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.
You're wrong. This flat-tax you suggest is actually disadvantageous to those who don't make a lot of money. Dollar for dollar, it matters more to those who make less than those who make more.
$1000 to someone making $10,000 is a tremendous amount of money. That's $9,000 to buy food, put a roof over ones head, and for some, raise a family.
Contrast that with someone making $1,000,000, and shelling out only $100,000. The $900,000 will build a house, buy a few cars, and operate a small business for two years with zero income. And still have money left over to go to the movies once a weekend.
Flat taxes will never work unless you plan to begin them above $60,000. There is a reason there is a progressive tax, and not because it's a "progressive" idea.
$10,000 isn't going to buy or rent a house any better than $9,000 is. If someone has an annual income of $10,000 chances are they are on government assistance to begin with. Therefore, the rest of us are paying for their house anyway.
That being said, while the proposed idea may be disadvantageous to low income people, the current tax plan is disadvantageous to the entire middle class.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but please explain why having a variable tax plan such as we have now is more fair than having a tax plan where everyone pays the same percentage of their salary. Leaving out the specious argument that $9,000 won't buy housing, of course.
If the cost of living is $35,000, and people are only making $10,000, why would you tax them? Taxing someone who doesn't make enough to survive is backwards.
So, among other options, we can enforce stronger minimum wage laws, provide people working these jobs a more livable wage. We can tax those who make extraordinary amounts a higher percentage, providing a tighter wealth distribution, and providing needed services to those who don't make livable wages, and we can invest in post-secondary education for those unable to afford it as well. If you want a prosperous people, you need educated people, and that's very difficult to do when you're working two jobs because your employer doesn't pay you enough and oafs think it's okay to starve you to death.
So you're a socialist, then?
So, I worked my way through college. if I didn't, I could have gotten it for FREE is what you would like?
You're wrong. This flat-tax you suggest is actually disadvantageous to those who don't make a lot of money. Dollar for dollar, it matters more to those who make less than those who make more.
$1000 to someone making $10,000 is a tremendous amount of money. That's $9,000 to buy food, put a roof over ones head, and for some, raise a family.
Contrast that with someone making $1,000,000, and shelling out only $100,000. The $900,000 will build a house, buy a few cars, and operate a small business for two years with zero income. And still have money left over to go to the movies once a weekend.
Flat taxes will never work unless you plan to begin them above $60,000. There is a reason there is a progressive tax, and not because it's a "progressive" idea.
I would like to suggest that you look into the Fair Tax to see how that could work. Too many people have no idea what the Fair Tax is all about and how it works. It may be flat but it would work very well because the only tax the fed would charge would be that one. Think of all the hidden taxes that none of us would have to pay. Look into it, for your own good. Don't believe those who know nothing about it but make all the noises about it.
Of special note is the following graph.
I have no problem with people being successful, but those rare few who achieve exceptional success must also bear the responsability of paying an exceptional share. If they want to donate their funds to legitimate charities, this is also acceptable, otherwise, taxation is a means of doing so. It's why I have no problem with billionaries like Warren Buffet or George Soros, but draw serious issues when it comes to billionaries like Rupert Murdoch who barely give at all, relatively.
Quote:
I hope you one day understand what it is to be an Americzan. It's clear you don't now.
Do not patronize me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
$10,000 isn't going to buy or rent a house any better than $9,000 is.
It will by very definition. That extra $1000 not only would help feed the person, but also provide additional income for rental or likewise.
You can't say the same of someone who loses $100,000 and still has $900,000 to spend. The reason flat-taxes don't work is because costs don't scale. Grocery bills for both parties are still $200 a month, but $200 to a guy making $10,000 is more significant than someone making 1,000,000. This is very simple to understand, and you have no legitimate argument against it because there isn't one.
Quote:
If someone has an annual income of $10,000 chances are they are on government assistance to begin with. Therefore, the rest of us are paying for their house anyway.
You're paying for their house (or rent, or whatever) because they only make $10,000 a year, not the other way around.
Quote:
That being said, while the proposed idea may be disadvantageous to low income people, the current tax plan is disadvantageous to the entire middle class.
A progressive tax essentially keeps low rates for people making money up to about 60,000 individually, where it begins to escalate. Again, costs don't scale to your income. The tax burden on the wealthy %10 is hardly a burden. For those on the low-end, it means buying a a trim level lower on your car. For those in the upper level, they won't even notice it, because they are already raking in billions.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but please explain why having a variable tax plan such as we have now is more fair than having a tax plan where everyone pays the same percentage of their salary.
As I've already demonstrated, it's because costs don't scale. To feed my family would be 9% of my total income. For someone making 250,000 a year, it's .19% of their income. Because costs don't scale, neither should taxes.
Quote:
Leaving out the specious argument that $9,000 won't buy housing, of course.
That isn't a specious argument. It's succinct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtruth
So you're a socialist, then?
I'm a realist.
So, I worked my way through college. if I didn't, I could have gotten it for FREE is what you would like?[/quote]
Many people already get free-rides through colleges when they don't deserve them. You're also assuming that people who are poor or disadvantaged are there because they put themselves there, and nothing could be further from the truth.
We have millions of people out of work. We can put them to work by training them, and for those that are working two jobs at 60+ hours a week, it'd be difficult to attend and pay for them. Offering them a stipend for attending training courses, which benefits society in every way possible, is significantly better than enslaving them to minimum wages. We actually have a job shortages in many fields because there aren't enough trained workers to fill them. Funding education programs for the disadvantaged, the poor, the working class who otherwise wouldn't be able to do these jobs? That is a win-win situation. Fewer people on welfare in the long-term, lower unemployment, higher prosperity for the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I would like to suggest that you look into the Fair Tax to see how that could work. Too many people have no idea what the Fair Tax is all about and how it works. It may be flat but it would work very well because the only tax the fed would charge would be that one.
I don't think you understand how it works. It's a flat-rate consumption tax, (I think last I read was about 23%). The reason, once again, that it won't work is because costs don't scale. You're going to see a huge jump in the cost of everything, and as a result, a higher poverty rate as people aren't able to afford the things they would normally buy. The Fair-tax credits people to the point of poverty, but that's it--beyond that, you're on your own and paying heavily in taxes.
People like the idea because it taxes everyone equally, but flat-taxes, not matter their design, are destined to crush the lower and middle class. Look at that chart above. You can't run a country on the wealth of 80% of the people making just 20% of the cash. You simply can't. You must tax the wealthiest in order to generate the revenue without destroying the working public.
Quote:
Think of all the hidden taxes that none of us would have to pay. Look into it, for your own good. Don't believe those who know nothing about it but make all the noises about it.
I read about it months ago when it was brought up, and I immediately began to find problems with it. Like any flat-tax, it's absolutely brutal to the lower classes.
All people who have an annual income of $200K and up should be relieved of paying taxes.
This will provide a great incentive for all Americans to reach that earning level.
Has anyone ever stopped to think why 50% of the population do not pay taxes?
They can't afford to...DUH!
Start creating some better paying jobs and the # of people not paying will dwindle.
You have a way of ignoring fact in your post that is quite stunning. It is because of tax credits, not low income. Some earn nearly $50,000 a year. If they can't afford taxes, stop smoking, drinking and all the other wastes of money so commonly found in such proliferation among the lower classes.
Your poverty is not, and will not be allowed to become, a monkey on my back. Pay your own way or get the hell out of the US and into some craphole of a backwater that more-suites you.
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.
