great. show us the numbers from an un-biased source.

The current tax system is unfair because rich people get away with paying less than they should, through deductions and shelters, etc..

The flat tax would be unfair because the middle class would be paying more than they are now, and rich people would be paying less (in some cases).

The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more. What's not to understand about that? Seems simple enough to me. They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

The only fair system is where everyone pays the same and additionally there should be a tax on all purchases.

How much 'should' they pay, and why?

Someone please define "Rich People". Thank you.

Consider the source to be the Univeristy of Common Sense.

There are two general approaches to the flat tax - tax on sales or tax on wages.

A flat sales tax of approx. 25% would have a more adverse impact on the dispoasl income of a person of $30,000 income as opposed to $3 million income - common sense.

A flat tax on wages generally excludes non wage income (capital gains) and would have a more adverse impact on the disposal income of a person making $30,000 (with nearly all of it from wages) as opposed to a person making $ 3million (with a large portion excluided from the tax as non-wage ,capital gains) - common sense

I share the opinoin of that capitalist that the free market guys always love to point to when it comes to deregulation, but not taxes - Adam Smith:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion....

But I accept that "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder and we willl never agree on this one.

That, is not, an unbiased source. That is opinion.

I've said it before but I'll say it again... cuz I can. My personal idea for flat tax really isn't flat but much flatter.

Every single dollar of income (earned and unearned) up to and including $50,000 is taxed at 1%. I believe everyone should know they are paying something even if it is a seemingly insignificant amount.

Every single dollar earned and unearned over$50,001 is taxed at 20%. NO deductions, no loopholes, no limits.

Personal tax returns will consist of a one page, easy to understand form.

INCOME:
INCOME IN EXCESS OF $50,000:

The guy making $30K will have paid $300 which is more than he's paying now, but he is now paying like everyone else.

The guy making $50K will be paying $500 which is less than some people say they are paying now.

The guy making $90K will be paying $8,499.80 which is 9% of total pay.

The guy making $900K will be paying $170,499 which is 19% of total pay.

The guy making $9,000,000 will pay $1,790,499.80 which is 20%. While that may seem like they are getting a bargain it is a hell of a lot more than they are paying now.

And added up, we would have much more in income collected. Flaten the tax, everyone pays, close the loopholes.

Got a cite for that...or is it just fuzzy math?

I have not seen any reliable source that would suggest a flat tax at a 20% rate of wages (with or w/o non-wage income like capital gains) would come close to covering even the basic current costs of defense, payment on debt and entitlements (combined nearly $2 trillion/year)...and that excludes any discreationary spending on domestic programs.

Do you believe the "rich" are paying more significantly more than that, on average?

Are there any real statistics or is this really just a argument in futility?

We're talking about the government. Only arguments of futility are possible.

It does go back to my thread asking the purpose of taxes though. If we don't know the total number of dollars the government needs to do its business and we aren't trying to match those numbers with an appropriate income level, then all the tax rates are just arbitrary numbers established for psychological reasons.

not psychological at all. - They are then numbers based upon what they WANT to spend not what they need. Thats what it all comes down to in my opinion. The debate between the definition of needs versus wants.

I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.

I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."

But I am a Washington insider.

Doesn't one necessitate the other? :eyebrow:

There is no such thing as a "fair" system because of how subjective fair is.

Maybe the government should just play the father figure by taking everyone's money away then yell "Happy now, now its fair". It worked for North Korea...you don't hear any of them complaining about the tax setup.

Some think thats where we are headed anyway :tinfoil

True.

But the reality is there has never been much support for a flat tax.

Kemp made it a core component of his campaign when he ran for Pres in '88; as did Forbes in '00 and Huckabee last year....with little success.

Any Congressional proposal for a flat tax over the last 20+ years has died in committee, regardless of the party in power.

A poll ( :eek: ) I saw this morning:
Whether a flat tax is "fair" or not or has merits or not, the political reality is that while most Americans would like to see tax simplification, what a flat tax doesnt have is very much public support.

Could that be because of all the bullshit about damaging the middle class that is thrown upon it? I remember when I worked in the UAW plant the "information pieces" that were distributed to let all the employees know how horrible some proposals were so it was a good thing a specific political party existed to take care of people "like us".

Sure, it could be.

Or it could be that many don't buy into the fuzzy math.

In any case, I dont think the "bullshit" claim would explain the lack of support for a flat tax over the last 80+ years.

In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.

I reworded that poll for ya. Perhaps thats clearer. That might be the reason - just saying.

Nah...I think its much more conspiratorial.....dead capitalists and communists and dead Republican presidents channeling their thoughts during the polling.

Perhaps Adam Smith channelling from Wealth of Nations - It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

Or Karl Marx from Das Kapital

Or Teddy Roosevelt from a speech on New Nationalism - that there was a "general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

Or Ronald Reagan when he signed his major tax reform legislation, including the redistribution of wealth through the expansion of the earned income tax credit.

And they said you didn't have a sense of humor. bwahahahaha

pointing out that a bunch of politicians didn't have a problem with wealth redistribution isn't a great argument. politicians of all persuasions have the retention of power as their primary goal and selling animosity towards the other guy always plays in Peoria.

And yet the flat tax has never played well in Peoria either as far as I know...or Crappo, MD or Boring, OR or Normal, IL or even Santa Claus, IN.

The support for a flat tax is and has always been flat, never reaching the level of widespread support anywhere....no other way to put it.

Perhaps that will change now with the new celebrity spokesman.........Joe the Plumber!

http://irsvote.com/

Now there is a credible person who I want speaking for me!

You must pay $.99 to express your support for his fair tax.....LOL....that seems fair!

Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.

Will he lobby for whichever side texts him the most money?

Joe the who? Oh, yeah...the loser that stuck his nose in to politics and then cried when he got burned.

If ya can't handle the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen.

:lol2:

Yea, if I didn't do shit for a living I would think the same thing.

If Joe is the best person the anti-tax movement can come up with as a pitchman to sell the flat tax..I don't expect anyone will benefit other than perhaps Joe.

He could do very well for himself with this initiative....better than his sagging book deal and country singing career.

Consider how that $.99 per voter is spent:

50% Fees taken by Telecoms providers such as MCI, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc.
20% Advertising and Public relations*.
10% Payment collection
7% Production costs and salaries for team
5% Platform costs to service providers
8% Leftover after other costs

Does that "leftover" = Joe's pocket?

Here is what I would do if I were Joe....start by posting the website on all the "We Love Sarah" blogs and boards and let it roll from there. Those enthusiastic activists wont bitch about $.99 and will certainly share it with fellow believers.

If he gets 1 million Palinistas to vote for a buck each.....that 8% leftover is $80,000 for Joe.

Nice scam!

Agreed. Again... The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more... They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

YES! THAT! ^^^

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs, regardless of how much he has contributed.

Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Unfortunately, every communist nation has also been a dictatorship. It has never been done correctly according to the definition. Just like socialism.

You can't have it "be done correctly." Communism is a system for angels, not for men.

Probably because men have free will and angels do not. Or so it's said.

Communism never allowed for the fact that "even under the most rigidly controlled conditions of temperature and pressure, the organism will do as it damn pleases." Organisms actively seek their own advantage, one expression of which at least among the hominids is the profit motive.

As for Socialism/Communism-lite, the libertarians would say it founders on the fact that there is really no such thing as "the collective." There is only, we say, the ability of many individuals to act in unison towards a goal -- we can march in close formation. This kind of unanimity is always temporary, and we say that's how it should be. We also note that it is seldom absolute -- and that too would be temporary. We are not the Borg.

Where the actual fairness is in soaking the rich continues to escape me.

I think it escapes most really thoughtful people.

Once again I'd like you to define rich for me.

So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

So putting that in real terms: I only need $60K/year to live my life. I have the ability to earn considerably more than that. If I don't need it and I don't get to keep it and I'm willing to trust the government to provide for me in the future why exactly should I work harder to earn more?

This needs and abilities sounds like a pretty sweet deal really. When I hit the number I need, I'll just check out and go home.

I have never said I thought all people should have the same thing or the same amount of wealth. I DO think all people who work hard should be compensated well enough to live comfortably and have a life. Not everyone wants massive amounts of wealth. A lot of people just want a good life, and they are willing to work hard for it. They are content with being the middle class. But when the wealthiest are taking more and more of the pie, and squeezing out the middle class so they can no longer afford to live, there is a real serious problem.

I have defined "rich" numerous times. I am talking about people who earn about 5-10 million+ a year or more.

Sugar, you avoided the questions. You said that communism, true communism was a good idea. If that is still your belief, then explain who Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

Why do you also continue to focus on the top minuscule percentage. What about the other end of the spectrum? The bottom who make absolutely no contribution, have no ability to make any and can only take from those who are productive?

OK, so do you think Obama is out of line calling for tax increases for non-rich people then?

Where'd he do that?

So in your opinion, the Roman patricians during the classic republican age did nothing for a living?

Sugarpop has finally tagged rich as a label to identify those earning between $5-10MM/year. Obama wants tax increases for those earning $250K+. That would seem to indicate he wants to increase taxes for those that Sugarpop does not feel are rich. Just curious how she feels about that.

Wow.

I'd say you're rich if your annual wage would buy a decent 4 bedroom house in the area you live in.

So in Tucson, you're rich if you make $175,000/yr. In New York, you're rich if you make $1,100,000, etc.

I'd say the average would be about $200,000.

Sounds like another way of saying, "you're rich if you have more than me".

Sounds like Lookout is back in "pointless asshole" mode, because he has nothing other than useless ad hominem attacks.

As usual.

Please step aside, Lookout, I'd prefer to speak to serious posters. Thanks.

I don't believe the bottom make no contribution and I do not believe they are not productive. I believe most people WANT to contribute, but they also want to be paid fairly and treated with respect. I don't believe CEOs make more contributions to society or are more important than teachers, or scientists, or cops, or soldiers, or artists. I do not believe bankers and executives do either. In fact, I would argue that many of those jobs are MORE important. I do not believe the executive class deserves to be paid SO MUCH MORE than everyone else. Why should they? What possible reason could you give that a CEO or an executive should make 400-500 X more than the average worker?

Having said that, I also realize that everyone is not capable of being a doctor or a lawyer or even a *cough*CEO*cough*, but from the same perspective, not everyone is cut out to be a teacher or a soldier or a janitor. So why should one have so much more value planced on them than the others? I'll tell you, without those janitors, we would be in a world of shit, literally. Soldiers and cops put their lives on the line every day. Isn't that more important, the possibilty of dying while doing your job, than being a banker? Teachers are molding our future generations. Isn't that at least as important as running a company? If we didn't have anyone to build the bridges and buildings or to make the cars or to do the plumbing, we wouldn't have any buildings or bridges or cars or plumbing. Maybe if we looked at ALL JOBS as having inherent value, we wouldn't place so much emphasis on some being so much more important than others.

Here's the thing, have you ever read any Aldous Huxley? I think he made a lot of really great points in his book Island. On the island, everyone shared in the responsibilties. Even the doctors had to sometimes go out and dig the earth to plant, or do some other, what we would call menial, job. That kept everything more in perspective, for everyone. We could learn something from that.

No. And he is not raising taxes, he is letting the Bush tax cuts expire to where they were before Bush was in office. You act like he is going to make people pay 50% or something. He isn't. It is only a 3% increase on the money made OVER $250,000/year.

ftr, I think the taxes should increase even more on people making over a million a year, and even more again on people making 5 million/year, and more again on people making 10 million/year.

Yeah, I think I'd be rich if I had more than you. :haha:

You misinterpret what I am saying. I am defining this based on your question, which is based on my posts when I talk about rich people. When I talk about rich people, the people at the top, I am talking about people who earn 5 million + a year. That has nothing to do with what Obama is doing.

But to be clear, making $250,000/year is definitely rich. At least it would be to me, especially where I live. To a New Yorker, not so much. I would say it is upper middle class for sure. Again though, he is not RAISING taxes, he is letting them expire to where they were before Bush was in office when he wrote the tax cuts to favor the wealthier classes among us. And, it is on the money that is made above and beyond $250,000. So no, I don't have a problem with that.

But the bar of "comfortably" keeps getting raised. 60 years ago, it was generally a given that your family had one car, and would manage to save up enough to buy their first three-bedroom house by the time the kids were 7-10 years old. That was middle-class; that was "comfortable." Now most people would call that poor, to only be able to afford one car.

The perception of need vs want keeps moving.

Yeah, CEOs, for example, WANT 480 times what the floor employees get.

It turns out, though, that in all cases, this is a self-correcting problem, from the jackass making $60K/year that just HAS to have a $400K house and a Hummer, to the silly bastards at Morgan Stanley that insist they need two more corporate jets and a terminal building with a rooftop garden.

There are infinitely more on the bottom end than the top. It isn't even close. There are many who feel entitled to live off the Gov't as well. welfare has become a way NOT to work and to just keep on receiving while giving ZERO.

All this is well and good, but means nothing as you again haven't answered the questions? Lemme try again.

Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

I don't know who defines them, but as it is now, the people defining them need to be fired, because our system, it ain't working for the vast majority of people out there. Any system that is designed to only work for the few at the top, that system is seriously flawed and needs to be changed.