I've never understood why the Republicans don't advocate taxing everyone equally.

[marvdmartian]

Because they don't care about everyone. They care about interests that fund them.

Just as can be said for the Democrats, and the Independents. Anyone who is a career politician is in it for themselves......and the tax payers come in a distant 3rd.

To answer the OP's question, it's because that the Republican party's shtick. Just like the Democrats will let it be known that if you don't vote for them, you're going to lose your welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/aid to dependent children/social programs.

Those that want social programs vote left. Those who are tired of paying for them vote right. Any other questions??

 

[SolMiester]

You see, Im a big advocate of flat tax...there is a reason people earn more than some and it usually involves more education, training and hard work.....Only people who suffer envy support heavy taxing of the rich!

 

[a777pilot]

Because roads don't build themselves and policemen, firemen, and armed forces don't run off donations.

You are 100% correct. Those things are needed and must be paid for by taxes.

What I am saying is not end taxes but change what we tax.

I would explain further but it is of no use, you would not listen.

 

[Baasha]

his name is anarchist not socialist......
10% of 25000 is 2500
10% of 2500000 is 250000

why do people feel the need to tax the rich at a higher percentage? yes they make more, but if the percentage is the same they also pay more.

they should pay the same percentage wise, i'm all for closing all the bogus loopholes that allow them to pay 4% total tax or whatever, but why target them as if it's our RIGHT to have their money for ourselves?

so yes the more you make the more you pay,

you don't seem to get the 'civil' in civilization. Yes, capitalism is primarily driven by greed and self-interest but it should NOT be at the expense of others. That is what government is for.

Although your example of the equal tax percentage shows the rich pay much more in dollar amount, the rich also KEEP a MUCH HIGHER dollar amount after taxation. The common refrain is 'why not, they earned it' is beside the point.

The question one needs to ask is, "How much can people contribute to the betterment of society without it affecting their lifestyle/bottom line."

Using your own example, the guy who earns $25,000 a year and pays $2500 (10%) in taxes would benefit a LOT more if he was liable to pay only $1250 or 5% of his income. That extra $1250 could mean more food for his family or better/safer place he can rent or pay for.

The guy who earns $2,500,000 who pays $250,000 is in NO way affected (his bottom line or lifestyle) if he is able to keep another $125,000. That $125,000 can go a long way in helping people who are destitute and are in need of basic amenities for subsistence. And so, if the rich man were to be taxed at a higher rate, say 20%, he would end up paying $500,000 but he would have $2,000,000 at the end of it. In what way does his lifestyle get diminished by paying the extra $250,000? He might have to wait till next year to get the F430 Scuderia!

Life is not a mathematical certainty. Life is also not the sum total of one's monetary earnings and/or contributions. People are born with different proclivities and strengths. To make sure that everyone has basic food, shelter, and a chance to be educated is what separates humans from animals. If we are to merely follow our instincts and stick with the "survival of the fittest", we are no longer humans but beasts.

 

[Taejin]

I've never understood

pretty much explains all your threads

 

[Tom]

Why tax income in the first place? It makes no sense, other than it is easier than other means of getting tax revenues.

In a free and capitalistic country, it make no sense what so ever to tax income and real property.

income and real property values benefit DIRECTLY from government activities.

They are the most fair taxes there are.

Advocates of consumption taxes only have one real goal, they think those kinds of taxes are easier to avoid..

That isn'a rational basis for a fiscal policy.

 

[a777pilot]

income and real property values benefit DIRECTLY from government activities.

That is exactly the attitude that has got us to a over blown government that is out of control and a debt of over $14 trillion.

We the People do not exist for the purpose of supporting and obeying the government.

Amazing as it sounds, the government is there to support We the People. It is the People that is sovereign not the government.

 

[Fayd]

By the way, your math is slightly off. Total US income in 2010 was $8.3 trillion. 10% of that would be $0.83T. Total non-government spending in 2010 was $11 trillion. 10% of that would be $1.1T. So your plan would generate $1.93T. But our current system generated $2.16T in 2010. To match current revenue, we'd need to be 11% flat income tax no exceptions and 11% flat sales tax no exceptions.

But, our 2010 tax revenues were historically very, very low as a percent of GDP (recent tax cuts, stimulus tax cuts, and recession). To match typical government revenues we'd need closer to $2.8T in revenue. That means to get to a typical year, you'd need 14.1% flat income tax and 14.1% flat sales tax.

Also, my math here assumes businesses pay the sales tax too. Meaning they'll pass that extra expense onto consumers. The net flat sales tax would then be higher.

also gotta realize the effects on behavior of additional taxes on spending.

 

[Nebor]

That is exactly the attitude that has got us to a over blown government that is out of control and a debt of over $14 trillion.

We the People do not exist for the purpose of supporting and obeying the government.

Amazing as it sounds, the government is there to support We the People. It is the People that is sovereign not the government.

The continuity and glory of the state is paramount, over the "happiness" or "rights" of the people. For without the state, what would the people even be? Not even a people.

There should be a symbiotic relationship between the government and the people, because one can't exist without the other.

I think your ideas (ideals) are outdated, from a simpler time without world markets, international terrorism and nuclear weapons.

 

[a777pilot]

The continuity and glory of the state is paramount, over the "happiness" or "rights" of the people. For without the state, what would the people even be? Not even a people.

There should be a symbiotic relationship between the government and the people, because one can't exist without the other.

I think your ideas (ideals) are outdated, from a simpler time without world markets, international terrorism and nuclear weapons.

Sad and destructive.

You should be ashamed.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I've heard some people propose a flat tax with rebates given to people. Tax people at a flat percentage regardless of income, while also giving people back a set dollar amount regardless of income.

Just for the sake of illustration, let's say it's 10% and there's a $5,000 rebate. People who make under $50,000 will receive money back, while people who make over $50,000 will pay money in. Make $18,000 a year at a crappy part-time service job? You'll get a net tax rebate of $3,200. Make $40 million as a CEO? You'll pay $3,995,000 in taxes. Obviously this rate would have to be carefully calibrated and I have no idea how best to do that, but the idea makes sense I think.

 

[dullard]

also gotta realize the effects on behavior of additional taxes on spending.

True, but that is probably far too complex for this discussion here. What would a 14% tax on your house sale do for selling your house? It might keep you in a house longer than otherwise, which might keep you in a worse job, which keeps your salary a bit lower, which drops spending, which means more tax is needed, which makes you keep your house longer, etc. This vicious cycle isn't one that is easilly calculated or discussed in a forum.

 

[dullard]

I've heard some people propose a flat tax with rebates given to people. Tax people at a flat percentage regardless of income, while also giving people back a set dollar amount regardless of income...Obviously this rate would have to be carefully calibrated and I have no idea how best to do that, but the idea makes sense I think.

Numbers begin to get quite scary once you do that math. That is true regardless of flat income tax or flat sales tax.

Flat sales tax route:

Suppose we were to have a balanced budget in 2011 simply by switching to a pure sales tax with rebate. We'd need to raise $3.8 trillion in funds from ~$11 trillion in non-government spending. Thus, the sales tax rate would need to be $3.8/$11 = 34.5% if there were no rebates.

But now suppose we were to give $5000 to every American. Spending on that rebate alone would be $1.55 trillion. Now, the tax would have to raise $3.8 trillion + $1.55 trillion. Or the flat sales tax now becomes 48.6%.

Not only is that an oppressive sales tax rate, but that tax is placed on EVERYTHING. Want to buy a house for $170k, you also have to pay $82,681 tax up front. Do you have that money? Probably not, most people don't. And don't forget the $4000 in closing costs will also be taxed, so add another $2000 of tax due up front.

We could have tax exceptions for things like houses, but then that 48.6% tax rate will be even much, much higher. The numbers just get into stiffling levels at that point. I'd personally just buy my stuff from Canada and skip US stores if there were a 50% or higher sales tax rate here.

Flat income tax route:

US household income is about $8.3 trillion. To generate $3.8 trillion, we'd need a 45.5% flat income tax rate. To incorporate that $5000/person rebate, the flat rate would now need to be 64%! You tell me if you'd be better off with $5000 and a 64% federal income tax rate (and then more for state and local taxes) or with the federal tax rate as it is now (even if it were bumped up to balance the budget).

Spending less:

Spending less on the government side would help drastically. But that is true with a flat sales tax, flat income tax, or no change at all.

 

[Nebor]

I think no rebate with a flat ~50% federal income tax rate would be best.

 

[Anarchist420]

Numbers begin to get quite scary once you do that math. That is true regardless of flat income tax or flat sales tax.

Flat sales tax route:

Suppose we were to have a balanced budget in 2011 simply by switching to a pure sales tax with rebate. We'd need to raise $3.8 trillion in funds from ~$11 trillion in non-government spending. Thus, the sales tax rate would need to be $3.8/$11 = 34.5% if there were no rebates.

But now suppose we were to give $5000 to every American. Spending on that rebate alone would be $1.55 trillion. Now, the tax would have to raise $3.8 trillion + $1.55 trillion. Or the flat sales tax now becomes 48.6%.

Not only is that an oppressive sales tax rate, but that tax is placed on EVERYTHING. Want to buy a house for $170k, you also have to pay $82,681 tax up front. Do you have that money? Probably not, most people don't. And don't forget the $4000 in closing costs will also be taxed, so add another $2000 of tax due up front.

We could have tax exceptions for things like houses, but then that 48.6% tax rate will be even much, much higher. The numbers just get into stiffling levels at that point. I'd personally just buy my stuff from Canada and skip US stores if there were a 50% or higher sales tax rate here.

Flat income tax route:

US household income is about $8.3 trillion. To generate $3.8 trillion, we'd need a 45.5% flat income tax rate. To incorporate that $5000/person rebate, the flat rate would now need to be 64%! You tell me if you'd be better off with $5000 and a 64% federal income tax rate (and then more for state and local taxes) or with the federal tax rate as it is now (even if it were bumped up to balance the budget).

Spending less:

Spending less on the government side would help drastically. But that is true with a flat sales tax, flat income tax, or no change at all.

I think cutting spending to $800B and a 10% true flat rate tax (or a 10% true flat rate sales tax on everything) on all income (cap gains, gifted, earned, inherited, etc.) is good enough. No need for the Federal government to spend anything, let alone $3.8T.

 

[senseamp]

Hedge fund managers still pay capital gains rates for their income, while putting none of their capital at risk.

 

[Kadarin]

Because Republicans only care about making sure the very wealthy stay very wealthy. Anything else they pretend to care about is just lip service designed to get votes.

 

[her209]

Hedge fund managers still pay capital gains rates for their income, while putting none of their capital at risk.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls

In 2008, the top 0.1% had a lower average tax rate than the top 1%.
Top 0.1%: 22.7
Top 1%: 23.27

If you do the math:
(22.7 + 9X) / 10 = 23.27
22.7 + 9X = 232.7
9X = 210
X = 23.33

So the top 0.1 - 1.0% paid an average tax rate of 23.33%.

 

[nyker96]

I don't get what's so hard about proposing drastically reducing the tax rates on all income and taking out all loopholes and all deductions.

Wouldn't the Republicans have a deal with the Democrats or do the Democrats want to tax the poor more than the rich also? The Democrats are basically the party of unfair taxation, always raising the marginal rates and increasing the loopholes for the well-connected while making people who work pay more. Now the republicans apparently like to do that also.

I don't think that it's fair that hedge fund managers and inheritors don't pay and people who work do. Also, the rates for people who work pay are too damn high. So why not just tax all individual income at 10%, no exceptions and have a 10% sales tax with no exceptions? That's 100% fair and 100% flat compared to the Dick Armey FlatTax and the Bachmann, Huckabee, Linder, Boortz FairTax. The Federal government would get the same amount of revenue as they get now, which is a problem, but other than the Federal government having the power of taxation, there really aren't any other problems with my proposal for the average person.

Anyway, the Democrats lie when they say they want to tax the rich more because if they raise the top marginal rate to 45%, then there will just be more loopholes and fewer rich people will pay taxes (like when Ted Kennedy created the Estate tax, he put a loophole in it so he didn't have to pay). Increasing corporate taxes by taking away oil company deductions doesn't do jack dempsey shit, because reduced corporate income taxes gets recaptured 100% via personal income taxes.

well the notion of paying equal % is libertarianism. Republican wants to tax the poor a bit more than the rich, and democrates is the reverse. Of course, in reality, even the democrates must cater to the rich, they will set up say a % on paper leaning towards the poor but ... leave enough loopholes so the rich will eventually pay less than the poor. This you cannot change because the rich control champaign donation. Until poor people start to donate their hard earned money to politicians, nothing will change for the poor. But been poor of course they will never donate.

 

[Tom]

That is exactly the attitude that has got us to a over blown government that is out of control and a debt of over $14 trillion.

We the People do not exist for the purpose of supporting and obeying the government.

Amazing as it sounds, the government is there to support We the People. It is the People that is sovereign not the government.

nice rant but it has nothing to do with what I said. The value of property and the level of income a person can have are directly associated with things like roads, sewers, schools, currency, legal system, prisons, army, police, etc.

That's just a fact. So it follows that the people who benefit the most from property values and income should pay the most tax, to pay for the benefits they receive.

This has nothing to do with your rant, which is about a mythical land where the people don't have a say in government spending and levels of taxation.

The truth is the real problem we have is ourselves, a bunch of greedy assholes who want lots from ther government, although we won't admit it, and don't want to pay for it.

There's plenty of money to pay off the debt, and provide a decent life for every American, and have millions of well off people and lots of filthy rich people; the reason it doesn't happen is us.