Flat 10% income tax

[uscitizen]

"Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes. "

And that is different from tax revenue declines during this recession in what way?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I replied to the nut that said, "Why do you want to be taxed"?
Our infrastructure is crumbling. The US was the leader in train travel. Now we're at the bottom on the pile.

And yet our privately owned railroads were more profitable and efficient than the government run railroads.

Umm not really, the railroads failing was why we have Amtrack now.

Which has never turned a profit, unlike the private railroads.

 

[Sinatra]

This nation's tax code is so bereft of common sense as to make the entire institution teeter on the brink of total collapse.

Currently nearly half of all Americans pay NO income tax. With Obama's desire to increase taxes on the rich, while also increasing "relief" to the "working poor", this number is sure to increase.

And it is not Obama's intent that is soley to blame - GW Bush was responsible for nearly doubling the percentage of lower income non taxpayers with his tax cuts. While the common liberal cries of the Bush tax cuts helping the rich - they actually did far more to expand the base of non-paying federal income tax payers in America.

With 15% of earners paying nearly 85% of all income taxes, they system is so far out of whack we are destined to the proverbial tipping point far sooner than later.

A flat tax has merit, as ALL wage earners should be paying into the federal income tax pool Those who earn more will pay more while those who earn less pay less. Such an approach is both simple and fair.

As it is now, why should roughly half of "voters" be allowed to vote in federal elections if they are not paying into the federal income tax system? Why are they allowed to simply mooch the system and then have a say in helping to maintain their ability to continue doing so?

A far simpler tax code is long overdue - one that has all wage earners paying into the system vs simply being allowed to enjoy the benefit given them off the backs of the minority who actually do pay federal income taxes.

It is a power base for the extreme liberals and far lefties.... if you don't make a group of people pay taxation, and you let them get entitlements, they will continue to vote you into power... it's like a junkie will still proclaim you as the best person ever, as long as you feed them their drugs

Very true.

 

[QUENTIN]

"Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes. "

And that is different from tax revenue declines during this recession in what way?

Sorry, I'm not really sure what you're asking. How is the tax revenue declines we currently face during a recession in which the wealthiest pay 35-40% different than a tax revenue decline would be if they paid 10%? Is that your question?

The economic collapse and excessive debt taken on are in large part due to government programs being insufficiently funded because of the enormous tax cuts on the wealthy implemented since 1980.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you're a fringe creature in a tiny minority. That probably has snob appeal to some degree, no?

Eisenhower championed the interstate highway system on the grounds of its value to national defense,
which even (I think) you would agree is constitutional.

I'm a snob because I'm in a minority? I'm not sure I see the logic behind that one.

National defense is certainly constitutional. However, the interstate highway system does not fall under the category of national defense, regardless of Eisenhower's original intentions.

So the military should build its own, separate, transportation system to move its resources from one part of the country to another? That's insane.

And where did I say that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where is it prohibited?

In the Bill of Rights.

Try reading it sometime.

The Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government funding the interstate highway system?

hilarious.

The 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Congress can tax who the **** they want and when they want to do it. If the Constitution wanted to exempt anything from taxation, it would have.

Provide for the common defense and "General Welfare". If infrastructure is needed for the general welfare of the people, Congress is allowed to charge taxes and build infrastructure. They have been doing it for over 200 years

wow. If "to provide for the general welfare" included ******* you in the ass, you'd be all for that too?

Tell Me.

If that were true, then why did they need to pass the 16th Amendment?

The income tax was always constitutional, to some extent, and in some manner. The 16th Amendment only changed that extent and manner.

Not even remotely. The Constitution expressly forbade direct taxation of any form before the 16th Amendment.

 

[Sinatra]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

___

Utter rubbish.

The wealthy in America never paid 91% - regardless of the rate. Much the same in Europe. That money is sheltered and overall tax revenues are lower than they would be with lower tax rates.

JFK understood this and slashed the income tax rate and revenues and production increased - substantially.

And you would do well to study up on actual tax rates of the 1950s vs now. The overall burden of taxes and regulation is FAR greater than 60 years ago - to the point of choking off American industry and middle class jobs.

Some of the greatest economic sectors of the 1950s were found in nuclear power production, oil and coal production, textiles, plastics, automotives, etc - all of which were given substantial support from the post WWII industrialization that was in place. Since the 1950s, these industries, via increased regulation and stifling union costs, have in many cases shut down production in America for other countries - that is the result of your "progressivism".

And despite this time of production boom, still 20% of Americans lived in poverty during the 1950s - almost double what it is today. It was also the era of increasing corporate growth - something "progressives" such as yourself state you are against. Those corporation created jobs, profit, and crushed competition. If you support the era of the 1950's and 1960s, you best support that scenario as well.

It is remarkable how many Americans know so little of their own relatively recent history...

 

[NYcarbineer]

wow. If "to provide for the general welfare" included ******* you in the ass, you'd be all for that too?

Tell Me.

If that were true, then why did they need to pass the 16th Amendment?

The income tax was always constitutional, to some extent, and in some manner. The 16th Amendment only changed that extent and manner.

Not even remotely. The Constitution expressly forbade direct taxation of any form before the 16th Amendment.

Nonsense.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the Bill of Rights.

Try reading it sometime.

The Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government funding the interstate highway system?

hilarious.

The 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

Which is a non-sequitur because there's no way the 10th amendment prohibits federal funding of an interstate highway system.

And who in their right mind would want it to? This is the UNITED states, not the Balkans.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The income tax was always constitutional, to some extent, and in some manner. The 16th Amendment only changed that extent and manner.

Not even remotely. The Constitution expressly forbade direct taxation of any form before the 16th Amendment.

Nonsense.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The income tax did not qualify until the 16th Amendment because it is not in proportion to the Census.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, but it is far closer to a zero sum game than those on the right realize.


You want the recession to end?
You like paying $4/gal for gas?

Well you are not likely to have one without the other.

And yet all during Pres Bush's tenure we had lower levels of unemployment, higher levels of GDP growth, and lower gas prices than either today or what you are positing.

It seems to be a false dichotomy.

Clinton left Bush with a lower unemployment rate than Bush ever saw subsequently.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government funding the interstate highway system?

hilarious.

The 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

Which is a non-sequitur because there's no way the 10th amendment prohibits federal funding of an interstate highway system.

And who in their right mind would want it to? This is the UNITED states, not the Balkans.

If the 10th Amendment doesn't prohibit their funding of an interstate highway system where in the Constitution does it give them the authority to fund an interstate highway system?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not even remotely. The Constitution expressly forbade direct taxation of any form before the 16th Amendment.

Nonsense.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The income tax did not qualify until the 16th Amendment because it is not in proportion to the Census.

Don't pretend that was what you claimed. You said direct tax in ANY FORM was prohibited.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

Which is a non-sequitur because there's no way the 10th amendment prohibits federal funding of an interstate highway system.

And who in their right mind would want it to? This is the UNITED states, not the Balkans.

If the 10th Amendment doesn't prohibit their funding of an interstate highway system where in the Constitution does it give them the authority to fund an interstate highway system?

We've already been through this. I'm not going to play the filibuster game with you.

Has the constitutionality of the interstate highway system ever been challenged?

 

[uscitizen]

So you are saying the interstate highway system was bad for America?
It did not contribute to the general welfare of Americans?

 

[ihopehefails]

This year I want a flat 10% income tax with a single deduction of 85,000 so that anyone making below that will not pay any and any amount above that pays a single flat rate without any loopholes or complications.

If any republican or democrat wants my vote then they better do that.

You have something of the right idea, but not the proper execution of the idea.

Here is My idea...

Anyone at poverty +5% pay no taxes. In fact, they don't even have the taxes withheld from their pay. What they earn, they keep. 100%.

Above the previous set limit, every person pays 17%. This number INCLUDES a 2% payment to keep the Social Security promise. However, that 2% is to pay for existing account holders. People who have not paid into Social Security, and those who are about to enter the work force will pay 2% to a 401k type retirement and 2% to a Health Savings account. This 4% cannot be touched by any politican, EVER.

The remaining 13% will go to the State in which you live.

The States will tithe 3% of all their tax receipts to the Federal Government for the purpose of National Security and Diplomatic endeavors.

The Feds can place a 2% maximum tax upon any corporation doing business in the United States in addition to any State taxes collected.

I like that but how do you decide what the point is that people pay no taxes? That is why I think applying the same 17% to everyone but allow a substantial one time deduction from their taxable income that effectively creates the point of no taxation so the first 85,000 is not taxable because you get a 85,000 deduction.

Now if you made 86,000 then you pay 17% of the difference between your income and what you deducted so its 17% X 1000 which is about $170. Now if you made 84,999 then your taxable income will be zero because 84,999 - 85,000 will be -1 which is no taxable income so everyone below that amount will pay no taxes which could be a good selling point for most people in this country since most people make less than that.

 

[ihopehefails]

So you are saying the interstate highway system was bad for America?
It did not contribute to the general welfare of Americans?

The interstate highway system is written in the constitution.

 

[ihopehefails]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

Thomas Paine, of course, devoted an entire chapter of his "Rights of Man" to advocating progressive taxation as a fundamental necessity to democracy to prevent the accumulation of undue influence and power in the hands of the few.

Your starting at $85,000 seems to recognize one degree of progressive taxation, but a flat tax runs counter to many key underlying principles of both capitalism and democracy. Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes.

You make a huge assumption that we were prosperous during the 50s. Now I'm not saying we were living in the great depression but what you did was throw up a chart showing the tax rates during the fifties and how they were higher. Do you have any data showing the unemployment rate with that or are you going to show us a chart telling us the tax rates were higher because I'm not doubting the truth of your chart. It simply shows us that the tax rates were higher which was true.

Do you have anything else because I have a chart that shows the donut consumption was much higher in the fifties than today.

BTW, adam smith also thought that American colonies should pay the tea taxes since we owed the British government. And he did not specify what kind of tax should contribute to the public expense such as a sales tax or an income tax. He just said that people should pay taxes to contribute to the public expense such as providing an army and police and other government functions. This is something that most people do not object to but the issue is the nature of the progressive income tax which is designed to steal the fruits of one's labor by making us labor for the common cause of society instead of laboring for our own benefit because a progressive income tax is designed to make everyone contribute their earnings to government in which is then used for redistribution which makes every person's labor the product of the community and not for the individual.

 

[Sinatra]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

___

Utter rubbish.

The wealthy in America never paid 91% - regardless of the rate. Much the same in Europe. That money is sheltered and overall tax revenues are lower than they would be with lower tax rates.

JFK understood this and slashed the income tax rate and revenues and production increased - substantially.

And you would do well to study up on actual tax rates of the 1950s vs now. The overall burden of taxes and regulation is FAR greater than 60 years ago - to the point of choking off American industry and middle class jobs.

Some of the greatest economic sectors of the 1950s were found in nuclear power production, oil and coal production, textiles, plastics, automotives, etc - all of which were given substantial support from the post WWII industrialization that was in place. Since the 1950s, these industries, via increased regulation and stifling union costs, have in many cases shut down production in America for other countries - that is the result of your "progressivism".

And despite this time of production boom, still 20% of Americans lived in poverty during the 1950s - almost double what it is today. It was also the era of increasing corporate growth - something "progressives" such as yourself state you are against. Those corporation created jobs, profit, and crushed competition. If you support the era of the 1950's and 1960s, you best support that scenario as well.

It is remarkable how many Americans know so little of their own relatively recent history...

---