Flat Tax

[jczeroman]

Is the idea of a flat tax realistic?

What would be a good rate?

How could it be implimented?

How could our current tax structure be reformed?

+did you all knwo that the bottom 50% of the country only pays for 4% of the tax burden? Would it not be realistic do just drop them off?

[Isaac]

Originally posted by jczeroman
+did you all knwo that the bottom 50% of the country only pays for 4% of the tax burden?

link?

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Isaac


link?

try here

[Isaac]

Originally posted by mercurial


try here

You're about 2 years late.

[Nimrod's Son]

The one thing a flat tax would do is allow for less loopholes in the tax codes. I do think it's unfair that the top 1% of earners pay 80% of our taxes.

17% sounds like a fair figure to me.

[Blank]

Originally posted by jczeroman
Is the idea of a flat tax realistic?

What would be a good rate?

How could it be implimented?

How could our current tax structure be reformed?

+did you all knwo that the bottom 50% of the country only pays for 4% of the tax burden? Would it not be realistic do just drop them off?

It won't happen. It would eliminate certain deductions that are used by many individuals (mortgage interest and charitable contributons). Lobbyists from the lending industry would fight till the end.

Reforms need to be made (and have been discussed, and beginning to be implemented) for the following:
*Eliminate the double and triple taxation of income (personal income, dividends, estate taxes)
*Capital gains taxes could be lowered
*Complete elimination of estate taxes
edit --> *Reduce/eliminate the marriage tax penalty

Originally posted by Isaac
link?

This is a bit old, but I don't believe you would see great fluctuations between these projections and actuals. And, I am too lazy to look for updated numbers.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...m=4&sequence=0

[Nimrod's Son]

Another problem the flat tax would solve would be who is considered "rich."

Right now, the Dems are all up in arms about George Bush's proposed tax cut, which they consider to be "for the rich."

Right now in the U.S., if a NYC firefighter makes $45,000 per year and marries a NYC public school teacher who also makes $45,000 per year, they fall into that top 1% bracket that pays most of the tax burden. As anyone in NY can tell you, $90,000 per year in Manhattan on a combined income certainly does not make anyone rich.

The problem with the taxation system is that it's national, so the wealthy people in say Spokane, WA don't get taxed as heavily as people struggling to make it in San Fran because of different standards of living.

[Blank]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

The problem with the taxation system is that it's national, so the wealthy people in say Spokane, WA don't get taxed as heavily as people struggling to make it in San Fran because of different standards of living.

Let's be honest though....standard of living adjustments are inputed into salary amounts in different cities. I will agree that they may not account for, or comprise the "actual" difference in those amounts, but for a majority of jobs, there is a built in factor.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Blank

Let's be honest though....standard of living adjustments are inputed into salary amounts in different cities. I will agree that they may not account for, or comprise the "actual" difference in those amounts, but for a majority of jobs, there is a built in factor.

That's exactly my point.

Let's say Bob makes $40,000 as an attorney and live in Mississippi. He's doing pretty well in life.

Let's say Julie makes $40,000 as a secretary and live in San Francisco. She's struggling to get by, and the "tax bracket" hits her the same as it does him.

Let's say Betty makes $18,000 as a secretary in Boise. She's living essentially the same struggle as Julie, but you know what? She gets almost all of her taxes back.

A flat tax doesn't solve the fact that Bob and Julie pay the same, but it does solve the fact that Julie and Betty then both pay 17%. Yes, Julie pays more, but not as significantly more than she used to, because tax laws penalize her "success."

[Blank]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
That's exactly my point.

Let's say Bob makes $40,000 as an attorney and live in Mississippi. He's doing pretty well in life.

Let's say Julie makes $40,000 as a secretary and live in San Francisco. She's struggling to get by, and the "tax bracket" hits her the same as it does him.

Let's say Betty makes $18,000 as a secretary in Boise. She's living essentially the same struggle as Julie, but you know what? She gets almost all of her taxes back.

A flat tax doesn't solve the fact that Bob and Julie pay the same, but it does solve the fact that Julie and Betty then both pay 17%. Yes, Julie pays more, but not as significantly more than she used to, because tax laws penalize her "success."

Ahhh. crystal clearer now. I haven't seen this debate before. Good points. Julie needs to move. Bob needs to pass the bar, or figure out why he is retarded and only getting $40K for being an attorney. Well, Betty has got it figured out. Although she better marry before she gets too old, and is forced to be a secretary for the rest of her life, while drinking natty lite on the weekend.

The Flat Tax won't pass. The gov. won't cut the IRS, lobbyists would "convince" congressman to vote against it. I would rather see the Estate Tax repealed now. That shit is ridiculous.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The one thing a flat tax would do is allow for less loopholes in the tax codes. I do think it's unfair that the top 1% of earners pay 80% of our taxes.

17% sounds like a fair figure to me.

This would make sense except that the top 1% of the earners own around 80% of the country's wealth. The two numbers aren't directly correlative - so I don't think you can make a comparison like that.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I do think it's unfair that the top 1% of earners pay 80% of our taxes.

I think that is perfectly fair.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Right now, the Dems are all up in arms about George Bush's proposed tax cut, which they consider to be "for the rich."

Right now in the U.S., if a NYC firefighter makes $45,000 per year and marries a NYC public school teacher who also makes $45,000 per year, they fall into that top 1% bracket that pays most of the tax burden. As anyone in NY can tell you, $90,000 per year in Manhattan on a combined income certainly does not make anyone rich.

The current tax system is really a cleverly disguised wealth redistribution plan, which is disgusting. I would say a rich person should be defined at about $300,000 or so... $90,000 a year is barely middle class let alone "rich." What a crock.

THe problem with the argument about the top 4 or so percent paying 80 %of INCOME taxes is that the bottom 60% have an unfair burden when it comes to payroll taxes.

You can't implement a flat tax without raising taxes on poor people. It will NEVER fly. The other problem with flat taxation is that you also will never have flat distribution of the spending that results from the taxation. I don't think it is fair at all that we would all be paying equally according to our means but we would be receiving disproportionate amounts of services from the government. You can talk about welfare queens all you want, but the rich receive a hell of a lot of services from the federal government that don't get demonized as leftist.

[lawson]

Originally posted by BlueStar


I think that is perfectly fair.

so do i- we live in a system where if you could get a million dollars, you can safely live off that interest for the rest of your life. those people that have millionS that are essentially only reinvesting over and over should have to pay for that privilege

[Blank]

Originally posted by PhantomFM


so do i- we live in a system where if you could get a million dollars, you can safely live off that interest for the rest of your life. those people that have millionS that are essentially only reinvesting over and over should have to pay for that privilege

Interesting. So basically are you saying that you believe in double and triple taxation of income as well? And, for the most part, I don't think that a million dollars falls out of trees....people do earn their money.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by jczeroman


The current tax system is really a cleverly disguised wealth redistribution plan, which is disgusting. I would say a rich person should be defined at about $300,000 or so... $90,000 a year is barely middle class let alone "rich." What a crock.

What a fantastical world you live in!!!!




.......oh- the median income is 22k.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Blank

Interesting. So basically are you saying that you believe in double and triple taxation of income as well? And, for the most part, I don't think that a million dollars falls out of trees....people do earn their money.

Ya killed yerself. no more to say, don't even want to point out how

[Blank]

Originally posted by Blank

Interesting. So basically are you saying that you believe in double and triple taxation of income as well? And, for the most part, I don't think that a million dollars falls out of trees....people do earn their money.

Thanks Isaac....anyways, my question still stands.