any rich person who has ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberger, and the Trilateral Commission needs to be taxed to hell because those people pay little, if any, taxes because they are the ones that lobby Congress to write tax laws that they themselves could be exempt from. Which is why you have Buffet begging for higher taxes for people in his income category because he knows the left is ignorant of how the tax code works for the mega rich.

Liberals, and for any conservatives that don't understand, there are two tax codes in the U.S. One for the millionaires and billionaires (like Warren Buffet and Soros), and one for the rest of us. The left needs to grow up and stop whining about taxes because the household making $250,000 CAN'T AFFORD a damn private jet

The Waltons are a leech? Even John Boy? say it ain't so.

[VLWH]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

My main beef is with people worth more than a billion. They are not job creators, but leeches off society and they are the ones that corrupt government. I am talking about people like Soros, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Warren Buffet, the Rothschilds, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc. Any rich person who has ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberger, and the Trilateral Commission needs to be taxed to hell because those people pay little, if any, taxes because they are the ones that lobby Congress to write tax laws that they themselves could be exempt from. Which is why you have Buffet begging for higher taxes for people in his income category because he knows the left is ignorant of how the tax code works for the mega rich.

Liberals, and for any conservatives that don't understand, there are two tax codes in the U.S. One for the millionaires and billionaires (like Warren Buffet and Soros), and one for the rest of us. The left needs to grow up and stop whining about taxes because the household making $250,000 CAN'T AFFORD a damn private jet

The Waltons are a bunch of leeches? Even John Boy? say it ain't so.

[9INE]

"I believe the rich should pay more in taxes"

- - - - - - -


Americans, Including Republicans, Want Debt Compromise

[blackhemi]

Im gunna go with fair tax. Flat is not fair, progressive is not fair. Now, the current fair tax is not even set up right either. It needs to be redeveloped into the Cap, Cut, and Balance debt plan! Medicare needs to be phased out, Social Security needs to be privatized or phased out, welfare needs to be restructured. (treated as a loan which must be repaid over time and drastic lifestyle changes to qualify).

Fair tax with massive government cuts is a good thing. Not only can it get the good ol USA back on track, but could get Americans back on track and force the so called "parasites" into taking responsibility for themselves.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by blackhemi

Im gunna go with fair tax. Flat is not fair, progressive is not fair. Now, the current fair tax is not even set up right either. It needs to be redeveloped into the Cap, Cut, and Balance debt plan! Medicare needs to be phased out, Social Security needs to be privatized or phased out, welfare needs to be restructured. (treated as a loan which must be repaid over time and drastic lifestyle changes to qualify).

Fair tax with massive government cuts is a good thing. Not only can it get the good ol USA back on track, but could get Americans back on track and force the so called "parasites" into taking responsibility for themselves.

Interesting ideas.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I looked at the numbers. They DO NOT support your ridiculous assertion, at all.

Share of total Federal Tax Liabilities:

The top 1% pays 28.1%

With 38% of the wealth. [/quote]

The top 5% pays 44.3%
The top 10% pays 55%

With 83% of the wealth.

The middle quintile (middle 20%) only pays 9.2%

The bottom 80 pay some 45% of the debt, with 17% of the wealth.

There is no Federal tax on wealth. Income is taxed. As such, the top 1% pays TWICE their fair share of the Federal Income Tax - they earn 20% of the income, but pay 38% of the Federal Income Tax revenue.

But wealth and net worth are important factors. The focus on income taxes has the sole purpose of making the wealthy look like they have a larger tax burden than they really do. The pay marginally higher income tax rates, but because cost doesn't scale with income, they should. Of all taxes levied, the wealthy pay under their fair share, which the numbers very clearly show.

It's actually 51% now. 51% pay NO Federal Income Tax.
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef

Everyone should pay equitably. That means a flat tax. Everyone should have to suffer equally under our Federal Government's fiscal irresponsibility.

You mean all American's should pay for the greed of a few thousand people? Good plan, Herr.

Flat taxes don't even work in paper, why the **** do you think they would work in practice?

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by summers73

If you make 1million, you pay $100,000 in taxes.

If you make $100,000, you pay $10,000 in taxes.

If you make $10,000, you pay $1,000 in taxes.

Just wanted to make sure progressives know I'm right there with them

Hey, no fair......you stole my idea.

FLAT TAX......a real one......no write offs and everyone pays 10 percent. Standard deduction........gone. And yeah, I would also impose a 10% federal sales tax on all retail sales.