IS IT TIME FOR A FLAT TAX

He was captured by the governemnt of Sudan and in an effort to improve strained relations with the US was offered to the Clinton administration, at the time there was not direct link between him and any attacks on US territory or property. The Clinton administration was not prepared to meet Sudans price which was removal of sanctions etc. So they declined. Clinton made some reference to this situation during a speak in 2002 and then recanted during testimony in 2004.

Monger, I would like your rational as to why someone should have to pay a higer percentage of tax just because they are considered wealthy. They use less government assets i.e. social programs, give a much higher dollar amount to charitable organizations. How is it fair to say they should pay more because they can pay more. Isn't this mentality more deep seated anger, resentment and envy towards the wealthy. I would hazard to guess that Warren Buffett pays more in income tax in one year than you do in 15. I would also like to know the mentality that believes that the poor should get a free ride on taxes when they are the group that uses the most government assets.A flat tax system the requires everyone to pay a percentage of their income, which has a floor which excludes anyone below a designated income level and which removes all loopholes, deductions etc. and which does not require filing taxes at the end of the year because your tax money is deducted out of each check and is paid as you go and which would allow a reduction in the size of the IRS buracracy, which would lesson the burden on the judicial system because there would be no more tax evasion cases and would less the burden on the corrections system because there would be about 2000 fewer convicted tax cheats each year.

Changing the tax system would increase revenue overall, decrease government expenditure, which could then be used to pay for other programs like Health Care etc etc.

The Sudanese government offerd Bin Laden to Clinton:

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

Clinton admits such in a speech:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...0/181819.shtml

He claimed Bin Laden had not committed any actual crimes against the US, and we would not be able to hold him.

Anybody who pays attention knows this, its been repeated many times. The second link is Clinton's own voice saying such.

Before you call somebody a liar, please know what you are talking about.

I have read most of these comments and thought I would put in my $.02 worth.

Having a flat tax is not the issue. The government has tried to make the higher income people pay more and those who have high deduction as well with what is called alternative minimium tax. But the real issue is what is taxable income? ever look at the 1040 long form? There are a little over 30 line with attaching schedules to determine what your income before they determine your tax rate.

The issue is what is taxable income. While many americans do not pay tax that is because their income falls below the lines of taxable income or on government assistance. Missouri is considering the removal of their tax system and going with a sales tax. A sales tax would be bad for Missouri as they are indicating that the tax to be almost 12 percent. The tax would apply to everything seeing your doctor, dentist, even your freindly provider if she were to claim the income. I predict that if other states dont follow people would do a lot of purchasing out of state leaving Missouri in even worse economincal condition than we are now. Such a tax would also put a harder burden on those who do not pay tax now because of their income levels as they now have to pay tax and their is no mention of exemptions for those on government assistance other than for items purchased with food stamps.

I have been preparing tax returns professionally for 20 years and think creating a fair tax for everyone is next to impossible.

So the correct answer is what, forcing the wealthy to pay for the poor, I dont think the sales tax your refering to is the same as a flat rate income tax system. I am not trying to be a dick but whats the answer, the system we have is not even close to being fair.

Before you call somebody a liar, please know what you are talking about. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

1. You state that I called him a liar. Please point to where I used the word 'liar' in my post. Before you call somebody a person that calls somebody a liar, please know what you are talking about.

2. He stated that Bin Laden had been CAPTURED. I typed 'CAPTURED' in ALL CAPS for a reason. Do you believe that Bin Laden had been CAPTURED? Your sources say this: "The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates." and "At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996..." How can a man that wasn't yet arrested be considered CAPTURED? (BTW, the 9/11 Commission disagreed about there being credible evidence that the offers even existed.)

3. Tell everybody what Sudan wanted in return. "President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted..." The deals had some quid pro quo in them. At the time, Bin Laden was just an unindicted co-conspirator. IIRC, four men had already been convicted of the 93 bombing.

IMO, there's a big difference between the cat being in the bag and near the bag. Clinton would have had to drop terrorism sanctions against a state sponsor of terrorism (and give them arms, money?) and hope they honored the deal...and been able...to arrest Bin Laden. Remember, he's a slippery character. Then Clinton would have had to illegally (?) get him in U.S. custody. And keep him in U.S. custody. If you assume that the 9/11 attacks only happen if Bin Laden is involved (...questionable...) then you must keep him locked up forever. I doubt you'd find many Republicans in the late '90s who'd like the idea of locking up a man for the rest of his life without a trial or conviction. I couldn't find much on Bin Laden's involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. How deeply was he involved in this?

Monger, I would like your rational as to why someone should have to pay a higer percentage of tax just because they are considered wealthy. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Dirty Dog, I would like your rational as to why someone should have to pay a higher DOLLAR AMOUNT of tax just because they are considered wealthy.

Maybe you just like percentages instead of a TRUE flat tax. Okay, let's take that out for a little test drive. Instead of the poor paying the same FLAT prices for cars and FLAT sales taxes as the rich, we'll just change those to FLAT percentages of income. If a guy that makes $40K per year buys a $40K vehicle then a guy that makes $4 million per year should pay $4 million for the same vehicle, right? SAME percentage of income, right? Enjoy your $4,000,000 Cadillac Escalades now, you fat bastards! LOL Enjoy that $300/gal gasoline too!

See Man Tics

R M poor tant

EDIT: What does the word 'semantics' mean to you? 'CAPTURED' is pretty clear cut, not just semantics.

Geez, let me spell it out for you. The Sudanese gubment decided to put Bin Laden in 'play' and offer him in trade to the US. Bin Laden became the 'guest' of Sudan...read: can't leave the house, under watch, being guarded, no freedom of movement, house arrest.

No, he wasn't wearing a black and white jump suit, with a giant iron ball and chain around his ankles, like the hamburglar...but Sudan had him. They would not put him in 'play' with the world's sole superpower, unless they could deliver him to the US embassy in say, 12 minutes 32 seconds. There is a pretty good book about this titled "Losing Bin Laden', if you care to read it.

Here is Clinton's take, in the audio clip:

"They released him"...whatdoyathink that means?

When Clinton wouldn't play, the Sudanese gubment 'asked' Bin Laden to leave. Three days later, Bin Laden left on a chartered jet (provided by Sudan) to Afghanistan. They could have just as easily put him on a chartered jet to Saudi Arabia or the US, but nobody wanted him.

I'm not even gonna be a Monday morning QB and say Clinton screwed up by not taking the deal. This was before the embassy bombings even occurred. But good grief, we have to face past mistakes if we don't want to make them in the future. Sudan had Bin Laden. We didn't take the deal. We didn't take Bid Laden seriously (even though at that time he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the '93 trade center bombing). The next time a rogue gubment offers us an international terrorist on a silver platter, we should remember what happened the last time we passed up an opportunity. We shouldn't put our head in the sand because the last time it happened, Bin Laden wasn't on a chain gang.

"Dirty Dog, I would like your rational as to why someone should have to pay a higher DOLLAR AMOUNT of tax just because they are considered wealthy."

Thats our current system. It is progressive. Wealthier people pay a higher percentage of income (ever hear of tax brackets). The flat tax proposes to fix that. I don't know what the heck you are even trying to say with your car example, its almost as if you've never filled out a 1040 before. The wealthy will always pay a higher dollar amount, the flat tax proposes to reduce the disparity, not eliminate it.

Here is the Heritage Foundation's vision of a flat tax:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...o-the-Flat-Tax

It doesn't seem to matter where income comes from or what is considered income...since it only taxes money once. So, for example, dividends would not be reported as income, because the company alread paid on its profit.

They do propose a floor, and do tie it to the number of children in a family...similar to dependents today.

They still consider it a consumption tax, since it does not tax savings or investment...which I think is debatable.

I did a quick and dirty using their form...and my taxes would roughly double, though

Monger, dont answer my question by asking a question, when you answer mine I will answer yours. I asked you to tell me why you think a person who is considered wealthy should have to pay a larger percentage of their income then someone who is not considered wealthy, by the way you skip most of the middle class when you go right to poor. Is it because you think they should be punished for being successful and therefore they should have to pay a larger percentage. Do you feel that hey "owe" those who are not wealthy something.

I don't have a problem with the concept of graduated income tax, but I think it falls apart when we start PAYING people for not working or PAYING them way more than they contributed. The Earned Income Credit (EIC) will refund over $5000.00 to families that had NO Income Tax withheld.

I would have no problem with extending the FICA and MEDICARE deductions to a the full AGI of all taxpayers, instead of cutting those deductions off at $106,800 (for 2010). This is the tax to which Warren Buffet was referring when he commented that his Executive Assistant is taxed at a higher rate than he. He (I believe) was also referring to his 80% deduction on investment income (the lion's share of his income).

Monger, dont answer my question by asking a question, when you answer mine I will answer yours. I asked you to tell me why you think a person who is considered wealthy should have to pay a larger percentage of their income then someone who is not considered wealthy, by the way you skip most of the middle class when you go right to poor. Is it because you think they should be punished for being successful and therefore they should have to pay a larger percentage. Do you feel that hey "owe" those who are not wealthy something. Originally Posted by dirty dog

FLAT TAX: Everybody pays the same amount for government services. That means you pay the same as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. $20,000/yr, or whatever, everybody pays exactly the same amount.

FIXED PERCENTAGE TAX: The rich pay more money than the middle class pay more than the poor. But the percentage is fixed.

PROGRESSIVE TAX: The rich pay a higher percentage of income, etc. This is what we have now and everybody is (pretty much) okay with it.

DD, I answered your question with a nearly identical question so that you might realize that your fixed percentage tax taxes the rich more too. Yes, YOU TOO are in favor of taxing the rich more than everyone else.

Why do you want to redistribute wealth, Dirty Dog?
Why do you want to freeload off of those successful hard-working affluent folk's wealth? Are you a pinko commie? LOL Of course not.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Any conservative tax schemes that are pushed as more "fair" are going to give the wealthy a huge tax break and put a huge burden on YOU.

My post about the car prices was to point out that while income taxes are progressive, product prices are flat. The rich have a huge advantage there. If the wealthy were truly interested in paying a Fixed Percentage because they think it is fair...then they should do it for everything.

I did a quick and dirty using their form...and my taxes would roughly double, though Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

This is my shocked face.

Here's what I found on your Log Cabin Republi...I mean Heritage Foundation article.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Should the rich pay more?
A: Under a flat tax, the rich do pay more than the poor. A wealthy taxpayer with 100 times more tax*able income than his neighbor will pay 100 times more in taxes.