Taxes.. How much is TOO MUCH?

[Flopper]

MSN reported that the US has one of the lowest tax burdens of the developed nations. There were only two nations with lower tax burdens. One was Iceland. I don't recall the second.

 

[DiamondDave]

MSN reported that the US has one of the lowest tax burdens of the developed nations. There were only two nations with lower tax burdens. One was Iceland. I don't recall the second.

For about ~50% of the populous, this would be true.... otherwise, it simply is not

 

[FrankieGA]

yes but what probably wan't told to you, is yes we are 27 out of 30 in the taxed department, but by 2020 when the current legislation is slated to take full effect, we will ever so slightly move into 3rd.
Now that is quite a jump for anyone of us to swallow.

 

[007]

yes but what probably wan't told to you, is yes we are 27 out of 30 in the taxed department, but by 2020 when the current legislation is slated to take full effect, we will ever so slightly move into 3rd.
Now that is quite a jump for anyone of us to swallow.

Don't worry. By the time 2020 rolls around, our economy will have already imploded, there will already have been a civil war, and we'll already be working on getting things straightened out.

 

[FrankieGA]

One of my biggest fears is that the Conservative movement will indeed turn into, I believe personally, non-violent movement in this country that will indeed divide this country into two factions. Those who wish to do for themselves, and Those who wish the government to do for them. Kind of like a North and South Vietnam or Korea, Only I would suggest giving the lib's the west coast!!

 

[Flopper]

What a crystal ball you must have to look ten years into the future. You must be assuming that the healthcare law will be fully implemented, which I doubt. There will be no positive benefits from the law which is contrary to estimates from the CBO. The economy will not recover, which is contrary to what markets are telling us. Taxes will not increase which seems unlikely since the Bush tax cuts expire this year. We are not going to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of my biggest fears is that the Conservative movement will indeed turn into, I believe personally, non-violent movement in this country that will indeed divide this country into two factions. Those who wish to do for themselves, and Those who wish the government to do for them. Kind of like a North and South Vietnam or Korea, Only I would suggest giving the lib's the west coast!!

We are already a divided country, but I don't think there will be much interest in a physical split such as that which triggered the Civil War. But I cannot remember a time in which there has been such polarizing, pure expressed hatred, and vitriolic rhetoric based on ideology as what we have now in Congress, in the media, in entertainment, and expressed on message boards.

And at risk of having this thread bounced into the conspiracy theories forum, I am increasing suspicious that this is intentional and orchestrated. I think there are those who so want to weaken this country to the point that it must look to the rest of the world for its survival that they are willing to go to any lengths to accomplish that.

 

[FrankieGA]

I don't know if I agree whole heartedly on the driving us into part, but there is definitely a politcal, and personal divide in this country and it seems to be growing everyday. It is helped out in large part by the Media, and members of our Federal Government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if I agree whole heartedly on the driving us into part, but there is definitely a politcal, and personal divide in this country and it seems to be growing everyday. It is helped out in large part by the Media, and members of our Federal Government.

I hope I am dead wrong. I really do. But I just can't shake the perception when I watch some of the incomprehensible and indefensible actions and rhetoric that I am watching and hearing.

For the first time in my increasingly long adult life, I am truly afraid of my government. And there isn't much I can think of to put a silver lining on that.

 

[FrankieGA]

I agree, and have been afraid of my Government for the last couple of years. I have not agreed with much that this president has done, and did not agree with Bush and what he did towards the end of his presidency. What people are failing to realize is that with this huge power grab that the Fed's just manadated, and yes they grabbed it, this nation is quickly becoming a nanny state to the Fed's. They want to have complete control over you the citizen. They want to tell you what is good for you and what you need. I for one do not want this at all. Enough is Enough

 

[Charles Stucker]

This is doubly true of the richest businesspeople as they did not grow so rich by playing fair.

All those deductions and loopholes go away with a flat tax. 1099 forms will still be needed so dividends and other income can be taxed as ordinary income.

Someone runs a business, what constitutes expenses and what is profit? If the business owner runs restaurant and eats meals 'off book' at said restaurant, they can deduct the cost of the food from the profits and simultaneously see a personal, invisible profit, in the form of 'free' lunch. If another businessman hosts clients to conclude deals, is that an expense? What about the auto mechanic who marks parts as lost/stolen inventory when they are actually being used, on the sly, to keep his own vehicles running.

Every time you turn around another example of ways to get around any 'income' tax will come up, available mainly to those who run their own business.

I agree that a VAT tax is terrible, but the claim that a "flat" income tax will fix everything is indefensible.

 

[FrankieGA]

Flat tax cannot take the wrong doing out of some people no doubt. But wouldn't you as a trustworthy citizen of this great country want to understand what you are paying in taxes? I for one have no idea at the end of the day what percentage in taxes I pay on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. And I can tell you this from running a business, its not as easy to find the "loopholes" as you put it to slide money through. Unlike most popular beliefs!

 

[Charles Stucker]

Flat tax cannot take the wrong doing out of some people no doubt. But wouldn't you as a trustworthy citizen of this great country want to understand what you are paying in taxes? I for one have no idea at the end of the day what percentage in taxes I pay on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. And I can tell you this from running a business, its not as easy to find the "loopholes" as you put it to slide money through. Unlike most popular beliefs!

As long as the wealthiest businessmen have any loopholes, they will take advantage of them. Right there you have a problem. Another problem lies with the current spending levels. How many people could actually support a 30% Flat tax? 4.7 trillion in government spending and a GDP of 14.2 trillion means right at 30% tax. Deficit spending is, by the logic of a flat tax, unfair as it puts a greater burden on the next generation. After the federal tax, you ave to add in state, county, and municipal taxes. Someone with an income of 7$ an hour might take home as little as $3.50 after all those taxes. That's $140 a forty hour week or $7280 a year. Perhaps those people would prefer the government stopped spending so much and let them keep more of their money.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is doubly true of the richest businesspeople as they did not grow so rich by playing fair.

All those deductions and loopholes go away with a flat tax. 1099 forms will still be needed so dividends and other income can be taxed as ordinary income.

Someone runs a business, what constitutes expenses and what is profit? If the business owner runs restaurant and eats meals 'off book' at said restaurant, they can deduct the cost of the food from the profits and simultaneously see a personal, invisible profit, in the form of 'free' lunch. If another businessman hosts clients to conclude deals, is that an expense? What about the auto mechanic who marks parts as lost/stolen inventory when they are actually being used, on the sly, to keep his own vehicles running.

Every time you turn around another example of ways to get around any 'income' tax will come up, available mainly to those who run their own business.

I agree that a VAT tax is terrible, but the claim that a "flat" income tax will fix everything is indefensible.

No the flat tax won't fix everything. There will always be the criminally minded among us who will look for ways to beat the system and many of those will find ways to do that.

What the flat tax will do, however, is take a lot of the politics out of it by giving everybody a stake in the process. And it will eliminate much of the confusion and uncertainty as well as a great deal of bureacracy necessary to manage our current incomprehensible tax code.

I am in favor of a constitutional amendment mandating that no piece of legislation, including the tax code, may contain more words in it than the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is doubly true of the richest businesspeople as they did not grow so rich by playing fair.

All those deductions and loopholes go away with a flat tax. 1099 forms will still be needed so dividends and other income can be taxed as ordinary income.

Someone runs a business, what constitutes expenses and what is profit? If the business owner runs restaurant and eats meals 'off book' at said restaurant, they can deduct the cost of the food from the profits and simultaneously see a personal, invisible profit, in the form of 'free' lunch. If another businessman hosts clients to conclude deals, is that an expense? What about the auto mechanic who marks parts as lost/stolen inventory when they are actually being used, on the sly, to keep his own vehicles running.

Every time you turn around another example of ways to get around any 'income' tax will come up, available mainly to those who run their own business.

I agree that a VAT tax is terrible, but the claim that a "flat" income tax will fix everything is indefensible.

Don't be jealous of those who own their own businesses.

I haven't paid for coffee, toilet paper, trash bags, cleaning products etc etc for years. In fact I plugged my central air into the business's electric panel and I let the business pay for my propane for heat too. And don't forget cable TV, internet and cell phones are all business expenses too. I do pay my own electricity bill though.

But then again, I don't count buying stuff for my employees to use for free as part of their income either. I suppose I could add the cost of each cup of Joe and every t p square or every time I treat them to lunch into their taxable income.

 

[Thinman]

As long as there are intelligent people, different ways to avoid taxes will be found. The difference, between flat and progressive taxes, is simplicity. The simpler it is, the less opportunity to cheat.

The IRS budget in 2009 was 16.4 billion and with passage of health care it can only go up since they will be charged with enforcement of the mandate. I believe passing a flat tax would reduce that IRS budget number by 75%, possibly more.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I pay roughly 10% now in federal income taxes. No dependents, no deductions or credits of any consequence. I know many many people who make just what I do, but have many deductions of various sorts, who pay far less than that.

Should they pay more?

Yes. We should all be responsible for the Same percentage regardless of our total income levels or personal circumstances.

The concept really isn't that hard to understand.

I am absolutely a flat tax adovcate and am vigorously supporting candidates who support that concept if they are otherwise good candidates too.

But in the interest of promoting the general welfare, I am not convinced that there should be no deductions allowed.

For instance, we know that home ownership promotes a more prosperous environment along with stabile environments, lowered crime rates, increased security for the homeowner, and aesthetically an improved quality of life for many. I don't have any problem with mortgage insurance, taxes, etc. continuing as deductions to make it more possible for more folks to own their own home because we all benefit from that.

We should all want the federal government out of the charity business altogether, so I can see providing deductions for charitable contributions as they currently exists to encourage and enable people to look after the less fortunate among us as we all benefit from that.

We should encourage people to save some of their income, to purchase health insurance, plan for their retirement, etc. and allowing tax free medical savings accounts and retirement funds simply makes good sense for the benefit of all.

Such deductions should be across the board and applied without prejudice to all citizens as they ultimately benefit all.

What if someone doesn't own a home? Then they get screwed .

See why I said everyone pays XX% of their total income without deduction or exception because not everyone will qualify for the deductions you listed above making the system inequitable.



That being said we agree on the basics in principle and I'd be willing to comprimise my hard line stance on it IF it means that we actually get a flat tax out of it.

 

[Thinman]

Yes. We should all be responsible for the Same percentage regardless of our total income levels or personal circumstances.

The concept really isn't that hard to understand.

I am absolutely a flat tax adovcate and am vigorously supporting candidates who support that concept if they are otherwise good candidates too.

But in the interest of promoting the general welfare, I am not convinced that there should be no deductions allowed.

For instance, we know that home ownership promotes a more prosperous environment along with stabile environments, lowered crime rates, increased security for the homeowner, and aesthetically an improved quality of life for many. I don't have any problem with mortgage insurance, taxes, etc. continuing as deductions to make it more possible for more folks to own their own home because we all benefit from that.

We should all want the federal government out of the charity business altogether, so I can see providing deductions for charitable contributions as they currently exists to encourage and enable people to look after the less fortunate among us as we all benefit from that.

We should encourage people to save some of their income, to purchase health insurance, plan for their retirement, etc. and allowing tax free medical savings accounts and retirement funds simply makes good sense for the benefit of all.

Such deductions should be across the board and applied without prejudice to all citizens as they ultimately benefit all.

What if someone doesn't own a home? Then they get screwed .

See why I said everyone pays XX% of their total income without deduction or exception because not everyone will qualify for the deductions you listed above making the system inequitable.



That being said we agree on the basics in principle and I'd be willing to comprimise my hard line stance on it IF it means that we actually get a flat tax out of it.

If you start allowing deductions, you open the door to the same progressive system we are trying to get rid of. Opportunities to cheat increase with each new deduction and, trust me, lobbiests will be all over it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to mention it actually would go along with the sprit of the constitution having all taxes levelled equally.

If I make 100 bucks a year I should pay $10 in taxes. If I make 100,000 a year I should pay 10,000 in taxes. If I make 1,000,000,000 a year I should pay 100,000,000 in taxes.

No tax breaks, no exceptions, no deductions. It is what it is...you earn $xxxxxxx.xx/year and you have to pay 10% of it in taxes no matter when, where, or how you earned it.

I pay roughly 10% now in federal income taxes. No dependents, no deductions or credits of any consequence. I know many many people who make just what I do, but have many deductions of various sorts, who pay far less than that.

Should they pay more?

Yes. We should all be responsible for the Same percentage regardless of our total income levels or personal circumstances.

The concept really isn't that hard to understand.

I understand the concept smartass. What you don't understand is that you have NO chance of being politically successful trying to sell a massive tax overhaul to the American people that will raise taxes on lower income Americans and cut taxes for wealthier Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well since we get all of our fed taxes back, we'd be paying several thousands of dollars in taxes that currently someone else is covering for us. I'm all for the flat tax. Why should my brother, who makes more money than me, foot my portion of the bill? Why shouldn't I pay xx of my income and he pay the same xx of his income. Isn't that fair?

I'm covering for people with dependents, people with kids in college, people with mortgages, and on and on. I pay as much as ANYONE at my wage level.

My point is how do you sell it politically, plain and simple. How do you get the masses who are paying little or no federal income tax right now to vote themselves a tax increase for the benefit of those who now pay the taxes.

That is an excellent question and the answer is that the frog needs to jump out of the pot now before it is too late.

Right now we probably do have a majority of registered voters who are paying taxes and who might still be sufficiently unbrainwashed to be convinced. It is a dangerous thing when more than half the country does not share in the consequences of what government does re taxes or whatever, and has strong incentive to make sure that those who do continue to do so.

It probably is impractical to enforce a concept that only those who pay the taxes have a vote. It is quite practical, however, to sell and implement a policy that everybody pay at least some taxes.

Technically, except in the rarest of cases, most Americans pay some federal taxes. The gas tax catches probably millions who might otherwise not pay federal income taxes. As does the payroll tax.