Flat Tax is a fraud and Steve Forbes knows this...

[merrill]

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Remember: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation’s total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Under almost anyone’s view of fairness, these are grotesque portions. They’re especially large relative to what they were as recently as thirty years ago, when the top 1 percent raked in under 10 percent. And these huge portions at the top continue to increase.

Meanwhile, the top tax bracket is now 35 percent — the lowest it’s been in three decades. Between the end of World War II and 1980 it never fell below 70 percent.

Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.

Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.

Regressives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They’d rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.

Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax – starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

 

[merrill]

Flat-taxers pretend a flat tax is good public policy, for two reasons.

First, they say, it would simplify paying taxes. Baloney. Flat-tax proposals don’t eliminate popular deductions. (I’ll be surprised if Perry’s plan eliminates the popular mortgage-interest deduction, for example.) So most tax payers would still have to fill out lots of forms.

Second, they say a flat tax is fairer than the current system because, in Cain’s words, a flat tax “treats everyone the same.”

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).


http://robertreich.org/post/11753807617

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Absolutely agree and here's reason number 11 not to do business with BofA - they backed idiot Perry.

Ask yourself why BofA would want someone as empty headed as Perry in the White House.

Same reason Big Money is buying the candidacy for Mittens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A flat tax replacing a progressive tax, all else being equal, creates a mathematical certainty that taxes for poorer Americans would rise relative to taxes for richer Americans.

Of course the GOP likes this idea. It pays off their constituency of higher income voters.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Remember: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation’s total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Under almost anyone’s view of fairness, these are grotesque portions. They’re especially large relative to what they were as recently as thirty years ago, when the top 1 percent raked in under 10 percent. And these huge portions at the top continue to increase.

Meanwhile, the top tax bracket is now 35 percent — the lowest it’s been in three decades. Between the end of World War II and 1980 it never fell below 70 percent.

Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.

Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.

Regressives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They’d rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.

Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax – starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

Keep it up.. you're on the fast track to breaking the record for most number of stupid threads in one day.

 

[Liability]

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Remember: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation’s total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Under almost anyone’s view of fairness, these are grotesque portions. They’re especially large relative to what they were as recently as thirty years ago, when the top 1 percent raked in under 10 percent. And these huge portions at the top continue to increase.

Meanwhile, the top tax bracket is now 35 percent — the lowest it’s been in three decades. Between the end of World War II and 1980 it never fell below 70 percent.

Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.

Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.

Regressives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They’d rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.

Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax – starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

A lot of what you say is ignorant and stupid, but the bolded parts are the pits.

The tax structure ought to be flat if we use an income taxation system at all.

I grok the notion that flat is not "progressive" and that a guy earning a $ million can afford his flat share (let's call it 20% which is $200,000.00) a whole lot easier than a guy earning $50,000.00 can afford to pay $10,000.00. And honestly, I think there's enough truth in that so that I might even be willing to concede that SOME sliding progressive type scale should be authorized.

But other than that, your weeping and wailing over the fact that there is income disparity is utterly unpersuasive tripe.

There SHOULD be income disparity. And the degree of income disparity is (for the most part) none of your fucking business. You liberoidals tend to be a graspy greedy jealous lot.

 

[Jarhead]

A flat tax replacing a progressive tax, all else being equal, creates a mathematical certainty that taxes for poorer Americans would rise relative to taxes for richer Americans.

Of course the GOP likes this idea. It pays off their constituency of higher income voters.

yeah....I mean...hell....lets secure that one percent vote even though it will likely result in the loss of the other 99%.

What do you do...lie in bed at night and try to come up with the most rediculous theories possible?

 

[California Girl]

A flat tax replacing a progressive tax, all else being equal, creates a mathematical certainty that taxes for poorer Americans would rise relative to taxes for richer Americans.

Of course the GOP likes this idea. It pays off their constituency of higher income voters.

yeah....I mean...hell....lets secure that one percent vote even though it will likely result in the loss of the other 99%.

What do you do...lie in bed at night and try to come up with the most rediculous theories possible?

I might have some respect if he (and the OP) could come up with their own ridiculous theories... sadly, they're not even capable of that. They regurgitate whatever some left wing idiot says... and, more often than not, they don't understand it, or haven't read it.

 

[knuckles]

top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

That is insane. Why should the government get 70% of anyone's income.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A flat tax replacing a progressive tax, all else being equal, creates a mathematical certainty that taxes for poorer Americans would rise relative to taxes for richer Americans.

Of course the GOP likes this idea. It pays off their constituency of higher income voters.

yeah....I mean...hell....lets secure that one percent vote even though it will likely result in the loss of the other 99%.

What do you do...lie in bed at night and try to come up with the most rediculous theories possible?

Do you know the difference betweeen the words 'higher' and 'high'?

 

[Charles_Main]

Yep, Because according to Democrats, in order to be Fair, our Tax system has to be overtly unfair, and punish those who do well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A flat tax replacing a progressive tax, all else being equal, creates a mathematical certainty that taxes for poorer Americans would rise relative to taxes for richer Americans.

Of course the GOP likes this idea. It pays off their constituency of higher income voters.

yeah....I mean...hell....lets secure that one percent vote even though it will likely result in the loss of the other 99%.

What do you do...lie in bed at night and try to come up with the most rediculous theories possible?

I might have some respect if he (and the OP) could come up with their own ridiculous theories... sadly, they're not even capable of that. They regurgitate whatever some left wing idiot says... and, more often than not, they don't understand it, or haven't read it.

If you can show that going from a progressive tax structure to a flat tax structure does NOT raise taxes (relatively) on lower income taxpayers and cut taxes (relatively) on higher income taxpayers,

then by all means do so and prove me wrong.

 

[Charles_Main]

top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

That is insane. Why should the government get 70% of anyone's income.

It's simple. Liberals don't think anyone should be allowed to get to rich. In their minds over 5 Million a year, is to rich.

Who cares if that is a one time deal and you will never make anymore, Rape their asses they took in to much damn money this year. Filthy producers, Should have made less if they didn't want to get raped, and of course that is exactly what they will do.

Socialist systems like this will always fail, because over time, those who do work and therefore pay more, will see that there are an awful lot of people that appear to be getting a free ride off their hard work, and they will not work as fucking hard anymore.

Innovation, Invention, Motivation, all gone in a socialist system. Replaced by the knowledge that if you work to hard, and make to much, you will be punished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep, Because according to Democrats, in order to be Fair, our Tax system has to be overtly unfair, and punish those who do well.

One of the principles behind a progressive tax system vs a flat tax system is that money more likely to be used for basic necessities should be taxed at a lower rate than money not so needed.

What's unfair about that?

 

[WillowTree]

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Remember: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation’s total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Under almost anyone’s view of fairness, these are grotesque portions. They’re especially large relative to what they were as recently as thirty years ago, when the top 1 percent raked in under 10 percent. And these huge portions at the top continue to increase.

Meanwhile, the top tax bracket is now 35 percent — the lowest it’s been in three decades. Between the end of World War II and 1980 it never fell below 70 percent.

Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.

Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.

Regressives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They’d rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.

Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax – starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

What is unfair is that 50% of us have to pay all the Federal Income Taxes and the other 50% of you pay zero and then sit around and bitch that you want more. A flat tax is a fair tax.

 

[WillowTree]

top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

That is insane. Why should the government get 70% of anyone's income.

cause the libtards don't wanna work,, they want you to give them what you've worked for.

 

[WillowTree]

yeah....I mean...hell....lets secure that one percent vote even though it will likely result in the loss of the other 99%.

What do you do...lie in bed at night and try to come up with the most rediculous theories possible?

I might have some respect if he (and the OP) could come up with their own ridiculous theories... sadly, they're not even capable of that. They regurgitate whatever some left wing idiot says... and, more often than not, they don't understand it, or haven't read it.

If you can show that going from a progressive tax structure to a flat tax structure does NOT raise taxes (relatively) on lower income taxpayers and cut taxes (relatively) on higher income taxpayers,

then by all means do so and prove me wrong.

Who in the hell ever told you that low income people should get a free ride? That's a faulty way of thinking.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yep, Because according to Democrats, in order to be Fair, our Tax system has to be overtly unfair, and punish those who do well.

One of the principles behind a progressive tax system vs a flat tax system is that money more likely to be used for basic necessities should be taxed at a lower rate than money not so needed.

What's unfair about that?

It's not, Until you start talking about taking 70% of one groups income while taking in effect 0 of another.

You can spin that all you want, Progressive for sure, Fair??? depends on who you ask.

Your premise has another flaw. Everyone, Rich or poor as an amount they can make that is completely un-taxable, Until they make more than that they pay NOTHING. That is suppose to be the Basic Necessities of life money right there.

I have no problem with helping the Genuinely poor out, but there are an awful lot of people out there, poor enough to pay no federal income tax, that seem to have enough money for 130 channels of Cable, Internet, 2 cars and Smart Phones. Or better yet a drug habit.

Like I said our system is Progressive sure, but Fair? Not even close.

 

[hortysir]

So what you're saying is that all of us are NOT equal under the law.

 

[Toro]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.