Would you support a flat rate federal income tax?

[zendari]

For the purposes of this post/poll:

A: Alternative taxes such as the FICA tax are removed. All expenditures are covered in the general tax budget.
B: All tax havens/exemptions are removed. Things such as capital gains are included and counted the exact same as other income
C: Every dollar, from poor people to Bill Gates, is taxed at the exact same rate. ie someone who makes $10k a year pays $1k in taxes, $100 billion a year pays $10 billion in taxes.

It's not 100% accurate, but I personally feel that something like this is the fairest system and I support something close to this general idea.

For the balanced budget poll, its quite simple. Money in = money out, every year raise/lower the rate accordingly.

 

[jimkyser]

I'm all for balancing the budget. I'm all for having a specific revenue stream to pay for each and every expenditure, like use taxes are supposed to do.

I do feel that a flat tax, w/o a minimum floor, would be a bad thing.

 

[EatSpam]

I fully support a balanced budget amendment.

I would entertain the idea of a flat tax, but only with exemptions for income below a certain amount. That value would depend on the number of dependants.

 

[Stunt]

I support a flat taxation of federal income tax, but I support a progressive tax on consumables. I also encourage a tax exemption region where low incomes will not be taxed (encouraging people to file claims rather than work illegally under the table).


For example: baby items, basic healthy food, basic clothing, other essentials would have low to non existant taxation rate. Whereas luxury items such as jewelry, luxury cars, and the like will be more heavily taxed. This way people will be encouraged to live more modestly or even donate or supply basic items to struggling families (rather than government try to fully provide this).

As for balancing of the budget every year; I fully disagree. While I support that government is fiscally responsible and tries to maintain balance in its budgeting, there are a lot of problems that come with that. As we all know, recessions are a given, when they come we don't know; but they are inevitable. Say a recession comes along and government tries to compensate by curbing spending. This does two things, a) services lose quality and access b) creates an instability in the marketplace (negative for investers).

If services lose quality, there will be time periods where you will have "the stupid people" (less educated from teacher layoffs, etc) or "the gimpy people" (where hospitol funding is not up to par)...A country is far better off maintaining government services, weathering the storm and borrowing; waiting for the good times and enjoying the surplus. This in effect is a long term balanced budget.

Going though good times with a massive budget deficit is not acceptable.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A problem with a balanced budget is that would force short term decisions and cause the in-fighting among programs when a spend, but no tax situation exists.

Also, who will be responsbile to implimenting theextra taxes when an emergency happens.

Exceptions would have to be within the law and those exceptions will eventually turn into loopholes.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A problem with a balanced budget is that would force short term decisions and cause the in-fighting among programs when a spend, but no tax situation exists.

Also, who will be responsbile to implimenting theextra taxes when an emergency happens.

Exceptions would have to be within the law and those exceptions will eventually turn into loopholes.

The fewer the loopholes, the better.

Create an emergency fund and in order to tap it, and more if needed. The President would have to have a majority vote to act from himself, the majority and minority leaders of both the house and the senate. 5 people. He would then have a party majority, but if they were full of BS then they would be vulnerable when they came up for election.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A problem with a balanced budget is that would force short term decisions and cause the in-fighting among programs when a spend, but no tax situation exists.

Also, who will be responsbile to implimenting theextra taxes when an emergency happens.

Exceptions would have to be within the law and those exceptions will eventually turn into loopholes.

The fewer the loopholes, the better.

Create an emergency fund and in order to tap it, and more if needed. The President would have to have a majority vote to act from himself, the majority and minority leaders of both the house and the senate. 5 people. He would then have a party majority, but if they were full of BS then they would be vulnerable when they came up for election.

Makes sense - sign up with Dave when he arrives in DC.

Would the emergency fund be used as a booking item against the budget or would it be off the books. If off the books, then it will need to be funded from a "balanced budget".

If on the books, then it is just like the current SS fiasco.

Off the books is best. short term pain for long term gain.:thumbsup:

 

[1EZduzit]

They would have to get some real money in the fund and until they did, it would just be on the books.

I think it would be an incentive to save money and stop waste, pork barrel projects, etc. i don't know that much about how the goverment works, so Dave would have to put me in a easy postion, maybe VP

 

[her209]

So if I have a family of 6 and make $30K per year and get tax say 20% which is $6K, that leaves me with $24K. That's $4K per person.

No say someone with a family of 3 makes the same amount of money and also pays the flat tax rate of 20%, they will have $8K per person.

 

[Stunt]

Welcome to having more money through having less kids/dependents for one provider. This should not be surprising...

You still would get tax exemption for having children, I think most tax codes allow for this.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: her209
So if I have a family of 6 and make $30K per year and get tax say 20% which is $6K, that leaves me with $24K. That's $4K per person.

No say someone with a family of 3 makes the same amount of money and also pays the flat tax rate of 20%, they will have $8K per person.

In my plan, there would still be standard deductions (single, head of household, etc.) and dependant deductions. Before I would go for it, EVERYTHING would have to spelled out in detail.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: her209
So if I have a family of 6 and make $30K per year and get tax say 20% which is $6K, that leaves me with $24K. That's $4K per person.

No say someone with a family of 3 makes the same amount of money and also pays the flat tax rate of 20%, they will have $8K per person.

Don't have 6 kids when you make $30k. Regardless of any minimum floor, its a very foolish decision.

I don't believe in dependency "deductions", tax havens for the poor are no better than tax havens for the rich.


Recessions and all could hopefully be counterbalanced by balancing a budget based on say 5 year periods instead of 1 year. That hopefully gives time for the economy to build back up, and repay any loans needed during the surplus times.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: her209
So if I have a family of 6 and make $30K per year and get tax say 20% which is $6K, that leaves me with $24K. That's $4K per person.

No say someone with a family of 3 makes the same amount of money and also pays the flat tax rate of 20%, they will have $8K per person.

Don't have 6 kids when you make $30k. Regardless of any minimum floor, its a very foolish decision.

I don't believe in dependency "deductions", tax havens for the poor are no better than tax havens for the rich.

Sterliize everybody after 2 kids. Isn't that what they do in China?

 

[Engineer]

Balance the budget or at least keep spending below growth to allow revenues to catch up with spending.

As for flat tax - GREED sticks with me. I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS MY TAXES DON'T GO UP! Better if they go down, but fat chance.

If the governement wants to flatline the tax system, then they should be damned well prepared to cut spending because all hell will break loose if people's taxes go up.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Balance the budget or at least keep spending below growth to allow revenues to catch up with spending.

As for flat tax - GREED sticks with me. I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS MY TAXES DON'T GO UP! Better if they go down, but fat chance.

If the governement wants to flatline the tax system, then they should be damned well prepared to cut spending because all hell will break loose if people's taxes go up.

That's the whole point. I would be willing to pay more taxes if it would force the goverment to balance their budget. Wouldn't we all win in the long term?

Of course, a study would need to be done so people knew exactly how much taxes would go up because I don't want to see my tax load double.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: her209
So if I have a family of 6 and make $30K per year and get tax say 20% which is $6K, that leaves me with $24K. That's $4K per person.

No say someone with a family of 3 makes the same amount of money and also pays the flat tax rate of 20%, they will have $8K per person.

Don't have 6 kids when you make $30k. Regardless of any minimum floor, its a very foolish decision.

I don't believe in dependency "deductions", tax havens for the poor are no better than tax havens for the rich.

Sterliize everybody after 2 kids. Isn't that what they do in China?

Depends. When I was in Hong Kong, one of the local issues was the low birthrate. They're actually discussing paying people to have kids.

Edit: We already had some of this discussion in another thread already. A true flat tax would hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich. It could be the death knell for a lot of charities as well.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Balance the budget or at least keep spending below growth to allow revenues to catch up with spending.

As for flat tax - GREED sticks with me. I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS MY TAXES DON'T GO UP! Better if they go down, but fat chance.

If the governement wants to flatline the tax system, then they should be damned well prepared to cut spending because all hell will break loose if people's taxes go up.

Surely if Greed sticks with you, you can't find fault with the rich sticking with Greed as well?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: zendari
For the purposes of this post/poll:

A: Alternative taxes such as the FICA tax are removed. All expenditures are covered in the general tax budget.
B: All tax havens/exemptions are removed. Things such as capital gains are included and counted the exact same as other income
C: Every dollar, from poor people to Bill Gates, is taxed at the exact same rate. ie someone who makes $10k a year pays $1k in taxes, $100 billion a year pays $10 billion in taxes.

It's not 100% accurate, but I personally feel that something like this is the fairest system and I support something close to this general idea.

For the balanced budget poll, its quite simple. Money in = money out, every year raise/lower the rate accordingly.

it doesn't make much difference, really. Consumption tax is what we need more than anything else - this country has a horrrid savings rate as-is

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
Balance the budget or at least keep spending below growth to allow revenues to catch up with spending.

As for flat tax - GREED sticks with me. I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS MY TAXES DON'T GO UP! Better if they go down, but fat chance.

If the governement wants to flatline the tax system, then they should be damned well prepared to cut spending because all hell will break loose if people's taxes go up.

Surely if Greed sticks with you, you can't find fault with the rich sticking with Greed as well?

Like I said, if they want to flatline, then they better be prepared to cut spending. I'm not willing to give up a damn thing just so the rich can get "more". PERIOD!

 

[Steeplerot]

Let the people vote on budget allocations...heh watch the military go to toward the bottom and watch education and stuff like that go up top.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: zendari
For the purposes of this post/poll:

A: Alternative taxes such as the FICA tax are removed. All expenditures are covered in the general tax budget.
B: All tax havens/exemptions are removed. Things such as capital gains are included and counted the exact same as other income
C: Every dollar, from poor people to Bill Gates, is taxed at the exact same rate. ie someone who makes $10k a year pays $1k in taxes, $100 billion a year pays $10 billion in taxes.

It's not 100% accurate, but I personally feel that something like this is the fairest system and I support something close to this general idea.

For the balanced budget poll, its quite simple. Money in = money out, every year raise/lower the rate accordingly.

it doesn't make much difference, really. Consumption tax is what we need more than anything else - this country has a horrrid savings rate as-is

That still screws the poor because a lot of what they buy are necessities.

Maybe it would be better to have a progressive consumption tax that increased proportionately for more expensive goods?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Let the people vote on budget allocations...heh watch the military go to toward the bottom and watch education and stuff like that go up top.

...And watch tax rate go to 0% :laugh:

besides, if people voted on budget allocations, there is no way an average person would be able to comprehend adequate or excessive funding. (Even if they knew relatively how much they would support it)

I however agree that people would want education, healthcare at the top of the list. Probably why education, health and medicare get 26% of US government spending relative to 17% for National Defense. (that includes domestic defense, border patrol and most likely police)

I was bored one day and made up the following spreadsheet comparing Canada to the US with regards to spending (relative to GDP) and allocations.
Stunt's Chart

When comparing the two countries...
5% of GDP in Canada goes to Education, 0.7% in the US.
6.4% of GDP in Canada goes to Health, 4.5% in the US.
National Defense numbers using GDP are roughly the same...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
Balance the budget or at least keep spending below growth to allow revenues to catch up with spending.

As for flat tax - GREED sticks with me. I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS MY TAXES DON'T GO UP! Better if they go down, but fat chance.

If the governement wants to flatline the tax system, then they should be damned well prepared to cut spending because all hell will break loose if people's taxes go up.

Surely if Greed sticks with you, you can't find fault with the rich sticking with Greed as well?

Like I said, if they want to flatline, then they better be prepared to cut spending. I'm not willing to give up a damn thing just so the rich can get "more". PERIOD!

How would the rich get more? You say the rich don't pay enough taxes, correct? Well now they are paying just as much as anyone else.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
Balance the budget or at least keep spending below growth to allow revenues to catch up with spending.

As for flat tax - GREED sticks with me. I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS MY TAXES DON'T GO UP! Better if they go down, but fat chance.

If the governement wants to flatline the tax system, then they should be damned well prepared to cut spending because all hell will break loose if people's taxes go up.

Surely if Greed sticks with you, you can't find fault with the rich sticking with Greed as well?

Like I said, if they want to flatline, then they better be prepared to cut spending. I'm not willing to give up a damn thing just so the rich can get "more". PERIOD!

How would the rich get more? You say the rich don't pay enough taxes, correct? Well now they are paying just as much as anyone else.

I'm assuming that the top rates would go down while the bottom and middle rates would go up to balance (or at least get what we have now) the budget. Regardless, if anyone advocates raising my rates (middle class) so that a cut can be given to the rich just to flatline the taxes, then (insert my own greed here) no deal.

Raising the poor taxes, IMO, would be just as bad in the fact that these people have a hard enough time making it now.

If they want flatline taxes, don't raise mine! I've woke up....I want my tax cuts and more of them. Screw the budget. Everyone else does.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Let the people vote on budget allocations...heh watch the military go to toward the bottom and watch education and stuff like that go up top.

The military would be the last thing I'd put my money into...

I'm thinking Border Patrol, Alternative Fuel Research, and Health Care would be my top three.