User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:43:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure students working part time would love that too. I'f the tax was only $1,500/yr, someone making 7.50 an hour would have to work 40 hrs a week for 5 weeks just to pay taxes. Not my problem.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:44:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I disagree with your premise. A straight flat percentage would be the fairest we are likely to get. Since the poor pay no taxes and the more money you make the bigger percentage you pay...... That being said I think the fairest option would be to have a flat tax on purchases and not income. Then anyone who saves their money is not penalized. Then you if purchase an economy car you pay a flat 10 percent or if someone wants to buy a multi million dollar yacht they pay a flat 10 percent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? While I disagree with your premise. A straight flat percentage would be the fairest we are likely to get. Since the poor pay no taxes and the more money you make the bigger percentage you pay...... That being said I think the fairest option would be to have a flat tax on purchases and not income. Then anyone who saves their money is not penalized. Then you if purchase an economy car you pay a flat 10 percent or if someone wants to buy a multi million dollar yacht they pay a flat 10 percent. My premise is the same as yours flat tax percentage on consumption. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:45:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Percentage, everyone pays the same percentage. Percentages are the ultimate in fair when talking about wages of conceivably infinite variations. If everyone pays 20% of whatever pot of money in the same category ...... then they equally lose 20% of that money. If it is a fixed flat sum of $, then people who have vastly more than that pay an effective lower percentage of the total amount of money in that category. People who have less available wealth will pay a higher percentage of the available money in that category. The only way to have things be fair/equal is to do it on a percentage. So if 20 people put an apple in a basket, it is not fair, but if some of the people must place 5 or 10 apples in the basket, and others half an apple, that is a fair distribution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:47:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No income tax, no consumption tax, no capital gains tax. Everyone pays the same dollar amount. I fucking guarantee government would be a fraction of the size it is today. This is true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:47:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think percentage is fair. 10% or what ever, is fair. It's still 10%. My way would work like this. Under poverty level 5% Above poverty level 10% Above a million 15% Above a Billion 20% Everyone has some skin in the game. I would rather it be set at say $2000.00 for all adults over the age of 18.... Or rather a consumption tax.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:48:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good question. Imagine this: we have a cost of government. We divide that cost by the number of eligible taxpayers (assume all able adults age 18 to 60 - this is an illustration - don't get stuck on the numbers). That is the individual tax burden per taxpayer, no percentage required, and theoretically more "fair" than a percentage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Good question. Imagine this: we have a cost of government. We divide that cost by the number of eligible taxpayers (assume all able adults age 18 to 60 - this is an illustration - don't get stuck on the numbers). That is the individual tax burden per taxpayer, no percentage required, and theoretically more "fair" than a percentage. This is the point I was getting to make that went right over a lot of people's heads |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:51:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would rather it be set at say $2000.00 for all adults over the age of 18.... Or rather a consumption tax.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think percentage is fair. 10% or what ever, is fair. It's still 10%. My way would work like this. Under poverty level 5% Above poverty level 10% Above a million 15% Above a Billion 20% Everyone has some skin in the game. I would rather it be set at say $2000.00 for all adults over the age of 18.... Or rather a consumption tax.... In ancient times, a poll tax was normal. This was a static amount per head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:52:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the point I was getting to make that went right over a lot of people's heads Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Good question. Imagine this: we have a cost of government. We divide that cost by the number of eligible taxpayers (assume all able adults age 18 to 60 - this is an illustration - don't get stuck on the numbers). That is the individual tax burden per taxpayer, no percentage required, and theoretically more "fair" than a percentage. This is the point I was getting to make that went right over a lot of people's heads Of course it did. Most people are linear thinkers. Also, they vote. God help us all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:56:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the point I was getting to make that went right over a lot of people's heads Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Good question. Imagine this: we have a cost of government. We divide that cost by the number of eligible taxpayers (assume all able adults age 18 to 60 - this is an illustration - don't get stuck on the numbers). That is the individual tax burden per taxpayer, no percentage required, and theoretically more "fair" than a percentage. This is the point I was getting to make that went right over a lot of people's heads Incidentally that comes to about $12k per person in this country, assuming 300 million citizens and $3.5 trillion cost of the federal government. This is before the cost of state and local government. Also, it assumes every person can pay taxes. I think the burden per working citizen is realistically more like $40k or so annually. Maybe more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:57:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As stated up thread, the problem with a consumption tax is it would kill the economy and it is to easily avoided through the black market. If it's 50%, sure. If it's kept around 10% (what I pay in TN), then no. The goal shouldn't be to fund the massive government we have today anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 12:59:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Nothing could be more fair than a flat tax.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:01:09 AM EDT
[#12]
Just to cover the Military Budget, the current tax would be $2,700 /person/year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:13:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think percentage is fair. 10% or what ever, is fair. It's still 10%. My way would work like this. Under poverty level 5% Above poverty level 10% Above a million 15% Above a Billion 20% Everyone has some skin in the game. So a progressive tax just like what we have then? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:15:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it's 50%, sure. If it's kept around 10% (what I pay in TN), then no. The goal shouldn't be to fund the massive government we have today anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As stated up thread, the problem with a consumption tax is it would kill the economy and it is to easily avoided through the black market. If it's 50%, sure. If it's kept around 10% (what I pay in TN), then no. The goal shouldn't be to fund the massive government we have today anyway. Why can't the goal be to stop funding the massive govt we have today, today. Why do you think collecting less in taxes will make Washington decrease their spending? It won't, they'll just charge the difference. If the plan is to tax all goods an additional 10%, why not just an 8% flat income tax. It's harder to avoid and cheat, so people will actually have to pay it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:23:31 AM EDT
[#15]
They have to spread the taxes out, income, sales, property, license fees, business, payroll, security, etc ad infinitum. If they only had one tax the rate would be astronomical and people would work around it. 120% sales tax anyone? Yeah, you want to know how black markets are created, that's how black markets are created.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:28:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? So the ultra wealthy should have more say over how things run because they pay more? I'm not talking about what DOES happen, I'm referring to what SHOULD happen - philosophically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:31:27 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing could be more fair than a flat tax. A straight flat tax not based on percentage then yes... So $12000 a person... Oh that's too much? Well them get rid of welfare and other entitlements and it will come down.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:31:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just to cover the Military Budget, the current tax would be $2,700 /person/year. Which a lot less than. I am paying now.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:31:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Because they aren't receiving/utilizing the same same services. The rich man has his savings "insured" at 10 different banks, the poor man has no savings. The poor person's food gets hauled in on the interstate, the rich man drags his RV down that same road. Why should a working stiff have to pay the same amount of protection money for a double wide, as the rich man does for his mansion? The ultimate in fair taxes would be to base them entirely on use fees. But that system would be so convoluted as to be untenable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 1:41:30 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why can't the goal be to stop funding the massive govt we have today, today. Why do you think collecting less in taxes will make Washington decrease their spending? It won't, they'll just charge the difference. If the plan is to tax all goods an additional 10%, why not just an 8% flat income tax. It's harder to avoid and cheat, so people will actually have to pay it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it's 50%, sure. If it's kept around 10% (what I pay in TN), then no. The goal shouldn't be to fund the massive government we have today anyway. Why can't the goal be to stop funding the massive govt we have today, today. Why do you think collecting less in taxes will make Washington decrease their spending? It won't, they'll just charge the difference. If the plan is to tax all goods an additional 10%, why not just an 8% flat income tax. It's harder to avoid and cheat, so people will actually have to pay it. You don't get a choice on how much money you give the government with an income tax. Other than basic living expenses (which vary), the consumption tax allows you to decide how much you want to pay in taxes. Black markets already exist with our current income tax system and illegals aren't paying income tax today (they will with a consumption tax though). I don't think the consumption tax will drastically reduce gov revenue, but if they're gonna overspend anyway we might as well give them less to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 2:54:43 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I disagree with your premise. A straight flat percentage would be the fairest we are likely to get. Since the poor pay no taxes and the more money you make the bigger percentage you pay...... That being said I think the fairest option would be to have a flat tax on purchases and not income. Then anyone who saves their money is not penalized. Then you if purchase an economy car you pay a flat 10 percent or if someone wants to buy a multi million dollar yacht they pay a flat 10 percent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? While I disagree with your premise. A straight flat percentage would be the fairest we are likely to get. Since the poor pay no taxes and the more money you make the bigger percentage you pay...... That being said I think the fairest option would be to have a flat tax on purchases and not income. Then anyone who saves their money is not penalized. Then you if purchase an economy car you pay a flat 10 percent or if someone wants to buy a multi million dollar yacht they pay a flat 10 percent. How would that avoid double and even tripple taxation on some items. You buy a house...taxed Builder builds house...taxed on materials And so on down the line... If taxes are paid every time an item changes hands, you pay taxes over and over on the same item. Picture one nail used on that house. How many times it is taxed up to where the final owner gets it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 3:57:11 AM EDT
[#22]
I don't think OP understands the difference between "amount" and "rate".
equal rate: 10% of 10,000 = $1,000 10% of 100,000 = $10,000 or equal amount: $1,000 out of $10,000 = 10% $1,000 out of $100,000 = 1% say what you mean, mean what you say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 8:06:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Taxes are supposed to be clean and simple.
"Income" taxes are based on a conceptual accounting term; there is no way to apply it equally. Income taxes also don't make any sense. A trade of labor for dollars is an even exchange. Income taxes implicitly value all labor at zero. In general, there should be very little or no "direct taxes." Taxes should be indirect, like sales taxes, usage fees, value-added taxes, and excise taxes. The more productive society is, the more tax revenue the .gov gets. What we have today is a lot of direct taxes e.g. written directly to the government. The only thing that stops taxes going higher is risk of revolt. Having direct taxes in general is what creates the opportunity to even ask the question in the OP; without it there would not be a divisive dynamic to taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 8:10:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? You mean like the current system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 8:46:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Flat tax is dumb. If someone is poor their disposable income is significantly less than someone who is a billionaire. That has ramifications because poor spending habits is what enriches the economy. You want them to spend on stuff, not government services who mismanage the money most of the time.
Consumption tax is the only logical tax. When times are good, tax revenue would increase with it, the poor people would be taxed according to consumption which means if they wanted to save, they could, and the ones who are stupid, will be taxed stupidly. The only things that would be exempted from tax would be food and healthcare. The only downside to that tax is that if times were tough and the economy slowed down, the government wouldn't have enough money to fund themselves and they would have to cut services where it is needed or go ridiculously up in debt, which is no different than what is going on today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 8:52:54 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think percentage is fair. 10% or what ever, is fair. It's still 10%. My way would work like this. Under poverty level 5% Above poverty level 10% Above a million 15% Above a Billion 20% Everyone has some skin in the game. this could actually work. it's a way lower burden for everyone under millionaire and billionaire, and a way bigger burden for them, as long as there are ZERO exemptions. everyone pays. no exceptions. the stickler is, "what is income?". salaries are easy, but most rich people don't get salaries, or at least, not very large ones. how would we treat capital gains ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:00:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? So the guy who makes $10,000 should pay $1 to make it more fair? You have to be a Democrat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:09:49 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is giving 10% not equal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because it's unfair to the guy who drives a camry but paid $100,000 in taxes to use the same road you paid $100 for to use while also driving a camry. This is why consumption tax is much better, the guy with the big income can buy a camry if he wishes and pays exactly the same tax as the guy who doesn't have as much money and splurges on a camry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:12:04 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the guy who makes $10,000 should pay $1 to make it more fair? You have to be a Democrat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? So the guy who makes $10,000 should pay $1 to make it more fair? You have to be a Democrat. He didn't say that at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:19:00 AM EDT
[#30]
There shouldn't be an income tax period. There needs to be a federal sales tax, so that every criminal and illegal still pays his fair share.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:21:11 AM EDT
[#31]
I don't understand how someone could think that a flat tax is unfair. Why should some people pay more than others?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:25:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Consumption tax is what you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:26:40 AM EDT
[#33]
If you don't believe a flat tax is fair, it's obvious you flunked basic math in grade school.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:27:39 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? Because $10000 does not equal $1000 Why should one guy have to pay more than the next form the exact same thing? Factor in means tested benefit programs and it gets really infuriating. Even with a flat tax the more you make the more you pay AND the less you get in return. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:31:00 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Abolish the income tax. This. It was unconstitutional to begin with anyway. A consumption tax (fair tax) would be the way to go. For one, it's largely voluntary. You don't wanna pay tax on your food? Grow your own. You don't wanna pay tax to build a home? Harvest your own lumber. Etc. In addition, a fair tax gets paid by everyone. Whores, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, tourists, etc. You can't cheat the fair tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:35:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is giving 10% not equal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? How is giving 10% not equal? For someone living hand to mouth, 10% of their income is the difference between getting by and absolute destitution. For someone with more disposable income it's an inconvenience. It's "fair" but I fail to see the benefit to America of making millions of people homeless and subsequently dependent on the State for survival. Anyway, we should be demanding cuts in spending instead of fighting about who should pay for all the waste and fraud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:36:04 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. It was unconstitutional to begin with anyway. A consumption tax (fair tax) would be the way to go. For one, it's largely voluntary. You don't wanna pay tax on your food? Grow your own. You don't wanna pay tax to build a home? Harvest your own lumber. Etc. In addition, a fair tax gets paid by everyone. Whores, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, tourists, etc. You can't cheat the fair tax. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Abolish the income tax. This. It was unconstitutional to begin with anyway. A consumption tax (fair tax) would be the way to go. For one, it's largely voluntary. You don't wanna pay tax on your food? Grow your own. You don't wanna pay tax to build a home? Harvest your own lumber. Etc. In addition, a fair tax gets paid by everyone. Whores, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, tourists, etc. You can't cheat the fair tax. Correct, as far as i am concerned it is the only tax that has everyone pays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:42:26 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No only because no tax system is fair. A guy working 40 hours a week making $20/hour pays the same taxes as a guy working 80 horus week @ 10$/hour. Ummm, no. Guy working 80 hours a week is $200 dollars ahead based on overtime, or are you for the abolition of OT pay? So in reality the guy working harder for lower wages would pay more tax. With a sales tax, both of them would choose when to pay taxes on their hard work. It rewards savers with tax deferment.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:44:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't get a choice on how much money you give the government with an income tax. Other than basic living expenses (which vary), the consumption tax allows you to decide how much you want to pay in taxes. Black markets already exist with our current income tax system and illegals aren't paying income tax today (they will with a consumption tax though). I don't think the consumption tax will drastically reduce gov revenue, but if they're gonna overspend anyway we might as well give them less to begin with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it's 50%, sure. If it's kept around 10% (what I pay in TN), then no. The goal shouldn't be to fund the massive government we have today anyway. Why can't the goal be to stop funding the massive govt we have today, today. Why do you think collecting less in taxes will make Washington decrease their spending? It won't, they'll just charge the difference. If the plan is to tax all goods an additional 10%, why not just an 8% flat income tax. It's harder to avoid and cheat, so people will actually have to pay it. You don't get a choice on how much money you give the government with an income tax. Other than basic living expenses (which vary), the consumption tax allows you to decide how much you want to pay in taxes. Black markets already exist with our current income tax system and illegals aren't paying income tax today (they will with a consumption tax though). I don't think the consumption tax will drastically reduce gov revenue, but if they're gonna overspend anyway we might as well give them less to begin with. The problem is they want both a consumption tax and an income tax... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:46:48 AM EDT
[#40]
The person making $10,000 per year will need more assistance from the government than the one making $100,000.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:47:18 AM EDT
[#41]
The idea that you get less revenue from a flat tax is bs. Former com block countries that adopted a flat tax rate of just 9% projected a 20% increase in revenues and instead got around 40%....double the projected. You eliminate all exemptions and complicated tax code.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:51:17 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As stated up thread, the problem with a consumption tax is it would kill the economy and it is to easily avoided through the black market. I'd be all over that. 
If I have to be taxed I'd rather it be on a level playing field.....Plus it would put a lot of tax lawyers and lobbyists out of work.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:52:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Maybe fair but it's not realistic. Currently, the average middle class family works till the middle of April to pay their share of the taxes. A flat tax would wipe out the middle class and makes slaves of the poor.
If the rich don't like paying percentage tax then they need to quit giving millions of dollars to the party elites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:55:52 AM EDT
[#44]
"Get rid of income tax"
LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:57:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is they want both a consumption tax and an income tax... That's what we'll have, eventually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 9:58:17 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would rather it be set at say $2000.00 for all adults over the age of 18.... Or rather a consumption tax.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think percentage is fair. 10% or what ever, is fair. It's still 10%. My way would work like this. Under poverty level 5% Above poverty level 10% Above a million 15% Above a Billion 20% Everyone has some skin in the game. I would rather it be set at say $2000.00 for all adults over the age of 18.... Or rather a consumption tax.... At $2k per adult (based on 2013 numbers) that would leave you short $1,115,058,360,000 short of the 2013 income tax number. In order for a flat amount to equal the income taxes collected in 2013 the set amount would be $6,598.73 per adult in the US. For someone earning $30k it would be 22% of their income For someone earning $60k it would be 11% of their income For someone earning $120k it would be 5.4% of their income etc. What you are suggesting is a regressive tax, which is a perfectly legitimate position, but one which I think would get very little widespread support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 10:00:00 AM EDT
[#47]
It's a regressive tax. So no
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 10:01:02 AM EDT
[#48]
The number is 44,700 per year. When can we expect the check?
85M taxpayers and 3.8T spent |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 10:01:36 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Or do you think it should be a flat rate dollar amount? When speaking to income tax not sales tax. I have never liked percentage based taxes.. How is it fair if the tax is 10% and I male $10000 a year and only pay $1000 yet you make $100000 and pay $10000 in taxes? How is that not bullshit in your mind? A flat dollar amount would not be an income tax, since it doesn't use income to figure the amount of an individual's tax liability. It would be more appropriate to call it a "citizen tax" or something similar. Therefore, the "fairest" income tax is one based on a flat percentage rate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2016 10:02:53 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Consumption tax is what you are looking for. This is where I end up as well, but its hard to ignore the potential for damage to the economy by raising the cost of goods by 20%. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
