Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %
Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %
I totally agree.
The only caveats I'd put on that is that any dollar should only get taxed ONCE per level of government (federal, state, local). If there's an income tax, then no sales or excise tax. If there's a sales or excise tax, then no income tax. Also, it should only be on NEW income, not on additional monies made by dollars which have already been taxed once. IE.... bank interest, dividends, stock or property sales, etc...
I think new money earned off of old money should be taxed as income. Income is income.
7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.
No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.
A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.
Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.
Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %
The tax code is fine. We are in more need of honest taxpayers. Treasury loses $250 billion each year.
Ame®icano;3720461 said:7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.
No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.
A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.
Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.
Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?
7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.
No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.
A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.
Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.
It ain't enough money to run this place, Joe...
johnwk, the problems with your plan as I see it are two-fold.....
First of all, I don't believe we should be allowing foreign goods or services into the United States, so the idea that most of the Federal Revenue would come from import tarrifs and such would bring no monies in at all.
Secondly, the special tax system which you discussed requires a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures and we both know that this government will not operate in that sort of system for any single year, nevermind every year.
Ame®icano;3720461 said:7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.
No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.
A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.
Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.
Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?
Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.
Ame®icano;3724321 said:Ame®icano;3720461 said:Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?
Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.
Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.
Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.
Ame®icano;3724321 said:Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.
Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.
Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.
It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.
My plan? Im flattered, but what I have outlined is our Constitutions original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate.
As to your first stated problem with our Constitutions original tax plan, you meant to write objection. That you object allowing foreign goods or services into the United States. Your objection is noted.
As to your second stated problem, that our Constitutions original tax plan requires a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures, that is not so. I suggest you go to POST NO.8 and re-read the post.
side from that, I believe we may partially agree on imports, but only to a limited degree. Keep in mind that taxes at our waters edge, which our founding fathers were very much in favor of utilizing to promote Americas best interests, were paid to our federal government at custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports were then allowed to advance to our market place.
In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about free trade, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes Americas manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about free trade ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation their bottom line is what is important and not Americas best interests!
By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our waters edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea an America first policy!
My plan? I’m flattered, but what I have outlined is our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate.
It's the plan you're supporting, so it is effectively your plan as well, regardless of who originally came up with it.
As to your first stated “problem” with our Constitution’s original tax plan, you meant to write “objection”. That you object allowing foreign goods or services into the United States. Your objection is noted.
Good. Now we just need to put that objection into practice and close off the borders completely. No human traffic, no electronic traffic, no business traffic.
Keep in mind that Congress was intended to finance its functions from imposts, duties, and excise taxes. As to the mathematical equation you mention which is tied to the apportioned tax among the States, that is only to be used in emergencies and to raise a specific sum of revenue. Our Constitution’s fair share formula is really not that hard to fathom. If you understand how each State’s number of Representatives are determined, then you should have no trouble figuring each State’s share of the apportioned tax which is to be used to raise a specific sum of revenue:I've read the post three or four times. To be able to set a number from which to run the mathematical equations, one has to have a finite number to work from.As to your second stated “problem”, that our Constitution’s original tax plan requires “a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures”, that is not so. I suggest you go to POST NO.8 and re-read the post.
What you may have missed is, when Congress is forced to raise its revenue from taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, this not only allows the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected, but it is within Congress’ own interest to encourage a healthy and vibrant economy on American soil which in turn leads to a productive consumption of goods, and thus an abundant flow of revenue into the federal treasury.I'm aware of how the system worked. If one were to assume that in the current business climate, where American products are not selling as well here or overseas as foreign ones are here, that such a policy would not decimate what small amount of exports we currently have, it might be an interseting idea. However, since we can't get Americans to BUY American products, I don't see that it would do anything other than further abuse the American economy by raising the price of all these imported foreign goods.aside from that, I believe we may partially agree on imports, but only to a limited degree. Keep in mind that taxes at our water’s edge, which our founding fathers were very much in favor of utilizing to promote America’s best interests, were paid to our federal government at custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports were then allowed to advance to our market place.
Aside from the “Isolationist, a Nationalist, and a Protectionist” we are pretty much in agreement.I'm not a fan of international "free trade". I'm an Isolationist, a Nationalist, and a Protectionist. I am a fan of forcing companies that want to do business here in the US to be based here, to make their products here with American labor, and to keep the money from said business here in the United States rater than allowing it to leave the country.In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade” ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation … their bottom line is what is important and not America’s best interests!
I'm all for America First. I'm also for America ONLY. That seems to be the difference between the two of us.By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!
Ame®icano;3724321 said:Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.
Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.
Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.
It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.
you need to determine what is "fair" when it comes to taxes. does that mean everyone pays an equal percentage of their income? or does that mean everyone pays the exact same dollar amount?
the fed needs direct tax revenue to operate, it can not come from the states collecting all the taxes and the paying the fed directly, that would change the make up of the county and give all of the power back to the states with the fed becoming extremely weak. this would in essence take us back to the civil war era, where the south wanted the power to rest with the states while the north had a strong central government. (slavery wasnt the only issue of the civil war if you know your history)
the issue with the tax code as it currently sits is that it is bloated with loop holes and exemptions. i see 2 problems with this, the obvious being those with money can pay someone to help exploit those holes (hence why many large profitable corporations and wealthy individuals pay little to no taxes) and 2) the fed never really know what the tax revenues will be.
i think putting everyone on a flat percentage on all income, including investment income (both corporate and individual) is the fairest way. that number is obviously debatable. (i think though around 15-20% total is a fair number to all) this eliminates the idea of people not paying their share. this number can then be split between the states and the fed, say if its 20% then 14% to the fed and 6% to the state. although debatable as the fed currently supplies more services than states.
Everyone does not pay the same under a flat tax on income. The most productive members of society are gouged while those who sit on their fat behinds and are not gainfully employed pay squat. But there was a time in our country when the idea of everyone paying the same was understood and practiced!
A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”
And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.
The fact is, there are a number of obvious objections to a federal tax which would tax everyone on their “income” by calculating the share using a fixed percentage.
1.
The first problem encountered with a flat tax on income is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power.
2.
A tax calculated from “income” ___ which I imagine would include earnings realized by our productive members of society ___ is a tax under which government force is intentionally used in a fashion which forcefully penalizes and punishes our productive members of society for their productivity while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape from shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government.
3.
An income tax imposed as a general tax among the States violates the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with proportional obligation!. The people of the states contributing the lion’s share under a “flat tax” would be denied their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the States contribution.
Socialists, “progressives”, and the friends of big government are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, as would be the case under the proposed “flat income tax”, they are relieved from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote.
Bottom line is, from where I stand I agree with our Constitution’s original tax plan which I outlined in POST NO. 8, and I do so because it was based upon principles which are as valid today as when our founders created our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN
JWK
The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion
3 Elliot’s 41
Ame®icano;3724321 said:Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.
Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.
It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.
How fucking dumb and uneducated must one be to only make $25K?