Flat tax

The $30,000 thing is that when you're living on it, $6,000 is an awful lot. (Yes, I have lived on far, far less.) Especially when you are trying to support a family.

You paid 30% of your income on taxes when you made $30,000, Portal? I'm surprised, but don't know enough about that part to comment, and don't feel like looking it up. (Long day.)

The upper reaches is the more objectionable part of the flat tax, for me... The further away people get from having just enough money for housing, clothing, food and health care, the more they should pay.

0 Replies

Flat tax will destroy the middle class.

However, if it was based on FIXED, UNCHANGING, NO LOOPHOLED income levels, let's say four of them, 0 - 10,000 - O percent, 10,000-40,000 - 10 %, 40,000 - 200,000 - 20 %, and 200,000 plus - 33 %, then you might be on to something.

The corporations are why we have the problem, as already stated. They feel they don't have to give back to the society that makes them rich, and this is as great a modern evil as you will find. They are utterly dependent upon labor and consumers, so it is not a stretch for them to pay back something in terms of firemen, police, education, roads, etc...so that people can continue to make them rich.

Good luck getting a corporate owner to see this, or admit it. They want to lower wages, end benefits, and pay LESS taxes.

This is the real problem behind the problems with our government - the corporations. Maybe someday Americans will get around to understanding this, but alas, it may be already too late.

0 Replies

Why do you think that corporations are lavishing money on government? It's cost effective, and far cheaper to give to them so that they sit on their ass and don't enact just legislation regarding this. They do it to curry the favor of the king, and it has been going on for thousands of years.

So they make government fabulously rich like themselves, to ensure labor never advances, and taxes never become realistic.

It is by far, historically, the biggest warning sign that our civilization is going to go the way of all the other ones before us....collapse. History is quite clear on this, and the danger is very real. This is why my signature at the bottom of my posts is

WAKE UP AMERICA!

0 Replies

Umbagog wrote:

Flat tax will destroy the middle class.

However, if it was based on FIXED, UNCHANGING, NO LOOPHOLED income levels, let's say four of them, 0 - 10,000 - O percent, 10,000-40,000 - 10 %, 40,000 - 200,000 - 20 %, and 200,000 plus - 33 %, then you might be on to something.

That is the anti-thesis of flat tax. Question

0 Replies

We piss and moan about our government, and say nothing about the corporations slitting everyone's throats...until recently, that is, because they are getting BLATANT about their greed and corruption.

But Bush is in their pocket, and he won't do anything but target minor victims like Martha Stewart to give the appearance he is doing something about it.

The old was way annual tributes to the king to avoid being invaded. The new way is no different.

0 Replies

No it isn't. It is a progressive flat tax...still unchanging, still static without loopholes and execptions.

Sure the numbers can be debated before solidifying into the new system, but the numbers are there to REFLECT the ability of the taxpayer to pay without being oppressed.

The richest don't get rich in a vacuum. They have millions of people helping them, therefore it stands to reason they are obligated to helping those millions be able to continue in their making of them rich, so it behooves the rich to pay back more than the poor to keep everything going. Clinton was on to this idea, but he took it too far. Bush is the total opposite of this, and Bush is the OLD WAY, the OLD WORLD, and the old world never worked out for anyone.

It doesn't matter if you stockpiles wealth or resources in the hands of the few. In the end, the whole thing collapses and drags everyone down, rich and poor alike. The USSR is all the evidence we need.

0 Replies

When I asked the question, I was thinking of a flat percentage tax, with NO EXEMPTIONS. This, I believe, would be fair. How could it not be?

0 Replies

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html

excerpt:

Quote:

- The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes.

- People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who's mopping floors. But let's work our way up the income scale:

- The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.

- The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes.

- The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more--and Tom Wolfe's little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody's going to tell me those guys aren't rich--paid 10 percent of the taxes. That's a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece.

-snip-

The flat-tax scam is more of the same. Nobody's sure what the actual flat-tax rate would be, but let's suppose it was 20 percent. Based on the 1992 returns, if this inane proposal were implemented, taxes on everybody making $200,000-plus will go down and those on everybody else will go up. Malcolm Forbes Jr., one of the richest men in America, was the leading backer of the flat tax during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now do you see why?

0 Replies

And what I propose is this one tax system, period. No fed and state and payroll tax. One flat annual tax, period. This would keep states powerful and the federal government small like it is supposed to be. No sales tax, no fees, penalties, stipulations, etc....just the progressive flat tax rate. Such a system would force government to shrink down and become more efficient because they get so much and that is it. If the government wanted more money, it would have to create more jobs.

Corporations would be able to pay less tax through sharing profits more with labor.

If you are telling me I am wrong, you are in idiot, or a corporation owner. What I am saying is CHECKS AND BALANCES on economic power. It is as needed as it is on governmental power.

Will you deny it?

So long as the system is not oppressive and people can still make money as incentive, then there is nothing wrong with paying your proper dues to your country to help it thrive and prosper.

It's heretical and traitorous to NOT do this. Trying to slip out of paying your dues isn't very American, nor is pushing the burden onto the poor so that you can stay artificially and totally inflated beyond reason rich.

0 Replies

One more paragraph from the Straight Dope (but read the whole thing...)

Quote:

The purpose of this exercise is not to make you feel sorry for the poor rich people. Quite the contrary. Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. Some reform.

0 Replies

Maybe, and I stress, maybe, we could have a small individual HEALTH tax alongside the flat tax so that everyone in this country can afford to stay healthy and productive, and medicine can get the income it needs for research etc.

But corporations donating money to government to stop ideas like this dead in their tracks needs to end too. That would be a considerable savings to the corporations, and further keep our representatives representing instead of living a lavish lifestyle that insulates them from the plight of everyday Americans.

Call my idea insane all you want, but it is the only path to the future.

Sharing and cooperation is the key to survival. There is no more important law for the human race.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

When I asked the question, I was thinking of a flat percentage tax, with NO EXEMPTIONS. This, I believe, would be fair. How could it not be?

A common misperception is that all equality is fair. This is not true when a facet is isolated and deemed "equal" while there are other significant inequalities.

Equality in percecntage of taxation of income is just one facet.

Equality of taxation of income minus basic living expenses is another facet that needs to be considered.

Example:

basic survival expenses = 10,000.
flat tax = 20%
Person A's income = 10,000
Person B's income = 20,000
Person C's income = 20,000,000

If both B and C pay an equal percentage of income person B would pay 40% of the money available to him once basic living expenses are deducted.

Person C would pay at a rate of 20% of the non-living-expenses income.

So while the rate of taxed income is equal in percentage person B is paying 40% of his "spending money" in taxes while Person C is paying 20%.

That is a facet that is not equal even if you disregard that Person C is paying 20% of 19,990,000 and person A is paying 40% of 10,000. This has additional inequality in the possibilities of future income as well as the impact the tax will cause on each person.

This does not take into account person A, who simply dies 9 2/5 months into the year.

Most Flat Tax plans take Person A into account and give an exemption. This is acknowledgement of factors besides income that influence "fairness".

Edited to add person A.

0 Replies

The argument is old. Private enterprise and private wealth should have the right to keep all they made, and not be subjected to a government gone greedy with lust for their profits.

While on the surface this is true, but there are some fallacies in it. For one thing, private wealth makes no sense. No one individual makes a dime without a hell of a lot of help from a hell of a lot of other people. Wealth is the result of social enterprise, not private enterprise. This private notion comes to us from the middle ages, and it has no meaning in the modern world.

Government of course, is wrong to take too much in the way of taxes from anyone. Granted. But we know in the modern world that without taxes our great society would come to a grinding halt. So some taxes are needed. But from who and how much?

It should be progressive, and based on income, but it also must be static and unchanging, with no loopholes, etc. THAT IS FAIR. Not a flat rate for everyone. The rich got rich through society, so they owe more back to that society than the poor do. It only makes sense, especially in an expansive consumer based economy. Paying a third back to society isn't oppressive. You end up with 7 million instead of 11, and you won't suffer at all from doing it.

The poor shouldn't be paying more than 5 %, and the middle class shouldn't be paying more than 10 %. IT'S WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD.

The rich should pay more, in fact, the HAVE to pay more or the whole thing falls to pieces because the middle class becomes the poverty class and the poor can't consume nearly as much as is needed to keep the spice flowing.

Why can't you see that? Do you really expect poor people to form the basis of your expansionary consumer-based marketplace?

Do you really think that is going to work? HAS IT WORKED FOR THE PAST 6,000 YEARS?

How much proof do you need?

0 Replies

I agree with ya Umbagog! Totally agree. What you stated about your country is true in Canada too. The middle class is being eroded away.

One of the scariest situations happening between big business and government is illustrated in the following story. Read on.

Quote:

Isn't Your Home Your Castle?

Occasionally, politicians are so eager to help their rich friends that they'll take your home to do it. The legal doctrine of "eminent domain" (which means "superior ownership") allows government officials to take possession of your property if they decide they need it for the greater good. Traditionally this meant building highways, bridges, and parks, and eminent domain was used only in unusual situations.

But today government officials use eminent domain to help private companies -- Kmart, Home Depot, baseball teams, shopping malls. Hurst, Texas, condemned 127 homes that stood in the way of a developer's plan to expand a mall. Toledo, Ohio, got a $28.8 million HUD loan to forcibly relocate the owners of 83 perfectly nice homes that were condemned to make way for a Jeep factory. A county in Kansas condemned property belonging to 150 families to make way for NASCAR's Kansas International Speedway.

Sometimes citizens fight back, and when they do they can win -- even against a foe as big as Donald Trump and the Atlantic City politicians in his pocket. In the early 1990s, the billionaire already owned Trump Plaza, Trump Tower, Trump Parc, Trump International Hotel, Trump Palace, Trump World's Fair, and Trump Taj Mahal. But he wanted more. He wanted to expand one of his casinos in Atlantic City.

Vera Coking was in the way. The elderly widow had lived in a house in Atlantic City for more than 30 years, and she didn't want to move. Trump offered Coking $1 million if she'd sell. She said no.

This annoyed Trump. He told reporters her house was ugly, and it would be better if it were torn down to make room for a parking lot for limousines waiting outside his casino.

I wouldn't think that was "public use," but before you could say "corporate welfare," New Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit in 1994 to "acquire" Coking's property. It told Coking she must vacate her home within 90 days or the sheriff would forcibly remove her.

Suddenly the $1 million offer was off the table. The authority said Coking's house was worth only $251,000 -- one-fifth what Trump paid for a smaller lot nearby.

It looked to me like the government was robbing Vera Coking to pay off Donald Trump. The government officials wouldn't talk to me about it, but Trump did.

Stossel: In the old days, big developers came in with thugs with clubs. Now you use lawyers. You go to court and you force people out.

Trump: Excuse me. Other people maybe use thugs today. I don't. I've done this very nicely. If I wanted to use thugs, we wouldn't have any problems. It would have been all taken care of many years ago. I don't do business that way. We have been so nice to this woman.

Trump said Coking turned down his offer because "her lawyer wants to get rich, and everybody wants to get rich off me."

Stossel: So don't pay it. Let them stay. Basic to freedom is that if you own something, it's yours. The government doesn't just come and take it away.

Trump: Do you want to live in a city where you can't build roads or highways or have access to hospitals? Condemnation is a necessary evil.

Stossel: But we're not talking about a hospital. This is a building a rich guy finds ugly.

Trump: You're talking about at the tip of this city, lies a little group of terrible, terrible tenements -- just terrible stuff, tenement housing.

Stossel: So what?

Trump: So what?...Atlantic City does a lot less business, and senior citizens get a lot less money and a lot less taxes and a lot less this and that.

Sadly, claims that people will be deprived of "this and that" can now be used by politicians to condemn your house. It didn't seem right to Vera Coking. "This is America," she said. "My husband fought in the war and worked to make sure I would have a roof over my head, and they want to take it from me?"

Usually the Donald Trumps of the world and their partners in government get what they want. But Vera Coking was lucky enough to get media attention -- and to have a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, take her case to court. In 1998 a judge finally ruled against Trump and the government, finding that taking the property would benefit Trump, not the public. Vera Coking got to keep her home. She still lives there, surrounded by Trump's hotel.

Such victories against the awful advantages that government loves to grant to the wealthy and well-connected are possible. But to see more of them will require a great deal of diligence on the part of citizens -- and the news media. If we want to live up to the old saw that the press should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," the TV cameras need to spend more time focused on the ugly realities of welfare for the rich.

http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml

Note: Wow....how the heck did so many people post inbetween the time I started typing and the time I posted this? Eeep!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html

excerpt:

Quote:

- People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich.

Ya wanna know why they don't feel particularly rich? Because they spend too much on the "conveniences" of life. I bet these people have cells phones, two cars, go out for dinner at LEAST once a month, if not more, (including pizza, etc.), have more than basic cable, buy new clothing on a regular basis, etc. etc. We all don't need this stuff. It's all a rippling effect from the "me" generation. I bet if they gave up some of the toys and the unnecessary expenses, they would have more money and be all the happier.

0 Replies

Umbagog wrote:

But Bush is in their pocket, and he won't do anything but target minor victims like Martha Stewart to give the appearance he is doing something about it.

I heard something on t.v. yesterday about how prosecuting Martha Stewart as fervently as they have is out of balance with what happened to those responsible in the Enron scandal. I agree that Martha was probably greedy and all, but her crimes pale in comparison to those executives in Enron. Whatever happend to the Enron crooks anyhow?

0 Replies

Craven, don't confuse me with the facts! Smile

0 Replies

Facts?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know