Flat Tax is a fraud and Steve Forbes knows this...

[Liability]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

Nice.

 

[WillowTree]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

10% of 50,000 or 10% of 20,000?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

10% of 50,000 or 10% of 20,000?

The effective rate would be 10% of $50k, or $5,000.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

That's not a bad idea. Perhaps you should run for Congress. Of course, those who would oppose such a plan would push dishonest propaganda scaring people into believing they'll be paying a 25% tax rate and since most Americans are mathematically stupid, they'd believe it.

 

[merrill]

Get it? We already have a flat tax – flat within each bracket.

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income (the exact amount depends on whether the person is married and eligible for tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit of the Family Tax Credit.)

People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

So when Barack Obama calls for ending the Bush tax cut on incomes over $250,000, he’s only talking about the portion peoples’ incomes that exceed $250,000. He’s not proposing to tax their entire incomes at the higher rate that prevailed under Bill Clinton.

Republicans have tried to sow confusion about this. They want Americans to believe, for example, that if the Bush tax cut ended, small business owners with incomes of $251,000 a year would suddenly have to pay 39 percent of their entire incomes in taxes rather than 35 percent. Wrong. They’d only have to pay the 39 percent rate on $1,000 – the portion of their incomes over $250,000.

Get it? We already have a flat tax – flat within each bracket.


Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

 

[Liability]

Get it? We already have a flat tax – flat within each bracket.

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income (the exact amount depends on whether the person is married and eligible for tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit of the Family Tax Credit.)

People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

So when Barack Obama calls for ending the Bush tax cut on incomes over $250,000, he’s only talking about the portion peoples’ incomes that exceed $250,000. He’s not proposing to tax their entire incomes at the higher rate that prevailed under Bill Clinton.

Republicans have tried to sow confusion about this. They want Americans to believe, for example, that if the Bush tax cut ended, small business owners with incomes of $251,000 a year would suddenly have to pay 39 percent of their entire incomes in taxes rather than 35 percent. Wrong. They’d only have to pay the 39 percent rate on $1,000 – the portion of their incomes over $250,000.

Get it? We already have a flat tax – flat within each bracket.


Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

But with these absurd brackets, the system is FAR from flat, it is already progressive.

Get it?

 

[Foxfyre]

A flat tax with iron clad caps that would replace the income tax,. FICA, FUTA, and Medicare deductions to be applied to all earned income is absolutely the only fair and equitable way to apply a tax code. It might have to be phased in at like 3 to 5% increments for the lower income people to retrain them to budget, but I think it would generate such an economic boom in this country that the lower income people would benefit far more than any new tax burden imposed on them.

That plus a rollback of the more onerous and unnecessary regulations would also encourage all those eeeeeevul 'rich' people to turn loose of the trillions in investment capital they are currently sitting on and allow something like $3 trillion currently parked overseas to come home.

Of course the politicians who use the tax code to enhance their own personal fortunes would have to find something else to use for that, and our local class envy class would have to find something or somebody else to blame, but most of us could probably live with that.

 

[merrill]

A flat tax with iron clad caps that would replace the income tax,. FICA, FUTA, and Medicare deductions to be applied to all earned income is absolutely the only fair and equitable way to apply a tax code. It might have to be phased in at like 3 to 5% increments for the lower income people to retrain them to budget, but I think it would generate such an economic boom in this country that the lower income people would benefit far more than any new tax burden imposed on them.

That plus a rollback of the more onerous and unnecessary regulations would also encourage all those eeeeeevul 'rich' people to turn loose of the trillions in investment capital they are currently sitting on and allow something like $3 trillion currently parked overseas to come home.

Of course the politicians who use the tax code to enhance their own personal fortunes would have to find something else to use for that, and our local class envy class would have to find something or somebody else to blame, but most of us could probably live with that.

Absolute nonsense...

 

[merrill]

The real problem is the top brackets are set too low relative to where the money is. The top-most bracket starts at $375,000 a year. People with incomes higher than that pay 35 percent – again, only on that portion of their incomes exceeding $375,000.

This is absurd. It means a professional who’s making, say, $380,000 a year pays the same income-tax rate as a plutocrat pulling in $2 billion or $20 billion.

Our current flat tax at the top is treating the nation’s professional class exactly the same as it treats super-rich plutocrats. My doctor pays the same rate as Steve Forbes.

Actually, it’s worse than that because the plutocrats get most of their income in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. That’s why America’s 400 richest people – who earned an average of $300 million last year, and who have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans put together – now pay at a 17 percent rate (according to the IRS).

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

 

[Avatar4321]

So the flat tax is a fraud because you say it is? great argument.

The fact is the Federal Government shouldnt be taking more than 10% of anyones money. And it sure as heck shouldnt be charging different people different percentages of their income. All men are created equally means something.

 

[Toro]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

10% of 50,000 or 10% of 20,000?

$50,000 in income
$30,000 exemption
$20,000 taxable income
Tax liability 25% x $20,000 = $5,000
Effective tax rate $5,000 / $50,000 = 10%

 

[tinydancer]

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Remember: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation’s total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Under almost anyone’s view of fairness, these are grotesque portions. They’re especially large relative to what they were as recently as thirty years ago, when the top 1 percent raked in under 10 percent. And these huge portions at the top continue to increase.

Meanwhile, the top tax bracket is now 35 percent — the lowest it’s been in three decades. Between the end of World War II and 1980 it never fell below 70 percent.

Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.

Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.

Regressives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They’d rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.

Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax – starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

merrill step up to the plate and pay a GST.

You scream you want equality. Eat it brother. I've done it for years. You pay more for your toilet paper, but you can feel better when you are wiping your ass knowing that Conrad Black has to wipe his ass with the same tax.

Go buddy!!! Rock on!!

 

[Wiseacre]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

If you run for office on this, you got my vote. Same thing for corps?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone’s income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

That is insane. Why should the government get 70% of anyone's income.

cause the libtards don't wanna work,, they want you to give them what you've worked for.

Yeah, like health insurance. Everybody knows those libs dont want to pay for our own health insurance.

Oh wait - its the freeloading pub and bags who don't want to pay for their own insurance and instead want to be able to get free (SOCIALISM ALERT) care.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Has anyone noticed that all the Clown Car Candidates have so-called "plans" and that every single one of those plans entails higher taxes for the working class and lower taxes for the 1%?

Before y'all get all kinds of excited about voting for Let's Start A New War Mittens, you might want to really look at his "plan".

You'll get, on average, $54 BACK the first year and then it's rape, pillage and burn the working class every year after. Meanwhile, the 1% pay less. Big surprise, huh?

 

[tinydancer]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

If you run for office on this, you got my vote. Same thing for corps?

Toro 2016?

I'm in for true. Let me clear my plate for a complete takeover of the American government by Toro, Ropey and Tinydancer.

This could work.

 

[bripat9643]

If you can show that going from a progressive tax structure to a flat tax structure does NOT raise taxes (relatively) on lower income taxpayers and cut taxes (relatively) on higher income taxpayers,

then by all means do so and prove me wrong.

Every flat tax that's ever been proposed exempts people below a certain income, but that number is far lower than the number who are exempt under the current brackets.

There's no reason that people making a decent income shouldn't contribute towards the support of their government. The idea that only the rich should pay is pretty pretty much outright communism. It's the credo of thugs.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, Because according to Democrats, in order to be Fair, our Tax system has to be overtly unfair, and punish those who do well.

One of the principles behind a progressive tax system vs a flat tax system is that money more likely to be used for basic necessities should be taxed at a lower rate than money not so needed.

What's unfair about that?

So exempt everything required to pay for basic necessities and tax everything else at a flat rate. That would anyone making more than $15,000 would have to pay income tax.

In fact, the principle behind the progressive tax system is that everyone hates the rich, so they deserve to be looted and destroyed.

 

[bripat9643]

Exempt some amount a taxpayer makes then have a flat tax thereafter. Exempt the first, say, $30,000, and thereafter all sources of income are taxed at 25%.

Somebody making $30,000 would pay 0% in taxes. Somebody making $50,000 would pay 10% in taxes. Somebody making $100,000 would pay 17.5% in taxes. Somebody making $1 million would pay 24.375% in taxes.

Voila! Flat and progressive and no need for an accountant.

$30,000 is way too high. A person making that much has enough for far more than the "basic necessities of life." $15,000 is more like it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The real problem is the top brackets are set too low relative to where the money is. The top-most bracket starts at $375,000 a year. People with incomes higher than that pay 35 percent – again, only on that portion of their incomes exceeding $375,000.

This is absurd. It means a professional who’s making, say, $380,000 a year pays the same income-tax rate as a plutocrat pulling in $2 billion or $20 billion.

Our current flat tax at the top is treating the nation’s professional class exactly the same as it treats super-rich plutocrats. My doctor pays the same rate as Steve Forbes.

Actually, it’s worse than that because the plutocrats get most of their income in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. That’s why America’s 400 richest people – who earned an average of $300 million last year, and who have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans put together – now pay at a 17 percent rate (according to the IRS).

The Republicans’ push for a flat tax masks what’s really going on.

Robert Reich (The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax)

You called my previous post absolute nonsense without any shred of evidence for why it is any kind of nonsense, let alone absolute nonsense. The information is based on a number of experts in the field including Money Magazine, Forbes, and financial analysts of most of the better financial think tanks.

Now then consider that much is being made of the 99% versus 1%. So who are the 1%? As nearly as I can determine they are about 1.4 million households out of a total 140 million American households. Those 1.4 million households earn a minimum average about of about $345,000 per year income.

The thing is those 1.4 million households--1% of the total households of America--pay a whopping 37% of the taxes paid in America every year. Further they make more than 30% of the charitable contributions made in America every year.

Meanwhile more than 50% of American households are paying little or no federal income taxes at all. Every one, however, has a vote just like those paying taxes do, and have a vested interest in voting to ensure that everybody besiides them continue to pay the taxes.

Are you one of that 50%? If so, I suggest that you have a vested interest in keeping everybody else paying your share of the taxes. If not, I suggest that you do your homework to see the truth of my post that you discounted as absolute nonsense.

P.S. 10% of that $380,000 is $38,000. 10% of a billion is $100 million. Why is that not 'progressive' enough for you guys?