The Tipping Point

[SAYIT]

Liberal Democracies must always seek to balance the right to pursue one's ambitions with the needs of those who can't compete. The former is taxed to support the latter, often leaving those in the middle in a precarious position. As America trends toward a majority of tax-filers who pay little or no federal income tax - currently about half - we increase the point where they are incentivized to vote for those who promise to "spread the wealth," not by making them more productive but by eating the rich. Those in the middle are invariably shoved closer to the bottom because there just isn't enough wealth - and never could be - to satisfy the needs and demands of the bottom half.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." - A.F. Tytler

 

[WillowTree]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

 

[Gdjjr]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

What is the definition of Fair? Not that I disagree but fair is ambiguous and fluid.

Personally, I would say a 5% never to be exceeded fed tax on ALL transactions. If that ain't enough- tough shit.

 

[MarathonMike]

We will need to look at everything. The tax code, the number of federal employees we have, foreign aid, the whole 9 yards.

 

[OldLady]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

 

[Dick Foster]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've been preaching that message for some decades now. It's nice to know that I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness.

 

[WillowTree]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

a fair flat tax of 25% means the rich will always pay more than the poor.

 

[SAYIT]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

What is the definition of Fair? Not that I disagree but fair is ambiguous and fluid. Personally, I would say a 5% never to be exceeded fed tax on ALL transactions. If that ain't enough- tough shit.

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

Most excellent responses ... even you OldLady!

Yeah, a flat tax would be the most fair but is likely unfeasible for the reason OL stated. We could use as few as 3 levels of taxation - say 20%, 30%, and 40% - but must get rid of other fed income taxes including SS.

We'd definitely need a constitutional amendment to end WashDC deficit spending.

 

[progressive hunter]

Liberal Democracies must always seek to balance the right to pursue one's ambitions with the needs of those who can't compete. The former is taxed to support the latter, often leaving those in the middle in a precarious position. As America trends toward a majority of tax-filers who pay little or no federal income tax - currently about half - we increase the point where they are incentivized to vote for those who promise to "spread the wealth," not by making them more productive but by eating the rich. Those in the middle are invariably shoved closer to the bottom because there just isn't enough wealth - and never could be - to satisfy the needs and demands of the bottom half.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." - A.F. Tytler

what country are you talking about???

 

[WillowTree]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

What is the definition of Fair? Not that I disagree but fair is ambiguous and fluid. Personally, I would say a 5% never to be exceeded fed tax on ALL transactions. If that ain't enough- tough shit.

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

Most excellent responses ... even you OldLady!

Yeah, a flat tax would be the most fair but is likely unfeasible for the reason OL stated. We could use as few as 3 levels of taxation - say 20%, 30%, and 40% - but must get rid of other fed income taxes including SS.

We'd definitely need a constitutional amendment to end WashDC deficit spending.

A fair flat tax has no levels. One percentage of tax for absolutely everyone no matter the source of income. That would absolutely stop those who pay zero tax from demanding that the rich pay more. The rich will always pay more but now now the welfare crowd will stop shouting for higher taxes. They don’t like paying taxes only spending them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Regressive taxes are anything but fair.

 

[Gdjjr]

We'd definitely need a constitutional amendment to end WashDC deficit spending.

Careful what you wish for- most legislators are lawyers or have them at their disposal which leads to extremely verbose laws with a lot of ambiguity and you can bet that an amendment to the constitution would'nt turn out the way you want it-
There is a simpler way. Always vote against the incumbent. A.L.W.A.Y.S. - at some point the message served will be recognized.

 

[MarathonMike]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

The very wealthy can afford the most clever tax lawyers. If we replaced income tax with a sales tax, the very wealthy would not be able to avoid the tax. The downside could be the poor being disproportionately affected by the tax on items they have to buy. IMO it will never happen because there is a huge industry built around the tax code and congress is full of lawyers who will protect it.

 

[ReinyDays]

As a rule of thumb, only about 200 pages of the tax code apply to us 99%'ers ... the other 18,000 pages are for the wealthiest 1% ...

The problem is that the only people that can initiate a change to this are the very people who benefit the most from the way things are ... Congress will not send out a Constitutional amendment to the States to correct this ... a flaw in the Constitution? ...

We tried to fix this in the 1980's ... but every Congress since has added new write-offs for their campaign contributors ... roughly $10 back for every $1 donated ... c.f. Citizens United vs Federal Elections Commission ...

Ha ha ha ha ... Citizens United is a tax-exempt 501(c)4 corporation ... too funny ...

 

[OldLady]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

a fair flat tax of 25% means the rich will always pay more than the poor.

Holy shit. 25% and then on top of it state taxes and FICA and Medicare tax and ..... That's a little steep, isn't it, for someone like me who pays 12% now?

 

[ReinyDays]

The very wealthy can afford the most clever tax lawyers. If we replaced income tax with a sales tax, the very wealthy would not be able to avoid the tax. The downside could be the poor being disproportionately affected by the tax on items they have to buy. IMO it will never happen because there is a huge industry built around the tax code and congress is full of lawyers who will protect it.

First thing, GE gets an exemption for sales of jet engines ... Exxon gets an exemption for fossil fuels ... IBM for computers ... etc etc etc ... 18,000 pages of exemptions in a quick hurry ...

 

[WillowTree]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

a fair flat tax of 25% means the rich will always pay more than the poor.

Holy shit. 25% and then on top of it state taxes and FICA and Medicare tax and ..... That's a little steep, isn't it, for someone like me who pays 12% now?

No, if you expect others to pay high taxes it’s only fair that you do it too. If 25% is too high for you then pick a number you like but apply it to absolutely everyone and remember, no matter the percentage rate the rich will always pay more than you do. Fair Flat Tax.

 

[WillowTree]

The very wealthy can afford the most clever tax lawyers. If we replaced income tax with a sales tax, the very wealthy would not be able to avoid the tax. The downside could be the poor being disproportionately affected by the tax on items they have to buy. IMO it will never happen because there is a huge industry built around the tax code and congress is full of lawyers who will protect it.

First thing, GE gets an exemption for sales of jet engines ... Exxon gets an exemption for fossil fuels ... IBM for computers ... etc etc etc ... 18,000 pages of exemptions in a quick hurry ...

No exemptions, no exceptions, no excuses.

 

[progressive hunter]

That is why a fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go. Everyone no matter the source of income has skin in the game!

I've heard this mentioned before. Cruz promoted it in '16. Would we lose tax$$ from the rich, though, if there wasn't a higher tax on them?

a fair flat tax of 25% means the rich will always pay more than the poor.

Holy shit. 25% and then on top of it state taxes and FICA and Medicare tax and ..... That's a little steep, isn't it, for someone like me who pays 12% now?

No, if you expect others to pay high taxes it’s only fair that you do it too. If 25% is too high for you then pick a number you like but apply it to absolutely everyone and remember, no matter the percentage rate the rich will always pay more than you do. Fair Flat Tax.

god only wanted 10% so why does the government need more???

 

[OldLady]

We'd definitely need a constitutional amendment to end WashDC deficit spending.

Careful what you wish for- most legislators are lawyers or have them at their disposal which leads to extremely verbose laws with a lot of ambiguity and you can bet that an amendment to the constitution would'nt turn out the way you want it-
There is a simpler way. Always vote against the incumbent. A.L.W.A.Y.S. - at some point the message served will be recognized.

I don't think have a Congress full of perpetual newbies would really serve us that well.