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.
Multiple parties won't solve the problem either. Ultimately, it is all about power, and third or fourth or fifth party is not going to address it, as I have noticed in some countries that have multi-party system.
We as far as I can tell only have one party with two faces. We need two parties. There needs to be a real choice at the polls. It is all about power. 10% of Congress voting as a block can wield power far beyond their numbers. I want 1/2 the house 1/2 the Senate and the presidency.
I'm not sure what your point is and I'm not sure you understand what my argument is. When I said, "That's not fair" did you not notice the question mark? My argument is against Obama's "tax the rich more" crap. I think people who achieve should be able to keep as much as possible.
I advocate the flat tax as proposed by Forbes.
If I make $100,000 -- I pay $17,000
If I make $1,000,000 -- I pay $170,000
If I make under $40,00 -- I pay nothing.
What is the problem?
So in essence, the rich should support the poor? I make far less than $40,000 a year, but I would feel like a complete leech if I paid no taxes at all. And I don't want anyone else's money, thank you very much.
Everyone who uses the services should be taxed for the usage.
I don't understand why people are opposed to a flat tax income system.
0-100K =10% income tax (still keep the earned income tax credit for poor)
100K-250K=15% income tax
$250-500K=20%
500K-1 mil =25%
>1 mil =30%
1. Index the taxes for inflation
2. Eliminate all deductions (housing, retirement, business losses/stock losses etc).
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes (obviously don't allow the hedge fund manages to pay only 15% tax on their income like they have been doing).
4. Eliminate all estate taxes
This seems like the fairest way to generate income. The Dems would be happy since the rich can't circumvent taxes by shielding money in trusts etc.
The rich are happy because their capital gains are taxed free (since they can't deduct losses either). Your retirement funds would be tax free (since it's all considered after tax money anyways)
The middle class should be happy since they won't be paying more than 10% income taxes. This will offset most losses they would incur by losing the property tax deduction. Most of all, this all but eliminates the AMT trap many middle class citizens in high property tax states/high state income tax like New Jersey, NY, California face
The poor still get shielded because the earned income tax credit would still be around. Most would have very little tax liability.
People have to realize, most "rich or uber rich" people barely pay more than 10-15% "effective tax rates". This would make the rich more accountable for their "fair share." But they would still be happy since they wouldn't be taxed on investment gains.
I believe you would generate even more tax revenue this way. Everyone sees where their true tax bracket it.
What you are suggesting is not a flat tax, it's a progressive tax and, furthermore, it actually is similar to the US income tax system (though the income tax system has lots of loopholes and deductions and such). A flat tax would apply the same percentage tax rate to all Americans regardless of their income.
I support a progressive tax system, though I'd like to see more tax brackets (somewhat more fair in my opinion) and see somewhat higher tax rates for wealthier Americans than you suggest.
The reason progressives such as myself dislike flat taxes (and really hate regressive taxes) is because we consider it harmful to the poor. Charging a poor person who makes, say, $15,000 a year 10% of their income would hurt them A LOT MORE than charging someone who makes one million a year 10% of their income. Poor people have to rely on a far greater portion of their income for necessary purchases, for basic needs. They have far smaller, if any, disposable incomes so charging them the same percentage as a rich person hurts them relative to that wealthy person.
20%? 30%? 40%? On top of local and state taxes? And no deductions for family/children... anything of that sort, right? You consume, you pay. Is that right? What if I import goods from other countries or states instead of buying locally? Then, would we be talking import tariffs...? (and open a whole new can of worms)
PS. Should we also move to a percentage based sales tax on gasoline, just to keep it simple?
You already pay state and local taxes plus your federal tax
For me - 20 percent on anything you buy new.
Gas Tax - good question - since a large part of what we pay for gas goes to both State and Federal. I'd categorize it as fair tax.
You wouldn't need deductions for family/children - you wouldn't be filing an IRS tax form. Help's take away the incentive to have more children just for that tax deduction
Maybe you should buy your goods from within the US
The affect on import goods might not be good under the fair tax - the other hand - might promote international companies moving to US.
Today, when companies sell, they have already embedded in their prices more than $1 trillion of annual tax-related costs. Hopefully, fewer American companies would outsource their production of goods and services as a result of a Fair Tax.
P.S. I grown most of my own veggies - but go to Farmer's market to get what I don't grow
Really though for a Fair Tax to be in place - you'd need a balanced budget amendment in place - otherwise they could keep just upping what percentage they want us to pay.
So in essence, the rich should support the poor? I make far less than $40,000 a year, but I would feel like a complete leech if I paid no taxes at all. And I don't want anyone else's money, thank you very much.
Everyone who uses the services should be taxed for the usage.
Then you better go with the Fair Tax rather than the flat tax. My biggest concern with the Fair Tax is that, once instituted, Congress would bring back the income tax in addition to the National sales tax (Fair Tax). Now, we would be stuck with both. Of course, nothing is stopping them from instituting it on top of the income tax we have now, but I think it would be more difficult for them to do so. Trust me, I would prefer the Fair Tax and just keep all the money I earn. Tax as I spend. My mistrust of the Federal government keeps me wary of it though.
Ah, but wouldn't you still be paying taxes to your state and locality in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, etc? The Federal government needs to butt out of state and local matters. By going back to just those things enumerated to it per the Constitution, your state and local taxes would cover most of what you are talking about., so no need to feel like a leech.
I'm not sure what your point is and I'm not sure you understand what my argument actually is. When I said, "That's not fair" did you not notice the question mark? My argument is against Obama's "tax the rich more" crap. Rich people already pay more than anyone else in the country. I am certainly not thinking that rich people are somehow getting away with something. Quite the contrary, I think people who achieve should be able to keep as much as possible. If you are going to comment one someone's post, it's usually a good idea to read it all. If you don't want to bother with long posts, then do not comment on them as you clearly misunderstood my point.
I advocate the flat tax as proposed by Forbes.
If I make $100,000 -- I pay $17,000
If I make $1,000,000 -- I pay $170,000
If I make under $40,00 -- I pay nothing.
What is the problem?
I'm reading your posts alright. In fact, I also agree with your idea of "crap", when you, yourself, are setting a limit below which people shouldn't have to pay taxes. The difference is, you pulled numbers out of thin air without regard to how it will translate in real world.
And my previous post, as I said in it, was meant to provide a perspective on this idea how the top x% pays a greater chunk of income taxes to go with the numbers you posted. Was there a point to those numbers that I missed?
The reason progressives such as myself dislike flat taxes (and really hate regressive taxes) is because we consider it harmful to the poor. Charging a poor person who makes, say, $15,000 a year 10% of their income would hurt them A LOT MORE than charging someone who makes one million a year 10% of their income. Poor people have to rely on a far greater portion of their income for necessary purchases, for basic needs. They have far smaller, if any, disposable incomes so charging them the same percentage as a rich person hurts them relative to that wealthy person.
Again, it must be emphasized that the flat tax proposals that have been forwarded have an exemption for those making $40,000/year (Forbes) and $37,000 (Armey), so what you're saying does not apply.
The current bill before the Senate is S.741: Flat Tax Act of 2009. Senator Arlen Specter is the Bill's Sponsor. It is somewhat different thatn what Forbes and Armey proposed.
If I make $100,000 -- I pay $17,000
If I make $1,000,000 -- I pay $170,000
If I make under $40,00 -- I pay nothing.
What is the problem?
That doesn't sound correct. What would be more likely is 17% on amounts above $40,000. That way, you don't go from paying nothing to paying $6,800 once that threshold is crossed. And besides, $6,800 is a higher tax that someone would pay on $40,000 in 2009. I don't imagine that those were the actual brackets proposed in 1996.
Then you better go with the Fair Tax rather than the flat tax. My biggest concern with the Fair Tax is that, once instituted, Congress would bring back the income tax in addition to the National sales tax (Fair Tax). Now, we would be stuck with both. Of course, nothing is stopping them from instituting it on top of the income tax we have now, but I think it would be more difficult for them to do so. Trust me, I would prefer the Fair Tax and just keep all the money I earn. Tax as I spend. My mistrust of the Federal government keeps me wary of it though.
Ah, but wouldn't you still be paying taxes to your state and locality in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, etc? The Federal government needs to butt out of state and local matters. By going back to just those things enumerated to it per the Constitution, your state and local taxes would cover most of what you are talking about., so no need to feel like a leech.
Good ideas here. I could certainly go with Fair Tax as well. I just don't think the government could manage it without royally screwing it up... and screwing us in the process.
In my opinion, as you implied by mentioning state and local taxes, the feds shouldn't really even be charging any tax, except for the cost of national security, interstate highways and a few other programs. As you say, it's state, county, and local taxes that provide most of the real essentials. So, to tighten up my previous statement, I do think everyone should be taxed, but the taxes should be about 1% of what they are, and should be imposed in a simple, straightforward manner--and only enough to pay for that which the federal government should be doing ... which is a WHOLE lot less than what the are doing or think they should be doing.
I'm reading your posts alright. In fact, I also agree with your idea of "crap", when you, yourself, are setting a limit below which people shouldn't have to pay taxes. The difference is, you pulled numbers out of thin air without regard to how it will translate in real world.
And my previous post, as I said in it, was meant to provide a perspective on this idea how the top x% pays a greater chunk of income taxes to go with the numbers you posted. Was there a point to those numbers that I missed?
That was not my limit nor did I set it. That was the limit proposed by Steve Forbes. Dick Armey's limit was slightly lower. So no, I didn't pull any numbers out of "thin air". Did you miss me cite Forbes name or something?
Yes, you did miss the point yet once again. The point is that I tire of hearing people complain that the rich don't pay enough. The numbers I posted are from the IRS and make it clear that they do indeed pay a whole lot of money. When you said "So, that someone else is paying 20 times more in taxes than you. How about you match them, and pay as much? Can you do that?", I am in agreement with 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.
