Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-03-2012, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,771,962 times
Reputation: 24863

Advertisements

A Flat Tax can work if there is a substantial deductable from all income from all sources. I suggest something like 200 to 300 grand to start with a flat tax rate of whatever is needed to cover current government expenses. Businesses and corporations, as they are now considered individuals, would also have the same deductable pay the same rate on all retained income. There would be no other deductions because none would be needed.

I think a tax system like this should be a relatively easy sell to the American people as it eliminates Federal income tax for over 80% of the population. The people that really benefit are the upper level wage earners and small business owners. They are currently paying the highest tax rates and thus would save the most.

Our most privileged would actually have to pay their share of the cost of supporting the country they effectively own. As capital gains, wages and dividends would all be taxed at the same rate the market would determine where their excess money was saved or invested. Offshore tax avoidance accounts would also be eliminated by the ‘all income from all sources” provision. Although it might crease a shortage of luxury money for purchasing super cars, boats or airplanes for the mere multi millionaires, the really, really rich would still have billions to spend or invest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2012, 04:39 PM
 
59,029 posts, read 27,290,738 times
Reputation: 14274
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
????? Where did you get that idea?????

I am low income (according to the government, I am "very low income") and do not get ANY of those things.

Again, where did you get that idea?????
If you are low income according to the gov't, you qualify for something..

"The federal government provides entire buildings across the United States that are specifically for low-income individuals and families. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there are approximately 1.2 million households living in public housing units. Over 3,300 housing authorities manage the units. There are high-rises filled with hundreds of apartments as well as low-rise developments that have hundreds of units spread out in four- to six-unit buildings. Most public housing developments include public space and play areas for children. In order to be deemed eligible for an apartment in a public housing development, families must be U.S. citizens and meet income requirements (limits vary by area and public housing authority). The rent in public housing units is heavily subsidized so that the tenant pays a fraction of the actual market value of the unit."

Housing Alternatives for Low-Income Families | Home Guides | SF Gate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 04:48 PM
 
465 posts, read 507,734 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
If you are low income according to the gov't, you qualify for something..

"The federal government provides entire buildings across the United States that are specifically for low-income individuals and families. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there are approximately 1.2 million households living in public housing units. Over 3,300 housing authorities manage the units. There are high-rises filled with hundreds of apartments as well as low-rise developments that have hundreds of units spread out in four- to six-unit buildings. Most public housing developments include public space and play areas for children. In order to be deemed eligible for an apartment in a public housing development, families must be U.S. citizens and meet income requirements (limits vary by area and public housing authority). The rent in public housing units is heavily subsidized so that the tenant pays a fraction of the actual market value of the unit."

Housing Alternatives for Low-Income Families | Home Guides | SF Gate
Not everyone takes it until they need it. For example, I could have gotten SSI/SSDI a long time before I did, because I could survive without it, and food stamps I've been on it and off of it going by need not whether I qualify or not. I take as little as I can and survive. I think that's what most people do. So just because freemkt qualifies doesn't mean anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,220,937 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
If rent and interest rates that you pay are not taxed, if there is rebate then I suppose I could live with it.
Rent is not taxed , interest would not be taxed until u spend it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 06:20 PM
 
20,716 posts, read 19,357,373 times
Reputation: 8280
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
With a flat tax, by definition, those with higher incomes DO pay more. The higher the income, the more one pays.

How is it that you are unaware of this?


So? If I pay 95 cents instead of 85 cents its more, but if I should pay a dollar its not enough. What exactly are people paying their taxes with when we strip away the dollar valuations? If I have guitar lessons when another person decides they want to buy a ticket to a monster truck show, which one has the kind of impact on the society that needs to be recovered? Since when did dollar value become the God of a just tax system. Why should someone who rents pay a military to protect only his person and no property while a wealthy person has billions in property protected, not based upon what is protected mind you but only what is "consumed". What if they own a city block and buy very little? Who is going to pay for all the police an fire protection? Who is going to pay for the roads and sewers?

Its a stupid tax.

Last edited by gwynedd1; 10-03-2012 at 06:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 07:20 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,002 posts, read 44,804,275 times
Reputation: 13696
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
So? If I pay 95 cents instead of 85 cents its more, but if I should pay a dollar its not enough.
No. One dollar is more than 95 cents, which is more than 85 cents. The person paying one dollar is paying more than the person paying 85 cents.
Quote:
Why should someone who rents pay a military to protect only his person and no property while a wealthy person has billions in property protected, not based upon what is protected mind you but only what is "consumed".
The person who owns billions in property consumes more to maintain that property. Therefore, that person would by definition pay more tax in a consumption tax system.
Quote:
What if they own a city block and buy very little? Who is going to pay for all the police an fire protection? Who is going to pay for the roads and sewers?
Local property taxes pay for those, not the federal income tax. And, interestingly enough, local property taxes are a flat tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate on the assessed value of their property. And it works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 08:17 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,451,622 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. One dollar is more than 95 cents, which is more than 85 cents. The person paying one dollar is paying more than the person paying 85 cents. The person who owns billions in property consumes more to maintain that property. Therefore, that person would by definition pay more tax in a consumption tax system. Local property taxes pay for those, not the federal income tax. And, interestingly enough, local property taxes are a flat tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate on the assessed value of their property. And it works.

Actually, in many states property taxes are NOT flat. Approx 20 states have so-called "split roll" or "two-tiered" property taxes where some classes of property (or owners) enjoy a lower property tax rate than other classes of property (or owners).

In the most common form, owner-occupied primary residences are afforded preferential property tax rates. For example, Michigan has a "nonhomestead tax" which makes the school property tax rate on rental property (and other types of nonhomestead property) four times the rate on owner-occupied primary residences. This type of non-flat property tax was historically pretty much a uniquely Southern policy, although in recent years, as state budgets have gotten tighter, a number of non-Southern states have adopted a higher tax rate for nonhomestead property.

Some states also carve out property tax breaks for certain groups of people (often seniors, veterans, or disabled); I think Texas exempts senior homeowners from property taxes.

And then there's California, allows for jumps in property tax assessments upon sale, which allows longtime property owners to enjoy much lower assessments (and taxes) than their "newcomer" neighbors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 08:29 PM
 
20,716 posts, read 19,357,373 times
Reputation: 8280
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. One dollar is more than 95 cents, which is more than 85 cents. The person paying one dollar is paying more than the person paying 85 cents. The person who owns billions in property consumes more to maintain that property. Therefore, that person would by definition pay more tax in a consumption tax system. Local property taxes pay for those, not the federal income tax. And, interestingly enough, local property taxes are a flat tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate on the assessed value of their property. And it works.
It works with property taxes because its a very specific use of something that has a defined impact on the society. What is "income"? I know exactly why we tax property. It needs to be protected by fire and police. It needs electrical lines, water roads and sewer. It takes up space. I can't have a picnic on someone's lawn. Its a cost to me. What does income cost me? The income from a surgeon is the same from a mining company? Dollar for dollar taxes seem fair until you know how its made. Tax the national wealth that just appears from seemingly nowhere. Buy a place in Manhattan go to sleep for 50 years and become a millionaire. That person doesn't pay a tax if you take it all.

Also a flat tax take not real account of discretionary spending. You can't tax subsistence. If someone consumes everything for their basic survival, there is nothing to tax. You can pretend to tax them but you will need some social service or subsidy to make it up.

Last edited by gwynedd1; 10-03-2012 at 09:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,002 posts, read 44,804,275 times
Reputation: 13696
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
You can't tax subsistence.
Indeed, you can. Everyone must contribute. Otherwise you get what we have now, a majority that can vote themselves (via voting for the politicians who promise them) ever-increasing amounts of government services and benefits without having to worry about the costs because they don't contribute to pay for the costs of those services and benefits or the debt acquired to pay for them.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship" - Alexander Fraser Tytler
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 10:28 PM
 
20,716 posts, read 19,357,373 times
Reputation: 8280
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Indeed, you can. Everyone must contribute. Otherwise you get what we have now, a majority that can vote themselves (via voting for the politicians who promise them) ever-increasing amounts of government services and benefits without having to worry about the costs because they don't contribute to pay for the costs of those services and benefits or the debt acquired to pay for them.
You can only tax a surplus of a saving. Its not a political decision. You can try to probe for new subsistence levels, but then without panem et circenses the taxes just end up going to enforcement, and hopeless slave apathy is not conducive to production. I'd like to know where you get this political philosophy. Do you have any historic cases? Last time we created this kind of instability it lead to WWII and 100 million people dead. So now that I have a 100 million on the table do you have any austerity success stories that I may subtract it from this number. Ah the virtues created with the Wiemar austerity....how they contributed to the Nazi state.



Quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship" - Alexander Fraser Tytler
If they were doing that I would agree with you. However middle class disinflation would not be occurring if that were the case. They are not raiding the treasury. The oligarcs are. That should have been obvious when they were getting trillion dollar balance sheet restorations.

Its like a hydra headed monster. The beast grows a new head and now they are buying up the properties they bloated and distressed.

Hedge Funds As Landlords? In Search Of Returns, Wall Street Buys Up Foreclosed Homes - Forbes

So my question is. What planet are you on? How can you define this as a majority mob raiding the treasury?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top