toldailytopic: Revamping the tax system.

[eameece]

Please be a little more detailed in what you are asking and explain how you came to that conclusion to be able to ask me that, thank you.

Angel, why is that not obvious to any observer?

The flat tax means everyone pays the same rate. That means poor people pay more of their income in taxes, because more of their income is needed for basic needs. Rich people, however, have a lot more discretionary income, and thus can afford to pay more in taxes. When you tax people heavily who are starting out or struggling to make ends meet, then they stay at their level, and we have a society where noone can advance except those who inherit wealth or get really lucky. Higher sales taxes are also regressive and discourage commerce.

A flat tax affords no benefit whatever for middle class people, or any cost savings to government. A graduated tax is quite simple already, merely requiring reference to a table or a few different rates, and most personal deductions ("loopholes") were already deleted in 1986. Corporate tax reform may still be needed though.

Today this situation is made even worse because of the high cost of basic needs like education and housing, making it virtually impossible today for anyone to improve their standard of living. This is happening primarily because we have decided that tax money should stay in rich peoples' pockets, rather than going to things that help and advance many people. The result is a banana republic, an ignorant populace without skills, and very few customers for most businesses.

 

[eameece]

I admire that in a person. Can you say the same about your state government or your federal government?

We have had 30 years of tax cuts and spending cuts, except for spending for the things that rich people want-- like useless, deadly, wasteful foreign wars and weapons to fight them. Look where it has got us. We have governments that cut taxes because people are not willing to pay for what they need. No, that is not frugal economics. It is pie in the sky.

We need to go back to common sense. We need to pay for the things we need government for, and cut the things we don't need. And we don't need deceived conservatives telling us that we don't need the things that we DO need. We are not merely self-reliant individuals; we depend on each other and help from the state. We don't live in isolation, we live in mutual dependence on each other. Any view to the contrary is libertarian fairyland.

 

[organiccornflake]

Angel, why is that not obvious to any observer?

The flat tax means everyone pays the same rate. That means poor people pay more of their income in taxes, because more of their income is needed for basic needs. Rich people, however, have a lot more discretionary income, and thus can afford to pay more in taxes. When you tax people heavily who are starting out or struggling to make ends meet, then they stay at their level, and we have a society where noone can advance except those who inherit wealth or get really lucky. Higher sales taxes are also regressive and discourage commerce.

A flat tax affords no benefit whatever for middle class people, or any cost savings to government. A graduated tax is quite simple already, merely requiring reference to a table or a few different rates, and most personal deductions ("loopholes") were already deleted in 1986. Corporate tax reform may still be needed though.

Today this situation is made even worse because of the high cost of basic needs like education and housing, making it virtually impossible today for anyone to improve their standard of living. This is happening primarily because we have decided that tax money should stay in rich peoples' pockets, rather than going to things that help and advance many people. The result is a banana republic, an ignorant populace without skills, and very few customers for most businesses.

Exactly. A flat tax rate would be a step in the wrong direction for sure.

 

[Traditio]

Abolish all present taxes and tax loop holes. Replace with a graded/ascending income tax on all incomes over a certain minimum income ($30,000). All income in excess of $30,000 should be taxed at a minimum rate of 20% and up (only the portion which exceeds $30,000). The only tax "loopholes" should be for dependents and the like. No corporate tax breaks. Outlaw all sales taxes on non-luxury items. Any income in excess of $300,000 should be taxed at a rate of 95% (only the portion which exceeds $300,000).

 

[organiccornflake]

Abolish all present taxes and tax loop holes. Replace with a graded/ascending income tax on all incomes over a certain minimum income ($30,000). All income in excess of $30,000 should be taxed at a minimum rate of 20% and up (only the portion which exceeds $30,000). The only tax "loopholes" should be for dependents and the like. No corporate tax breaks. Outlaw all sales taxes on non-luxury items. Any income in excess of $300,000 should be taxed at a rate of 95% (only the portion which exceeds $300,000).

Ehhhh we are getting closer, this does appear to be a little too extreme....how about an additional 1 percent tax for every 5,000 dollars you have past 30,000 in your income. With a minimum of 15 percent tax (starting at 30,001 income) and a maximum of 65 percent, (maxing out at 280000 income.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Angel, why is that not obvious to any observer?

The flat tax means everyone pays the same rate. That means poor people pay more of their income in taxes, because more of their income is needed for basic needs. Rich people, however, have a lot more discretionary income, and thus can afford to pay more in taxes. When you tax people heavily who are starting out or struggling to make ends meet, then they stay at their level, and we have a society where noone can advance except those who inherit wealth or get really lucky. Higher sales taxes are also regressive and discourage commerce.

A flat tax affords no benefit whatever for middle class people, or any cost savings to government. A graduated tax is quite simple already, merely requiring reference to a table or a few different rates, and most personal deductions ("loopholes") were already deleted in 1986. Corporate tax reform may still be needed though.

Today this situation is made even worse because of the high cost of basic needs like education and housing, making it virtually impossible today for anyone to improve their standard of living. This is happening primarily because we have decided that tax money should stay in rich peoples' pockets, rather than going to things that help and advance many people. The result is a banana republic, an ignorant populace without skills, and very few customers for most businesses.

I disagree, the rich will only pass it on in all goods and services. I think everyone should pay their share because everyone benefits from services like fire, rescue police, etc.. and a percentage doesnt mean everyone pays the same, the rich naturally would pay more under that system. The truly poor would not make enough to have to pay in, allowances would remove their tax.

Im sorry but i am not one who believes that success should be penalized or that charity should be forced.

 

[PureX]

The flaw is the ability to create currency at will which devalues any currency previously created. So the idea that doubling the amount of currency relative to the doubling the amount of consumers and/or product is a fallacious argument.

That makes no sense.

 

[Christ's Word]

We have had 30 years of tax cuts and spending cuts, except for spending for the things that rich people want-- like useless, deadly, wasteful foreign wars and weapons to fight them. Look where it has got us. We have governments that cut taxes because people are not willing to pay for what they need. No, that is not frugal economics. It is pie in the sky.

We need to go back to common sense. We need to pay for the things we need government for, and cut the things we don't need. And we don't need deceived conservatives telling us that we don't need the things that we DO need. We are not merely self-reliant individuals; we depend on each other and help from the state. We don't live in isolation, we live in mutual dependence on each other. Any view to the contrary is libertarian fairyland.

I don't think you are telling the whole story. The national defense budget is never more than 24 percent of the total. Yet that is the only thing you mention as "wasteful". What about the OTHER 76 PERCENT?

WHAT DO YOU FIND WASTEFUL FROM THE 76 PERCENT?

CAN YOU LIST ANY OF THOSE THINGS?

 

[drbrumley]

Abolish all present taxes and tax loop holes. Replace with a graded/ascending income tax on all incomes over a certain minimum income ($30,000). All income in excess of $30,000 should be taxed at a minimum rate of 20% and up (only the portion which exceeds $30,000). The only tax "loopholes" should be for dependents and the like. No corporate tax breaks. Outlaw all sales taxes on non-luxury items. Any income in excess of $300,000 should be taxed at a rate of 95% (only the portion which exceeds $300,000).

You are a thief. Advocating taking one's property to give to another is thievery, you promote it, thereby your a thief.

 

[rocketman]

We don't live in isolation, we live in mutual dependence on each other. Any view to the contrary is libertarian fairyland.

No, that's what lazy folks like yourself say so you can leach off the achievers of society, to believe anything to the contrary is progressive liberal/marxist fantasyland. :down:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Abolish all present taxes and tax loop holes. Replace with a graded/ascending income tax on all incomes over a certain minimum income ($30,000). All income in excess of $30,000 should be taxed at a minimum rate of 20% and up (only the portion which exceeds $30,000). The only tax "loopholes" should be for dependents and the like. No corporate tax breaks. Outlaw all sales taxes on non-luxury items. Any income in excess of $300,000 should be taxed at a rate of 95% (only the portion which exceeds $300,000).

You do not plan to have a job left in this country under that plan.

 

[PureX]

Abolish all present taxes and tax loop holes. Replace with a graded/ascending income tax on all incomes over a certain minimum income ($30,000). All income in excess of $30,000 should be taxed at a minimum rate of 20% and up (only the portion which exceeds $30,000). The only tax "loopholes" should be for dependents and the like. No corporate tax breaks. Outlaw all sales taxes on non-luxury items. Any income in excess of $300,000 should be taxed at a rate of 95% (only the portion which exceeds $300,000).

If we actually did this, the government would be awash in money. I suspect the percentage at the low end could be lowered, and the 300K limit could be raised to maybe 500K. I think it would work surprisingly well.

 

[PureX]

You are a thief. Advocating taking one's property to give to another is thievery, you promote it, thereby your a thief.

Call it whatever you want to. It's the nature of taxation. If you want to enjoy the benefits of a civilized society, you have to pay for the government that society manifests. You don't like it? Join another society, or go start your own, somewhere.

 

[drbrumley]

Call it whatever you want to. It's the nature of taxation. If you want to enjoy the benefits of a civilized society, you have to pay for the government that society manifests. You don't like it? Join another society, or go start you own, somewhere.

Still waiting on the document I and (can't remember his name ;sorry) signed you said you had.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Call it whatever you want to. It's the nature of taxation. If you want to enjoy the benefits of a civilized society, you have to pay for the government that society manifests. You don't like it? Join another society, or go start your own, somewhere.

Is that why so many people are leaving california these days?

 

[eameece]

I disagree, the rich will only pass it on in all goods and services. I think everyone should pay their share because everyone benefits from services like fire, rescue police, etc.. and a percentage doesnt mean everyone pays the same, the rich naturally would pay more under that system. The truly poor would not make enough to have to pay in, allowances would remove their tax.

Im sorry but i am not one who believes that success should be penalized or that charity should be forced.

I'm sorry too, but charity must be "forced." Voluntary charity does not do the job. If it did, there would have been no need for social services. Charity should be "forced" in the sense that people in America should be smart enough to vote for these programs.

Success is not penalized by taxes. We vote for taxes (those of us smart enough to do so) because we want to pay for services and infrastructure that benefits us and our business. A society of a few rich people, which is what flat taxes create, shrinks the middle class to the point where our business has no customers. It creates a society where people work in fear and on the edge of starvation all the time. That is what we have now in this bad Bush-Reagan trickle-down economy.

We need to move back to the post-war economy, where we had a strong middle class and increasing help to the poor to move into it. We moved away from this because Reagan stirred up resentment against these poor folks, whom the government was helping to rise out of poverty. It was completely unnecessary, yet many folks here on TOL and elsewhere are hooked on these ridiculous and cynical slogans instead of understanding the truth.

Your flat tax scheme falls most heavily on the middle class, and most especially on whoever is just above that cut off line for paying any taxes. Those bottom-level taxpayers will have to pay much more of the income they depend on for taxes. They will have to choose between paying taxes, and paying for college for their children, for the mortgage on their home, for investment in their business, or even for enough food and transportation. They will have nothing left for savings, which will decrease capital in society, and cause more government payments to help them when they are old or in trouble. The wealthy don't have to make that choice; they will rake in enormous wealth that they don't have to pay in taxes. They will use this money to maximize their own power and advantage; it will NOT trickle-down to others through "job creaters."

The flat tax has no advantage whatsoever to anyone except the super-rich. It does not end any problems whatsoever; it just creates more of the problems we already have now. We need to make taxes MORE progressive, NOT LESS.

 

[eameece]

Is that why so many people are leaving california these days?

As a Californian, I know a little about this. CA is doing well; its population is still growing. People know a good thing and keep coming. It remains the leading engine of innovation and new industry in the country. It has higher taxes than many lousy unlivable red states that choose not to have the beneficial social services and laws to protect its natural beauty and the health of its people that CA has.

Some conservatives are leaving CA because of its increasingly-diverse population; they prefer a lilly-white society of conservative religious nuts, so they move to Utah or Idaho. Some people are leaving CA because it is too desirable (and easy prey to real estate speculators), making home prices (and other prices) much higher than anywhere else. The most desirable land has been already taken too; CA does not have an unlimited supply of this. They simply can't afford to live here, or don't want the enormous commute time to homes that are far away from work because that's what's available.

 

[eameece]

I don't think you are telling the whole story. The national defense budget is never more than 24 percent of the total. Yet that is the only thing you mention as "wasteful". What about the OTHER 76 PERCENT?

WHAT DO YOU FIND WASTEFUL FROM THE 76 PERCENT?

CAN YOU LIST ANY OF THOSE THINGS?

First of all I think your figures are wrong. It depends on how you look at it. Military spending includes the increased interest on the debt that it causes, since it is unfunded. It includes a lot for pensions and past borrowing to pay for it. The unfunded, unnecessary wars are usually left out of that percentage too. They were extremely expensive in many ways.

If you prefer to look only at spending, then you are not doing budgeting. You are just doing Republican sloganeering. If you cut taxes without cutting spending, which is what Republicans do, you create a much worse deficit. That is the primary cause of the debt. That also increases interest payments, which in turn increases debt when interest rates are high. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were the primary source of the debt we now have.

Beyond that are corporate subsidies to things like oil and agriculture. Earmarks lead to too many pork-barrel projects. Those are the last things we need.

Medicare is too expensive because we refuse to take the private drug and insurance companies out of the picture. Medicare needs to be extended to all and the Medicare tax raised.

When the economy tanks because of lack of regulation, leading to gambling with $billions in super-expensive mortgages, then payments for unemployment and welfare skyrocket. That is what we have now. Put back the regulations, and that will improve the economy dramatically, and reduce spending dramatically. Repealing needed regulations is the most wasteful thing we can do!

You can't just look at wasteful spending. You have to look at what we are NOT spending on. We don't spend enough for research and development, transportation, green energy, the arts, the space program, and education. These things improve the economy and increase revenues to the state, reducing debt and thereby reducing taxes.

The most prosperous societies are not those where a wealthy few own everything, which is the society you want. Instead, the most prosperous societies are those where a public-private partnership exists.

 

[Angel4Truth]

As a Californian, I know a little about this. CA is doing well; its population is still growing. People know a good thing and keep coming. It remains the leading engine of innovation and new industry in the country. It has higher taxes than many lousy unlivable red states that choose not to have the beneficial social services and laws to protect its natural beauty and the health of its people that CA has.

Some conservatives are leaving CA because of its increasingly-diverse population; they prefer a lilly-white society of conservative religious nuts, so they move to Utah or Idaho. Some people are leaving CA because it is too desirable (and easy prey to real estate speculators), making home prices (and other prices) much higher than anywhere else. The most desirable land has been already taken too; CA does not have an unlimited supply of this. They simply can't afford to live here, or don't want the enormous commute time to homes that are far away from work because that's what's available.

The last line is the accurate one, they cannot afford to keep living there because of high taxes for all the social programing - hostility to buisness, unaffordable housing lack of new buisness bases.

 

[eameece]

You are a thief. Advocating taking one's property to give to another is thievery, you promote it, thereby your a thief.

Property is theft. How much property do you own, doctor?