joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I thought the whole idea of a flat income tax was regressive and was punitive on those in the middle and lower classes?
Same with a Federal sales tax.
Before you blow up, let me say, I agree with you. I've stated support for closing ALL loopholes in the tax code. Don't dink and dunk with loopholes that they think only effect "the rich." Close 'em all. That's fair, isn't it?
A flat income tax is fair, isn't it? We pay a percentage, each according to income, it distributes the burden equally, no?
I would never blow up at someone who agrees or disagrees with me, I am not that shallow. I can disagree amicably and even see another point of view. I feel that if more people could do that, politics would be a little easier of a process to get things done.
I agree it's fair.
The argument, though, is that X% of $40k is much carries a greater impact than X% of $250k. That is, if you're only making $40k, you have less disposable income afterwards, compared to those who make more.
I'm more into a consumption tax, with just a handful of exemptions (charities and foods only, for the most part). That way, the less money you have, the less money you're likely to spend, and the less taxes you pay. With food being exempt from taxation, that "necessity" won't have as great an impact on the budget of those who make less. Those who make a lot more, tend to spend a lot more, so they'll pay a lot more in taxes. It also collects taxes from people who do cash business and don't report it. They are still going to spend that money, so, they pay taxes.
And, yes, amicable disagreement would be a much better way to go about things.
I've seen twenty-seven different 'flat taxes' over the years and many times that in variations. All of them share two things in common:
A ) Never well defined.
Most of the tax ideas are light on definitions and 'meat', and heavy on philosophy. They all hate the IRS and the current tax system. All of them state this 'new and improved' system will be easier on the wallet and simplier to handle on the individual level and the national budget. Basically, sunshine, kittens, rainbows, and fields of flowers. Reality however, demands...DETAILS....
How much exactly does a person pay? How much of the national budget has to be removed for it all to work?
The first question is glossed over in many of these flat tax ideas. Between 2-14% of one's gross earnings are taxed. The smaller the better it seems to work in conservative circles. Unfortunately, the second question is where all of these 'plans' fail. The federal budget would not just have to be cut in half from its current total, it would have to be filed down to 19-28% of its current total. In other words, to make the flat tax a reality, the country's economy would immediately fail, pushing the nation into a Grand Depression that laughs at The Great Depression's effects on the nation. The United States basically collapses into a third world nation within six months flat. So if you want to know why we have not switched to such a system yet? There is the 'simple' answer...
B ) Pushed by the Super Rich and the Colossal Stupid.
The colossal stupid, or 'Low Information Voters' want a simple tax system because the current system is way to complicated and complex for them. They need things simple (like 2nd grade simple), as anything complicated hurts their brains. This group would sell its own soul if it meant getting a simple tax system. Or for that matter, a simple government.
The Super Rich on the other hand, have EVERYTHING to gain for any of the flat tax ideas. Since only a tiny portion of their gross income is taxed. And the amount that is taxed is simply paid off with good investments. Which is to say, they never have to worry about taxes again. Unlike the Middle Class and Poor, 7% of gross income is nothing to the super rich. They can live off 50% of their income and still have a huge pile of cash for disposable income/investing. 7% of $60K/year for a family of 4 is one thing; at 15% its harsh. For the same numbers, with $400,000/year, 7% is not felt, and 15% is only felt a tiny bit. The super rich (or 1%'ers) motives should ALWAYS be examined. Most of they are not looking out for all Americans but just themselves. And they have the money to hire people and organizations to attempt to change your view on things without you realizing it!
|
RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread