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.
Lately, there is this idea that people who can pay more taxes is the moral thing to do over people who don't pay any taxes or can't afford to pay taxes at all. If I am not mistaken a recent survey says that about 60% of Americans feel that it's okay to tax the rich and wealthy more because they can afford it, and somehow it's the right thing to do while most of the people in that 60% earn less that $100,000.
First all, I am a school teacher who is no where rich or wealthy, but I used to think like the 60% of Americans who think that it is okay to tax the rich more. When the rich only make up about 3% of the nation, I don't see how taxing them would generate enough revenue to help reduce our deficit as well as increase the revenue that our government needs to run the country. So again, we need the revenue to keep our medicare going, social security, military, schools, and government opened.
I am starting to lean towards eliminating deductions for tax filers and just use a flat tax on all income tax filers so that no one could get away with paying less taxes. This whole tax debate has become a moral issue too rather than an issue about the US government fairly taxing ALL Americans for the services that Americans obviously feel entitled to have (social security, home mortgage deductions, child credit, rental property deductions, job expenses etc). What do you think?
I think that government only has power to tax privileges it grants, not rights endowed.
So the question should be : What revenue taxable privilege am I exercising that subjects me to an excise tax levied on my income?
In case they didn't tell you - FICA is 100% voluntary... and a privilege subject to taxation.
And if American people withdraw from FICA, and collapse the socialist insecurity system, what do you think?
I am starting to lean towards eliminating deductions for tax filers and just use a flat tax on all income tax filers so that no one could get away with paying less taxes.
The essential problem with a flat tax is that it is regressive. Those on the lower income scale while paying taxes at the same rate would pay a higher percentage of disposable income.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Not really havig to has become a survival issue really just as stopping excessive spending is because of what it does to the overall economy. That is the only reason we really care in the end. Consumtion without contribution can only support so mnay as thinsg are goig to a healthy life style.India and China knw that well.
Lately, there is this idea that people who can pay more taxes is the moral thing to do over people who don't pay any taxes or can't afford to pay taxes at all. If I am not mistaken a recent survey says that about 60% of Americans feel that it's okay to tax the rich and wealthy more because they can afford it, and somehow it's the right thing to do while most of the people in that 60% earn less that $100,000.
First all, I am a school teacher who is no where rich or wealthy, but I used to think like the 60% of Americans who think that it is okay to tax the rich more. When the rich only make up about 3% of the nation, I don't see how taxing them would generate enough revenue to help reduce our deficit as well as increase the revenue that our government needs to run the country. So again, we need the revenue to keep our medicare going, social security, military, schools, and government opened.
I am starting to lean towards eliminating deductions for tax filers and just use a flat tax on all income tax filers so that no one could get away with paying less taxes. This whole tax debate has become a moral issue too rather than an issue about the US government fairly taxing ALL Americans for the services that Americans obviously feel entitled to have (social security, home mortgage deductions, child credit, rental property deductions, job expenses etc). What do you think?
problems with your argument
1. the top 3% of Americans have about 40% of the Revenue, thats how taxing them more adds up to more money
2. medicare isnt taxed above 110,000 dollars, so taxing them at a higher percentage doesnt actually create more revenue for that program.(social security could be the same, i cant remember). Schools are paid for by property taxes and sales tax, it wouldnt be effected by this either. Its basically only the funding of government.
I have also advocated for a flat tax, but i have also seen arguments against it that persuaded me to think otherwise.
also, there will be spending cuts in the deal to go along with the 1.2 trillion in cuts already ordered.
we need both spending cuts and new revenue to solve our problems.
I think that government only has power to tax privileges it grants, not rights endowed.
So the question should be : What revenue taxable privilege am I exercising that subjects me to an excise tax levied on my income?
In case they didn't tell you - FICA is 100% voluntary... and a privilege subject to taxation.
And if American people withdraw from FICA, and collapse the socialist insecurity system, what do you think?
I still say increase taxes on everyone. That is the only way people will get it through their heads that the government has a spending problem. It's like someone on welfare voting to increase the middle classes taxes.
1. the top 3% of Americans have about 40% of the Revenue, thats how taxing them more adds up to more money
2. medicare isnt taxed about 110,000 dollars, so taxing them at a higher percentage doesnt actually create more revenue for that program.(social security could be the same, i cant remember). Schools are paid for by property taxes and sales tax, it wouldnt be effected by this either. Its basically only the funding of government.
I have also advocated for a flat tax, but i have also seen arguments against it that persuaded me to think otherwise.
also, there will be spending cuts in the deal to go along with the 1.2 trillion in cuts already ordered.
we need both spending cuts and new revenue to solve our problems.
Thanks for sharing. Point number one, if true, would make sense. But my problem is when a large number of people basically dont pay any taxes. What abou that possible revenue, and I am not talking about people making less than 50,000 a year.
The essential problem with a flat tax is that it is regressive. Those on the lower income scale while paying taxes at the same rate would pay a higher percentage of disposable income.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.
You make a valid point. But isn't it interesting how people who claim to be poor, surely can afford the latest $600 smart phones, designer clothes, watches, shoes and purses?
Thanks for sharing. Point number one, if true, would make sense. But my problem is when a large number of people basically dont pay any taxes. What abou that possible revenue, and I am not talking about people making less than 50,000 a year.
Yes, loopholes and deductions that take your tax rate down to zero(or even negative) need to be addressed.
billionaires and multibillion dollar corporations should not be getting money back from the government.
neither side has really told which deductions they would get rid of, nor do i know specific ones that would to get rid of(im still puzzled on how they do it ), so i cant really speak on it other than saying it needs to change.
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.
), so i cant really speak on it other than saying it needs to change.
