Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Flat TAx would it work?
- Thread starter tiger88
- Start date
R
revexrevex
Guest
obrolio do u still tutor peopple... did they fail their exams yet?
sinjinsmythe33
New member
it wont happen, so dont worry about it
R
revexrevex
Guest
bro do u know anything about business.. or ure just like... hmm doesnt look right bam cross it out.. or how bro
2Thick said:
so there is no ideal rate that a flat tax could work????
has it even been tried in the history of the USA?
rev i dont know much bro i will be honest with ya there, i just wear really nice clothes with a nice watch, sharp hair cut and dont talk much
again back to the flat tax.....
tiger88 said:
Income tax has only been around for about 80 years. It does not exist in some states to this day.
No real tax system has been tried since the 1200s that has not invloved mainly land taxes and taxes on a sliding scale (i.e. the more you make, the more you can pay).
DeepZenPill
New member
2Thick said:
word. Flat tax is a ridiculous idea. The limiting factors are the lower-middle class and below. They can't afford to be taxed very much, so they set a low flat tax rate. At the rates they could afford to be taxed, there wouldn't be very much money being pulled in from the biggest earners.
The flat tax is basically an unfeasible gimmick that politicians like to use when trying to win votes. Many economists would argue that the progressive tax system we have in the US isn't progressive enough. The argument is that wealth has diminishing returns to scale when it comes to happiness, so the wealthy just have an excess of cash that they can't really take advantage of, so it might as well be redistributed in some manner.
I don't know if I agree with your last statement though 2thick. Maybe relatively next to nothing, but I would bet it's still a decent chunk of change. I would be amazed and sickened to find out otherwise.
sinjinsmythe33
New member
flat tax proponents occasionally argue that it would simplify the code and minimize the role of the irs. a flat tax system would require a new code, alot of judicial review and intervention, at least in the early stages. as far as abolishing the irs, another administrative entity would have to be set up to interpret and enforce the code so the effect would be negligible. do you think that the big accounting firms want a flat tax with fewer shelters and loopholes? no.
Now that it`s settled, I say bring back the tulip bulb craze.
good times.
good times.
Many of you that claim to be in the highest tax bracket are not even close to it. The true higher brackets are when you are taxed at the top percentage and your deductions are simply no longer valid.
There is a sliding scale for deductions and if you earn enough, they ALL go away, even things like mortgage interest. That is the "top bracket".
Now.....
A lot of misinformation was spread on this thread.
1. Ultra-rich pay a tremednous amount of taxes. Talk of "asset shuffling" and "tax dodging" is ignorant class warfare nonsense.
The top 400 taxpayers actually have been paying a bigger share of the total tax burden. In 1992, the top 400 taxpayers paid 1.04 percent of the total tax burden, whereas in 2000 they paid 1.58 percent in 2000. In other words, the richest of the rich paid more and everyone else paid less.
Got it? .00075% of the population pays 1.6% of the total taxes!!
The top 1% continues to bear a bigger burden as well, from 19% in 1980 up to 37% of the total in 2000.
Rich people are paying more, everyone else is paying less.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2940
DeepZenPill,
As it stands now, the top 50% of earners are paying 96% of the taxes. So what exactly are the lower classes paying now? 4%
Our current reality is a tax code that ignores the lower classes, panders to the middle and upper middles through a complex series of deductions, and screws the wealthy.
Anything is an improvement.
The answer is taking the money out of the hands of government through the summary elimination of social programs like Social Security and Medicare.
A reasonable flat tax would be 0% likeit was for teh first 150 years of history. Everyone can afford 0%.
There is a sliding scale for deductions and if you earn enough, they ALL go away, even things like mortgage interest. That is the "top bracket".
Now.....
A lot of misinformation was spread on this thread.
1. Ultra-rich pay a tremednous amount of taxes. Talk of "asset shuffling" and "tax dodging" is ignorant class warfare nonsense.
The top 400 taxpayers actually have been paying a bigger share of the total tax burden. In 1992, the top 400 taxpayers paid 1.04 percent of the total tax burden, whereas in 2000 they paid 1.58 percent in 2000. In other words, the richest of the rich paid more and everyone else paid less.
Got it? .00075% of the population pays 1.6% of the total taxes!!
The top 1% continues to bear a bigger burden as well, from 19% in 1980 up to 37% of the total in 2000.
Rich people are paying more, everyone else is paying less.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2940
DeepZenPill,
As it stands now, the top 50% of earners are paying 96% of the taxes. So what exactly are the lower classes paying now? 4%
Our current reality is a tax code that ignores the lower classes, panders to the middle and upper middles through a complex series of deductions, and screws the wealthy.
Anything is an improvement.
The answer is taking the money out of the hands of government through the summary elimination of social programs like Social Security and Medicare.
A reasonable flat tax would be 0% likeit was for teh first 150 years of history. Everyone can afford 0%.
pharmguy said:
The increased availability of wealth would create other opportunities. What would you do with $10K? $20K? $50K more each year? Put it under a mattress?
In fact, if we take your logic in the opposite direction, the only way to have a completely safe society is a 100% tax, and therefore socialism.
Econ 101 sir
pharmguy
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
The increased availability of wealth would create other opportunities. What would you do with $10K? $20K? $50K more each year? Put it under a mattress?
In fact, if we take your logic in the opposite direction, the only way to have a completely safe society is a 100% tax, and therefore socialism.
Econ 101 sir
whaddya think I am???? Some kind of commie?
pharmguy said:
No, I don't think you're a commie. I just think you listened to one too many liberal tax elimination /reduction is bad arguments.
What would be better than flat tax is this: no income taxes, just increase the sales tax. The more money you earn, the more you spend (till a point). Also it wouldnt matter anymore if someone isn't declaring its incomes or hiding a bunch in the Cayman's Islands.
Since the first time I heard about this idea (a conference given by former Prime Minister Mulroney at my college in 1998), I liked it.
Since the first time I heard about this idea (a conference given by former Prime Minister Mulroney at my college in 1998), I liked it.
pharmguy said:
state and local governments would not lose ability to tax.
I only advocate the elimination of federal income tax.
manny78 said:
Consumption based tax is a reasonable alternative...it is actually already in practice at the state level and on some other products at the federal level (gasoline etc.)
sinjinsmythe33
New member
fraud and abuse would be a larger problem with a consumption based tax. diesel fuel tax schemes cost the government billions in revenue and it is not a stretch to assume that creative individuals would be able to set up comparable schemes. the administrative issues and enforcement costs would be staggering. the present system, at least as far as indivuals are concerned is voluntary.
D ) a national sales tax would have to be compulsory and would be an incentive for both rich and poor to dip their wick in the black market.sinjinsmythe33 said:
fraud and abuse would be a larger problem with a consumption based tax. diesel fuel tax schemes cost the government billions in revenue and it is not a stretch to assume that creative individuals would be able to set up comparable schemes. the administrative issues and enforcement costs would be staggering. the present system, at least as far as indivuals are concerned is voluntary.
There are always going to be fraud and abuse. This occurred before the current system, it occurs with the current system,and it will occur with any future system.
The only way to eliminate it is to eliminate tax beyond the state level, which is what I really want.
There is no need for a large federal government. 17 million employees/contractors? Disgusting!
The Constitution sharply limits the powers of the federal government. Throughout history, in times of crisis, leaders have imposed policies which make sense for the crisis and then doom the country afterward.
Our country would be so much richer without this tax burden....
sinjinsmythe33
New member
agreed with respect to the size of the federal govt. the federal income tax will never be abolished, but the enforcement and administration of the code should be handed over to the private sector.
tiger88 said:
I believe also washington state and texas.
sinjinsmythe33
New member
delaware, but i dont think you would fit in there.
tiger88 said:
Part of it - corporate taxes are also very good here.
atlantabiolab
New member
sinjinsmythe33 said:
fraud and abuse would be a larger problem with a consumption based tax. diesel fuel tax schemes cost the government billions in revenue and it is not a stretch to assume that creative individuals would be able to set up comparable schemes. the administrative issues and enforcement costs would be staggering. the present system, at least as far as indivuals are concerned is voluntary.
This is the second post claiming that a consumption tax would be prone to evasion. People, we already have a consumption tax, not to mention income taxation, so why would it be any worse than today? If you have to pay MORE taxes as we do now, then the situation should be greater NOW, since the incentive to cheat is greater NOW. This whole argument is weaker than Cheney's heart.
Yes a sales tax would be mandatory, and penalties would be enforced.
P.S. A flat "income" tax is not beneficial, for it is only a matter of time before it would be gradually progressive, due to the inherent class warfare it promotes. Consumption taxes are far superior to income taxes.
Similar threads
