As pointed before, the problem with flat taxes is that the burden is greater for those at the lower end of the spectrum. It has been pointed before. While no one can argue that the person earning 1,000,000 will pay more in taxes than the person earning 10,000, the higher earner is left with considerably more. I believe that the best system would have a bracketed system like we currently have, but it should also include some portion that one must pay regardless of deductions. Or the elimination of most deductions and loopholes in conjuction with a lowering of rates. Everybody should be able to deduct an amount equal to the poverty line. After that, it's taxed.
The tax system is broken in this country. There are regressive taxes everywhere that are not included into the numbers that the middle class pays in income tax. Meanwhile, the upper brackets escape from these taxes or they do not affect them as much. I have seen numbers when they are all added together that show the average middle class person paying up to 30% to the federal government! And when you add state taxes ontop of this its a miracle anyone can put food on the table, put their kids through college and own a home. Meanwhile the upper brackets find shelter after shelter for their income. Their contributions to some government programs are income capped, forcing the little guy to pay the lion's share...Take a look at the book "Nickled and Dimed to Death" and you'll see just how badly the middle class is getting screwed in this country.
This has got to stop. We need to burn this system to the ground and install something that everyone can understand, something that treats everyone equally and holds everyone equally accountable rich and poor. Then and only then can we can talk about what we actually want to fund for government services.
Take a look at what this would do for MN. As it stands now, there are huge loopholes that have allowed corporations, which are just groups of people, to shelter large portions of their income. They are setting up one room offices in other countries and claiming that they have off shore bases and the state is losing millions in revenue. If we closed all of the loopholes and slammed one rate down that everyone had to pay, that money would come pouring in.
I think that we are underestimating just how much taxes the upper bracket slide away from. I own a martial arts studio as a side business and I just cracked a threshold of income that puts me into the business owner catagory. I can now write off my vehicles because I use them for traveling to tournaments and for further training. I can write off any expenses I pay for further training including hotel rooms, food, and fees. I can write off my house because I have a space inside of it where I train students and where I can practice my own skills. Anything, Bucket, anything, if I can tie it to my business, I can write it off.
Now I want you to imagine a person like my uncle, who made 33 million dollars in three months from his investments. He has an office in his mansion, takes business clients on business trips in one of his four boats, uses all of his vehicles...the lexus, the escalade and the porche to travel for this business. Ect...
I am just learning about this so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of it, but, I believe that if these kind of things exist for me, that and more exist for someone like my uncle. Its absolutely rediculous and the average joe is getting screwed beyond all belief.
Closing ALL loopholes and slamming down a flat tax rate fixes this problem, in my humble opinion.
This has got to stop. We need to burn this system to the ground and install something that everyone can understand, something that treats everyone equally and holds everyone equally accountable rich and poor. Then and only then can we can talk about what we actually want to fund for government services.
Take a look at what this would do for MN. As it stands now, there are huge loopholes that have allowed corporations, which are just groups of people, to shelter large portions of their income. They are setting up one room offices in other countries and claiming that they have off shore bases and the state is losing millions in revenue. If we closed all of the loopholes and slammed one rate down that everyone had to pay, that money would come pouring in.
I think that we are underestimating just how much taxes the upper bracket slide away from. I own a martial arts studio as a side business and I just cracked a threshold of income that puts me into the business owner catagory. I can now write off my vehicles because I use them for traveling to tournaments and for further training. I can write off any expenses I pay for further training including hotel rooms, food, and fees. I can write off my house because I have a space inside of it where I train students and where I can practice my own skills. Anything, Bucket, anything, if I can tie it to my business, I can write it off.
Now I want you to imagine a person like my uncle, who made 33 million dollars in three months from his investments. He has an office in his mansion, takes business clients on business trips in one of his four boats, uses all of his vehicles...the lexus, the escalade and the porche to travel for this business. Ect...
I am just learning about this so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of it, but, I believe that if these kind of things exist for me, that and more exist for someone like my uncle. Its absolutely rediculous and the average joe is getting screwed beyond all belief.
Closing ALL loopholes and slamming down a flat tax rate fixes this problem, in my humble opinion.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
This report from the CNN website:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/11/news/economy/election_bush_tax.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
This leads me to believe a 2nd Bush term has no ideas which should be considered more seriously than this late season despiration pitch.
Also, it is convenient that Bush is only willing to 'explore seriously' the idea of abandoning the IRS after primary season. A primary season, by the way, in which many of the Republican primaries were cancelled. Taking away the right to vote for many Republicans across the country.
Mike
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/11/news/economy/election_bush_tax.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
I find it interesting that it is being considered as part of the second term this late in the election cycle ... less than 100 days to the election, and they are only now talking about 'seriously' exploring the idea.
This leads me to believe a 2nd Bush term has no ideas which should be considered more seriously than this late season despiration pitch.
Also, it is convenient that Bush is only willing to 'explore seriously' the idea of abandoning the IRS after primary season. A primary season, by the way, in which many of the Republican primaries were cancelled. Taking away the right to vote for many Republicans across the country.
Mike
OP
PeachMonkey
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #44
Closing loopholes is a potentially laudable idea, but we've already covered, ad nauseum, just how bad a flat tax rate is for everyone except the wealthy.upnorthkyosa said:
OP
PeachMonkey
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #45
More fun information on why replacing income and other taxes with a national sales tax is completely moronic:
Estimates Show 60% Sales Tax Needed:
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/gale/20040812.htm
Even a Pro-Social-Security-Privitization Republican Group Has Data On Sales Tax Insanity:
http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040809bb.htm
Estimates Show 60% Sales Tax Needed:
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/gale/20040812.htm
Even a Pro-Social-Security-Privitization Republican Group Has Data On Sales Tax Insanity:
http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040809bb.htm
PeachMonkey
I'm not totally sold for or against a flat tax. The only way I would even consider it is if all loopholes were slammed shut and all regressive taxes were eliminated. There would be no income capped taxes, no more sales tax, or user fees. I wonder if that would balance the system out?
upnorthkyosa
I'm not totally sold for or against a flat tax. The only way I would even consider it is if all loopholes were slammed shut and all regressive taxes were eliminated. There would be no income capped taxes, no more sales tax, or user fees. I wonder if that would balance the system out?
upnorthkyosa
OP
PeachMonkey
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #47
The thing is, flat taxes are *inherently* regressive. Take a second to think about it, using a completely pulled-out-of-my-rear-end percentage of 20%.upnorthkyosa said:
If you tax a preschool teacher making $20K (not that many make anything like that much, but what the heck) 20% of her income, she takes home 16K to pay bills, consume like a good capitalist worker bee, and save (har har).
If you tax Billy Bigwig who makes $100 million a year 20% of his income, he takes home... wait for it... $80 million dollars.
The gap here between what both people need to spend to survive and what they have left over should illustrate to you the inherently regressive nature of such a taxation scheme.
Now, of course, I'm sure we'll see the question: "Why should wealthy people pay a higher percentage? That's not fair."
At the risk of over-simplifying thousands of years of societal development, historic progress, and simple social justice, here's why:
The wealthy can afford to be taxed far more and still retain all the monetary advantages of being rich and special. Moreover, since those wealthy people who actually *earned* their wealth rather than inheriting it or winning it did so because of the advantages provided by our society, they have a responsibility to contribute to said society in proportion to their success.
:cheers: Well said.
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #49
What can one expect?
The whole point of abolishing the IRS has absolutely nothing to do with fairness, improving the economy, or any of the other claptrap that Bush and his cronies--and the idiot libertarians--keep bringing up.
It has to do with abolishing any and all regulatory controls on what the swine are up to, and with abolishing any and all social justice.
Just think of it. No FDA. No EPA. No Social Security, Head Start, Congesssional Budget Office...no monitoring of Wall Street. No CDC.
Bush and his cronies--the guys who brought us Enron and Iran/Contra and ITT/Chile--free, free at last, Great God Almighty, they's free at last.
Gee, what a nifty idea. Especially given the ongoing oppression of Texas oil millionaires.
And after all, we all KNOW how much this would benefit working people.
The whole point of abolishing the IRS has absolutely nothing to do with fairness, improving the economy, or any of the other claptrap that Bush and his cronies--and the idiot libertarians--keep bringing up.
It has to do with abolishing any and all regulatory controls on what the swine are up to, and with abolishing any and all social justice.
Just think of it. No FDA. No EPA. No Social Security, Head Start, Congesssional Budget Office...no monitoring of Wall Street. No CDC.
Bush and his cronies--the guys who brought us Enron and Iran/Contra and ITT/Chile--free, free at last, Great God Almighty, they's free at last.
Gee, what a nifty idea. Especially given the ongoing oppression of Texas oil millionaires.
And after all, we all KNOW how much this would benefit working people.
A lot of people forget that FICA (medicare and social security), user fees, and sales taxes are also taxes. When all of these taxes are added into what the middle class pays, the percentage rises dramatically. Meahwhile, the upper brackets find all of these loopholes to weasle out of their social responsibility. The IRS claims that the upper brackets pay 33%. The Center for Tax Reform shows that, after all of the deductions and loopholes, this figure is more around 3%.
Take a look at some of the numbers. First of all, social security is taxed at around 6.5%. This number is capped at 87,500 dollars. Every dollar above that figure reduces the percentage. At one million dollars this figure approaches nill. This goes the same with medicare, user fees and sales taxes. And ALL of these are sneaky ways the government has shifted the tax burden to the middle class.
Lets go back to your flat rate of 20%. The middle class is already paying more then this when everything is added in. The upper brackets are FAR below this after all of the deductions and loopholes. Tax reform in this fashion would hand some suprising tax bills to the middle class and the upper brackets. The tax pyramid would finally be reversed and all Americans would finally pay what they owe. The upper brackets would pay more and they would pay at the same rate as the lower brackets, taking away their ability to complain.
A flat tax rate (and reform) would lower taxes on the middle class and effectively hand the upper brackets a 17% tax increase. What do you think?
upnorthkyosa
Take a look at some of the numbers. First of all, social security is taxed at around 6.5%. This number is capped at 87,500 dollars. Every dollar above that figure reduces the percentage. At one million dollars this figure approaches nill. This goes the same with medicare, user fees and sales taxes. And ALL of these are sneaky ways the government has shifted the tax burden to the middle class.
Lets go back to your flat rate of 20%. The middle class is already paying more then this when everything is added in. The upper brackets are FAR below this after all of the deductions and loopholes. Tax reform in this fashion would hand some suprising tax bills to the middle class and the upper brackets. The tax pyramid would finally be reversed and all Americans would finally pay what they owe. The upper brackets would pay more and they would pay at the same rate as the lower brackets, taking away their ability to complain.
A flat tax rate (and reform) would lower taxes on the middle class and effectively hand the upper brackets a 17% tax increase. What do you think?
upnorthkyosa
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Still against it ... Still regressive.upnorthkyosa said:
Certainly, there are other ways to clean up the discrepencies you point to (eliminate the cap on FICA & Medicare contributions - tax dividends as income - restore the Estate Tax).
And I am concerned that, while the original discussion may include the elimination of all federal taxes in favor of a National Sales Tax on goods and services (doctor visits), during negotiations the IRS is eliminated, but FICA and other ancillary taxes are not. So we end up with the worst of both worlds.
Mike
Brother John
Senior Master
THAT is exactly IT!!!!JAGMD said:
Thanks for bringing this forth.
Your Brother
John
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #53
Waaal, ah don't know much 'bout no tax code. And them eck-o-nomics....but I do have one teeny question.
What exactly is it, anywhere in the careers of President Bush and Dick Cheney, that you find such convincing proof of their deep commitment to helping ordinary people? Where precisely is it that you see so much as anything that they have done, at any point, to help working people?
In other words, where exactly is all this faith that these guys wanna revise the tax system Just To Help Us Out coming from?
By the way--the reason that your student loans are so hard to pay off is that, under Reagan, a) the interest rates were increased radically (my college loans were at 2%; my grad school loans cost around 4%), b) grant programs got cut; c) the tax code was changed so that, for example, tuition wavers were for the first time counted as income. And back then, incidentally, you did not have to pay for a parking permit on National Forest land. Hm.
But I'm sure these guys Know What's Best.
What exactly is it, anywhere in the careers of President Bush and Dick Cheney, that you find such convincing proof of their deep commitment to helping ordinary people? Where precisely is it that you see so much as anything that they have done, at any point, to help working people?
In other words, where exactly is all this faith that these guys wanna revise the tax system Just To Help Us Out coming from?
By the way--the reason that your student loans are so hard to pay off is that, under Reagan, a) the interest rates were increased radically (my college loans were at 2%; my grad school loans cost around 4%), b) grant programs got cut; c) the tax code was changed so that, for example, tuition wavers were for the first time counted as income. And back then, incidentally, you did not have to pay for a parking permit on National Forest land. Hm.
But I'm sure these guys Know What's Best.
