The Flat Tax: Here's the problem... (employment, Putin, brainwash, economy)
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.
With a deductable set at a percentile, not percentage, it will increase with inflation. The primary goal of my proposed flat Tax is to place the burden of financing the federal government on the people that own and control the country instead of our current system where the middle class pays for subsidizing both the wealthy and the poor.
This system would allow 90% of our population to keep, invest or spend their, generally wage based income, as they wish. It would force the investor and control class to pay for the government they control. This is a, tax the wealthy system, because it places the tax where the money is located instead of where it is created.
That's some interesting logic. I don't buy it, but interesting nonetheless.
So let's say you make $30K/year and tomorrow someone offers you a position for $60K/year. You will turn it down because you'd pay more taxes? That sounds both dubious and disingenuous.
I took a new job a few months ago. Double the pay, less work, benefits.
Nobody has ever quit a job as Ivory here suggests because of higher taxes.
Many people do believe that if you give them tax cuts, they get in the mood to do more "charity" for them.
We are the government. The people. The best way to ensure our freedom is for everyone to have a stake in the system. If the rich paid all the taxes they are going to take a "I pay the bills we do it my way" attitude.
We are the government. The people. The best way to ensure our freedom is for everyone to have a stake in the system. If the rich paid all the taxes they are going to take a "I pay the bills we do it my way" attitude.
In liberal America rich pays everything the rest of us not need to do a thing
We are the government. The people. The best way to ensure our freedom is for everyone to have a stake in the system. If the rich paid all the taxes they are going to take a "I pay the bills we do it my way" attitude.
That attitude is the problem, worsened by loyal supporters of it, such as yourself. A person who recognizes that he/she can afford to pay progressively more, will NEVER whine about it. I never did. I don't think shifting more burden on those who make less is the way forward. It is anti-capitalistic, and purely oligarchical idea to do so. Of course, plutocrats who believe "humanitarianism is stupidity" would disagree.
The rich end up paying more because they are the ones with more. It is why middle class America was paying a greater proportion than it was thriving. Now, it doesn't. That is a problem, and can't be addressed by forcing them into it, but ensuring that they are in a position to do so. For that reason, these ideas of "our freedom" that is merely republicanism, is a sham. There is absolutely ZERO effort to meet those claims. Trust me, the rich don't spend millions for elections so they can help everybody else. It is utterly foolish to believe so.
...(1)Some on this board see no issue with someone earning $ 1,000,000 paying 90% of their income to Federal taxes leaving them with $ 100,000 after tax income. Sound pretty good, huh? Well, where I live, State income tax is 7.75% for earnings over about 60k. So that 100k that the million dollar earner gets to keep, just became $ 22,500 after State income taxes. Earn a million, keep $ 22,500. Sounds completely fair.
(2)I don't favor a flat tax without substantial credits for those at the lower end of the earnings scale. I also don't favor the sort of tax rates some are fine with for higher earners. I do favor a system that simplifies filing taxes and where everyone pays at least some tax. I don't care if it's only $1 a year for some.
1. This math seems a little... fuzzy... and disingenuous.
-That whole $100,000 is taxed at 7.75% which would leave $92,250
OR
-$60,000 is untouched and leaves $40,000 to be taxed at 7.75% which would leave $96,900
OR
-You didn't explain how someone only has $22,500 left after federal and state taxes are taken out.
I'm betting on the latter.
2. So you want more of the 47%? Giving subsidies and grants and benefits to people in lower income brackets in a flat tax?
Or, from your perspective, the 47% could pay only a dollar a year in federal taxes, and you'd be happy with that?
For all the proponents of a flat tax, let me ask you this:
Would you rather make $15,000 a year and be taxed 1%, and take home $14,850 a year?
OR
Would you rather make $1,000,000 a year and be taxed 90%, and take home $100,000 a year?
Even with a high progressive tax on the rich, and super rich, that group still comes out way ahead than the people making very little and being taxed very little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
1. This math seems a little... fuzzy... and disingenuous.
-That whole $100,000 is taxed at 7.75% which would leave $92,250
OR
-$60,000 is untouched and leaves $40,000 to be taxed at 7.75% which would leave $96,900
OR
-You didn't explain how someone only has $22,500 left after federal and state taxes are taken out.
I'm betting on the latter.
2. So you want more of the 47%? Giving subsidies and grants and benefits to people in lower income brackets in a flat tax?
Or, from your perspective, the 47% could pay only a dollar a year in federal taxes, and you'd be happy with that?
Let's go over the numbers again. You insist that someone earning $1,000,000 a year and paying 90% in Federal taxes should be pleased to take home $100,000. My point was that they wouldn't take home that much because of their additional State tax burden. Unless my calulator is in err:
I didn't suggest that earning $1,000,000 and paying 90% Federal tax would be preferable to earning $15,000 and paying 1% Federal tax to most people. You did in the quoted post above. I just applied State taxes to the million dollar earnings since I'm pretty sure the State wouldn't forgo their taxes. At an annual earnings of $15,000 my state would collect no taxes so I didn't deduct any for that earner. So, now the difference in take home is a whopping $7,650.
Do you think the answer to your question might change for some people? I suspect it would.
As to your second question: Yes, I'd be happy if very low earners (you know the ones at the very bottom of the scale, not the whole 47%) paid just $1 in Federal tax. IMO all of us should be invested since we all benefit. I'd like to see a flat tax mostly to get rid of the mess of a tax code we currently have and simplify filing. I like doing my taxes as much as I like going to the dentist.... not at all.
1. This math seems a little... fuzzy... and disingenuous.
-That whole $100,000 is taxed at 7.75% which would leave $92,250
OR
-$60,000 is untouched and leaves $40,000 to be taxed at 7.75% which would leave $96,900
OR
-You didn't explain how someone only has $22,500 left after federal and state taxes are taken out.
I'm betting on the latter.
2. So you want more of the 47%? Giving subsidies and grants and benefits to people in lower income brackets in a flat tax?
Or, from your perspective, the 47% could pay only a dollar a year in federal taxes, and you'd be happy with that?
My god, that'd be a tremendous tax-cut for just about everyone in that 47%.
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.