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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.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.
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!
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.