As we've seen with the SUV deduction, that will be abused.
The whole thing is flawed and naive. You don't want to be taxing consumer spending.
Lawyers and Doctors buying 6000LB+ SUV's for the tax deduction as business equipment? What's to stop them from buying stuff like furniture for the business to avoid paying taxes on it and then taking it home with a flat tax? Is the IRS going to make sure you don't have any business furniture at home?
The whole system is a nice pipe dream, but unworkable in reality.
You people who support taxing *anyone* at the 95% rate are just f8cking insane. EACH citizen of our country gets ONE vote for his or her elected officials and NO MORE. You have NO RIGHT to tax some people just because they happen to earn more money. You are *exactly* the reason that the US has become a semi-Socialist WELFARE STATE instead of the Land of the Free it was intended to be.
The income tax should be FLAT, 5-10% for EVERY citizen across the board. NO exemptions, NO refunds, NO returns. You pay it--it's gone. PERIOD.
REQUIRE by Constitutional Amendment that the Federal Government ONLY spend 90% of its budget each year and that the remaining funds be put into savings for emergencies: Natural disasters, terror attacks, wars, etc.
Provide an option to increase tax as high as 15% during War Times ONLY.
Constitutionally PROHIBIT providing welfare services of ANY KIND to ANY PERSON whatsoever if providing said service is more expensive than the government can afford.
I can't believe how many THIEVES lurk on this board. It's no wonder why there are so many instances of trolling.
Jason
The income tax should be FLAT, 5-10% for EVERY citizen across the board. NO exemptions, NO refunds, NO returns. You pay it--it's gone. PERIOD.
REQUIRE by Constitutional Amendment that the Federal Government ONLY spend 90% of its budget each year and that the remaining funds be put into savings for emergencies: Natural disasters, terror attacks, wars, etc.
Provide an option to increase tax as high as 15% during War Times ONLY.
Constitutionally PROHIBIT providing welfare services of ANY KIND to ANY PERSON whatsoever if providing said service is more expensive than the government can afford.
I can't believe how many THIEVES lurk on this board. It's no wonder why there are so many instances of trolling.
Jason
Of course, we shouldn't consider the fundamental flaw in your reasoning: You assume a) that the "wealth of the nation" is some static quantity of which each person grabs as much as they can, and b) that some men have a right to claim the earnings of others by granting themselves tax immunity by making less than the required level for taxation, and then turn around and tax those who actually achieve something in life and force those people to pay for the government services that the slackers use.
Your argument is neither rational nor fair nor just, and has been recycled a hundred times over by every would-be totalitarian who thinks he has a right to the belongings of other people.
Jason
WRONG. We have every right to vote for politicians who will set tax rates at whatever we want. Check the constitution, there is no prohibition against progressive taxation.
Move to Russia, they have flat tax for you. How do you plan to finance a $2.4 Trillion dollar government out of $10 Trillion GDP with a 5-10% flat tax? I am sorry, I missed my Reagan Math lessons, I was too busy studying Algebra.
Again, tax would have to be at 24% at all times, and more in times of war. Do the math.
Who decides what the government can afford? If some children are hungry, can the government afford food stamps? You are leaving in some ideal world of full employment and people never falling on hard times. Maybe you should come out of your shell and see the light.
Just because someone is not for flat tax, doesn't mean they are thieves, they just have other beliefs. My tax burden would be significantly reduced from a flat tax, being a single young adult with no deductions making high 5 digits. But I don't believe it's appropriate for our society to be taxing people who can barely afford necessities at the same rate as those who have money to spare. It's more important to me that someone making median wage be able to afford health insurance, than it is that someone in the upper 1 percent being able to afford a vacation home. It's perfectly appropriate in my mind to shift the tax burden more to those who can afford it, though I have said that I believe everyone should pay some taxes.
Your logic is SO incredibly flawed
The huge deficit is indicative of one thing alone: Our government spends TOO MUCH F8CKING MONEY.Jason
A very cute, quaint, and highly used arguement. Let's scream "it'll be Anarchy!" and see if we can't whip people into a foam so they support our insane cause (sounds a lot like a televangelist tactic, doesn't it? Oh, wait...) Unfortunately your argument is based on nothing but conjecture. So if we treat everyone as if they are EQUAL under the law we have to give up *every* public service the government provides? Every single one? So what does that mean, that there will be enough cash to pay legislator salaries but not to provide any other services?
I'll tell you what it REALLY means. It means that we can't afford bullsh1t "services" like Socialist Security and Welfare anymore. Those two programs ALONE constitute approximately ONE TRILLION DOLLARS of expense EACH AND EVERY YEAR. What are we paying that money for? To keep old people and minorities in a state of permanent destitution, that's what. All that money and the best we can do is to give these people just enough to scrape rock-bottom. The answer is clear: Pull government OUT of this sector entirely. It has NO BUSINESS planning retirements for ANYONE, nor in providing CHARITY. The government exists for one purpose and one alone: To protect the RIGHTS of the citizens from being trampled on by other people through force or fraud. That's IT, period.
You like the entitlement programs, yes? Of course you do, they make you feel good, like a modern-day Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give to the poor. Of course, you ignore the fact that in Robin Hood's day the rich were born to wealth and a poor-born man had no chance to become otherwise, whereas in America over 80% of our wealthy citizens are *first generation* rich (which, guess what? Means they came from middle or lower class backgrounds! GASP! People CAN make it on their own! They don't NEED you, you self-agrandizing hacks!)
Stop stealing, stop overspending. Those are the simple answers. Now they need to make the hard choices.
Jason
It's a simple Supply and Demand question. Nearly ANYONE can dig a ditch or deliver a Pizza, only a few people (relatively speaking...) can delivery babies or play professional sports (and don't ignore the technical, scientific and engineering disciplines...), so their services are worth more.
As for everyone paying equally, think PERCENTAGES. Even under a flat-tax system the rich STILL pay the bulk of the taxes.
Jason
Did you ever see the film version that starred Sean Astin and Christopher Plummer? One of the rare occasions when the film is actually *better* than the story
Jason
I didn't say that being against a flat tax makes you a thief. I will say specifically that being FOR the idea that some people have the right to excessively tax others to pay for programs that benefit themselves but not the people from whom they took the money makes you a THIEF. Couch it in whatever legislative crap you want; the progressive tax is simple DISCRIMINATION on the basis of INCOME and it's WRONG.
Jason
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Cad, did you ever see the film of Harrison Bergeron starring Sean Astin? *Great* film, much better than the story even
Jason
Jason
Hey I fixed my post big deal (sorry charrison - you were mature enough to realize it was a case of mistaken identity and not flame me). As for you is that the best you can do? Do you need someone to hold your hand and guide you to see an effective salary cap when we are talking about real people?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Every dollar of tax redistribution downward has an adverse impact that is both psychological and economical initially and because it is psychological it is economical exponentially at least for the near term on the multitude below that magic 28,000 earnings level (the median).
Everyone accepts that government spending stimulates or maintains the economy. Spending in the form of 'give aways' or social programs is spending. It seems to me that the spending by the recipient of governmental social programs goes to or trickles up to and enables the folks who want tax relief to be able to say that. I agree that they wouldn't care about that since the tax they don't pay and the income they won't receive may wash, I don't know.
I do think the only workable scenario would be if the redistribution was used to create more employment and trickle down as Laffer would argue and the people adversely affected can see the 'big picture' and the long term benefits. I can't reasonably argue it don't happen as Laffer suggests but, for sure it trickles up too.
It is the psychological window of time that concerns me. The real or imagined impact on the people who we know spend and create debt beyond their means to spend. Remedy that first.. or at least factor it into the equation.
Workers by and large will vote for the real and imagined benefit accruing to them by the platform presented. Flat tax will be rejected even if it has the greatest of merit over progressive structures. This reality must be dealt with and then perhaps understanding the reality, folks will support it. But, folks don't get elected to replace individuals when both argue the same way and for the same programs. I'll bet if the Democrats get into office and 'steal' the conservative agenda and implement it the impact from a psychological perspective will be somewhat sedated and then and only then can tax relief become a reality.
I believe a change in taxation is a necessary next step in an effort to better deal with the world market and the dynamics involved. We must find ways to expand the tax base to fund the essentials while stimulating investment and there by creating the associated economical benefits.
Everyone accepts that government spending stimulates or maintains the economy. Spending in the form of 'give aways' or social programs is spending. It seems to me that the spending by the recipient of governmental social programs goes to or trickles up to and enables the folks who want tax relief to be able to say that. I agree that they wouldn't care about that since the tax they don't pay and the income they won't receive may wash, I don't know.
I do think the only workable scenario would be if the redistribution was used to create more employment and trickle down as Laffer would argue and the people adversely affected can see the 'big picture' and the long term benefits. I can't reasonably argue it don't happen as Laffer suggests but, for sure it trickles up too.
It is the psychological window of time that concerns me. The real or imagined impact on the people who we know spend and create debt beyond their means to spend. Remedy that first.. or at least factor it into the equation.
Workers by and large will vote for the real and imagined benefit accruing to them by the platform presented. Flat tax will be rejected even if it has the greatest of merit over progressive structures. This reality must be dealt with and then perhaps understanding the reality, folks will support it. But, folks don't get elected to replace individuals when both argue the same way and for the same programs. I'll bet if the Democrats get into office and 'steal' the conservative agenda and implement it the impact from a psychological perspective will be somewhat sedated and then and only then can tax relief become a reality.
I believe a change in taxation is a necessary next step in an effort to better deal with the world market and the dynamics involved. We must find ways to expand the tax base to fund the essentials while stimulating investment and there by creating the associated economical benefits.
Anything could be considered a business expenses lets say I like to sell junk on ebay so I need a computer and go out and buy a 3k dollar computer and use it for about an hour a week for business. Under current state tax laws I would be required to pay sales and uses tax on the computer. Under your system I claiming to be a business you wouldn't have to pay any tax as long as I can claim the item was for use by a business.
Sales tax can only work if any item that is sold tax most be paid on it. That way states can keep people with a tax id number honest. If you get 100k dollars with you tax ID number but only pay 1k taxes you can be sure that you will be audited.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Did you ever see the film version that starred Sean Astin and Christopher Plummer? One of the rare occasions when the film is actually *better* than the story
Jason
The story is scary and was in my mind as I wrote what I did.
The lower folks gain and the upper folks lose.. how many of each...? The only way to start anything financial is for all the folks to be able to understand the numbers. Get rid of all the Federal hocus pocus with on budget, off budget, trusts everything.. have one big box where the money comes in and the money goes out. Folks understand this... then using understood reality show the folks 'what if's' sensitivity analysis on the various approaches to a tax method change. Call it a VAT on all goods and services consumed in the US. Not a Sales tax. Abolish SSI and call it Federal Welfare. Have all income of any sort taxed at 10% and adjust the VAT to reflect budget surplus or deficit when the accumulated debt exceeds some percentage of some meaningfull number like GDP. Fiscally stimulate fully under a demand sided approach. But, always consider the psychological impact.
in to punishing success are we? you realize that the people that make >= 500K get less money at the end of the day than the <30K people, right? i say a flat tax system, that way we know EVERYONE is paying the same rate and NO ONE is being gyped, overcharged, taken advantage of, or whatever other nonsense you might want to come up with.
oh, and the linky in the original post no worky for me.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Butttt a flat tax means that you would get rewarded for your work.
How can one then be rewarded for not working or working beneath their capability?
How can one then be rewarded for not working or working beneath their capability?
In some respects, it doesn't matter on the type of tax - we all pay too much in taxes as it is, especially here in good old NY.
If the teacher's pension fund doesn't get big earnings, I the taxpayer have to make up the 'shortfall' in larger school taxes. If my pension/retirement funds take a hit - 'oh well, I'm SOL.
If the local gov/school/powers that be, health insurance costs go up - I pay with a bigger tax bite. If mine go up, I pay out an extra 30 - 45 bucks a week and I don't get a raise.
Everybody is moving out NY, and and the only ones moving in, have their hands out for public (NYS Cadilac Care)assistance - I PAY MORE and I get less - my streets aren't plowed, the parks look like garbage dumps, I pay public employees to play solitaire half of the afternoon while the phone rings off the hook.
I wish that they would just stop spending so darn much, stop all the duplication of programs, cut the freekin spending, stop trying to be everything to everyone. Then my taxes would start going down, I keep more of my hard earner money.
Then set up a decent, fair flat tax of 9-11 %
If the teacher's pension fund doesn't get big earnings, I the taxpayer have to make up the 'shortfall' in larger school taxes. If my pension/retirement funds take a hit - 'oh well, I'm SOL.
If the local gov/school/powers that be, health insurance costs go up - I pay with a bigger tax bite. If mine go up, I pay out an extra 30 - 45 bucks a week and I don't get a raise.
Everybody is moving out NY, and and the only ones moving in, have their hands out for public (NYS Cadilac Care)assistance - I PAY MORE and I get less - my streets aren't plowed, the parks look like garbage dumps, I pay public employees to play solitaire half of the afternoon while the phone rings off the hook.
I wish that they would just stop spending so darn much, stop all the duplication of programs, cut the freekin spending, stop trying to be everything to everyone. Then my taxes would start going down, I keep more of my hard earner money.
Then set up a decent, fair flat tax of 9-11 %
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter