IS IT TIME FOR A FLAT TAX

i am not liberal dude just common since. How much is rich.

I wasnt saying your a liberal, of course you lean that way, but i was saying that many americans have been trained to believe that all rich people sit around eating bon bons. This is the class warfare that the DEMS use, they are always screaming how the rich are cheating the poor man. I am not rich but I know a few wealthy people and like Lacrue I find them to be very hard working and driven, so I have to disagree with your comment.

i don't lean what is class warfare explain. Look I just know lazy bastards like me who won't wash my car or anything else that might effect my clean drinking should be respected.
All you hear is haa I work for the middle class so i can get votes & haaa your stealing from the rich to help those dumb poor people so I can get a vote.
But if you give thought about the poor working class then it a dem thing a lib something or other. Next thread i do is about going to hell in hand basket & you can pick the left or right side of the basket.

Its worth pointing out that class warfare and 'taxing the rich' is aimed at income, not wealth, since the federal tax system is based on income. Ted Kennedy - lazy rich guy who literally never had to work a day in his life. Joe neveau riche - started a small business, works 80 hour weeks, earns big money. The portrait of the lazy fat cat that is painted is that of Kennedy. However, since Kennedy was born with his wealth, he isn't hit by the resulting taxes...Joe Neveau Riche is. That is the tragedy of class warfare - it hinders class mobility.

Now that Tax day is behind us I have been thinking about that statement I read in the paper the other day which stated that something to the effect and I am not positive of the numbers, but something like 45% of Americans do not pay any taxes, leaving the remaining 55% to pay them for everyone. Isn't it time for a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income, regardless of how much money they make. Is this not the fairest way to collect taxes. You would generate more in total revenue, and you could eliminate many positions within the IRS cutting federal spending. I am not sure what the correct percentage would be, but lets say 10%. So whether you make 10 dollars or 100 million dollars your tax liability is 10 percent of that amount. There would be no need for tax returns, because this could be handled by your employer, because their are no exemptions there is not need for tax prep people. I think the time has come. If the only reason we are keeping this old outdated tax collection system is that it is now an industry that employees people would we not be better off in the long run to institute a flat tax and more on.

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Dirty Dog I have debated this topic many times and one would think that a flat rate would be fair, but is it really here's my example- let's say hypothetically take rate was 20%
Person A makes 10k a year
Person B makes 50k a year
Person D makes 100k a year
Person E makes a million a year
Person E is a billionare
Now taking 20% from a man making 10k a year is not going to get you the same results as taking 20% form a millionaire or a billionaire. Trust me Bill gates, Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffet are not going to miss or be hirt by the 20% nor do they have to cut back on any expenses no matter what the tax rates are- so I personally don't like the flat rate ebcause on the surface it's truly not equal- the more you make the more cushion you are going to have to absorb that 20% or whatever that rate is. I personally believe and let me say I am no socialist but the more $$$ you take in you should expect to be hit with more taxes. I am a pharmacist by profession I have a six figure salary- I know that my tax rate should be a lot higher than my niece who works as a cashier at a supermarket- I mean somethings you just have to assume people will know. The more income you have the more taxes you should be expecting to pay- I do believe in tax breaks for people who are creating jobs that's a different story- if a company is expanding on trying to create jobs I believe in giving those individual tax breaks. However, if you just some super wealthy individual that is just sitting on your wealth and spending whenever and wherever you want I have no sympathy for you.

10,000 pay $2000.00 in taxes
1000000000 a year pays 2000000.00

I was going to repond with more but its really not worth it.

I think most proposals for a flat tax include a floor, so people making less than the poverty level would still not pay any taxes.

The VAT, which the president hinted at last week, would be absolutely unprogressive, and all would pay it....the example listed above would much more appropriately describe what it would do...not the flat tax...and I expect absolute outrage at the president for even bringing it up.

"However, if you just some super wealthy individual that is just sitting on your wealth and spending whenever and wherever you want I have no sympathy for you."

I don't understand this statement on so many levels...but I thought we went through this already. Our tax system taxes income primarily, not wealth.

This thread is about taxes. If you want to bring up forcible consfication of wealth, that is an entirely different discussion.

10,000 pay $2000.00 in taxes
1000000000 a year pays 2000000.00

I was going to repond with more but its really not worth it. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Speak your mind, but after Warren Buffet and Bill Gates pays their 20% they still are Billionaires are they not? If a person makes 10k a year and his/her tax is 20% they will have less to spend on other items, but do you think Warren Buffet or Bill gates are going to be really affected about by the taxes that they are going to all of sudden make drastic life changes? I don't think so!

Most flat tax proposals have a floor,so nobody making 10k will get hit...but the VAT would be non-progressive and hit anybody...why no anger at the president over suggesting this?

Speak your mind, but after Warren Buffet and Bill Gates pays their 20% they still are Billionaires are they not? If a person makes 10k a year and his/her tax is 20% they will have less to spend on other items, but do you think Warren Buffet or Bill gates are going to be really affected about by the taxes that they are going to all of sudden make drastic life changes? I don't think so! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I'm not trying to put you down or make you feel stupid but you're kidding right? You really don't understand mathematics that much? Twenty percent of a billion is proportionally the same as twenty percent of ten thousand. I know that is a hard concept to grasp but that is a fact. The difference between the two is that twenty percent of a billion is much more dollar wise than twenty percent of ten thousand.

The flat tax is a much fairer tax because everyone pays the same proportion, though the more money one earns, the more money they pay in total dollars.

NSA, his argument comes from the perspective of 'how big of a hit can they take, without noticing it?'....rather than 'how much money does the governemnt need?'. He neglects the entire discussion point, that a flat tax would eliminate the ability of the uber rich to shield income in various ways.

But he does prove my point, that it will be difficult for us to wean ourselves from a progressive tax system. Even if a flat tax took in more money, and hit the rich harder, its very 'fairness' is very unsettling to some.

On the subject of taxes, the budget unveiled by the Democrats includes AMT revenue, and assumes no annual patch will be passed. What does this mean for the average participant of this board? Approximately $3,700 in additional tax liability, or $308 a month. But, since four months are down the drain, the W-4 would have to be adjusted to add another $462 to withholding...or risk an underpayment penalty at the end of the year.

Whatdoyado? Will the dems really fail to pass an AMT patch? I think its just bluster, and I'm not racing to change my W-4....yet?

But its this kind of crap that keeps people's wallets closed...uncertainty. I'm undecided on a flat tax, but it would definiely prevent this stuff from happening.

I'm undecided on a flat tax, but it would definiely prevent this stuff from happening. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

HA!!!

A few years after they pass a flat tax, they'll start throwing in all sorts of new "luxury taxes, windfall profit taxes," etc. that only tax "the rich" and in a few years later, we'll all be paying these extra taxes.

Just like all the states that cut sales taxes and instituted income taxes. A few years later, sales taxes are back where they were before the income tax.

Actually, Joe - while this may be off-topic - the only thing I heard regarding passing blame to Clinton was letting Obama Osama (as Ted Kennedy liked to say) go after he was captured in the mid 90's - which may or may not have prevented 9/11. You heard very little criticism of previous administrations from Bush 43. It doesn't mean that other conservatives didn't heap criticism on Clinton during Bush 43's administration both in the Congress and in the media. Unlike the Bamster, Bush 43 had the class to address any problems/issues that may have manifested during previous administrations by addressing the issue and not blaming others - albeit sometimes unsuccessfully.

Now - back on topic Originally Posted by fritz3552

Not so fast. You just claimed that Osama Bin Laden was CAPTURED and LET GO in the mid '90s during Clinton's term. You can't be serious. I think you may have misunderstood something or been misled. Please don't mislead other people with this incorrect assertion.


I think you might have been trying to say that the Clinton Administration was attempting to have the CIA capture Bin Laden instead of just killing him. That was a higher goal, but harder to attain. Capturing him would have had a much better intel payoff than just making him a martyr. The 9/11 attacks may have still happened if Bin Laden was martyred.

There were several direct and indirect attacks on Bin Laden's life by the Clinton Administration. You might be thinking of the August 20th 1998 attack where 66 (!) cruise missiles were fired at Bin Laden's training camps near Khost that missed him by a few hours. You'll remember that most Republicans sharply criticized Clinton for using the attacks as nothing more than a "Wag the Dog" distraction from the Lewinsky scandal. How wrong they were. Big Bill was on task and they were trying to score political points.

Even Reagan's counterterrorism tzar applauded the Clinton Administration's focus on hunting Al Qaeda, but said they were too obsessed with getting him.

"Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, who served as the State Department's ambassador for counterterrorism during the Reagan administration. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger."

This thread is about a silly [percentage, not amount] flat tax idea...but I can't let an...untruth...like that go unchallenged.