Flat Tax or Income Tax.

[TJS0110]

You see the problem here is that you're looking at the amount paid in taxes absolutely as opposed to comparitively.
Say there's a flat 15% sales tax. A poor person has to spend all of his money to get by. That means he is paying 15% tax on his income, while lets say a rich man only has to spend 50% of his income to get by, that means that, although he's paying more, he's only paying 7.5% on his income.
And another problem with the sales tax logic is that our participation in or benefit from our society is not neccisarily based on how much we purchase. Althoug those who cannot afford to buy much do end up with worse police, worse schools, worse roads, etc., not all of the rich in any given neighborhood spend the same amount, and yet get the same amount of protection and benefit from society as a whole. For example, my dad is quite well to do, yet he does not spend very much. In his neighborhood there are quite a few others who are well to do, and spend quite a bit more than he does, but my dad still gets the same benefit from society as a whole as them, and thus it would be unfair if he had to pay a notably lesser percentage of his income back to this society.
The fact is we need to acknowledge that as your income goes up, so does your disposable income, and thus your ability to pay taxes without noticably effecting your quality of life. Thus the only really equitable way to tax is a progressive tax, because a progressive tax, I guess you could say, hurts everyone the same amount.

You make alot of good points and i dont think there will ever be a perfect tax becuase someone will always pay more and people wil always find a way to pay less. You also make the point that people who spend less would end up paying less for things such as rodes and such. If you look at it that way in our system now rich people are paying more for things like medicare,wellfare, and rodes, While the poor pay less for those things and realy use more of those aminateys.

Realy I think no matter what we do someone will pay less and someone will pay more but with a flat tax most people will pay the same.

 

[Mikkel]

You make alot of good points and i dont think there will ever be a perfect tax becuase someone will always pay more and people wil always find a way to pay less. You also make the point that people who spend less would end up paying less for things such as rodes and such. If you look at it that way in our system now rich people are paying more for things like medicare,wellfare, and rodes, While the poor pay less for those things and realy use more of those aminateys.

Realy I think no matter what we do someone will pay less and someone will pay more but with a flat tax most people will pay the same.

I think this is an interesting topic, and the theories about flat tax vs a graduated system is interesting debate. I think the one thing that people often overlook is where the money is going. If we want to continue the amount of dollars that our government has available to it, we are going to need a higher flat tax than 15%.

The truth of the matter is, we need to fix our tax system so that billionaires can't exploit the loopholes and end up paying essentially nothing, while middle class shmoes continue to fulfill their civic duty. I think I'd be more tolerant of a flat tax system (or something closer to it) if the government was recieving what it SHOULD be recieving from upper class citizens.

 

[TJS0110]

I think this is an interesting topic, and the theories about flat tax vs a graduated system is interesting debate. I think the one thing that people often overlook is where the money is going. If we want to continue the amount of dollars that our government has available to it, we are going to need a higher flat tax than 15%.

The truth of the matter is, we need to fix our tax system so that billionaires can't exploit the loopholes and end up paying essentially nothing, while middle class shmoes continue to fulfill their civic duty. I think I'd be more tolerant of a flat tax system (or something closer to it) if the government was recieving what it SHOULD be recieving from upper class citizens.

I realy think that you've hit this nail on the head. People always want to talk about new tax systems but i think the key is to just find a system and fix it when it brakes not destroy it and get a new one.

 

[TJS0110]

I think what you say has a lot of merit in terms of numerical equity, but we both know that the numerical equity does not equate to actual equity. Think about it this way:
We have a dude making 15 grand a year, and a dude making 150 grand a year, and there's 10% tax. After tax the man making 15 grand would be left with 13,500 while the guy with 150 would have 135 grand.
Now when your down to living on 13,500 a year, you're definately cutting it close to living in squalor, and the difference between what you can afford with 13,500 and 15,000 in terms of what one needs to survive is definately noticable. The same can't be said for the person left with 135 grand.
The difference lies in what the money would be spent on, neccisities, or non-neccesities. Chances are a much larger portion of the man making 15 grand a year's income goes to neccessities, and it is for this reason that it is, although numerically equitable to charge them both a flat tax, it is not actually equitable, because a much larger portion of the man making 150 grand's income is open to whatever.

I think we agree but also disagree, I think since im middle class I'd like for there to be a higher tax to the rich but it's not fair to tax people based on success. I think thats the big point I'm trying to make, you cant say that becuase someone can pay more they should thats not fair people become successful and make money so they don't have to simply live but live well. Again im not a rich person so dont think im saying this from a rich persons point of veiw. We cant tax based on success becuase then people feel they are being cheated and then they find loop holes and the poor upstanding citizens keep paying the same tax. If we just fix our tax system I think that would end up being a better desicion then just makeing a different system.

 

[TJS0110]

yeah, I definately get what you're saying.
My parents are really well off by any relative standard, and I see how they live. I've personally been dirt poor before, and I know first hand how hard it is to stretch a small income (about 2400 a year). The fact is that those percentage points mean more to the poor than they do to the rich. And the difference in quality of life between someone with 150,000 and 135,000 a year is really fairly minimal, while the difference between someone with 15000 and 13500 a year is really quite visible, and that's what I'm saying. I'm not talking about taxing the rich into poverty until we have equity, but it hurts them less, and thus a progressive tax system is in many ways more equitable, not to mention that the richer you are the more you benefit from public programs anyway.

Ya i realy wouldn't have a problem with taxing the rich other than the fact that i think we'd start to relie on the rich to pay our taxes and it would end upp like income tax(income tax started as a one time thing,then it was optional, and then it was mandatory). I just dont want unequality between people, but ya u make some good points.

 

[IValueFreedom]

Taxation should be based on equality. Period.

That's why a flat tax is STUPID.

It IS NOT equal for someone who is attempting to make a living to have to pay 30,000 when they're only making 35,000. The guiding principle behind taxation is "equal sacrifice." It's a simply concept. Everyone is equal, everyone is expected to give what they can.

The problem lies with the middle class and up who look at their paycheck every other week and think they're getting screwed. YOU"RE NOT GETTING SCREWED. I don't see you eating ramon every day or even wondering IF you're going to eat. I don't see you wondering if you're going to be able to pay for your house or car(s) each month. The only thing that I see is you whinning about how if you weren't taking the shaft each month, you'd be able to get a new boat and go on that "much needed" dream vacation.

The problem lies with people in general. They're greedy. Everyone looks at the world thru their own eyes, always attempting to better their position, even if it means the detriment of others.

*This is not directed to all who believe in the flat tax, only most.

 

[Mikkel]

I don't think, under any circumstances, that under a flat tax system someone making 35,000 a year would have to pay 30,000. That's an 87% flat tax. Even our graduated tax system isn't that much for the rich.
Are you thinking of a head tax, possibly?

 

[TJS0110]

I don't think its so much that we need a new tax system just to fix the one we have. We could also just make a completely different system of makeing money for the government. You no whats ridiculous? They tax inheratince, Why should you tax money thats already been taxed? Although thats off subject.

 

[Mikkel]

I don't think its so much that we need a new tax system just to fix the one we have. We could also just make a completely different system of makeing money for the government. You no whats ridiculous? They tax inheratince, Why should you tax money thats already been taxed? Although thats off subject.

You mean the estate tax? Well, the government does give you some money for burial fees through social security.

The only other reason I can give you is that whoever died won't be using it anymore, and whoever is recieving it didn't work for it (unless they cleverly killed whoever had died).

 

[IValueFreedom]

I don't think, under any circumstances, that under a flat tax system someone making 35,000 a year would have to pay 30,000. That's an 87% flat tax. Even our graduated tax system isn't that much for the rich.
Are you thinking of a head tax, possibly?

Naw, I wasn't really thinking about that, rather just did a REALLY bad example to try and clarify my position. You're right about that being way out of control. My bad.

Oh, I'm against head taxes too though.

The only thing that flat taxes and head taxes CAN be good for is goods/services.

 

[Mikkel]

The only thing that flat taxes and head taxes CAN be good for is goods/services.

Agreed, in moderation.

 

[TJS0110]

You mean the estate tax? Well, the government does give you some money for burial fees through social security.

The only other reason I can give you is that whoever died won't be using it anymore, and whoever is recieving it didn't work for it (unless they cleverly killed whoever had died).

I know I know it is kind of wrong that someone gets money they didnt work for, howver the money has already been taxed. Social secuirity is the persons own money just being given back to you later.

 

[Mikkel]

I know I know it is kind of wrong that someone gets money they didnt work for, howver the money has already been taxed. Social secuirity is the persons own money just being given back to you later.

I'm not a wholehearted supporter of the estate tax. Yes, the money has already been taxed. The thing is, this is one of the few taxes that can almost never directly 'hurt' anyone. The dead don't miss it, and the living weren't expecting it, so if the government takes a little, it shouldn't make that huge of a difference. My main argument for it is that it provides tax dollars required for big government, which I advocate, without putting too much strain on working Americans.

 

[TJS0110]

I'm not a wholehearted supporter of the estate tax. Yes, the money has already been taxed. The thing is, this is one of the few taxes that can almost never directly 'hurt' anyone. The dead don't miss it, and the living weren't expecting it, so if the government takes a little, it shouldn't make that huge of a difference. My main argument for it is that it provides tax dollars required for big government, which I advocate, without putting too much strain on working Americans.

what your saying is right but what im saying is that even victimless crimes are crimes. If you steal a bicycle that no one own its still stealing. wheter it hurts someone or not. One example is this, My family has been takeing care of my great grandmother for years(she's 102 and still trucken) when she does die(not saying i want her to i love her shes very funny) we will have spent a very large sum of money to care for her it will have surpassed insurance and government money that has been provided. My great uncle has done the most, shouldn't he enharit the money becuase he needs it for all the money his family has expended. I dont realy like useing my family as an argument but it is a situation that helps my point.

 

[TJS0110]

That is interesting point, definately, but in your particular situation that is not victimless, since your great uncle would be the victim.
I hadn't thought about that, but then again, I don't even know what rate the estate tax was at.

I will admit most situations for inheratince dont end up like this but many people dont inherit that much without taxes so should we take more away from them?

 

[Mikkel]

I will admit most situations for inheratince dont end up like this but many people dont inherit that much without taxes so should we take more away from them?

I can sympathize with that. My great grandmother is 104, and living with my aunt, uncle, and grandparents. Fortunately she hasn't been too expensive as an old person. The issue here is that, normally money going towards taking care of the elderly usually comes from the estate first. As the value of the estate goes down, the tax goes down. Your point is an interesting one about taking care of the elderly with your own money, and my solution would be to give tax breaks to those who have spent an inordinate amount of money on care for their loved ones.

 

[TJS0110]

I can sympathize with that. My great grandmother is 104, and living with my aunt, uncle, and grandparents. Fortunately she hasn't been too expensive as an old person. The issue here is that, normally money going towards taking care of the elderly usually comes from the estate first. As the value of the estate goes down, the tax goes down. Your point is an interesting one about taking care of the elderly with your own money, and my solution would be to give tax breaks to those who have spent an inordinate amount of money on care for their loved ones.

That would be good, see we just need to fix our current system

 

[Mikkel]

That would be good, see we just need to fix our current system

I agree completely.

 

[Pacridge]

I will admit most situations for inheratince dont end up like this but many people dont inherit that much without taxes so should we take more away from them?

How are you coming up with this? The estate tax is basically defunct isn't it?

 

[TJS0110]

How are you coming up with this? The estate tax is basically defunct isn't it?

No they still inheratince more then a sertan point so i guess it wouldn't realy effect the situation were someone doesnt get that much.

 

[Pacridge]

No they still inheratince more then a sertan point so i guess it wouldn't realy effect the situation were someone doesnt get that much.

I'm sorry I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[TJS0110]

What i mean is that if you are set to inherit more then a pertain amount they tax that amount, however if you are set to inherit less then a sertain amount you are not taxed. I'm not sure what the cut off is.

 

[Mikkel]

I get what you mean... I don't have anyting really to say.. I just want my 200th post. Yay for me.

 

[Pacridge]

What i mean is that if you are set to inherit more then a pertain amount they tax that amount, however if you are set to inherit less then a sertain amount you are not taxed. I'm not sure what the cut off is.

I see now, thanks.

Here's a ink to the IRS site:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=112782,00.html#estate_max_rate_2003

 

[IndiConservative]

Some current tax information for some of you

Death tax kills small businesses- It taxes the assets of a business not just the cash withholds so if your business is worth 2.000.000 and the only cash withholding is 10.000 you may have to pay quite a large sum (i.e. sell the business)Thats assuming the deceased owned the business but it goes for estates as well

The rich dont pay more in Social Security taxes- The cut off is 87.900
after that point its ssc and medicare tax free

The Fair Tax should not increase the prices of some goods by much-
Currently everything you buy already has 22% tax built into the price
so if the flat tax was implimented it would keep the price about the same give or take a few percentage points

This would level the playing field for corporations and eliminate the need to high power corp tax lobbyists. The corporations would still pay the same taxes you would for their supplies.

This would make everyone pay the same taxes. Used cars cannot be taxed only new cars and only newly built houses can be taxed after that no taxes on them. It makes sense please review the website again