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

[Stephanie]

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.

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

 

[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.

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

I would love too. But you guys are too easily butt hurt.

 

[skookerasbil]

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)

How ghey!!!!!!!


Listen s0n..........best buckle up your chinstrap. This progressive crap is about to get mothballed for at least two generations come this November. Why the k00ks keep rolling out this crap is nothing less than laughable........obvioously those with a poltical IQ of a small soap dish.

Class envy is so fcuking gay.........these dolts who are hyper-jealouos of other peoples success. But since this is a POLITICS forum, thought Id point out that there is zero chance of this happening despite booming rants from the far reaches of the internet netherworld!!! The Senate is going red in a few months and the House will remain red = progressive tax rate fAiL. And I couldnt be happier. In a shakey economy, unless you're a jackass, you know with 100% cetainty you dont raise taxes.............shit, even Bill Clinton said it recently. But not to the nutters........they cant help themselves.


Losing.............

 

[bripat9643]

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

How would the answer to that support Obama's claim that everyone should have skin in the game?

 

[NYcarbineer]

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

How would the answer to that support Obama's claim that everyone should have skin in the game?

Because I'm guessing that Stephanie's taxes would go up under any plan that put that skin in the game.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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).


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

Excuse me but the current tax code does NOT treat everyone the same and I only need one example to prove you wrong.

People who choose not to have children pay more in taxes than people who pump out puppies.

So you see the tax laws do not treat everyone the same.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..So guess according to the Obama and you people, because I work, I should have MORE skin in the game.

 

[Full-Auto]

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).


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

Excuse me but the current tax code does NOT treat everyone the same and I only need one example to prove you wrong.

People who choose not to have children pay more in taxes than people who pump out puppies.

So you see the tax laws do not treat everyone the same.

Dont overlook the marriage penalty that democrats created.

If the tax cuts expire its 1965 again.

 

[WillowTree]

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..

now you've gone and done it. you said work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

well, so much for the Obama saying we should ALL have some skin in the game, eh?

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..So guess according to the Obama and you people, because I work, I should have MORE skin in the game.

Do you have children? Do you take a $1000 credit per child right off the top of your federal income tax bill?

Child/dependent related credits and deductions are the big ticket items that cause what you call a lack of 'skin in the game'.

You want 'poor' people to pay more taxes, you have to get rid of those credits. Are you ready to do that?

 

[Stephanie]

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..So guess according to the Obama and you people, because I work, I should have MORE skin in the game.

Do you have children? Do you take a $1000 credit per child right off the top of your federal income tax bill?

Child/dependent related credits and deductions are the big ticket items that cause what you call a lack of 'skin in the game'.

You want 'poor' people to pay more taxes, you have to get rid of those credits. Are you ready to do that?

My children are Adults

 

[NYcarbineer]

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..So guess according to the Obama and you people, because I work, I should have MORE skin in the game.

Do you have children? Do you take a $1000 credit per child right off the top of your federal income tax bill?

Child/dependent related credits and deductions are the big ticket items that cause what you call a lack of 'skin in the game'.

You want 'poor' people to pay more taxes, you have to get rid of those credits. Are you ready to do that?

My children are Adults

So can you comprehend the above? That the reason you pay taxes and others don't is because they're claiming thousands of dollars worth of credits off their children?

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

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

Subjective "fairness" again used by a Marxist... go figure

And educate yourself of what was deemed income, what was able to be deducted, etc... you fucking buffoon...

And lest we not forget the Marxist's want for punishing success for redistribution purposes and for the purposes of making someone else pay for the things they want, thru governmental force

 

[editec]

Flat tax is a stupid idea that appeals to stupid people precisely because they can understand it.

What most of them cannot understand is the inevitable macro-economic consequences of such a foolish policy.

Most of the people who propose such ideas don't get it.

Some of them, like Forbes do get it.

But Steve Forbes understands only that this pernicious policy will help him, and he truly doesn't give a fig what it does to this nation.

Like many SCIONS, Steve is a selfish little man.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Flat tax is a stupid idea that appeals to stupid people precisely because they can understand it.

What most of them cannot understand is the inevitable macro-economic consequences of such a foolish policy.

Can you elaborate on that point?

 

[Jarhead]

Flat tax is a stupid idea that appeals to stupid people precisely because they can understand it.

What most of them cannot understand is the inevitable macro-economic consequences of such a foolish policy.

Most of the people who propose such ideas don't get it.

Some of them, like Forbes do get it.

But Steve Forbes understands only that this pernicious policy will help him, and he truly doesn't give a fig what it does to this nation.

Like many SCIONS, Steve is a selfish little man.

I notice that you dont have a nice thing to say about anyone that disagrees with you....and if someone agrees with you on one topic but disagrees with you on all others, you seem to feel the need to say he has an alterior motive on the one topic he agrees with you.

It says a lot about the integrity of your overall postings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you want to tell us how much you're paying in federal income tax this year? or last?

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..So guess according to the Obama and you people, because I work, I should have MORE skin in the game.

Do you have children? Do you take a $1000 credit per child right off the top of your federal income tax bill?

Child/dependent related credits and deductions are the big ticket items that cause what you call a lack of 'skin in the game'.

You want 'poor' people to pay more taxes, you have to get rid of those credits. Are you ready to do that?

And as usual this is where the conversation ends, because all of the 'skin in the game' people don't want to face the fact that child related deductions, exemptions, and credits are what are primarily responsible for bringing so many tax bills down to zero,

but,

if you get rid of them, you get rid of them for millions of slightly higher income Americans, and that's where many of the 'skin' people get bitten in the ass,

because in order to raise the taxes on the lowest income people, they'll have to raise their own. They'll have to raise taxes on almost everyone who has kids.

Quite the pickle...

 

[Bern80]

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)

You have the most fucked up definition of fair I've ever heard. Since when is fair defined as taking from those who have more for no other reason than they have more? Your need does not constitute a right to someone elses property. You also ask us to assume the premise that it is unfair that wealth be concentrated and composed a small fraction of people. Why is that unfair? Where is it written that the fairest way to disteribute income is equally among people regardless of their effort in acquiring it?

Unfair is that those top earners provide the lion's share of the tax revenue. The bottom 50% provide almost nothing. Are you going to tell me that's fair too? You can try a myriad of ways to rationalize shifting the tax burden even more than it already is to the rich, but claiming it is fair is not one of them.

 

[Jarhead]

I PAY them from BOTH jobs that I work..So guess according to the Obama and you people, because I work, I should have MORE skin in the game.

Do you have children? Do you take a $1000 credit per child right off the top of your federal income tax bill?

Child/dependent related credits and deductions are the big ticket items that cause what you call a lack of 'skin in the game'.

You want 'poor' people to pay more taxes, you have to get rid of those credits. Are you ready to do that?

And as usual this is where the conversation ends, because all of the 'skin in the game' people don't want to face the fact that child related deductions, exemptions, and credits are what are primarily responsible for bringing so many tax bills down to zero,

but,

if you get rid of them, you get rid of them for millions of slightly higher income Americans, and that's where many of the 'skin' people get bitten in the ass,

because in order to raise the taxes on the lowest income people, they'll have to raise their own. They'll have to raise taxes on almost everyone who has kids.

Quite the pickle...

I will not speak for my conservative and republican friends...but from myself...

I NEVER said the poor should put more skin in the game. Raising the taxes on those that are barely getting by is inhumane.

However, I dont know if you realize it NYCarbineer...but the debate was spun around somehow. NO ONE was talking about raising taxes on the poor.

When Obama started to use the "pay their fair share" mantra, people questioned how he can say that when 47% of the people pay no income tax at all.

It was not a compalint about how much the poor paid....or the fact that 47% paid nothing....

it was a complaint about him saying that those that DO pay are NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

And once the left successfully made it about the right complaining that the poor dont pay any taxes, Obama and the left was never questioned about the real topic of the debate...how can a group of people that pay most of the tax revenue be deemed as NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Now...if you want to debate THAT...I am open to it.

But enough of this crap about debating something the right never complained about.