• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
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.
 
Last edited:
Dude, you are all over the map lately with your stream of consciousness thought process. The flat tax is a joke and I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that is a viable solution to our cumbersome tax system. Remember this:

"To whom more is given, more will be expected"

You must be aware that it takes a certain level of money to live, and then a higher level to live comfortably. Beyond those 2 points, the rest is effectively gravy... where you get to live in increasing levels of luxury and comfort. There is no fairness in asking someone who makes $30k per year to pay 10% leaving them only $27k left to eat, clothe, house, and transport themself while a guy making $40mil per year pays only 4mil (also 10%) leaving him $36mil to roll around in a bed of money after his $200k per year of essential needs (food, shelter, Mercedes S-550) are met.

Now if you were smart, you'd suggest we raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25-28% to ensure that the guy making $40 million per year (probably mostly from investments) pays a decent percentage of tax. Maybe you'd also ask that same person to pay a higher marginal rate of income beyond some level that exempts the upper middle class (i.e. 650-750k+?). You'd also keep the inheritance tax, not try to abolish or sunset it to prevent dynasties from forming. Agree with you on the carried interest -- absolutely get rid of that unfair POS loophole.

But a flat tax has been and always will be a nonsensical nonstarter.
 
brencat said:
Dude, you are all over the map lately with your stream of consciousness thought process. The flat tax is a joke and I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that is a viable solution to our cumbersome tax system. Remember this:

"To whom more is given, more will be expected"

You must be aware that it takes a certain level of money to live, and then a higher level to live comfortably. Beyond those 2 points, the rest is effectively gravy... where you get to live in increasing levels of luxury and comfort. There is no fairness in asking someone who makes $30k per year to pay 10% leaving them only $27k left to eat, clothe, house, and transport themself while a guy making $40mil per year pays only 4mil (also 10%) leaving him $36mil to roll around in a bed of money after his $200k per year of essential needs (food, shelter, Mercedes S-550) are met.

Now if you were smart, you'd suggest we raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25-28% to ensure that the guy making $40 million per year (probably mostly from investments) pays a decent percentage of tax. Maybe you'd also ask that same person to pay a higher marginal rate of income beyond some level that exempts the upper middle class (i.e. 650-750k+?). You'd also keep the inheritance tax, not try to abolish or sunset it to prevent dynasties from forming. Agree with you on the carried interest -- absolutely get rid of that unfair POS loophole.

But a flat tax has been and always will be a nonsensical nonstarter.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the next most fair thing is to have graduated rates for all personal income received but no deductions and no loopholes. If we are to have taxes, then x amount of inherited income should be taxed at the same rate as x amount of earned income.

FICA taxes should be repealed and replaced with nothing, but if they replace it wirh something else, then 10% tax on all purchases would be about right.
 
brencat said:
Dude, you are all over the map lately with your stream of consciousness thought process. The flat tax is a joke and I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that is a viable solution to our cumbersome tax system. Remember this:

"To whom more is given, more will be expected"

You must be aware that it takes a certain level of money to live, and then a higher level to live comfortably. Beyond those 2 points, the rest is effectively gravy... where you get to live in increasing levels of luxury and comfort. There is no fairness in asking someone who makes $30k per year to pay 10% leaving them only $27k left to eat, clothe, house, and transport themself while a guy making $40mil per year pays only 4mil (also 10%) leaving him $36mil to roll around in a bed of money after his $200k per year of essential needs (food, shelter, Mercedes S-550) are met.

Now if you were smart, you'd suggest we raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25-28% to ensure that the guy making $40 million per year (probably mostly from investments) pays a decent percentage of tax. Maybe you'd also ask that same person to pay a higher marginal rate of income beyond some level that exempts the upper middle class (i.e. 650-750k+?). You'd also keep the inheritance tax, not try to abolish or sunset it to prevent dynasties from forming. Agree with you on the carried interest -- absolutely get rid of that unfair POS loophole.

But a flat tax has been and always will be a nonsensical nonstarter.
Click to expand...

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,
 
Equal taxes across all types of people means the conservatives will be grouped with the same people who are poor. And, we shant allow that.
 
"To whom more is given, more will be expected"
Click to expand...

What if more wasn't give but the person got it all using his own hard work?

0% 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.
Click to expand...

And this. The argument isn't whether rich should pay more - we all already concluded that they should. The argument is "how much more".
 
Argo said:
The argument isn't whether rich should pay more - we all already concluded that they should. The argument is "how much more".
Click to expand...

Now be honest, unless you are the owner/founder of a company, do you really think any CEO is worth $40 million per year? I'd bet he or she would gladly do that same job and work just as hard for $10 million.

You see, beyond a certain point, when all your basic expenses are covered, and then once even your most luxurious desires are satisfied, it isn't even about money anymore. It becomes a game... a contest, to see how big you can get that number to be so you can compare it to other CEOs in similar jobs and roles. The 'bigger dick' theory that George Carlin loved to joke about, if you will.

Same with sports players... does a guy batting .290 with 30hr need to bank $10 million per year? And as a consequence, make taking my family to the ball park a $500 outing just so my kids can see a professional game played by tattoed, overpaid, morally bankrupt whiners? If owners collectively decided they were going to cut ticket prices 70% and the choice became play ball for $1 million or take a hike, that player would gladly play baseball for $1 million per year (because most aren't good at much else).

Nope -- these guys can and should pay a higher percentage of tax at those income levels.
 
brencat said:
Now be honest, unless you are the owner/founder of a company, do you really think any CEO is worth $40 million per year? I'd bet he or she would gladly do that same job and work just as hard for $10 million.

You see, beyond a certain point, when all your basic expenses are covered, and then once even your most luxurious desires are satisfied, it isn't even about money anymore. It becomes a game... a contest, to see how big you can get that number to be so you can compare it to other CEOs in similar jobs and roles. The 'bigger dick' theory that George Carlin loved to joke about, if you will.

Same with sports players... does a guy batting .290 with 30hr need to bank $10 million per year? And as a consequence, make taking my family to the ball park a $500 outing just so my kids can see a professional game played by tattoed, overpaid, morally bankrupt whiners? If owners collectively decided they were going to cut ticket prices 70% and the choice became play ball for $1 million or take a hike, that player would gladly play baseball for $1 million per year (because most aren't good at much else).

then make the choice, if it's not worth it to you to pay to go see a ballgame, then don't go. once they figure out that it's not profitable because enough people get sick of it, it will change. the reason it costs so much is because people DO pay

Nope -- these guys can and should pay a higher percentage of tax at those income levels.
they have developed skill of some sort and get paid market value for their abilities. why do "rocket scientists" get paid more than a taco bell cashier? because the market has dictated that price and there are fewer people capable of designing a big hunk of metal that can go to the moon than can count back your change. Can you hit a 90mph fastball? Can you throw one? That's the value of entertainment. why should they be taxed a higher percentage than everyone else? because they make more? do they use a disproportional amount of social services to justify it? because YOU decide that they are well off enough at half their income??
Click to expand...

..
 
Last edited:
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.
 
What would all the out of work accountants do?

All of the exemptions and tax credits are designed to get votes. Also a lot of them benefit the poor, unemployed and under employed.

Just Another Brick in the Wall!

We need to go back to the 1970 roots.

We dont need no thought control!
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 said:
So why not just tax all individual income at 10%, no exceptions and have a 10% sales tax with no exceptions?
...
FICA taxes should be repealed and replaced with nothing, but if they replace it wirh something else, then 10% tax on all purchases would be about right.
Click to expand...
Those two sentences contradict. FICA taxes are the closest thing we have to a flat tax.

In the first post, you argue that we should have a flat 10% income tax (with no exceptions). Then in your second post you argue that we should repeal FICA. Right now FICA is a flat 13.3% tax (with one exception). A slight tweak and FICA could easilly be a flat 10% tax with no exceptions.

So, in your first post you propose a tax plan then in your second post you say the closest thing we have to your tax plan should be repealed.

Please explain yourself better, otherwise were just dumbfounded by this logic.
 
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.
 
brencat said:
Dude, you are all over the map lately with your stream of consciousness thought process. The flat tax is a joke and I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that is a viable solution to our cumbersome tax system. Remember this:

"To whom more is given, more will be expected"

You must be aware that it takes a certain level of money to live, and then a higher level to live comfortably. Beyond those 2 points, the rest is effectively gravy... where you get to live in increasing levels of luxury and comfort. There is no fairness in asking someone who makes $30k per year to pay 10% leaving them only $27k left to eat, clothe, house, and transport themself while a guy making $40mil per year pays only 4mil (also 10%) leaving him $36mil to roll around in a bed of money after his $200k per year of essential needs (food, shelter, Mercedes S-550) are met.

Now if you were smart, you'd suggest we raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25-28% to ensure that the guy making $40 million per year (probably mostly from investments) pays a decent percentage of tax. Maybe you'd also ask that same person to pay a higher marginal rate of income beyond some level that exempts the upper middle class (i.e. 650-750k+?). You'd also keep the inheritance tax, not try to abolish or sunset it to prevent dynasties from forming. Agree with you on the carried interest -- absolutely get rid of that unfair POS loophole.

But a flat tax has been and always will be a nonsensical nonstarter.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I make <$40k and am all for a flat tax. Eliminate all these damn loopholes and be done with it. I bet there are a lot of people out there that spend more than I make on accountants to get out of paying taxes. It's just gotten flat out ridiculous. I don't want capital gains taxes to go up either. I want my investments to make some money for my retirement as well. I just don't get why people think that the wealthy need to support everyone. Someone does well and suddenly they are responsible for dumb fucks that suck at life? Fuck that. Cut off the lazy bastards abusing the entitlement programs. Work or be homeless. Luxury cars in the projects should be a clue that something is off.
 
boomhower said:
I disagree. I make <$40k and am all for a flat tax. Eliminate all these damn loopholes and be done with it. I bet there are a lot of people out there that spend more than I make on accountants to get out of paying taxes. It's just gotten flat out ridiculous. I don't want capital gains taxes to go up either. I want my investments to make some money for my retirement as well. I just don't get why people think that the wealthy need to support everyone. Someone does well and suddenly they are responsible for dumb fucks that suck at life? Fuck that. Cut off the lazy bastards abusing the entitlement programs. Work or be homeless. Luxury cars in the projects should be a clue that something is off.
Click to expand...

Same. I'm definitely under $40k a year as well and want a flat rate tax, closed loopholes, and simplified tax code.

Besides, this quote:
To whom more is given, more will be expected
Click to expand...

DOES NOT APPLY the way that brencat wants it to. Here is why:

1) We are talking about earned income. It isn't just given to someone.
2) More is still expected, and also still happens with a flat tax rate. In his own example the guy who made 1000x more also pays 1000x more.
3) In effect, the guy making the least amount in some cases may be given more than the guy making the most because there is the possibility of the guy who makes the least being on some form of welfare program, so he's actually the one being given something, not the rich dude 😛


Instead of people looking at others who make more than they do, and feeling compelled to better themselves, they are envious and simply want what the others have without working for it. So they drag the rest down to their level instead.
 
Allow me to answer the original question as succinctly as possible:
Because they're not retarded.
 
a777pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because roads don't build themselves and policemen, firemen, and armed forces don't run off donations.
 
dullard said:
Those two sentences contradict. FICA taxes are the closest thing we have to a flat tax.

In the first post, you argue that we should have a flat 10&#37; income tax (with no exceptions). Then in your second post you argue that we should repeal FICA. Right now FICA is a flat 13.3% tax (with one exception). A slight tweak and FICA could easilly be a flat 10% tax with no exceptions.

So, in your first post you propose a tax plan then in your second post you say the closest thing we have to your tax plan should be repealed.

Please explain yourself better, otherwise were just dumbfounded by this logic.
Click to expand...
The SS tax is not fair because the effective rate for someone who makes more than the capped amount is lower than for someone who makes the capped amount or less. The Medicare Tax is fair, but FICA as a whole isn't.

dullard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your math is correct. What we should do is balance the budget and have a 10% true flat tax and a 10% sales tax on everything, if we have to live under the state.
Whoozyerdaddy said:
Some do... It's called the Fair Tax. Look it up.
Click to expand...
I have looked it up and the FairTax^TM is not fair (it depends on how many kids you have, what and how much you consume, how much you make, and it would criminalize many more people than the income tax currently does) and it's not revenue neutral, because all of the things the government spends on.
 
<B>I've never understood why the Republicans don't advocate taxing everyone equally.</B>

Because to do so would push more tax burden on those that can afford it least.


The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
47% of the population pay no income tax at all.
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 said:
The SS tax is not fair because the effective rate for someone who makes more than the capped amount is lower than for someone who makes the capped amount or less. The Medicare Tax is fair, but FICA as a whole isn't.
Click to expand...
Then since it is so close to what you want (other than the exemption for the high income earners), why don't you argue a fix rather than a repeal?
 
RaistlinZ said:
Because roads don't build themselves and policemen, firemen, and armed forces don't run off donations.
Click to expand...

Don't ruin their hopes. These people are going to save $200 a year in taxes and have no police or roads. While the billionaires are going to save $50 mil a year and have their own security and a helicopter to get around. Only in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top