Giuliani Opposes Flat Tax

[maineman]

Then you are opposed to everything the Dems are doing?

no...

quit tapdancing...I answered your fucking question...show some balls and answer mine:


You claim to agree with Rudy on your key issues...but the real question is, on the issues that mean the most, do you disagree with the more hardcore conservative candidates? and if you DON'T, why wouldn't you go with a candidate that fit your overall politcal philosophy if he was identical to you on issues? Why would you abandon hardcore conservative principles to support a new york moderate just because he agreed with you - and the rest of the field - on the issues that you list?

 

[red states rule]

no...

quit tapdancing...I answered your fucking question...show some balls and answer mine:


You claim to agree with Rudy on your key issues...but the real question is, on the issues that mean the most, do you disagree with the more hardcore conservative candidates? and if you DON'T, why wouldn't you go with a candidate that fit your overall politcal philosophy if he was identical to you on issues? Why would you abandon hardcore conservative principles to support a new york moderate just because he agreed with you - and the rest of the field - on the issues that you list?

So you do not care the Dems are doing everything you are oppsoed to - you still support them?

What a shocker

 

[maineman]

So you do not care the Dems are doing everything you are oppsoed to - you still support them?

What a shocker

quit tapdancing...I answered your fucking question...show some balls and answer mine:


You claim to agree with Rudy on your key issues...but the real question is, on the issues that mean the most, do you disagree with the more hardcore conservative candidates? and if you DON'T, why wouldn't you go with a candidate that fit your overall politcal philosophy if he was identical to you on issues? Why would you abandon hardcore conservative principles to support a new york moderate just because he agreed with you - and the rest of the field - on the issues that you list?

 

[Care4all]

Real economic conservatives want to END the redistribution of wealth that the progressive income tax attempts to accomplish.

The flat tax is one answer to that.

The choice between Rudy and Hillary is: Liberal or Liberal-er

So let us assume the flat tax was put in place Jeff, and taxes due where each individual were equal percentages and in a more fair manner according to these economists...

This makes the wealthiest in our country "get a huge tax BREAK" from where they were and this makes the mid middle class and those below that point in our country "GET A HUGE TAX INCREASE" from what they were paying in taxes.

If 2/3's of our economy is "the consumer", then how will taxing 80% of the American populous MORE, while taxing the wealthiest 20% less, actually compensate for the drop in consumer spending that you will see because 80% of the consumers will have less of their own money in their own pockets to spend in the market place?

A Flat tax is pushed by the wealthiest so that they can get a tax cut and they are making those with MUCH LESS THAN THEM carry much more of the TAX BURDEN.

Sometimes I wonder if the way we had it in the old days, where the middle class and the lower class did not have to pay income tax and the wealthiest only had to pay...might actually have been the "right" way to go....

The reason I propose this is because IF only the wealthiest and the smartest were paying taxes then you can be DAMNED SURE that the pressure from these influential and politically savvy people, would suppress congress and keep them from not wasting money....they would "keep" the gvt small by keeping the spending down and would have the "say so" with their pocket book influence.

Of course, I really don't want to go back to the days of 90% taxes on the top's excesses....

The complicated income tax structure that we have that is at least 10 yards high in paperwork and rules with all kinds of exceptions and deductions and loopholes, is THIS complicated because of the wealthiest and their influence on the political legislators....they've tried to baffle us with their bullshit basically, imo.

And NOW, they can't have another 10 yards high of rules to make it even less of a burden on them so NOW they want a flat tax, to reduce their taxes even more. (If only they spent their influential time and money on getting Congress to not spend money like drunken sailors, they seem to have given up on that....

I think there should be a FLAT TAX (Flat meaning no deductions and not of equal amounts), a "progressive" flat tax...

No deductions, no loopholes... what so ever allowed,

no huge IRS overhead needed!

Some thing like:

$0-20k... 0%
$20k-50k 5%
$50-100k 10%
$100k-$1M 15%
$1M -$10M 20%
$10M & above 25%

(Warren Buffet did say he only paid 17% in taxes last year....While his secretary had to pay 30% in taxes...?)

The other thing that has to be considered in all of this is Social Security taxes, do they get incorporated in with income taxes, so not to have a separate tax?

I think this is a must at this point...

Because hundreds of billions if not over a trillion of Social Security surplus funds have been spent for general spending, used for purposes other than social security of which income taxes should have been collected to pay for these things...

those making over $95 k do not pay social security taxes for their money earned over that amount, making Social security taxes extremely regressive, a burden on those in the middle or on to the poorest, while eliviating it from the wealthiest is truely not fair imo.

Especially since the SS surplus monies were used to pay for things that their income taxes should have picked up the tab for...?

Social Security has to be considered in any new reforms of the income tax structure...fur sure! imo

care

 

[JeffWartman]

This makes the wealthiest in our country "get a huge tax BREAK" from where they were and this makes the mid middle class and those below that point in our country "GET A HUGE TAX INCREASE" from what they were paying in taxes.

This is NOT necessarily the case.

A Flat tax is pushed by the wealthiest so that they can get a tax cut and they are making those with MUCH LESS THAN THEM carry much more of the TAX BURDEN.

I'm not really sure you understand what a flat tax is

Sometimes I wonder if the way we had it in the old days, where the middle class and the lower class did not have to pay income tax and the wealthiest only had to pay...might actually have been the "right" way to go....

Part of my personal flat tax proposal would be that no one who makes under 50k a year pays any income tax, but you keep making these arguments without really understanding the issue.

Of course, I really don't want to go back to the days of 90% taxes on the top's excesses....

Your rhetoric sure as hell points that way.

(Warren Buffet did say he only paid 17% in taxes last year....While his secretary had to pay 30% in taxes...?)

Because his capital gains are different from her income. Get it?

The other thing that has to be considered in all of this is Social Security taxes, do they get incorporated in with income taxes, so not to have a separate tax?

Hopefully we can implement a system that works, because you can't say with a straight face that social security has been a success.

Because hundreds of billions if not over a trillion of Social Security surplus funds have been spent for general spending, used for purposes other than social security of which income taxes should have been collected to pay for these things...

Thank the people in Washington for that one. Every time you vote to re-elect anyone to Washington, you have become an enabler.

those making over $95 k do not pay social security taxes for their money earned over that amount, making Social security taxes extremely regressive, a burden on those in the middle or on to the poorest, while eliviating it from the wealthiest is truely not fair imo.

Social Security is not meant to be a tax on income. The socialists who support it want it to be a safety net, so it would make literally NO sense to tax it all the way up.

 

[Care4all]

This is NOT necessarily the case.



I'm not really sure you understand what a flat tax is



Part of my personal flat tax proposal would be that no one who makes under 50k a year pays any income tax, but you keep making these arguments without really understanding the issue.



Your rhetoric sure as hell points that way.



Because his capital gains are different from her income. Get it?



Hopefully we can implement a system that works, because you can't say with a straight face that social security has been a success.



Thank the people in Washington for that one. Every time you vote to re-elect anyone to Washington, you have become an enabler.



Social Security is not meant to be a tax on income. The socialists who support it want it to be a safety net, so it would make literally NO sense to tax it all the way up.

Jeff, I would really like to go over your points to me, can't right yet, have to run, but when I get a chance, I will respond so please check back on this thread later on, so you can "set me straight"... on my responses!

Care

 

[JeffWartman]

Jeff, I would really like to go over your points to me, can't right yet, have to run, but when I get a chance, I will respond so please check back on this thread later on, so you can "set me straight"... on my responses!

Care

If I could teach anyone anything about economics, it's that economics is not an exact science, and left open to vast interpretation

Hence the debate

 

[pegwinn]

Hmm a chance to rejoin the thread before the bobsey twins go at it again.

A progressive flat tax is already in place. It's called the Alternative Minimum Tax. And every year the middle class gets closer and closer to it.

Any tax on income is bad, period. Income based taxes are a huge invasion of privacy. Income based taxes assumes you are dishonest as the burden of proof that you paid the right amount is on you. Income based taxes create an us v. them mentality. Income based taxes foster criminal conduct as folks look for ways to avoid them.

In my own uneducated opinion, taxation should be pay-as-you-go except for inheritance taxes .

In other words you don't pay road taxes unless you use the roads. Then you pay via the taxes assessed at the gas pump. Social Security should be privatized. Better yet SS should be made optional.

Texas has the perfect system. A property tax (can't hide property in offshore accounts) and a sales tax.

In other words, a sales tax is the way to go IMO. And, wonder of wonders, there is one gathering dust in the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

[Care4all]

This is NOT necessarily the case.



I'm not really sure you understand what a flat tax is



Part of my personal flat tax proposal would be that no one who makes under 50k a year pays any income tax, but you keep making these arguments without really understanding the issue.

I am not a mind reader...you didn't mention it, you only said flat tax....?

Your rhetoric sure as hell points that way.



Because his capital gains are different from her income. Get it?

sure i get it, but why is this fair? Is the person actually working for a living penalized by our gvt?

Hopefully we can implement a system that works, because you can't say with a straight face that social security has been a success.

yes i can, social security has been a success. It was one leg of a three legged stool in retirement planning. It is the most efficient gvt run program that we have, the overhead gvt costs for SS is less than 1%..this is extremely proficient. As far as the crisis we are facing now with boomers to come, it is relatively minor, it can be fixed well enough, it is MEDIcare that is going to bankrupt our country, the pill bill in particular.

Thank the people in Washington for that one. Every time you vote to re-elect anyone to Washington, you have become an enabler.

so to you, the sollution is NOT to vote?

Social Security is not meant to be a tax on income. The socialists who support it want it to be a safety net, so it would make literally NO sense to tax it all the way up.

It IS a tax on income??????? up to 95k?????? so, wht do u mean?

 

[Care4all]

Hmm a chance to rejoin the thread before the bobsey twins go at it again.

A progressive flat tax is already in place. It's called the Alternative Minimum Tax. And every year the middle class gets closer and closer to it.

Any tax on income is bad, period. Income based taxes are a huge invasion of privacy. Income based taxes assumes you are dishonest as the burden of proof that you paid the right amount is on you. Income based taxes create an us v. them mentality. Income based taxes foster criminal conduct as folks look for ways to avoid them.

In my own uneducated opinion, taxation should be pay-as-you-go except for inheritance taxes .

In other words you don't pay road taxes unless you use the roads. Then you pay via the taxes assessed at the gas pump. Social Security should be privatized. Better yet SS should be made optional.

Texas has the perfect system. A property tax (can't hide property in offshore accounts) and a sales tax.

In other words, a sales tax is the way to go IMO. And, wonder of wonders, there is one gathering dust in the House Ways and Means Committee.

i think property taxes are the most UNFAIR taxes out there!!!! year after year paying taxes on a property you bought only once! horrible! and they can take your home away!

 

[JeffWartman]

I am not a mind reader...you didn't mention it, you only said flat tax....?

You're right, sorry if I came off harsh

sure i get it, but why is this fair? Is the person actually working for a living penalized by our gvt?

The idea is that since it's completely different sources of funds, it's taxed differently. Doesn't mean it's fair. It doesn't say if you make more money you'll pay less in taxes. It just states that capital gains, which technically aren't earned income, are taxed differently than wages, which is earned income.

yes i can, social security has been a success. It was one leg of a three legged stool in retirement planning. It is the most efficient gvt run program that we have, the overhead gvt costs for SS is less than 1%..this is extremely proficient. As far as the crisis we are facing now with boomers to come, it is relatively minor, it can be fixed well enough, it is MEDIcare that is going to bankrupt our country, the pill bill in particular.

I'm 22 years old. I'm going to remember you talked up the success of Social Security when it comes my turn to collect, since I've paid into the system

so to you, the sollution is NOT to vote?

No. My solution is to vote out the incumbents and break down the two party duopoly.

It IS a tax on income??????? up to 95k?????? so, wht do u mean?

It's not meant to be an income tax. It's meant to be a situation where everyone pays into the system equally and receives the benefits equally. Anything more would be a socialist redistribution of wealth

 

[JeffWartman]

i think property taxes are the most UNFAIR taxes out there!!!! year after year paying taxes on a property you bought only once! horrible! and they can take your home away!

It's a watered down way for socialist liberals to keep property rights in limbo.

 

[red states rule]

i think property taxes are the most UNFAIR taxes out there!!!! year after year paying taxes on a property you bought only once! horrible! and they can take your home away!

Not only property taxes, but ever increasing income taxes, and the death tax

When you work harder and earn more money the gopvernment helps itself to more and more money

Only in America, when you are born the government gives you a birth certificate - and when you die, the government gives your family a tax bill

 

[maineman]

RSR:

It seems you failed to answer this earlier:

You claim to agree with Rudy on your key issues...but the real question is, on the issues that mean the most, do you disagree with the more hardcore conservative candidates? and if you DON'T, why wouldn't you go with a candidate that fit your overall politcal philosophy if he was identical to you on issues? Why would you abandon hardcore conservative principles to support a new york moderate just because he agreed with you - and the rest of the field - on the issues that you list?

 

[red states rule]

RSR:

It seems you failed to answer this earlier:

You claim to agree with Rudy on your key issues...but the real question is, on the issues that mean the most, do you disagree with the more hardcore conservative candidates? and if you DON'T, why wouldn't you go with a candidate that fit your overall politcal philosophy if he was identical to you on issues? Why would you abandon hardcore conservative principles to support a new york moderate just because he agreed with you - and the rest of the field - on the issues that you list?

As usual, I have answered it, but you don't like the answer

It makes sense

 

[maineman]

As usual, I have answered it, but you don't like the answer

It makes sense

no...your only answer is that you agree with Rudy on big issues such as the war on terror and judges. but ALL the candidates agree with you on those issues.... and many of the OTHER candidates are actually hardcore conservatives. You do not explain why you support a new york moderate over several other candidates with legitimate hardcore conservative pedigrees.

Try answering the question that is ASKED of you, not the one that you create that is easier.

 

[red states rule]

no...your only answer is that you agree with Rudy on big issues such as the war on terror and judges. but ALL the candidates agree with you on those issues.... and many of the OTHER candidates are actually hardcore conservatives. You do not explain why you support a new york moderate over several other candidates with legitimate hardcore conservative pedigrees.

Try answering the question that is ASKED of you, not the one that you create that is easier.

On the issues I care about, I feel his the the best guy

Unlike you, I agree with what he is saying. You are staying with candidates that are doing the opposite of the things you CLAIM you are for

 

[Care4all]

You're right, sorry if I came off harsh



The idea is that since it's completely different sources of funds, it's taxed differently. Doesn't mean it's fair. It doesn't say if you make more money you'll pay less in taxes. It just states that capital gains, which technically aren't earned income, are taxed differently than wages, which is earned income.



I'm 22 years old. I'm going to remember you talked up the success of Social Security when it comes my turn to collect, since I've paid into the system



No. My solution is to vote out the incumbents and break down the two party duopoly.



It's not meant to be an income tax. It's meant to be a situation where everyone pays into the system equally and receives the benefits equally. Anything more would be a socialist redistribution of wealth

But isn't it a redistribution of wealth when our governmt takes taxes from the middle class and gives it all to the military industrial complex, the Halliburtons, the KBR's of the world without thinking twice, and without stewardship, oversight?

Or when the gvt takes taxes any money from any tax bracket and spends it, isn't it essecially a "redistribution" of the individual's wealth?

The Northern coastal Democratic states give the feds in taxes MUCH more than they get back in return...?

Massachusetts only gets 76 cents on the dollar back in benefits from the fed spending compared to what they send there, but a state like Alaska gets back in federal spending $1.80 for every dollar they give the feds in income tax monies...

Isn't this a redistribution of wealth too? Taking from peter to give to paul?

 

[maineman]

On the issues I care about, I feel his the the best guy

Unlike you, I agree with what he is saying. You are staying with candidates that are doing the opposite of the things you CLAIM you are for

then just admit that you are not a HARDCORE conservative. Rudy has identical positions to the hardcore conservatives in the race, and you have already abandoned them.

I am staying with Bill Richardson. I agree with what he is saying. I hope like hell he starts to gain traction and wins the nomination.

You have already sold your supposed "hardcore conservative" values down the river. You are a fake and a sham and a hack.

 

[red states rule]

then just admit that you are not a HARDCORE conservative. Rudy has identical positions to the hardcore conservatives in the race, and you have already abandoned them.

I am staying with Bill Richardson. I agree with what he is saying. I hope like hell he starts to gain traction and wins the nomination.

You have already sold your supposed "hardcore conservative" values down the river. You are a fake and a sham and a hack.

Yea, Bily goes with the party lins and you CLAIM you are opposed to that - yet you support him anyway

Before you go after anyone else for standing by their principals - you should clean your own house first