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.
Taxation should be per person 20 and over. Same amount for all - maybe a poverty amount for those under a certain income.
Force Congress to pass a budget, then divide the budget by the amount of people 20 and over according to the census. That's your tax. Taxes are not collected unless a budget is in place.
That's it. Encourages growth of population to keep taxes lower. Encourages all to be engaged in how the money is spent by government. Removes all behavioral codes from taxation. Leaves charity to private organizations. People handle their own savings and health care.
Let people have whatever assets they want - as long those assets are gained legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jw2
I am going to guess that amount would be $10,000. So, every working person over 20 should pay $10,000 in taxes? Do you see any problem with that?
An alternative, and generally favored by the flat tax people is the same percentage regardless of income. I would favor that, no deductions, not even a standard deduction, just a flat percentage. Every working person would have skin in the game. As it is, 1/2 the voters are voting what to do with other people's money.
150 million people 20 and over could supply $300 billion in revenue at $2,000 per year - which is $166 per month.
If you remove the the whole Social Security and health care mechanisms, along with a large reduction is IRS personnel to handle the simplified code,... removed the Arts, and give the Education to the states, etc. ... government would be much smaller.
The large point of this is the people would directly be involved with regards to what government spends. Right now - yeah, taxes would be extremely high - that's the problem. So the solution would be to reduce spending to the point where the people can afford the government that serves them. Right now the tail is wagging the dog... government spends what they want and tells us to eat it. That's the problem.
Being that the income tax and ruling in court have given this current tax system since 1913. there is nothing wrong with wanting to make adjustments.
I would repeal the 16th amendment.
Put in this in its place. Since the FEDERAL income tax is now GONE.
"Taxes are to be layed on all states in the amount of 3% federal sales tax. All revenue to fund and pay debts shall be paid via this tax no other taxes of federal taxation. 3% is the max limit of this sales tax. <--- has to be added socialist would make it 50% and or some crazy number in time have to lock it down.
Followed up with this new amendment.
"Congress shall balance a budget every new year and which must equal to last years budget numbers and only increase spending over said budget (via borrowing) in the case of defense of the nation and or for national emergency, virus pandemic, or nation wide disaster. Borrowing shall not increase more then 20% of GDP."
Followed up by this amendment.
"Only Congress shall have the power to borrow, print and or create currency via the Treasury department. The Treasury Department shall have yearly and "at will" audit of all physical assets, gold, silver and available to public review for all citizens via the freedom of information act. The Federal Reserve BANK is here by dismantled and no longer the currency credit of the United States Currency and dollar. US Currency can be silver, gold and or other assets of the US economy and or physical countable assets. 75% of physical currency is attached to the US dollar, 25% can be US economy value of assets, land, oil and other value." States and US government can create Currency of value only if physical currency has value. Paper is not money, all paper money can be used for promise of payment, and can be turn in for physical currency at any Bank."
Adding another Amendment
Credit, Mortgages, Credit Cards issued by Banks shall not exceed 10% interest on all purchases, borrowing, cash, and or only products.
Shifting all tax burdens to consumption would have a dramatic effect on the economy.
Yes, for the better...
Quote:
"UC Davis's Peter Lindert has argued in his book "Growing Public" that European social democracies were only able to develop the programs they did because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower growth as much as progressive income taxes, particularly those on capital income. European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill."
Here is the problem, that 17% may infact be fair on paper BUT if you make 10K you need that 1.7k you lose on taxes WAY more than the 17k someone making 100k pays. If that person cannot cut spending for the tax increase through loss of tax credits and tax rate increases, what do they do? Oh I know, FO&D!
No, all they have to do is live within their means. If that means living with roommates to share expenses, doing without the latest iPhone, skipping Starbucks, etc., etc., so be it.
I don't understand why people want to punish the poor and reward the rich, which is exactly what a flat tax would do.
How so? The rich would still be paying many, many times more in taxes than would the poor while receiving much less return on their tax dollar in government services and benefits.
No, all they have to do is live within their means. If that means living with roommates to share expenses, doing without the latest iPhone, skipping Starbucks, etc., etc., so be it.
There are no numbers to actually know if people truly spend wastefully because one that would mean there is a set definition of it (most time people throw out the iPhones and Starbucks like you do) and either we would have to actually have set metric and look at spending or self-reporting (self-reporting is a false way of doing a study because someone may not be truthful.) If there are, please educate me.
As for what you mentioned, not everyone buys the latest phones. Some actually just get the free phone when their upgrade is ready from their contract OR actually just get feature phones. Getting a roommate isn't that easy. You can't exactly have an apartment you share if you have kids. And it isn't as easy as you shouldn't buy that, shouldn't have sex, those are often sunk costs that already happened. Let's remember if you have a phone contract, you will likely have a penalty to pay out to get out of it, the same with renting in many cases. Of course you should cut expenses you don't or can't pay for, the issue is, not everyone is a month by month commitment that you can change.
Your article mention "efficient" consumption taxes, I've yet to hear a proposal for consumption taxes that is actually efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
How so? The rich would still be paying many, many times more in taxes than would the poor while receiving much less return on their tax dollar in government services and benefits.
Really? The only good thing is removing all the deductions and credits. However you would lose incoming tax revenue. A person with $1,000,000 taxable income pays $353,046 under the current system and someone who just makes $1,000,000 under the flat tax would pay $170,000, a HALF of it. However someone who makes $9,000 would pay $1,530 vs $900 (after deductions) and someone making $35,000 would pay $5,950 vs. $4,796. Even someone who makes $52,000 would have a tax increase as they pay an effective rate under 17% while the super-rich has a tax cut of half at least. Plus you assume the rich would spend more but most would not in a meaningful way while others have an increase of as much as 7%.
Remember.........we are not taxed on what we make......
We are taxed on what we KEEP.
That only really work if you are self employed. Any one who is employed doesn't really have that luxury.
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.
The only good thing is removing all the deductions and credits. However you would lose incoming tax revenue. A person with $1,000,000 taxable income pays $353,046 under the current system and someone who just makes $1,000,000 under the flat tax would pay $170,000, a HALF of it. However someone who makes $9,000 would pay $1,530 vs $900 (after deductions) and someone making $35,000 would pay $5,950 vs. $4,796. Even someone who makes $52,000 would have a tax increase as they pay an effective rate under 17% while the super-rich has a tax cut of half at least. Plus you assume the rich would spend more but most would not in a meaningful way while others have an increase of as much as 7%.
