How about a flat 10% income tax?

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

Is your plan deficit neutral or not? Just answer the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is it no country in the world can opperate on a 10% flat tax?

Actually countries have done quite well with a much lower tax. Its governments that seem to have a hard time coping with that. Now if we tax the people more then the country suffers but if we tax them less then the governmtn suffers. Which one should we care about more? The country or the arbitrary body that we have decided to give the power to take away our freedoms?

I'm going to take a "Robin Hood" spirit on this and side with the peasents and not with the kingdom.

Can you name the countries that have done well on a 10% flat tax with an 85,000 deduction?

 

[Douger]

Where I live it is 9%, up until the equivalent of 40 grand, when it goes up to 15%
It matters not if you are a corporation or just a grass cutter.
Nobody has a problem with it. Some of the guys that make 43 or 47 sometimes try to ' cook the books' but that is simply human nature.

 

[Toro]

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.

Let's do a little thing called math.

The federal income tax takes in ~$1 trillion.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

The average amount an individual pays in income tax is 13%. Roughly 20% of taxpayers make up more than $85,000. Their average income tax rate is 17%. These people earned roughly 65% of all the income earned in the US. They pay about 80% of all income tax.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Since everyone under $85k pays 20% of all income tax, they would no longer be taxed. Thus, that's a $200 billion hole right there.

For everyone over $85k, their tax rate would decline by roughly 40%. That's another $400 billion. Thus, this proposal would decrease income tax revenues by $600 billion.

Total receipts by the government in 2009 - Bush's last budget - were $2.1 trillion. Less the $600 billion, that's $1.5 trillion in revenues.

Total government outlays were $3.5 trillion. That means to balance the budget - I assume you want to balance the budget eventually - $2 trillion has to be cut. Total outlays are as follows. Feel free to choose which to cut.

Defense $661 billion
Medicare $430 billion
Welfare $533 billion
Social security $683 billion

That's $2.3 trillion. You can cut all these and balance the budget to plug a $2 trillion hole in the budget after a $600 billion income tax cut, with a little left over.

Interest on the debt is $186 billion. Sorry, you can't cut that.

There is about $1 trillion in other expenditures. You can choose from a few other things.

Medicaid and other health care $331 billion
Commerce and housing $291 billion
Transportation, i.e. roads $84 billion
All government operations, i.e. government employees $22 billion.
NASA and other space and science technology $29 billion
International affairs, i.e. embassies, payments to Israel, etc. $37 billion
Education and training $80 billion
Veterans $95 billion
Everything else $136 billion.

Feel free to tell the American people how $2 trillion of the $3.5 trillion will be cut!

 

[Toro]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

Is your plan deficit neutral or not? Just answer the question.

No, of course not.

 

[Samson]

Oddly, my effective federal income tax rate is about 10%, the same as the hypothetical flat tax.

I've found the best thing to do is buy a house which is well beyond your realistic expectations to EVER pay off the mortgage, deduct the mortgage interest, and die pennyless.

or

Simply make no income, go insane, and live off SSI disability.

 

[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.

Let's do a little thing called math.

The federal income tax takes in ~$1 trillion.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

The average amount an individual pays in income tax is 13%. Roughly 20% of taxpayers make up more than $85,000. Their average income tax rate is 17%. These people earned roughly 65% of all the income earned in the US. They pay about 80% of all income tax.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Since everyone under $85k pays 20% of all income tax, they would no longer be taxed. Thus, that's a $200 billion hole right there.

For everyone over $85k, their tax rate would decline by roughly 40%. That's another $400 billion. Thus, this proposal would decrease income tax revenues by $600 billion.

Total receipts by the government in 2009 - Bush's last budget - were $2.1 trillion. Less the $600 billion, that's $1.5 trillion in revenues.

Total government outlays were $3.5 trillion. That means to balance the budget - I assume you want to balance the budget eventually - $2 trillion has to be cut. Total outlays are as follows. Feel free to choose which to cut.

Defense $661 billion
Medicare $430 billion
Welfare $533 billion
Social security $683 billion

That's $2.3 trillion. You can cut all these and balance the budget to plug a $2 trillion hole in the budget after a $600 billion income tax cut, with a little left over.

Interest on the debt is $186 billion. Sorry, you can't cut that.

There is about $1 trillion in other expenditures. You can choose from a few other things.

Medicaid and other health care $331 billion
Commerce and housing $291 billion
Transportation, i.e. roads $84 billion
All government operations, i.e. government employees $22 billion.
NASA and other space and science technology $29 billion
International affairs, i.e. embassies, payments to Israel, etc. $37 billion
Education and training $80 billion
Veterans $95 billion
Everything else $136 billion.

Feel free to tell the American people how $2 trillion of the $3.5 trillion will be cut!

Pretty good math, but the federal government makes more than just income tax revenues.

 

[Toro]

Pretty good math, but the federal government makes more than just income tax revenues.

Yes, I know. But the government already has a $1.5 trillion deficit, that will eventually be paid with both tax increases and spending cuts. The current deficit is simply unsustainable.

The OP is arguing for another $600 billion in tax cuts, which would widen the deficit even more. I'm assuming that the OP isn't advocating for any other tax increase. If the OP does assume an increase in other taxes, to close the $2 trillion hole, excluding any spending cuts, a 15% VAT would have to be imposed on every single transaction in the country.

 

[Avatar4321]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

Is your plan deficit neutral or not? Just answer the question.

Cutting massive waste in government will give a government surplus.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why is it no country in the world can opperate on a 10% flat tax?

Actually countries have done quite well with a much lower tax. Its governments that seem to have a hard time coping with that. Now if we tax the people more then the country suffers but if we tax them less then the governmtn suffers. Which one should we care about more? The country or the arbitrary body that we have decided to give the power to take away our freedoms?

I'm going to take a "Robin Hood" spirit on this and side with the peasents and not with the kingdom.

Can you name the countries that have done well on a 10% flat tax with an 85,000 deduction?

Funny... you have me confused with the person that proposed these specific numbers....

I am the proponent of the flat tax with equal % taxation on every dollar earned by every citizen... no loopholes, no exceptions.. whether you earn 10K or 10MIL... with changes made to government making it illegal to run a deficit except in time of war, requiring an 80% majority vote to approve the deficit spending

I want a balanced budget or even (GASP) a budget that runs in the black, saving for the next emergency instead of going further into debt.... I personally think that the % would have to most probably be in the 15-20% range, but have not really sat and tried to figure it out.... as I would start with massive entitlement cuts and not the existing ginormous budget that we currently have

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

Is your plan deficit neutral or not? Just answer the question.

Cutting massive waste in government will give a government surplus.

This was not a spending plan it was a revenue plan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually countries have done quite well with a much lower tax. Its governments that seem to have a hard time coping with that. Now if we tax the people more then the country suffers but if we tax them less then the governmtn suffers. Which one should we care about more? The country or the arbitrary body that we have decided to give the power to take away our freedoms?

I'm going to take a "Robin Hood" spirit on this and side with the peasents and not with the kingdom.

Can you name the countries that have done well on a 10% flat tax with an 85,000 deduction?

Funny... you have me confused with the person that proposed these specific numbers....

I didn't reply to you. I replied to the guy who won't answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

Is your plan deficit neutral or not? Just answer the question.

No, of course not.

Then it's just one more brilliant conservative one-note response,

cut taxes even more and add even more debt to this country's books.

 

[Big Fitz]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

uhm...the financial meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

whatever happened to the buck stops here? LOL

Who's president now? that's where the buck stopped.

Question is, why's he fucking up so bad?

 

[Liability]

Is your plan deficit neutral or not? Just answer the question.

No, of course not.

Then it's just one more brilliant conservative one-note response,

cut taxes even more and add even more debt to this country's books.

It is the idiot left and their endless willingness to spend OUR money and money they BORROW (from a variety of sources leaving asll of US on the hook) that increases the debt, stupid.

Cutting tax rates can have the effect of increasing the amount of money available to the government.

Jeez. You libs are a slow and stubborn stupid lot.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Has anyone noticed that the left cries about the deficit and the govt can't afford lower taxes but doesn't seem to react in the same way when we pass stim bills?

Where was this outcry a year ago? Wait...they were busy blaming Bush.

uhm...the financial meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

whatever happened to the buck stops here? LOL

Who's president now? that's where the buck stopped.

Question is, why's he fucking up so bad?

Because he either believes the socialist nonsense he is pushing or he understands that it helps buy his party votes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, of course not.

Then it's just one more brilliant conservative one-note response,

cut taxes even more and add even more debt to this country's books.

It is the idiot left and their endless willingness to spend OUR money and money they BORROW (from a variety of sources leaving asll of US on the hook) that increases the debt, stupid.

Cutting tax rates can have the effect of increasing the amount of money available to the government.

Jeez. You libs are a slow and stubborn stupid lot.

Except no one has ever been able to demonstrate that on a valid cause and effect basis.

Clinton raised taxes, paid the bills, got more revenue, and a balanced budget. EVERY Republican president who's tried to balance the budget by cutting taxes has gone down in a fiscal flame of massive deficits.

Cutting taxes to raise revenues is as preposterous as one of those eat-anything-you-want-and-still-lose-weight fad diets that gets tossed out there on a regular basis.

You get that analogy, Lardbelly? You should lololol

 

[midcan5]

The major meme of the right wing nutcases is taxes, they cry and they cry. Of course if we cut our military expenses which is one of the largest pieces they'd cry and they'd cry. What a truly stupid bunch of people when taxes that support the nation are the only thing the birdbrains can rail against. Greed has replaced sense on the right side of the fence.

The Federal Pie Chart

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth

The Idolatry of Ideology Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

Budget Cuts vs. Tax Increases at the State Level
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
The rich get rich because of their merit.

Reagan raised taxes.
Firedoglake Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)

Video on fudicary responsibility
FORA.tv - John Bogle: The Free Market's Moral Crisis


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rest-Us-Debunking-Science/dp/1595581014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science that Makes Life Dismal (9781595581013): Moshe Adler: Books[/ame]



"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[Liability]

Then it's just one more brilliant conservative one-note response,

cut taxes even more and add even more debt to this country's books.

It is the idiot left and their endless willingness to spend OUR money and money they BORROW (from a variety of sources leaving asll of US on the hook) that increases the debt, stupid.

Cutting tax rates can have the effect of increasing the amount of money available to the government.

Jeez. You libs are a slow and stubborn stupid lot.

Except no one has ever been able to demonstrate that on a valid cause and effect basis.

Clinton raised taxes, paid the bills, got more revenue, and a balanced budget. EVERY Republican president who's tried to balance the budget by cutting taxes has gone down in a fiscal flame of massive deficits.

Cutting taxes to raise revenues is as preposterous as one of those eat-anything-you-want-and-still-lose-weight fad diets that gets tossed out there on a regular basis.

You get that analogy, Lardbelly? You should lololol

Carbonated, just because an asshole (i.e., you) calls me "lardbelly" doesn't actually mean I am fat, you imbecile.

It is something for which reasonable folks should thank God in heaven that you aren't actually in a position to harm our economy with your asinine notions of what is and is not economically viable. You appear to know even less about that topic than you know about me.

 

[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.

Let's do a little thing called math.

The federal income tax takes in ~$1 trillion.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

The average amount an individual pays in income tax is 13%. Roughly 20% of taxpayers make up more than $85,000. Their average income tax rate is 17%. These people earned roughly 65% of all the income earned in the US. They pay about 80% of all income tax.

Nice analysis. I suppose it means we should increase the taxes on the above 85,000 crowd to around 35% to eliminate the deficit. Or cut spending.
I might support either move.
Most people earning over 85k have jobs which cannot be moved overseas, that is why they earn over 85k.
Lawyers, accountants, politicians etc. who have been so ready to collapse the pay scale for engineers (it can be designed anywhere) and factory workers (it can be built anywhere) might not like having the loss of income for those groups haunt them in the form of higher taxes for themselves.

Perhaps we could consider revenue tariffs. A revenue tariff is distinguished form a protective tariff because the rate is set at a level to maximize government income (from the tariff), not to discourage trade. This would not "end free trade" it would encourage such trade, without the distortions which American military power introduce into the equation (if Timbuktu nationalizes XYZ corps widget factory because they pay only 7 cents an hour then the Marines invade to set matter right, which lets XYZ get huge profits without commensurate risk)
Anyone who wanted to avoid paying those tariffs could buy American.