Where do we draw the line?

[rightwinger]

Good argument for a flat income tax rate, isn't it?

Sure, and keep all those tax breaks?

Go ahead, try to put a flat income tax rate without any breaks for the rich. See how fast it fails to pass.

99% of the tax code provides breaks for the rich. The working poor has no way to hide income. Their salary gets reported, their deductions are their children and their mortgage. No way to hide anything.
Lay a flat 15% on everything with ALL deductions thrown out. Watch how much the rich would have to pay

 

[MarcATL]

LoLing @ the idea of dividing the budget and having everyone pay equally for it.

Why not divide the total amount of money made and dole it equally to everyone whilte you're at it?

 

[alan1]

LoLing @ the idea of dividing the budget and having everyone pay equally for it.

Why not divide the total amount of money made and dole it equally to everyone whilte you're at it?

I didn't realize you were a socialist moron.

 

[Samuel Adams]

This country and this forum is loaded with socialist morons.

 

[asaratis]

Good argument for a flat income tax rate, isn't it?

Sure, and keep all those tax breaks?

Go ahead, try to put a flat income tax rate without any breaks for the rich. See how fast it fails to pass.

And without any for the poor.

Why not the Fair Tax?

Then the government has no need to know anyone's income, everybody pays taxes (including drug dealers, prostitutes, strippers, gamblers, illegal aliens, foreign visitors, ...) on all new purchases. The poor get a check for the amount of tax they would pay to survive.

What could be wrong with that? (Besides putting a lot of lawyers and accountants out to look for more work...)

 

[Polk]

This nation never went to war over a 3% tax

They went to war over a lack of representation. We the people have elected our representatives to take care of our interests. Anyone who is not satisfied is free to vote the offenders out of office. Yet we continue to reelect the same people.

That was just a cover because you know people were just pissed off about being taxed so they came up with some excuse why they shouldn't like "no taxation without representation".

We were still taxed after the war.

Actually the reason for the 3% tax was to pay for the Brittish troops assigned to protect the Colonials from the Indians

At least, that's what the British claimed. However, most of the troops were based in the large cities along the coast. If the goal was defense against native raids, it would have made more sense to station them in bases along the frontier.

 

[Polk]

There was once a day that people in this nation went to war over a 3% tax. What's it going to take for our soft society to say "enough is enough"?

During the 50's and 60's, the tax rate was between 75 and 90% for the very wealthy. During that time, a CEO would make 10 to 20 times the lowest paid person at his company.

Now, CEO's make two the three HUNDRED times what the lowest paid person makes. AND a billionaire such as Warren Buffet points out that, percentage wise, he pays less taxes on his multi hundred million dollar income than his secretary who makes only 50 grand.

Republicans have been tools of the rich for years. They have no clue who pays for the wars they want more of. It's the party of Fools.

Good argument for a flat income tax rate, isn't it?

Which would make his taxes even lower, because while you claim to support a flat income tax rate, what you really support is a flat tax rate on wage income.

 

[Polk]

And without any for the poor.

You seem to think the poor would be your biggest problem in trying to get this passed. The rich aren't going to lay down and let their breaks be taken away to put in a flat tax rate.

Question is, are you going to tax everyone no matter what the income?

Don't presume to tell me what I think.

How about this for a tax code,
Take the budget, divide it equally among every citizen and make each one pay the exact same amount. Hopefully for you, your parents can pay your share, since you aren't gainfully employed or paying taxes yet.

That's not a flat rate...

 

[Polk]

Sure, and keep all those tax breaks?

Go ahead, try to put a flat income tax rate without any breaks for the rich. See how fast it fails to pass.

And without any for the poor.

Why not the Fair Tax?

Then the government has no need to know anyone's income, everybody pays taxes (including drug dealers, prostitutes, strippers, gamblers, illegal aliens, foreign visitors, ...) on all new purchases. The poor get a check for the amount of tax they would pay to survive.

What could be wrong with that? (Besides putting a lot of lawyers and accountants out to look for more work...)

It would result in a huge transfer of income from the poor to the wealthy.

 

[alan1]

During the 50's and 60's, the tax rate was between 75 and 90% for the very wealthy. During that time, a CEO would make 10 to 20 times the lowest paid person at his company.

Now, CEO's make two the three HUNDRED times what the lowest paid person makes. AND a billionaire such as Warren Buffet points out that, percentage wise, he pays less taxes on his multi hundred million dollar income than his secretary who makes only 50 grand.

Republicans have been tools of the rich for years. They have no clue who pays for the wars they want more of. It's the party of Fools.

Good argument for a flat income tax rate, isn't it?

Which would make his taxes even lower, because while you claim to support a flat income tax rate, what you really support is a flat tax rate on wage income.

Nice to see that at least one person realized that the Warren Buffet argument is a biased and flawed one. I grow weary of hearing it. I suppose you do as well.
Now, explain again what I support, since you seem to think you have internet clairvoyance.

 

[Polk]

Good argument for a flat income tax rate, isn't it?

Which would make his taxes even lower, because while you claim to support a flat income tax rate, what you really support is a flat tax rate on wage income.

Nice to see that at least one person realized that the Warren Buffet argument is a biased and flawed one. I grow weary of hearing it. I suppose you do as well.

Buffett's argument isn't flawed. He making the accurate point that different forms of income are treated very differently under the law.

 

[alan1]

You seem to think the poor would be your biggest problem in trying to get this passed. The rich aren't going to lay down and let their breaks be taken away to put in a flat tax rate.

Question is, are you going to tax everyone no matter what the income?

Don't presume to tell me what I think.

How about this for a tax code,
Take the budget, divide it equally among every citizen and make each one pay the exact same amount. Hopefully for you, your parents can pay your share, since you aren't gainfully employed or paying taxes yet.

That's not a flat rate...

So do I or don't I support a flat rate?
Use your internet clairvoyance to figure it out.

 

[alan1]

Which would make his taxes even lower, because while you claim to support a flat income tax rate, what you really support is a flat tax rate on wage income.

Nice to see that at least one person realized that the Warren Buffet argument is a biased and flawed one. I grow weary of hearing it. I suppose you do as well.

Buffett's argument isn't flawed. He making the accurate point that different forms of income are treated very differently under the law.

I didn't say Buffet's argument, I said "The Warren Buffet argument", you know, the argument the idiot that cited it used.

 

[Polk]

Don't presume to tell me what I think.

How about this for a tax code,
Take the budget, divide it equally among every citizen and make each one pay the exact same amount. Hopefully for you, your parents can pay your share, since you aren't gainfully employed or paying taxes yet.

That's not a flat rate...

So do I or don't I support a flat rate?
Use your internet clairvoyance to figure it out.

You don't. You support a flat tax rate on wage income. If someone suggesting taxing capital gains like income is taxed, you'd howl at the moon.

 

[alan1]

That's not a flat rate...

So do I or don't I support a flat rate?
Use your internet clairvoyance to figure it out.

You don't. You support a flat tax rate on wage income. If someone suggesting taxing capital gains like income is taxed, you'd howl at the moon.

Thanks for giving me my opinion.
What would I do without your counsel?

 

[rdean]

And without any for the poor.

You seem to think the poor would be your biggest problem in trying to get this passed. The rich aren't going to lay down and let their breaks be taken away to put in a flat tax rate.

Question is, are you going to tax everyone no matter what the income?

We already do. Everythime you buy anything at the store, you pay taxes on it.

How come everyone wants to defend the rich?

 

[alan1]

And without any for the poor.

You seem to think the poor would be your biggest problem in trying to get this passed. The rich aren't going to lay down and let their breaks be taken away to put in a flat tax rate.

Question is, are you going to tax everyone no matter what the income?

We already do. Everythime you buy anything at the store, you pay taxes on it.

How come everyone wants to defend the rich?

I'd rather defend everybody and become rich than defend only the poor and become poor.

 

[saveliberty]

And without any for the poor.

You seem to think the poor would be your biggest problem in trying to get this passed. The rich aren't going to lay down and let their breaks be taken away to put in a flat tax rate.

Question is, are you going to tax everyone no matter what the income?

We already do. Everythime you buy anything at the store, you pay taxes on it.

How come everyone wants to defend the rich?

EVERYONE is not defending the rich. Instead of ridiculous generalizations, perhaps you can answer this question. Why does rdean feel it is acceptable to tax people at different rates and in different tax systems (sales, income and so on)?

 

[jeffrockit]

There was once a day that people in this nation went to war over a 3% tax. What's it going to take for our soft society to say "enough is enough"?

Now, CEO's make two the three HUNDRED times what the lowest paid person makes. AND a billionaire such as Warren Buffet points out that, percentage wise, he pays less taxes on his multi hundred million dollar income than his secretary who makes only 50 grand.

That is not what Buffet said. What he said was that his tax rate was lower than his secretary. Big difference as there is no way he pays less taxes than her but the misquote feeds into the wealth envy this country has.