They should only have a Flat Tax!

[SoftwareDude]

if they have 1 flat tax that is only a sales tax that would be the most fair.

rich people pay lawyers and accounts so they dont have to pay taxes.

really rich people dont work so they dont have to pay income taxes.

Middle Class gets hit way to hard with the current tax systems.

 

[acemcmac]

We just had a thread on this yesterday!!!!!!!!

REPOXYBAJILLION

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

well, at least your time here will be short....

 

[ElFenix]

sales taxes are only a flat tax on consumption.

the middle class would likely get hit harder with such a tax regime.

 

[FoBoT]

the politicians won't give up their power
forget about changing the tax code

 

[Lonyo]

A flat tax would make it easier on the higher earners.

 

[fitzov]

Are there any states with flat tax?

 

[Baked]

Are you stupid? 1st the free college, now the flat tax. What's next? Free sex?

 

[IronWing]

Flat sex!

 

[axelfox]

Originally posted by: SoftwareDude
if they have 1 flat tax that is only a sales tax that would be the most fair.

rich people pay lawyers and accounts so they dont have to pay taxes.

really rich people dont work so they dont have to pay income taxes.

Middle Class gets hit way to hard with the current tax systems.

 

[acemcmac]

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: axelfox

Originally posted by: SoftwareDude
if they have 1 flat tax that is only a sales tax that would be the most fair.

rich people pay lawyers and accounts so they dont have to pay taxes.

really rich people dont work so they dont have to pay income taxes.

Middle Class gets hit way to hard with the current tax systems.

I think that's a reference to people like me who legitimatley can deduct ourselves right down to the poverty line and get 6-8k tax refunds

 

[BlancoNino]

I think they should add a new day to the week. It would be called "Funday" where everyone has fun and nobody gets mad.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: axelfox

Originally posted by: SoftwareDude
if they have 1 flat tax that is only a sales tax that would be the most fair.

rich people pay lawyers and accounts so they dont have to pay taxes.

really rich people dont work so they dont have to pay income taxes.

Middle Class gets hit way to hard with the current tax systems.

you didn't know? all those millionares and billionares: they didn't work a day in their life! they just inhereted it from their parents, who ironically enough, didn't work either!

 

[JoeFahey]

No parody for his threads yet!?!!? :Q

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Sales taxes are naturally regressive, as they target people who need to purchase things to survive. They also have a chiling effect on the economy by directly raising prices. In order to shift the tax burden onto those who can afford it:

1. Increase income tax rates, but exempt the first $x of income from all income taxes, including fica/ss tax. x= enough money to survive and buy transportation to work and childcare in any major city. Exempting more money will give the economy a boost, as more people can afford to pay for services and buy products. By contrast, decreasing taxes for the richest 1% does nothing for the economy, since they already have plenty of money to spend on goods and services.

2. Eliminate all taxes on food not prepared for immediate consumption. Where I live they have taxes on food, that is regressive and oppressive.

3. Exempt mostly renewable fuels from the existing 18cent/gallon fuel tax, and increase taxes on nonrenewable fuels. This will target wasteful rich person activities such as motorboats etc. that nobody needs to survive. Most high fuel consumption activities and devices are luxuries, not necessities.

 

[SampSon]

Oh look jbourne77 and Dave Webb have even more accounts.

 

[sandorski]

Progressive Sales Tax! Higher the price, higher the Rate!

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
Sales taxes are naturally regressive, as they target people who need to purchase things to survive. They also have a chiling effect on the economy by directly raising prices. In order to shift the tax burden onto those who can afford it:

1. Increase income tax rates, but exempt the first $x of income from all income taxes, including fica/ss tax. x= enough money to survive and buy transportation to work and childcare in any major city. Exempting more money will give the economy a boost, as more people can afford to pay for services and buy products. By contrast, decreasing taxes for the richest 1% does nothing for the economy, since they already have plenty of money to spend on goods and services.

2. Eliminate all taxes on food not prepared for immediate consumption. Where I live they have taxes on food, that is regressive and oppressive.

3. Exempt mostly renewable fuels from the existing 18cent/gallon fuel tax, and increase taxes on nonrenewable fuels. This will target wasteful rich person activities such as motorboats etc. that nobody needs to survive. Most high fuel consumption activities and devices are luxuries, not necessities.

I agree with all of what you said except #3 (well maybe "exempting more money will boost the economy" but I'll let that slide). If you actually look at who spends a higher percentage of their income on nonrenewable resources, you'll find the poorer income brackets do. You would also be placing a higher burden on people in suburban and rural areas. Also, I think you'd find richer brackets spending more money on renewable fuels like biodiesel.

Really almost any consumption tax will be regressive. You could make a progressive sales tax but you would see a huge drop in luxury item sales which would hurt revenue intake.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
By contrast, decreasing taxes for the richest 1% does nothing for the economy, since they already have plenty of money to spend on goods and services.

tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% does nothing for the economy? if they don't spend it they're investing it, how does that do nothing for the economy?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
By contrast, decreasing taxes for the richest 1% does nothing for the economy, since they already have plenty of money to spend on goods and services.

tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% does nothing for the economy? if they don't spend it they're investing it, how does that do nothing for the economy?

That's good old supply-side economics right there. There's a point where tax cuts for the wealthy stop becoming worth it simply because there's a point where there aren't enough good things to invest in.

I'm not saying tax cuts for the rich are necessarily bad but there is a point where they stop becoming worth it. You also have to look at the other effects such as loss of government revenue. A 1% tax cut for the top tax bracket costs the government a hell of a lot more than a 1% tax cut to the lower brackets.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
By contrast, decreasing taxes for the richest 1% does nothing for the economy, since they already have plenty of money to spend on goods and services.

tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% does nothing for the economy? if they don't spend it they're investing it, how does that do nothing for the economy?

That's good old supply-side economics right there. There's a point where tax cuts for the wealthy stop becoming worth it simply because there's a point where there aren't enough good things to invest in.

I'm not saying tax cuts for the rich are necessarily bad but there is a point where they stop becoming worth it. You also have to look at the other effects such as loss of government revenue. A 1% tax cut for the top tax bracket costs the government a hell of a lot more than a 1% tax cut to the lower brackets.

he said does nothing. whether they're as good as other things is debatable, as you're pointing out, but you obviously agree with my point that it does something.

 

[her209]

Taxable income should be calculated on net income and not gross income.

 

[Regs]

I'm by no means "rich" but I have to defend the rich for once. Take a baseball player who got a 3 million sign up bonus. He ended up paying the IRS 1.3 million of that bonus.
Who say's they are not getting taxed?

The rich do however get off easy on the tax brakes. The middle-lower class gets about 2-3% while the upper get 5-8% on average. Though the gov't obviously makes the most off the upper class still. Common economics.

If you're going to blame the rich for being rich than you have your priorities wrong. It also has a very communistic overtone to it. That's just my opinion of course.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Regs
I'm by no means "rich" but I have to defend the rich for once. Take a baseball player who got a 3 million sign up bonus. He ended up paying the IRS 1.3 million of that bonus.
Who say's they are not getting taxed?

The rich do however get off easy on the tax brakes. The middle-lower class gets about 2-3% while the upper get 5-8% on average. Though the gov't obviously makes the most off the upper class still. Common economics.

If you're going to blame the rich for being rich than you have your priorities wrong. It also has a very communistic overtone to it. That's just my opinion of course.

I pay sales tax on my brakes. Do the rich have to pay a special tax for them? Is it because they usually have a chauffeur who wears those brakes out?