Tax system...

[conserv.pat15]

Do you think our tax system is fair?

 

[Comrade Brian]

No. I don't think it is. What's with these threads about taxes lately?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think our tax system is fair?

No.
Everyone should have their income taxed at the same rate.

 

[Kandahar]

Of course not.

 

[Navy Pride]

I voted no because I think there should be a user tax system.....

 

[Stace]

No.
Everyone should have their income taxed at the same rate.

Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

 

[conserv.pat15]

Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

Yes... the same RATE. What is unfair about that?

 

[Stace]

Yes... the same RATE. What is unfair about that?

Umm...I wasn't asking you. I was asking M14 Shooter, so that he could better explain his answer.

 

[Kandahar]

I recommend everyone read Flat Tax Revolution by Steve Forbes. It is an eloquent description of the many, many reasons that we should scrap our current tax system entirely and start anew with a flat tax. Under Forbes' plan, all income would be taxed at the same amount (he suggests 17%) and would allow generous personal deductions (a family of four would pay no tax on their first $46,000 of income).

Instituting a flat tax is one of the single most beneficial policy changes that our federal government could make.

 

[Stace]

I recommend everyone read Flat Tax Revolution by Steve Forbes. It is an eloquent description of the many, many reasons that we should scrap our current tax system entirely and start anew with a flat tax. Under Forbes' plan, all income would be taxed at the same amount (he suggests 17%) and would allow generous personal deductions (a family of four would pay no tax on their first $46,000 of income).

Instituting a flat tax is one of the single most beneficial policy changes that our federal government could make.

That makes a lot of sense...thank you for explaining that rather than spitting out a one liner. That system seems reasonably fair, and does not penalize low income families, nor would it overly tax higher income families. I think I remember seeing that book recently; I'll have to check it out when I see it again.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

I do. Anything else is unfair. You should not be penalized for being successful.

However I favor what is called the modified flat tax. I believe a tax rate should be set that all pay the same, and that the first $25,000 to $35,000 that an person makes should be tax-free.

That way everyone in the nation pays exactly the same and everything is fair, and it takes away the concerns of the seemingly regressive nature of a straight flat tax. No deductions of any kind allowed other than that one. Our tax forms would be a simple post-card.

 

[Stace]

I do. Anything else is unfair. You should not be penalized for being successful.

However I favor what is called the modified flat tax. I believe a tax rate should be set that all pay the same, and that the first $25,000 to $35,000 that an person makes should be tax-free.

That way everyone in the nation pays exactly the same and everything is fair, and it takes away the concerns of the seemingly regressive nature of a straight flat tax. No deductions of any kind allowed other than that one. Our tax forms would be a simple post-card.

Yeah, Kandahar explained that to me a bit more in detail, and it makes a lot of sense. I just don't like it when people simply give their opinion without explaining it at all. :lol:

 

[Navy Pride]

Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

people that make $10,000. pay zero taxes...........

 

[Stinger]

Do you think our tax system is fair?

No and it violates our privacy. Flat rate or NST and everyone rich or poor pays something.

 

[Stinger]

Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

He didn't say that. Even the personal deduction is factored out and a for the sake of discussion rate of 15% the person making $10,000 would pay $1,500 and the person making $100,000 would pay $15,000. NOT the same amout by a 10 fold difference.

 

[Stace]

He didn't say that. Even the personal deduction is factored out and a for the sake of discussion rate of 15% the person making $10,000 would pay $1,500 and the person making $100,000 would pay $15,000. NOT the same amout by a 10 fold difference.

1. Obviously, the flat tax thing has already been explained to me.

2. M14 said nothing about any specific rates or anything else. For all I know, he could have meant 50% for some crazy reason.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

Taxed at the same rate, not taxed the same amount in raw dollars.
But I guess you figured that out by now.

 

[Stace]

Taxed at the same rate, not taxed the same amount in raw dollars.
But I guess you figured that out by now.

Yeah, I did...I admit, I misread what you wrote, and wrote my response before I actually thought about the difference.

 

[JustMyPOV]

I recommend everyone read Flat Tax Revolution by Steve Forbes. It is an eloquent description of the many, many reasons that we should scrap our current tax system entirely and start anew with a flat tax. Under Forbes' plan, all income would be taxed at the same amount (he suggests 17%) and would allow generous personal deductions (a family of four would pay no tax on their first $46,000 of income).

Instituting a flat tax is one of the single most beneficial policy changes that our federal government could make.

I could definitely agree with this system as well. The problem you're going to find with getting it implemented is that there are thousands upon thousands of tax attorneys and accountants that are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the system complicated enough that their services are still needed. Also, the odds of getting the very wealthy to pay 17% of their income is slim to say the very least. A friend of mine who cleared $2million last year paid in less than 5% by the time his lawyer got done raking through the loopholes, so I wouldn't count on any kind of drastic simplification anytime soon.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stace
Are you kidding? You think that someone that makes $10,000 a year should be taxed the same amount as someone that makes $100,000 a year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
He didn't say that. Even the personal deduction is factored out and a for the sake of discussion rate of 15% the person making $10,000 would pay $1,500 and the person making $100,000 would pay $15,000. NOT the same amout by a 10 fold difference.

1. Obviously, the flat tax thing has already been explained to me.

Not obvious from your statement.

2. M14 said nothing about any specific rates or anything else. For all I know, he could have meant 50% for some crazy reason.

The specific rate is not the question, you questioned whether the person making $10,000 should pay the same AMOUNT as the person making $100,000. Under a flat tax they don't, they pay much less.

 

[Stace]

Not obvious from your statement.

The statement you quoted was made before the system was explained to me. Perhaps you should have kept reading.

The specific rate is not the question, you questioned whether the person making $10,000 should pay the same AMOUNT as the person making $100,000. Under a flat tax they don't, they pay much less.

Yes, I understand that now. And as I already told M14, I misunderstood what I read and posted before I fully thought about it. Again, if you had read all posts, you would see that, as well.

 

[Engimo]

Because of the fact that the cost of living does not increase proportionately with salary, a flat tax is essentially regressive. 17% of the income of someone making $30,000 is a lot more important to him/her than 17% of the income of someone making $500,000.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because of the fact that the cost of living does not increase proportionately with salary, a flat tax is essentially regressive. 17% of the income of someone making $30,000 is a lot more important to him/her than 17% of the income of someone making $500,000.

Most, if not all, flat tax proposals ignore the first several tens of thousands of dollars of income, based on the size of the family. Someone making $30,000 might very well pay no tax.

That way, the poor continue to pay no income tax, just like now.

 

[Engimo]

Most, if not all, flat tax proposals ignore the first several tens of thousands of dollars of income, based on the size of the family. Someone making $30,000 might very well pay no tax.

That way, the poor continue to pay no income tax, just like now.

While that does make the proposition much more attractive, the fact remains that the middle class is getting the short end of the stick when compared to the upper class - even if the absolute poorest are doing decently (of course, they're still poor, but they pay no taxes).

 

[M14 Shooter]

While that does make the proposition much more attractive, the fact remains that the middle class is getting the short end of the stick when compared to the upper class - even if the absolute poorest are doing decently (of course, they're still poor, but they pay no taxes).

If they wind up paying less than they pay now, I'm sure the "middle class" won't care.

If everyone is to be treated equally before the law, how can the law tax people unequally?