Flat Tax

Would You Support a Flat Tax in America

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • No

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Don't Care

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32
Originally posted by gop_jeff
Also, since when did anyone say anything about taxing benefits? As far as I have heard, only monetary income is taxed. Health insurance, as a non-monetary benefit, would not be taxed.

If benefits are not taxed, then how do you deal with my scenario of the rich who will disguise income as benefits?

Also, Jeff, you can't seriously believe that the chicken-shits in Congress would keep their slimy hands off of benefits. Take this scenario - Flat tax rate set at twelve percent turns out to be too low to produce the revenue Congress thinks that it needs. When faced with a decision between raising the tax rate to 13.5 percent or sneakily increasing the tax base by taxing certain benefits, which do you think will be the choice of the highly ethical and honest folks in D.C.?
 
Originally posted by crazy canadian
I know that you shouldn't tax poor people on a small income unless maybe you are providing them with all the basics in return. Like medical insurance covered by the state or feds.

It's pretty easy for the Canadians and the French to talk about the state or fed govt. providing medical insurance, when they depend on other nation for things like say.... "a national defense."
 
1% of the population in the US has almost half of the wealth.
90% of the population combined has only 25% of our wealth.

A flat tax would dramatically decrease taxes on the super-rich, since the highest tax bracket now is 33% or so. They'd get at least a 10% tax cut.

A flat tax would probably also decrease taxes on the poor, since they'd be totally exempt up to a certain minimun income.

Who would have to make up for the losses in revenue? Hmm, let's see who's left... ah, the middle class.

So, if you support a flat tax, you think that the richest 1% (who already have twice as much as 90% of the population) should get a huge tax cut and that the 90% should have their taxes raised to make up the difference.

To support this policy, you have to be either elitist or confused.
 
Originally posted by Socrates
1% of the population in the US has almost half of the wealth.
90% of the population combined has only 25% of our wealth.

A flat tax would dramatically decrease taxes on the super-rich, since the highest tax bracket now is 33% or so. They'd get at least a 10% tax cut.

A flat tax would probably also decrease taxes on the poor, since they'd be totally exempt up to a certain minimun income.

Who would have to make up for the losses in revenue? Hmm, let's see who's left... ah, the middle class.

So, if you support a flat tax, you think that the richest 1% (who already have twice as much as 90% of the population) should get a huge tax cut and that the 90% should have their taxes raised to make up the difference.

To support this policy, you have to be either elitist or confused.
A graduated flat tax is what I support. A flat tax would also cut out loopholes and deductions that the rich already use. So your argument is based on false assumptions.

Once you take out deductions for mortgage interest, margin interest, deductions for business losses, etc., it would actually increase revenues as the "rich" wouldn't have any places to "hide" their income.

A flat tax is just what is needed but that would cut out the special interest groups and therefore, we will never see it.
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
A graduated flat tax is what I support.

Anything "graduated" is thereby not "flat". If you support a "graduated flat tax", you are left with a system that bears a remarkable resemblance to the one we have right now.

A flat tax would also cut out loopholes and deductions that the rich already use. So your argument is based on false assumptions.

A flat tax will do no such thing. The government will have to develop a tax code equally complex as the current code. Except we will not need to define the tax rates for different types of income, we will need to define what asset gain meets the definition of income.

"Once you take out deductions for mortgage interest, margin interest, deductions for business losses, etc., it would actually increase revenues as the "rich" wouldn't have any places to "hide" their income. "

So you would punish entrepeneurs for their efforts. The very people who create jobs. Sounds a little counter-productive to me. Also, regarding mortgage interest deductions - do you really believe that only the "rich" benefit from those? Further, your assertion that the rich would no longer be able to "hide" their income simply does not address reality. Given sufficient motivation, the rich can find more places to hide income than a squirrel can hide nuts.

Okay, you want to do away with deductions. How about the deduction for the care of a retarded child? How about the deduction for the elderly? How about the deduction for children? How about the deduction for charitable contributions? How about the deductions for capital gains, which is money that has actually been taxed at least twice and probably three times? What about IRA deductions? 401(k)? What about catastrophic medical expense deductions? Other casualty loss deductions?

"A flat tax is just what is needed but that would cut out the special interest groups and therefore, we will never see it. "

That is simply a gratuitous, rhetorical jab which you either have not seen fit, or been unable to support.

A flat tax is not the panacea you envision. It will take a tremendous amount of work to develop the policy and to make it equitable. I doubt that the end result will be significantly different from the current tax code.
 
Democratic simplified income tax code

1. How much money did you make? ________________________

2. Send it in.
 
Originally posted by Merlin1047
Democratic simplified income tax code

1. How much money did you make? ________________________

2. Send it in.

No joke! That rules!:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:
 
Okay, you want to do away with deductions. How about the deduction for the care of a retarded child? How about the deduction for the elderly? How about the deduction for children? How about the deduction for charitable contributions? How about the deductions for capital gains, which is money that has actually been taxed at least twice and probably three times? What about IRA deductions? 401(k)? What about catastrophic medical expense deductions? Other casualty loss deductions?
Surely he doesn't mean all deductions.
 
Put it to you this way....

Last year my "Adjusted Gross Income" was $252,000. My "Taxable Income" was $179,000. My net effective tax was 17.55%.

Now tell me, under which system would I pay more?

A "graduated" flat tax is more equitable. By making more money I have more deductions. Just my opinion. Hell, I like the system now except that I have to pay a CPA about $12,000 a year to get my "savings".

$252,000 taxed at 33% = $83,160
$252,000 taxed at 20% = $50,400

$252,000 taxed at 17.55% = $44,260
CPA = $12,000

I pay the CPA $12,000 and under the current system, I still avoid $26,900 in taxes.

If you make a flat tax, we can avoid all the paperwork and about 80% of an entire agency of the government.
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
Put it to you this way....

Last year my "Adjusted Gross Income" was $252,000. My "Taxable Income" was $179,000. My net effective tax was 17.55%.

Now tell me, under which system would I pay more?

A "graduated" flat tax is more equitable. By making more money I have more deductions. Just my opinion. Hell, I like the system now except that I have to pay a CPA about $12,000 a year to get my "savings".

$252,000 taxed at 33% = $83,160
$252,000 taxed at 20% = $50,400

$252,000 taxed at 17.55% = $44,260
CPA = $12,000

I pay the CPA $12,000 and under the current system, I still avoid $26,900 in taxes.

If you make a flat tax, we can avoid all the paperwork and about 80% of an entire agency of the government.

free&fun is back. Where you been.....Again...
 
Originally posted by insein
free&fun is back. Where you been.....Again...

Looking to move (back) to Texas. Was in the Austin area looking at homes and possible investments.

The economy seems like it is turning around and I want to get into a good investment before it turns around. I think the market will do good, but since I am not very good at getting out when I should, I would rather invest in LAND!

So been busy the last coupla weeks!
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
Last year my "Adjusted Gross Income was . . . ."

If you make a flat tax, we can avoid all the paperwork and about 80% of an entire agency of the government.

The amount of your income is not the issue. The issue is whether or not a flat tax would be an improvement over the current tax code, if it would produce an increase in revenue by taxing previously sheltered income. and if a flat tax would produce greater equity among taxpayers.

I am fairly familiar with the income tax code as it applies to individuals and slightly familiar with corporate tax code. I maintain that the mere act of defining what constitutes taxable income will in and of itself result in tax code which will rival, if not exceed the complexity of the current tax code.

I further assert that any attempt to prevent the rich from "hiding" income will produce two undesirable effects:

1. It will make the "flat" tax code even more complex.

2. Like any other law aimed at a specific group, there will be unintended side effects. In this case the restrictions aimed at the wealthy will also cause the middle class to pay more taxes. This is because in many cases middle class taxpayers have the same type of income as the wealthy, just less of it. If you say that you would exempt investment income up to a certain level, then there's another exemption and more complexity in the flat tax code.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea.
I'm not saying it can't be done.

I AM saying it won't be easy and it will probably create at least as many problems as it will solve.

Your accountant would be in NO danger of going out of business.
 
Flat taxes make perfect sense economically. I could change the system i would institute a flat income tax for everyone and then also a VAT, GST, sales tax or whatever you want to call it on non-essential goods.

It is fair in two ways. One, there is stimulus to acheive a higher pay because it will linearly give you more money. Two, tax on consumption is fair, the more you buy the more you get taxed.

I'd also like to see corporate taxes shifted away from profit and more towards production. This would push the economy to be effecient while reducing burdens on creative entrepreneurial ship and also create an environment that would encourage small business growth.
 
Man, Merlin sure knows how to kick the ass of my favorite personal "overhaul the gov" project. I never really thought about the contents of both his posts. What really sux is that knowing the government tendancy to overspecify (read a milspec sometime) and human natures tendancy to look for holes, we get the never ending circle.

Guess my next vote goes to the 20% NST. This goes on all goods/services in the country.

KNowing my luck on this monday y'all will find a way kick its ass as well.

Cheers :beer:
 
Originally posted by pegwinn
(read a milspec sometime)

Amen. Don't you love milspecs? You may have heard this one already:

Q. What is an elephant?

A. A milspec mouse.
 
Originally posted by Socrates
1% of the population in the US has almost half of the wealth.
90% of the population combined has only 25% of our wealth.

A flat tax would dramatically decrease taxes on the super-rich, since the highest tax bracket now is 33% or so. They'd get at least a 10% tax cut.

A flat tax would probably also decrease taxes on the poor, since they'd be totally exempt up to a certain minimun income.

Who would have to make up for the losses in revenue? Hmm, let's see who's left... ah, the middle class.

So, if you support a flat tax, you think that the richest 1% (who already have twice as much as 90% of the population) should get a huge tax cut and that the 90% should have their taxes raised to make up the difference.

To support this policy, you have to be either elitist or confused.

I'd like to see a "link" to where ever it was you picked up those stats.

We already have a "working model" of just how much revenue a flat tax generates. It's called "Russia". The adopted a flat tax and it has surpassed all their expectations.

EVERYBODY should have to pay. Whether you make five bucks, or ten billion a year, pay your share alike.
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
Put it to you this way....

Last year my "Adjusted Gross Income" was $252,000. My "Taxable Income" was $179,000. My net effective tax was 17.55%.

Now tell me, under which system would I pay more?

A "graduated" flat tax is more equitable. By making more money I have more deductions. Just my opinion. Hell, I like the system now except that I have to pay a CPA about $12,000 a year to get my "savings".

$252,000 taxed at 33% = $83,160
$252,000 taxed at 20% = $50,400

$252,000 taxed at 17.55% = $44,260
CPA = $12,000

I pay the CPA $12,000 and under the current system, I still avoid $26,900 in taxes.

If you make a flat tax, we can avoid all the paperwork and about 80% of an entire agency of the government.

Under a "FLAT TAX", and there's nothing "FLAT" about a "GRADUATED" tax, say at 9%, and dump your CPA because you won't be needing them anymore, you'd save a bundle.
 
Anyone doing simple math cannot argue with the fact that a flat tax is the fairest for all conccerned.

And the simplest.

What I dont see adressed in this thread are a couple of issues.

First all deductions would cease. No business deductions, no mortgage deductions, no charitable deductions...and so on.

You get to tax my income ONE time. One time only.

Secondly, the overriding issue isnt so much a flat rate income tax. A couple of people on here have hinted about the "hidden" taxes. They are called mandates from the federal govt ( and by many thought unconstitutional).
The concern for the people of the United States is too much power is concentrated in DC. And power = money and DC money equal taxes.

If that power is to exist, it should exist at the state level where we individually have more control.

In capitalism, income is king. The govt should promote the environment where capitalism, therefore derived income, can flourish as unabated as possible. This keeps revenue for govt purposes high businesses continually seeking expansion which hires and employees people to make the income and complete the cycle. A flat rate income tax, only increased by a 3/5 majority vote in congress, keeps the govt in check.

The govt might encourage entrepenurship by allowing a timed deduction for research and developement of businesses exploring a hyrogen cell for cars.

A national sales tax is the most foolish thought in the national dialog. More on that if someone repsonds.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top