How about a flat 10% income tax?

[Skull Pilot]

back in 1962 the top tax rate was 91%

yeah and JFK slashed that rate and the government revenue from taxes went UP

imagine that

 

[Liability]

Yes.

Tax policy has to be equitable. No one can be taxed at a rate which places more burden on him than on anyone else. Flat taxes and sales taxes both place more burden on the poor than the rich.

No. Tax policy does NOT have to be "equitable" in the silly way YOU define it.

Perfection not required.

If I make 10 times more than you, and I pay ten times the amount of taxes, that is another definition of "equitable."

And the sales tax is not only a vastly superior idea in terms of the ability of people to calculate true costs (and in terms of societal efficiencies), it is also equitable in the sense that if I spend a lot more, I PAY a lot more in taxes. Simplicity.

Your 90% tax rate figure is facially retarded, either way.

Equity is one of the primary goals of policy formation. Progressive income taxes are fundamentally equitable because the burden of taxation is laid more heavily on those who can bear it.

Sales and flat tax schemes, while they may tax everyone at the equal rates, unfairly spread the burden of taxation. The poor who pays 100 in sales taxes on the things he buys feels the burden much more than does the rich man who buys the same things and pays the same tax. The poor man's $100 is a much bigger part of his resources than it is of the rich man's.

No moral nation can impose flat or sales taxes on its citizens.

Your pontifications carry no weight.

This is a moral nation and our tax rate need not be "progressive" for it to continue to be a moral nation.

Most of our (relatively poor) poorer citizens don't pay ANY income tax.

So, I don't know who you imagine you're fooling with your silly socialist sputterings. But most of us figured out a long time ago that there really is nothing worng (morally speaking) with a distribution of wealth in society. There MIGHT be something to the claim that too vast a discrepancy between the haves and the have nots is (or borders on) immoral. And the most glaring discrepancies probably should be attended to.

Nobody in our land should starve or go unclothed or without the possibility of adequate shelter, imho. But other perfectly moral people might not agree with me even to that limited extent.

Even so, we really can't undermine the ability of our capitalist system to produce in the name of your brand of "equitable."

 

[WillowTree]

back in 1962 the top tax rate was 91%

would you be willing to go out and work for a dollar and give me 91 cents? Say yes. Pretty please say yes. and get 150 million of your friends to say yes.

If he earned the income with full knowledge of the tax liability, his willingness may be assumed.

why not let him/her/it answer the question. whydonchya? I;ll answer for me. if you told me I was gonna give you 91cents of every buck I earned. I'd go sit on da porch!

 

[Gadawg73]

National sales tax.

 

[Charles Stucker]

How about a flat 10% income tax with a SINGLE DEDUCTION of $85,000? This way it is not complicated and the vary poorest don't have to pay them.

A couple of problems
1 - the federal Debt is so high that 10% of the GDP would be inadequate to make the payments and provide for minimal other expenses.
2 - Would a deduction of 85k apply to each earner, or each family? How about businesses; what counts as income for them? For some businesses their margin of profit is low enough that 10% of sales would force them out of business (actually it would force them to raise prices and that might force them out of business) But if only 'profits' count as income for a business, then calculating profits becomes another nightmare, yet if you exempt businesses then wealthy people will use 'corporations' to store their wealth; they will have nothing, everything will be in their businesses, and they will pay nothing.

 

[Truthmatters]

hense the diaper sludge comment from me.

Its a stupid idea that would not work.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cut spending

 

[Oddball]

We need a steeply progressive income tax with a maximum rate of over 90%. We also should consider taxing income from different sources at different rates. Those who perform vital services wouldn't pay as much as those who don't.

Thank you, Friedrich Engels.

 

[ihopehefails]

I mentioned the first 85,000 won't get taxed so how can anyone say that poor will get taxed more disproportionate to their income? Those who make below this amount won't get taxed so the poor and middle-class won't get taxed.

 

[Truthmatters]

And the country will not have enough to run even the most basic government.

 

[Oddball]

"Basic gubmint" as defined how?

 

[Truthmatters]

Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

take a look at the countries that currently have a flat tax, note that NONE oif them have a 10% tax.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How about a flat 10% income tax with a SINGLE DEDUCTION of $85,000? This way it is not complicated and the vary poorest don't have to pay them.

We need a steeply progressive income tax with a maximum rate of over 90%. We also should consider taxing income from different sources at different rates. Those who perform vital services wouldn't pay as much as those who don't.

Stupid

 

[Oddball]

I mentioned the first 85,000 won't get taxed so how can anyone say that poor will get taxed more disproportionate to their income? Those who make below this amount won't get taxed so the poor and middle-class won't get taxed.

Your "plan" was how the income tax was originally and look at it now.

 

[Avatar4321]

God only asks for 10%. I dont see why the government should get more.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'd agree with a flat tax if it taxes EVERY DOLLAR. No deductions, no deferrals, no write-offs
Make the rich pay taxes on all their income and they will scream to return to the old tax code

So the guy working 2 part time jobs as a basic laborer making $20,000 a year gets to pay $2000 income tax? I suppose you could call that fair. But it would starve a lot of people.

 

[Truthmatters]

God only asks for 10%. I dont see why the government should get more.

Your religious views have no bearing on this decision.

 

[Avatar4321]

I mentioned the first 85,000 won't get taxed so how can anyone say that poor will get taxed more disproportionate to their income? Those who make below this amount won't get taxed so the poor and middle-class won't get taxed.

Actually, you said there would be a $85,000 deduction. It's not the same at all.

Besides, why should the successful be the only ones taxed. We are all contributers in our society. I have no problem with the concept of taxation in general. I just think the rate is absurd.

 

[Truthmatters]

I'd agree with a flat tax if it taxes EVERY DOLLAR. No deductions, no deferrals, no write-offs
Make the rich pay taxes on all their income and they will scream to return to the old tax code

So the guy working 2 part time jobs as a basic laborer making $20,000 a year gets to pay $2000 income tax? I suppose you could call that fair. But it would starve a lot of people.

Yes Ollie this would be a boon to wealthy people and a POS for poor and middle class people

 

[Oddball]

God only asks for 10%. I dont see why the government should get more.

Your religious views have no bearing on this decision.

Why shouldn't they?...You seem to think your rank ignorance is relevant.