Would you support a flat tax?

[Frohickey]

Okay. I could be swayed one way or another, and I'm certainly biased for it. So here goes.

Do you agree that taxes should only be used for purposes that are used EQUALLY by all citizens? If so, do you agree that a flat tax is an equitable way of paying for these purposes? Flat tax, as in $x amount per person, regardless of income.

For the federal government, that would mean, take the costs of running the court system, post roads, military, smelter for coins, printing press for paper money, administrative costs for Washington DC, add it all up, divide it by the number of people in the US, and thats your tax bill for the year.

[zimv20]

i'd consider it. the devil's in the details, though. a lot of how i felt would depend on how it interacted w/ other taxes -- i.e. i'd need to see the overall tax burden.

[IJ Reilly]

The devil's actually in the description. Read it again!

[numediaman]

Well, let's see here . . . the Federal government spent 1.8 trillion dollars in expenditures in 2002, and there were 130 million income tax payers. That means everyone pays $13,750 per person.

That means a family of four, with two working adults, who are currently earning $50,000 now must pay over 50% in tax.

Of course, Steve Jobs, who earned $76.8 million in 2002 would pay the same amount, or 1.8%.

Yep, sounds like a great system to me.


source: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-ff05se.html

[bonehead]

Here's a link to a site by Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan group focused on tax reform.

http://www.ctj.org/html/tjmjec.htm

[IJ Reilly]

Right. This is a "head tax," not a "flat tax."

[Dont Hurt Me]

A flat tax based on income sure i would support that but not what you propose. what that does is screw the poor,and working class and lets those Forbes millionaires pay near nothing. sorry cant do it. George is allready socking the middleclass and letting the rich get richer.

[zimv20]

That means a family of four, with two working adults, who are currently earning $50,000 now must pay over 50% in tax.

Of course, Steve Jobs, who earned $76.8 million in 2002 would pay the same amount, or 1.8%.


that's not what i think of when i think flat tax. some years ago, jerry brown (iirc) was advocating a flat tax of 17%. so the $50k family would pay $8500, and jobs would pay some $13 million. the trick was to eliminate all those write-offs.

i haven't done the research, but i bet a family of four making $50k would pay less than $8500 in federal income taxes today.

[numediaman]

Zim, the idea was a head tax, not a flat tax. With a head tax everyone gets dinged the same amount, even if you earned a dollar, or a billion dollars.

But concerning a flat tax: I'm dead set against it. What is everyone here advocating, revolution? Do you realize the social implications of moving the tax burden any further down the income chain?

The progressive income came from day one. In 1913 income tax was instituted (but not withholding). The tax was 1% on the first $20,000 -- rising to 6% for income over $500,000.

EDIT: the 17% flat tax would mean that anyone earning $70,000 would basically pay the same. Anyone making more than $70,000 would pay less. I am happy to report that a flat tax would benefit me -- but is the cost to others worth it? No.

I believe everyone should be a tax payer -- even those earning less than $25K -- they should pay something, even if its a dollar. But don't buy into the crazy notion that the rich pay higher taxes than anyone else. It is not true!!!

If you earn $1 million dollars you pay the same tax as someone who earns $25,000. What you say? The first $25k of a millionaires earnings are taxed at 15% -- the same rate as a someone who only earned $25K. It is not higher. (Its the amount over that amount that is taxed at a higher rate. Since the person earning $25K earned zero over $25K how can you say the rich pays more.)

It is true that the richest Americans are paying a higher percentage of the total tax burden. Of course, they are also taking a higher and higher percentage of the income, as well. The only reason it appears like the rich are paying so much is that there are so many Americans who pay nothing at all. I would like every American to contribute something -- but I lose no sleep at all over the "unfair" burden of millionaires. They certainly don't seem to be losing any sleep over the growing number of people out of work.

[wordmunger]

A flat tax is a gimmick. What makes the tax code complicated is not the rate tables, but all the write-offs and loopholes. For example, you could make the tax rate 1 percent per $2000 of income, up to a maximum of, say 30 percent. This is about as far from a "flat tax" as you could get, but it would still be very simple to file your taxes, as long as there were no write-offs. Or alternately you could have a flat tax rate--15 percent for everyone, but if you kept all the write offs and loopholes, it wouldn't be any easier to file your taxes than it is now.

The head tax as originally proposed is even more ridiculous. Why should a struggling graduate, just starting out on a job, pay the same dollar amount as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? She doesn't get paid as much. If she's unemployed for any length of time, she might not even make enough to pay her tax bill. So, what, if you can't find a job, you get thrown in debtor's prison? It makes no sense.

[IJ Reilly]

that's not what i think of when i think flat tax. some years ago, jerry brown (iirc) was advocating a flat tax of 17%. so the $50k family would pay $8500, and jobs would pay some $13 million. the trick was to eliminate all those write-offs.

i haven't done the research, but i bet a family of four making $50k would pay less than $8500 in federal income taxes today.

It depends. If that income was derived from self-employment, the self-employment tax alone would be over $7,500. Anyway, this is a bogus proposal from word go. It's probably nothing more than an effort to draw us into a shallow, pointless debate where he can accuse us of wanting to "stick it to the rich." I'm out.

[DavisBAnimal]

that's not what i think of when i think flat tax. some years ago, jerry brown (iirc) was advocating a flat tax of 17%. so the $50k family would pay $8500, and jobs would pay some $13 million. the trick was to eliminate all those write-offs.

i haven't done the research, but i bet a family of four making $50k would pay less than $8500 in federal income taxes today.

That's not the type of tax inititally proposed in this thread - look carefully, and he's proposing a flat tax as in flat dollar amount, not percentage.

I don't support a flat tax (dollar or percentage). I think the tax rates of the lower-income earners should be less to encourage them to invest their money into the economy to encourage growth. Those income-brackters who would be more tempted to take their money and put it into foreign bank accounts and spend it on far away islands and French riviera country clubs should be taxed higher. Same for corporations - lower rates for small-businesses and companies boosting the economy here at home, and higher for those taking their jobs overseas to exploit cheap labor and inhumane labor/environmental practices.

The way it is now, the tax burden is on the working and the productive. Whereas a modest-income making nurse will be taxed upwards of 30% of his hard-earned money for his hourly job, a prissy hotel heiress making millions off of interest from her imherited daddy's investments gets taxed at half that rate. You know what? she should be getting taxed AT LEAST 30% on her dividend returns, etc, while that nurse should be taxed less, so he can go on using his money to grow the economy.

The tax structure shouldn't be about "fairness" - we're past fairness in this country when not everyone gets access to proper education or medical coverage, etc. etc. The tax structure is all about strategic ways to grow our economy in ways that are benefitial to everyone. This is why the subsidy system has so much potential, though it is used so poorly (we should subsidize organic foods and small farmers, not mass factory-farms, not to mention renewable energies - wind, solar - not fossil fuels). The free-market is a great idea, but laissez-faire is far from the answer - markets don't always work out in ways that are benefitial to the people (maybe good for the bottom line, but not good for our populace). The tax structure is a great way to promote social responsibility and the growth of economy without the creation of totalitarian coercive laws, etc.

"Fair" should be what benefits everyone, not who-pays-what.

Davis

[Sun Baked]

Flat tax -- NO

Head tax -- NO

Current progressive tax -- NO

Simple Progressive Tax -- YES (As in everybody has the same tax form, in each tax bracket)

---

But it's not just high earners that take advantage of write-offs, it's corporate America that gets away with it big time.

And remember if you simplify the tax system for everybody, you will no longer be playing the Lotto with stock options -- because your ass would be taxed big time for getting them.

[zimv20]

Zim, the idea was a head tax, not a flat tax.
ah, i see that now. i agree that such a tax could not possibly work.

[numediaman]

Flat tax -- NO

Head tax -- NO

Current progressive tax -- NO

Simple Progressive Tax -- YES (As in everybody has the same tax form, in each tax bracket)

---

But it's not just high earners that take advantage of write-offs, it's corporate America that gets away with it big time.

And remember if you simplify the tax system for everybody, you will no longer be playing the Lotto with stock options -- because your ass would be taxed big time for getting them.

I agree -- though I guess everyone could still argue about the details.

I mentioned this elsewhere -- why do families pay income tax based on revenue, and businesses pay on profit. In other words, a family of four who earn $25,000 pay a 15% income tax. But Microsoft, who said they earned $12.3 billion in profit in 1999, paid zero in taxes. (I have no figures for other years). the reason is the system is different. Microsoft can work the system to show they actually earned zero profit.

Individuals can't do that. If an individual said the they earned $25K, but that after expenses they were left with zero, they would still have to pay tax based on their "revenue" of $25k.

If people paid taxes like businesses, very few would pay anything.

Now I'm not advocating sticking it to business. But there needs to be some logic. Last year my business paid more taxes than Cisco (who paid zero). That pisses me off -- my business would not be on the Fortune 100,000 list!

[wordmunger]

Now I'm not advocating sticking it to business. But there needs to be some logic. Last year my business paid more taxes than Cisco (who paid zero). That pisses me off -- my business would not be on the Fortune 100,000 list!
The business tax code is insane. Back when I used to own a business, there would be years when we were just scraping by and we owed thousands in taxes. Other years, when the money was rolling in, we'd owe practically nothing. I couldn't figure it out--I just paid what the accountant told me to.

[Frohickey]

I think the posts have missed the purpose to which this flat tax is used for, and have instead focused on the burden to the taxpayer.

If the purpose of the tax is equally beneficial to all taxpayers, meaning that each taxpayer gets the same benefit from the government program, shouldn't the tax paid in order to fund the program be the same as well?

This is assuming that the benefit of a court system, post roads, national defense, coining of money is of equal benefit to all taxpayers.

[pseudobrit]

I think the posts have missed the purpose to which this flat tax is used for, and have instead focused on the burden to the taxpayer.

If the purpose of the tax is equally beneficial to all taxpayers, meaning that each taxpayer gets the same benefit from the government program, shouldn't the tax paid in order to fund the program be the same as well?

This is assuming that the benefit of a court system, post roads, national defense, coining of money is of equal benefit to all taxpayers.

This is ridiculous.

You are not advocating an income tax.

The government does not have to power to levy the head tax you are proposing.

[pseudobrit]

The biggest problem I see with taxes today is the unfairness of how FICA taxes are collected and used.

FICA is collected on the first dollar, even the dollars earned below the poverty line, and because Congress can't help itself when there's cash lying around and laughed at the "lockbox," Social Security taxes are being spent like general funds. Which means the poor are in effect paying insanely high rates of tax.

[skunk]

I think the posts have missed the purpose to which this flat tax is used for, and have instead focused on the burden to the taxpayer.

If the purpose of the tax is equally beneficial to all taxpayers, meaning that each taxpayer gets the same benefit from the government program, shouldn't the tax paid in order to fund the program be the same as well?

This is assuming that the benefit of a court system, post roads, national defense, coining of money is of equal benefit to all taxpayers.

The burden of putting out a fire, preventing a burglary, picking up the garbage, etc., of a rich household is going to be far greater than that of a poor household. And the court system is definitely more to the benefit of the rich than the poor. So why should they pay the same? This is a tax system designed by the filthy rich to defraud the people they exploit already even more. It's regressive in the extreme.

[numediaman]

I think the posts have missed the purpose to which this flat tax is used for, and have instead focused on the burden to the taxpayer.

If the purpose of the tax is equally beneficial to all taxpayers, meaning that each taxpayer gets the same benefit from the government program, shouldn't the tax paid in order to fund the program be the same as well?

This is assuming that the benefit of a court system, post roads, national defense, coining of money is of equal benefit to all taxpayers.

The system you outlined in your initial post is not a "flat tax", its a head tax. A head tax would force every person, not matter what their income, to pay the same amount. If you earn a dollar, you still owe $15,000, or whatever. Clearly, it doesn't work.

Now a flat tax is something else -- it's based on income, not benefits. I'm still very much against a flat tax. The people who can afford it least get their taxes raised, those at the top pay less.

In the U.S. the top tax rate has fallen from 72% in 1962, to 35% now. So, you would like them lowered? Then whose taxes do you want raised?

[Frohickey]

This is ridiculous.

You are not advocating an income tax.

The government does not have to power to levy the head tax you are proposing.

Never said it was an income tax. As to the power to levy this type of tax...
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

A $x amount of tax for each person is pretty dang uniform.

[Frohickey]

The burden of putting out a fire, preventing a burglary, picking up the garbage, etc., of a rich household is going to be far greater than that of a poor household. And the court system is definitely more to the benefit of the rich than the poor. So why should they pay the same? This is a tax system designed by the filthy rich to defraud the people they exploit already even more. It's regressive in the extreme.

Putting out a fire is done by a fire department, which is usually paid for via property taxes.
Solving burglaries is done by a police department, which is usually paid for via property taxes.
Picking up garbage is done by the garbage company, and this is done via a fee for how many containers a week of garbage you generate.

How is a court system more to the benefit of the rich? Are the rich more likely to be victimized?

[Frohickey]

The system you outlined in your initial post is not a "flat tax", its a head tax. A head tax would force every person, not matter what their income, to pay the same amount. If you earn a dollar, you still owe $15,000, or whatever. Clearly, it doesn't work.

Now a flat tax is something else -- it's based on income, not benefits. I'm still very much against a flat tax. The people who can afford it least get their taxes raised, those at the top pay less.

In the U.S. the top tax rate has fallen from 72% in 1962, to 35% now. So, you would like them lowered? Then whose taxes do you want raised?

Head tax... as in a fixed amount of tax per head (person).
Flat tax... as in a (flat) fixed amount of tax per person... how is this different.

I think you mean a Flat tax RATE ... with the amount paid based on something else, probably income.

Wouldn't a flat tax get rid of class envy. Each citizen is treated equal. Each citizen pays equal. Every citizen shoulders the same burden. Wouldn't this be a good thing?

[Frohickey]

The biggest problem I see with taxes today is the unfairness of how FICA taxes are collected and used.

FICA is collected on the first dollar, even the dollars earned below the poverty line, and because Congress can't help itself when there's cash lying around and laughed at the "lockbox," Social Security taxes are being spent like general funds. Which means the poor are in effect paying insanely high rates of tax.

Why not just eliminate the FICA tax then?

Or, if not eliminated, the FICA tax each person gets is tallied up. At the end of the year, the total of all the FICA tax paid by the person is added together, along with whatever interest that part of it got when all the other FICA tax paid by other people are invested.

[DavisBAnimal]

A $x amount of tax for each person is pretty dang uniform.

Did you read numediaman's post?


Well, let's see here . . . the Federal government spent 1.8 trillion dollars in expenditures in 2002, and there were 130 million income tax payers. That means everyone pays $13,750 per person.


A while back I was offered a first-year teaching position at an elementary school for $19,000 - had I taken that job, using your tax scheme, I would be left with $5,250 to live on for the year after taxes. Hell, rent + utilities is $600 a month = $7,200 a year. So after paying for my housing, I'm already 2 grand in debt. And I didn't even get to eat and had to walk to work naked everyday!

Do you really not see how what you're proposing is entirely impossible?

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

I think you mean a Flat tax RATE ... with the amount paid based on something else, probably income.

Wouldn't a flat tax get rid of class envy. Each citizen is treated equal. Each citizen pays equal. Every citizen shoulders the same burden. Wouldn't this be a good thing?

The term "flat tax" (forever immortalized by Steve Forbes' bid for the Repub nod in 1996) refers to income taxation at a flat RATE. What you are referring to is called a "Poll Tax" - a fixed amount per person. They are two different terms for two different forms of taxation.

If you really want to talk tax fairness - each citizen being treated fairly - the only example I've ever heard of that seems semi-plausible is the FairTax idea (http://www.fairtax.org/) which would eliminate all income taxes, gains taxes, yadda yadda, and replace them with a nation wide sales tax at point of sale goods. This I am intrigued by - it would shift the burden away from productivity and on to consumption, which would be very welcome given the American tendancy to over-consume. There also would not be tax placed on used items (since they've already been taxed) which would reduce waste production. I like this idea a lot and would like to learn more. Anyone else have any oppinions?

Davis

[numediaman]

Frohickey, I think you are confused here.

Yes, I understand the difference between a flat tax rate, and what you are proposing -- which is a head tax (the same amount paid by everyone).

But how can you honestly propose that those less off, who don't earn $75,000 or more, pay the same as millionaires. Class envy? It would create class warfare. And I don't mean anger, I mean warfare.

Image people who don't even earn income that takes them above the poverty line paying what Bill Gates does? My God, its 1918 in Russia all over again.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing a flat tax rate, that's less regressive, and less oppressive -- but, in my opinion, still a bad idea.

Again, why do you want to raise the taxes on the people least able to pay them? I don't understand your logic. Do you honestly believe that poor and middle class people are eager to see their taxes raised for some kind of Utopia you envision.

[mactastic]

So if you are making $35,000 your tax freedom day doesn't come until mid May, and that's just for your federal taxes? Add on state and sales and gas and property and any fees etc. and you're looking at over 6 months. And I thought you were for lowerering the tax burden. If that's your goal, you sure picked a lousy way to do it. Of course, if you make $350,000 a year tax freedom day comes the second week of January. If you make $1,000,000 a year you are free of federal taxes by noon on January 5th. Yeah that's sure fits the description of "shall be uniform".


You keep advocating schemes that would re-distribute wealth from the poorest in society to the richest and I can't figure out how that fits into your supposed Libertarian views.

[Frohickey]

The term "flat tax" (forever immortalized by Steve Forbes' bid for the Repub nod in 1996) refers to income taxation at a flat RATE. What you are referring to is called a "Poll Tax" - a fixed amount per person. They are two different terms for two different forms of taxation.

If you really want to talk tax fairness - each citizen being treated fairly - the only example I've ever heard of that seems semi-plausible is the FairTax idea (http://www.fairtax.org/) which would eliminate all income taxes, gains taxes, yadda yadda, and replace them with a nation wide sales tax at point of sale goods. This I am intrigued by - it would shift the burden away from productivity and on to consumption, which would be very welcome given the American tendancy to over-consume. There also would not be tax placed on used items (since they've already been taxed) which would reduce waste production. I like this idea a lot and would like to learn more. Anyone else have any oppinions?

Davis

Okay... poll tax.

I like the FairTax idea too. Would be simple to figure out how much I'm taxed. And you could also save a lot in the good years, to mediate the lean years.

[Frohickey]

So if you are making $35,000 your tax freedom day doesn't come until mid May, and that's just for your federal taxes? Add on state and sales and gas and property and any fees etc. and you're looking at over 6 months. And I thought you were for lowerering the tax burden. If that's your goal, you sure picked a lousy way to do it. Of course, if you make $350,000 a year tax freedom day comes the second week of January. If you make $1,000,000 a year you are free of federal taxes by noon on January 5th. Yeah that's sure fits the description of "shall be uniform".

You keep advocating schemes that would re-distribute wealth from the poorest in society to the richest and I can't figure out how that fits into your supposed Libertarian views.

But... there is no redistribution of wealth at all... each person pays a fixed tax. The government gets the taxes, not the rich OR the poor. The uniformity is in the amount of taxes paid. If you go to a restaurant (government) and it only serves one type of meal (basic governmental services such as post roads, court system, defense), shouldn't you pay the same amount as the next guy that ordered the same meal?

[numediaman]

But... there is no redistribution of wealth at all...

Frohickey, I'll try this one last time. If a guy makes $25,000 now, he probably pays about $3000 in taxes. If a guy makes $1,000,000 he pays about $200,000 to $250,000 in taxes.

Under your plan, the guy who makes $25,000 will pay $10,000 more in taxes. The millionaire will pay $185,000 less in taxes. Get it? The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Good luck in your attempt to find followers. I'm sure anybody who likes your idea will be very rich already.

[mactastic]

If you really want to talk tax fairness - each citizen being treated fairly - the only example I've ever heard of that seems semi-plausible is the FairTax idea (http://www.fairtax.org/) which would eliminate all income taxes, gains taxes, yadda yadda, and replace them with a nation wide sales tax at point of sale goods. This I am intrigued by - it would shift the burden away from productivity and on to consumption, which would be very welcome given the American tendancy to over-consume. There also would not be tax placed on used items (since they've already been taxed) which would reduce waste production. I like this idea a lot and would like to learn more. Anyone else have any oppinions?

I've run across this idea before. It definetly has some merits; as you say it promotes recycling and reuse, and focuses on consumption rather than production. But that poses something of a problem because our economy has been driven lately by consumer spending. Anything that puts a brake on that puts our economy at risk of sever slowdown which can be very dangerous. There is also the question of just how much tax we would have to put on sales. Shifting the entire burden that way is likely to make a whole lot of things too expensive for some. Also, this kind of tax is highly regressive. It would be fair if everyone spent all their money and were all taxed at the same rate, but that's not what we want to accomplish. And then there is the problem of the truly poor being unable to afford to eat because the tax rate is too high.

[mactastic]

But... there is no redistribution of wealth at all... each person pays a fixed tax. The government gets the taxes, not the rich OR the poor. The uniformity is in the amount of taxes paid. If you go to a restaurant (government) and it only serves one type of meal (basic governmental services such as post roads, court system, defense), shouldn't you pay the same amount as the next guy that ordered the same meal?

So then, using that logic, explain to me how entitlement programs are wealth re-distribution. And use the restaurant analogy.

[Sun Baked]

So then, using that logic, explain to me how entitlement programs are wealth re-distribution. And use the restaurant analogy.Well your basic govt. Burger Buddy in Frohickey's low income 'hood serves a couple White Castle Burgers, fries, and a small drink, because that fits in with the low rent hood.

In mactastic's Hollywood neighboorhood, the stars are dining on Kobe Beef Burgers, Gourmet Fries, and a nice small aged wine in a crystal glass -- because that's what expected in this area.

So the poor are paying a larger portion of their wages to support the rich.

I like this wealth re-distribution program -- of course education would be showing this type of shift more than anything else. ;)

[mactastic]

In mactastic's Hollywood neighboorhood, the stars are dining on Kobe Beef Burgers, Gourmet Fries, and a nice small aged wine in a crystal glass -- because that's what expected in this area.

Umm.. yeah. You know me all too well. :rolleyes:

[DavisBAnimal]

I've run across this idea before. It definetly has some merits; as you say it promotes recycling and reuse, and focuses on consumption rather than production. But that poses something of a problem because our economy has been driven lately by consumer spending. Anything that puts a brake on that puts our economy at risk of sever slowdown which can be very dangerous. There is also the question of just how much tax we would have to put on sales. Shifting the entire burden that way is likely to make a whole lot of things too expensive for some. Also, this kind of tax is highly regressive. It would be fair if everyone spent all their money and were all taxed at the same rate, but that's not what we want to accomplish. And then there is the problem of the truly poor being unable to afford to eat because the tax rate is too high.

I think the proposal currently in congress avoids the latter problems by only taxing consumption occuring above the poverty line. This would be accomplished by providing a rebate to all families equal to the amount of spending at the poverty level. For a family of four, this would be about $5,000 per year, paid in monthly installments of about $430. Because of this type of rebate system, the tax structure would actually be progressive rather than regressive, since the more you spend over the poverty level, the higher the percentage of tax you will pay.

And I think proponents of the FairTax would argue that prices would actually remain low, since there already is hidden tax burden in the cost of products given the amount of payroll and profit taxes, etc. etc., business have to pay - specifically for products manufactured within the US. Having a FairTax system would put US manufactured products in greater competition with foreign-manufactured products because of the lessened tax burden of the busineses.

I think this is actually the taxation system of most of Scandanavia, Switzerland, etc. - not to mention in place in Canada in a similar way. And I'm always looking for those countries for inspiration for American reforms.

Davis

[Sun Baked]

Umm.. yeah. You know me all too well. :rolleyes:Did I get the defenders of the rich and poor reversed again?

Darn, try putting the White Castle burgers on the plate in Hollywood and they'll end up paying higher neighboorhood fees to open a Kobe beef stand across the street.

---

aka if the Fire Dept, Police Department, schools, etc. don't meet the standard it's time to hire rental cops, and send everyone to the private schools.

[Neserk]

I believe in a tax that takes 50% of the rich and nothing from the rest of us. :mad: Damn rich people getting that way off the backs of the masses :mad:

[pseudobrit]

Never said it was an income tax. As to the power to levy this type of tax...
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

A $x amount of tax for each person is pretty dang uniform.

An Amendment was needed to impose federal income tax, as it was found unconstitutional.

What makes you think a head tax would not need one?

Did you just forget about Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 4 or did you not understand it?

[toontra]

I'm sure you're aware that a poll tax was tried here by Thatcher in the early 90s. It was the single most despised piece of legislation in modern history, was widely seen as inequitable, lead to protest marches and even riots and finally lead to Thatcher's removal.

This being the case, I urge Bush to implement the poll tax ASAP, pref. before the election!! :D

[skunk]

I'm sure you're aware that a poll tax was tried here by Thatcher in the early 90s. It was the single most despised piece of legislation in modern history, was widely seen as inequitable, lead to protest marches and even riots and finally lead to Thatcher's removal.

This being the case, I urge Bush to implement the poll tax ASAP, pref. before the election!! :D
It should be pointed out, before anyone gets too carried away, that this was a replacement for local municipal taxes only, and was NOT a flat rate as it was calculated according to the value of your property, albeit with a ceiling. And basically, we've still got it, under the name of Council Tax. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with it. The idea was that since many people were exempt from paying "Rates" (the older system of municipal taxes), they had no stake in the various spending plans of their local representatives, so they tended to elect the party which promised the most spending, leaving those who were not exempt to pick up the tab.

[toontra]

It should be pointed out, before anyone gets too carried away, that this was a replacement for local municipal taxes only, and was NOT a flat rate as it was calculated according to the value of your property, albeit with a ceiling.

Quite right skunk - a local tax only, but still with devestatling political impact!

[skunk]

It strikes me that if US corporations were made to pay their fair share of taxes, personal taxation might be all but redundant.

[wwworry]

How is a court system more to the benefit of the rich? Are the rich more likely to be victimized?


One only needs to look at the penalties for stealing millions via corporate fraud versus the penalties for physically stealing a tomato to see the difference in the justice system. Also the OJ case, that was a triumph of expensive lawyers.

It seems there are too many loopholes that make the system more complicated. THere are really two issues here - complication and "fairness". Some people mistake a complicated system for one that is not fair, or in other words, simple equals fair. I disagree though there are too many loopholes.

Lately people have been trying to get some types of income exempted from the tax code. That is unfair.

To say a progressive tax code is wealth redistribution and is inherently wrong kind of ignores what is actually going on and concentrates on linguistic definitions at the expence of actual data. For 70 years or more we have had a progressive taxation system and it has worked pretty well. The rich stayed rich or got richer (not a bad system for them). The middle class could move up the economic ladder.

I think we are seeing more problems as the progressive system is being made less progressive. Deficits, greater income disparity (which historically is not sustainable, can someone show me a society which survived with great income disparity?), and middle-class is carrying more of the load. Some people want to use the problem of middle class tax burdens to put even more of a burden on the middle class while stating that a flat tax will help them "because it is less complicated".

I think there should be MORE income brackets so there is not such a hit earning a thousand dollars more a year in some cases. Even a formula that is constantly adjusting - a sort of taxation curve. Right now the rich are paying less than ever in the past 70 years. Why is there still this push to get them to pay even less?? THey did pretty well at 39%. Let's go back to that with a higher income limit.

[wordmunger]

If the purpose of the tax is equally beneficial to all taxpayers, meaning that each taxpayer gets the same benefit from the government program, shouldn't the tax paid in order to fund the program be the same as well?

This is assuming that the benefit of a court system, post roads, national defense, coining of money is of equal benefit to all taxpayers.

That's a big assumption. I would submit that these things are of greater benefit to the rich than to the poor. If you are poor, living a subsistence lifestyle, currency doesn't really matter. You can barter with your neighbors, grow your own food. National defense is largely irrelevant, because your situation isn't going to be much worse no matter who runs the country. Also, the poor disproportionately serve in the military, so they contribute to defense through service. The court system is largely there to protect the assets of the rich from the poor; arguably the poor are harmed by it. Even welfare programs benefit the rich, because it is cheaper to buy off welfare moms than to give them decent homes, educate them, provide day care for their children, do all the things necessary to make them "productive."

The rich get a lot more out of the government, so they should put a lot more in to it. Unfortunately, too often they don't.

[Desertrat]

Limiting my comments to federal income taxes and ignoring state and local stuff: Why not a flat tax rate which begins above some income-level? Just to pick a number, no income of $20K or less is taxed. Above that income, send in X percent. (Could possibly deduct medical expenses or medical insurance premium costs from the income. Some such.)

Corporations: What was the gross income? What was the cost of gaining that income? Send in X percent of the difference (assuming a profit).

Next notion: Why only a flat tax rate on income? Why not a lower rate than the 17% commonly touted (10%?), PLUS a federal sales tax? Note: A tax rate of 10% on capital gains would lead to a great increase in sales of many items where there is a profit potential, increasing the income to the federal government.

My idea of the federal sales tax (10%?) would that grocery store food--and all medicines--would be exempted, as would clothing items under (e.g.) $50. No tax on rents or houses. It might exempt the third owner of a vehicle, since that buyer is commonly low-income (remembering my early daze).

It seems to me that my idea on the income tax would make life easier for the low income folks, as would my idea on the sales tax. And, the sales tax would mostly apply to those who can afford it. Not always, of course, but mostly.

Anyhow, this is just a rough-in. Seems to me it would generate an adequate income to the feds, and get rid of the complicated system we now have, with its wasted-money costs.

'Rat

[wwworry]

It's really not that complicated for a wage earner. The 1040 ez is pretty easy. It's pretty easy if you have an accountant.
It gets complicated with all the loopholes and exemptions.

Still, fairness and simplicity are two different things. We should address them differently.

Flat tax people lump them together. Mistake.

Make and argument either for or against progressive rates but don't put it on simplicity. Besides are we all willing to give up depriciation of assets, exemptions for mortgaes etc. THere will always be some "loopholes". It is just a matter of deciding which ones were put in by bought congress people and which ones that actually do some good.

[numediaman]

It's really not that complicated for a wage earner. The 1040 ez is pretty easy. It's pretty easy if you have an accountant.
It gets complicated with all the loopholes and exemptions.

Still, fairness and simplicity are two different things. We should address them differently.

Flat tax people lump them together. Mistake.

Make and argument either for or against progressive rates but don't put it on simplicity. Besides are we all willing to give up depriciation of assets, exemptions for mortgaes etc. THere will always be some "loopholes". It is just a matter of deciding which ones were put in by bought congress people and which ones that actually do some good.

One of the reasons it has been so hard to reform the tax system is that each one of the loopholes and deductions have their own constituencies. It would take a Herculean effort to get a "real" tax reform package through the Congress.

One Senator, deciding that eliminating the estate tax, or the deduction for child care, could stop the whole process with a filibuster.

Aren't the tax rates already flat? According to a study by the NY Times, printed early last year, the tax rates are already pretty flat. I have attached below a chart they produced. Whether their study is accurate, I do not know. But its the only thing I could find on the subject.

[2jaded2care]

I would strongly oppose the originally proposed "poll" or "head" tax.

I would strongly support a flat consumption tax which exempts lower income households. Sure, the 1040 EZ form isn't that complicated if your finances aren't complicated, but mistakes are always possible. Lots of people have to pay to have their taxes done.

Plus there's too many loopholes for corporations and individuals, and if the news media is to be believed, even some IRS employees don't understand all the regulations. With a consumption tax, the only "loophole" would be the black market, so all those IRS and H&R Block employees would have to go into consumption tax (and customs) enforcement.

The rich aren't going to stop purchasing things simply to avoid the tax -- what's the point of having money if you don't spend it?

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, I'll try this one last time. If a guy makes $25,000 now, he probably pays about $3000 in taxes. If a guy makes $1,000,000 he pays about $200,000 to $250,000 in taxes.

Under your plan, the guy who makes $25,000 will pay $10,000 more in taxes. The millionaire will pay $185,000 less in taxes. Get it? The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Good luck in your attempt to find followers. I'm sure anybody who likes your idea will be very rich already.

Forget how much one person makes.
If you go to the Apple Store to buy a 15GB iPod, do they charge one person $299 and another person $2999 depending on how much they make?

[Frohickey]

So then, using that logic, explain to me how entitlement programs are wealth re-distribution. And use the restaurant analogy.

Restaurant (government) still serves one kind of meal. Some people (rich) pay more for their meal and others, even though its the same kind of meal. Some people (poor) get free dessert (entitlement programs) after the meal, but these are the people that paid less for their meal. While others (rich) get no dessert (entitlement programs) even though they paid more for their meal.

[Frohickey]

The court system is largely there to protect the assets of the rich from the poor; arguably the poor are harmed by it. Even welfare programs benefit the rich, because it is cheaper to buy off welfare moms than to give them decent homes, educate them, provide day care for their children, do all the things necessary to make them "productive."

The rich get a lot more out of the government, so they should put a lot more in to it. Unfortunately, too often they don't.

Isn't the court system supposed to be there to protect the victims from the criminals? In saying "The court system is largely there to protect the assets of the rich from the poor", are you saying that the poor are criminals and that the rich are victims? I think that is inaccurate. Poor people can be victimized by criminals, be they rich or poor.

In saying that welfare programs benefit the rich, how are they benefiting if they are not receiving any assistance from the programs? Also, why do welfare moms NEED TO BE GIVEN decent homes, educated, day care to make them productive, while productive non-welfare moms do not need such programs to become productive? Could it be that one group practiced self-restraint and personal responsibility and the other group did not? (I did not include luck since that could go both ways.) So, which group are we encouraging, and which group are penalized?

[Frohickey]

Limiting my comments to federal income taxes and ignoring state and local stuff: Why not a flat tax rate which begins above some income-level? Just to pick a number, no income of $20K or less is taxed. Above that income, send in X percent. (Could possibly deduct medical expenses or medical insurance premium costs from the income. Some such.)

Nice idea. Workable too, with the exemptions for food and clothing and rent. Would work well for the low income people.




(But...)
What would you do with all the IRS agents that are out of a job? :p

[DavisBAnimal]

Forget how much one person makes.
If you go to the Apple Store to buy a 15GB iPod, do they charge one person $299 and another person $2999 depending on how much they make?

Dude, no matter what anology you can come up with, a poll tax is not only entirely impossible, but would destroy the economy. Many, many, many, many people would never be able to afford it (we're talking $14,000 a year in taxes), it wouldn't get the gov. the money it needs to run, and it would rip the money away from those most likely to spend it here, thus causing mass disruption in all facets of the economy and near economic meltdown.

The rich are better served by a progressive tax structure cause it would keep people spending money on their companies. The poor are better served by a progressive tax structure because it allows them to keep more money to buy the things they need. Progressive taxes are good for rich people AND poor people. A poll tax, while it may look "fair", would have the effect of blowing the economy to pieces and would end up hurting the poor cause they would constantly be in debt to the government, but it would also hurt the rich, cause no one would be buying their computers and going to eat at their Fast-Food chains.

The gov. needs money to run, so you take it out of the hands of people who value it less (a dollar is not worth the same to Bill Gates as it is to a starving homeless man) while keeping cash in the hands of those most likely to spend it when they get it in the US economy - the poor and the middle class.

A poll or head tax would be a disastor for everyone, rich to poor.

Davis

[zimv20]

Forget how much one person makes.
If you go to the Apple Store to buy a 15GB iPod, do they charge one person $299 and another person $2999 depending on how much they make?
i don't think your analogy works.

instead, one should compute the average cost of all items sold. THAT would be the price of the ipod. and a gallon of milk. and a stamp. and a skyscraper.

[wordmunger]

Isn't the court system supposed to be there to protect the victims from the criminals? In saying "The court system is largely there to protect the assets of the rich from the poor", are you saying that the poor are criminals and that the rich are victims? I think that is inaccurate. Poor people can be victimized by criminals, be they rich or poor.
If you are poor, you don't have anything anyone wants to steal. If you are rich, you don't need to steal anything, you can just buy it. Therefore, rich people are more likely to be victims and poor people are more likely to be criminals. Thus, rich people should pay more for protection from crime.

In saying that welfare programs benefit the rich, how are they benefiting if they are not receiving any assistance from the programs? Also, why do welfare moms NEED TO BE GIVEN decent homes, educated, day care to make them productive, while productive non-welfare moms do not need such programs to become productive? Could it be that one group practiced self-restraint and personal responsibility and the other group did not? (I did not include luck since that could go both ways.) So, which group are we encouraging, and which group are penalized?
I agree, it would be fairer to reward those who are more productive and punish those who are less productive. However, when we allow a portion of the population to sink into truly abysmal poverty, it's unpleasant for everyone. These people are more likely to become criminals and beggars. There's nothing more annoying on your way to the opera than to be accosted by a crowd of beggars.

Furthermore, when the gap between rich and poor becomes truly huge, like, say, in tsarist Russia, then the poor tend to gather together in mobs, destroying the rich people's palaces and cutting off their heads. The cheapest way rich people have found to avoid this is to write all the impoverished mothers a small check every month--enough to keep them out of sight, out of mind. It's only fair that the rich pay for more of this burden than the middle class, because they are more likely to be the target of rebellion.

[Frohickey]

One recurring theme on these types of threads that I find disturbing is the assertion by some that peace and tranquility can only be achieved if there is low disparity between income levels. And that having a high disparity in income levels should be avoided in order to maintain this peace and tranquility.

What ever happened to the rule of law?

Isn't the law against initiating violence against others (murder, rape, robbery) still valid regardless of disparity in income levels?
Isn't the law against fraud or misrepresentation still valid as well?
Isn't the law against theft still valid?

If the crime for murder is death, what is does your sense of justice say for the punishment in these cases. In all cases, there is a high definition distortion-free camera footage and police officer witnessing of the crime.

Case A. Person is killed with a knife by a poor homeless beggar panhandling on the side of the road for his wallet.
Case B. Person is killed with a knife by a rich young punk looking for thrills on the side of the road. Wallet not taken.
Case C. Person panhandling on the side of the road is killed with a knife by a rich young punk looking for thrills. No wallet to be taken.
Case D. Person panhandling on the side of the road is killed with a knife by a poor homeless beggar because he is panhandling in his spot.

If I was on the jury, all of these cases would be decided the same way, defendant is guilty of murder. Sentence is death.

What would be your verdict?

[zimv20]

If you are poor, you don't have anything anyone wants to steal. If you are rich, you don't need to steal anything, you can just buy it. Therefore, rich people are more likely to be victims and poor people are more likely to be criminals. Thus, rich people should pay more for protection from crime.
criminal behavior such as thievery depends more on ethics and morals than income, imo.

if you want to include in your definition of 'criminal' such things as speeding, embezzlement, rolling through stopsigns, lying under oath, stealing office supplies, stealing music and software, etc... does your characterization still stand?

[DavisBAnimal]

One recurring theme on these types of threads that I find disturbing is the assertion by some that peace and tranquility can only be achieved if there is low disparity between income levels. And that having a high disparity in income levels should be avoided in order to maintain this peace and tranquility.

What ever happened to the rule of law?

Isn't the law against initiating violence against others (murder, rape, robbery) still valid regardless of disparity in income levels?
Isn't the law against fraud or misrepresentation still valid as well?
Isn't the law against theft still valid?

If the crime for murder is death, what is does your sense of justice say for the punishment in these cases. In all cases, there is a high definition distortion-free camera footage and police officer witnessing of the crime.

Case A. Person is killed with a knife by a poor homeless beggar panhandling on the side of the road for his wallet.
Case B. Person is killed with a knife by a rich young punk looking for thrills on the side of the road. Wallet not taken.
Case C. Person panhandling on the side of the road is killed with a knife by a rich young punk looking for thrills. No wallet to be taken.
Case D. Person panhandling on the side of the road is killed with a knife by a poor homeless beggar because he is panhandling in his spot.

If I was on the jury, all of these cases would be decided the same way, defendant is guilty of murder. Sentence is death.

What would be your verdict?

Coercive law is only one way to curb behavior, and it's far from being the most effective. I thought you were a libertarian? The government is not fully efficient in the regulation of behavior. Certain cultural aspects play a large roll in the encouragement of certain behaviors, and certainly large disparity between rich and poor has historically been a catalyst for violence and social unrest. The rull of law should certainly be equal (though should never involve state-sanctioned murder), but you can't expect (especially as a libertarian) that strong-armed government will be an efficient means of behavior control. People shouldn't not steal because they're afraid of being put in jail - people should feel as if stealing is unwarrented, unnecessary and uncalled for, and this feeling alone - culturally constructed - should be the force preventing them from taking something that isn't theirs. Unfortunately, when you got some people who seemingly possess all the world, and some people with barely enough to feed themselves no matter how hard they try, those "don't steal" self-regulating feelings are hard to instill in people.

Davis

[wordmunger]

criminal behavior such as thievery depends more on ethics and morals than income, imo.

if you want to include in your definition of 'criminal' such things as speeding, embezzlement, rolling through stopsigns, lying under oath, stealing office supplies, stealing music and software, etc... does your characterization still stand?
Well, even if poor people and rich people are equally likely to be criminals, the rich are more likely to be victims, so they should pay more for the justice system. But due to their lower levels of education, and also due to the fact that they have more to gain and less to lose, I think poor people are still more likely to commit crimes than rich people.

[2jaded2care]

One recurring theme on these types of threads that I find disturbing is the assertion by some that peace and tranquility can only be achieved if there is low disparity between income levels. And that having a high disparity in income levels should be avoided in order to maintain this peace and tranquility.

What ever happened to the rule of law?

Isn't the law against initiating violence against others (murder, rape, robbery) still valid regardless of disparity in income levels?
Isn't the law against fraud or misrepresentation still valid as well?
Isn't the law against theft still valid?

While I'm no fan of the class envy you mention, I don't think that it's realistic to believe that our country could survive if the poorest of the poor were like those living in the trash dumps of third-world countries, which seems to me slightly more likely to transpire in a truly Libertarian society. (Of course there's personal charity, but if you truly believe that the poor are all so because they choose to be...)

I'll make an analogy, hope it's not offensively sexist: Does an attractive, petite young woman in a bikini deserve to be assaulted whilst walking alone through Central Park at 2 am? Of course not. But, should same woman reasonably expect no chance of being assaulted under these circumstances?

Change "woman" to "rich people" and that's why I don't think a tremendous disparity is a good idea. I'm not saying gov't should be the Handicapper General, but there has to be a safety net for the lowest rung.

I dislike class envy because I aspire to be rich. (Luckily, PowerBall admission is only $1 !)

[DavisBAnimal]

Well, even if poor people and rich people are equally likely to be criminals, the rich are more likely to be victims, so they should pay more for the justice system. But due to their lower levels of education, and also due to the fact that they have more to gain and less to lose, I think poor people are still more likely to commit crimes than rich people.

While I definitely agree with you, I'm pretty sure that this isn't the reason we have a progressive tax structure. The tax laws were/are written by the very rich, and I'm sure they're not sitting around thinking to themselves "you know what? I'm the one most likely to recieve protection from the police force, so, to be fair, I should probably be paying higher taxes".

I really think we have a progressive tax structure because, so far, it has been seen as the most effecient way of taxing the people while still promoting a growth-oriented, prosperous economy, something that undoubtedly helps all people - often times, in our dergulated economy, the rich more than the poor.

Davis

[zimv20]

Well, even if poor people and rich people are equally likely to be criminals, the rich are more likely to be victims, so they should pay more for the justice system.
property crime and violent crime are highest in poor areas, so in that regard, no, the so-called "rich" (how do you define that, anyway?) are not more likely to be victims.

regarding paying more for the justice system, you're arguing for a pay-as-you-go system. the biggest detraction of that system, imo, is the friggin' HUGE bureaucracy it would require to value everything in society (and for a majority to agree), plus track who's used what. and who is likely to use what and when. then royalty-type payments would need to be agreed upon, and made, to those involved in production, services, rights in perpetuity, etc. it's impossible and ridiculous.

[wordmunger]

While I definitely agree with you, I'm pretty sure that this isn't the reason we have a progressive tax structure. The tax laws were/are written by the very rich, and I'm sure they're not sitting around thinking to themselves "you know what? I'm the one most likely to recieve protection from the police force, so, to be fair, I should probably be paying higher taxes".


No, I think the motives were probably greedier than that. The truly rich could afford bodyguards, but they said to themselves, "If I could get the middle class to pay for this, I could save money on bodyguards." So they pitched a police force to the middle class as a way to make everyone safer. Everyone pays taxes, the rich pay a little more than the middle class (but a LOT less than they'd pay for bodyguards), and everyone is safer.

[wordmunger]

property crime and violent crime are highest in poor areas, so in that regard, no, the so-called "rich" (how do you define that, anyway?) are not more likely to be victims.
They are highest in poor areas because the rich get better police protection. The rich have a lot of political influence, so they get the cops in their neighborhoods. If everything else was equal, I guarantee you there'd be more crime in rich neighborhoods.
regarding paying more for the justice system, you're arguing for a pay-as-you-go system. the biggest detraction of that system, imo, is the friggin' HUGE bureaucracy it would require to value everything in society (and for a majority to agree), plus track who's used what. and who is likely to use what and when. then royalty-type payments would need to be agreed upon, and made, to those involved in production, services, rights in perpetuity, etc. it's impossible and ridiculous.
No, I'm arguing that the system has evolved into something that is fairer than a head tax. I agree with you that the system you describe would be a disaster.

[wwworry]

Show me one flatly taxed society that works.

THe closest one can get to the libertarian ideals propsed by Frohickey is USA circa 1890. Read up on life in America in 1890 and you'll thank god for all the work done by progressives.

All I hear from flat tax people is how hard it is to be rich in America. How it is so hard to have twenty years of income growth gains more than any other group. How it is so sad that such "productive" individuals are being punished. We really should lower their taxes again because we have a deficit now and a lot of people are losing their jobs. If we do not baby them they won't help us.

The rich did GREAT paying 39%. THe middle class started doing a bit better too. We had a surplus and were starting to pay down the debt. We could also afford programs like Teach For America and 10,000 new police officers. What was so bad about that?

What's bad now is huge deficits. Social Security at risk. Stagnating wages for anyone not super-wealthy. Loss of jobs. Higher state and local taxes. Lower funding for universities. etc. It's just not working.

Talk up flat tax all you want but we still have a bill to pay and factually the rich can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income. If they don't like it they can cease doing business or living in America. (Put that way I don't think any of them who have done so well paying 39% would choose to leave.) The flat tax is crap.

[wwworry]

Forget how much one person makes.
If you go to the Apple Store to buy a 15GB iPod, do they charge one person $299 and another person $2999 depending on how much they make?

Yes the best lawyer should cost $15
You should get personal service from your senator with a donation of $0.50
Laws should be written for you for a donation of $1
Four years of school in the best university would be $45


Justice, political representation and education - the three pillars of our society.

[Sun Baked]

Yes the best lawyer should cost $15
You should get personal service from your senator with a donation of $0.50
Laws should be written for you for a donation of $1
Four years of school in the best university would be $45


Justice, political representation and education - the three pillars of our society.So how much for the personal services from the female political interns (Monicough) for the public at large? :eek:

[DavisBAnimal]

No, I think the motives were probably greedier than that. The truly rich could afford bodyguards, but they said to themselves, "If I could get the middle class to pay for this, I could save money on bodyguards." So they pitched a police force to the middle class as a way to make everyone safer. Everyone pays taxes, the rich pay a little more than the middle class (but a LOT less than they'd pay for bodyguards), and everyone is safer.

That still doesn't explain why a progressive tax evolved over a regressive tax.

[numediaman]

That still doesn't explain why a progressive tax evolved over a regressive tax.

This might:

The Income Tax's Progressive Roots
By Jonathan Rowe

. . . The income tax grew out of decades of turmoil as the U.S. evolved from an agrarian economy to an urban one in the years before World War I. Robber barons still rode high. The gap between rich and poor was the widest in American history. And as the country prepared for the first time to enter a European war, a major new funding source was needed. President Woodrow Wilson proposed an income tax, but on whom would it fall?

Business interests and Republicans wanted a broad-based tax that fell heavily on the masses. This would "bring home to them the responsibilities of government," and thus ensure less government, as one editorial writer put it. The Wilson administration basically shared this view. Populist Democrats, by contrast, thought ordinary Americans were already paying their fair share--and more--through excise taxes and tariffs. They saw the European war as a boondoggle for arms makers and big financial interests, who should pay for their own adventure.

"Jingoes should pay for jingoism," said Warren Worth Bailey, congressman from Allentown, Pennsylvania and a former newspaper editor. If the wealthy had to pay for war, legislators like Bailey thought, there likely would be less of it.

A number of populist leaders were followers of homegrown economist Henry George, who argued passionately that the robber barons were exacting gain from resources nature had created for the common good. They were reaping what they did not sow, and this "unearned increment" is what government should tax.

The income tax that Congress enacted was pretty much in this populist mold

[zimv20]

They are highest in poor areas because the rich get better police protection. The rich have a lot of political influence, so they get the cops in their neighborhoods. If everything else was equal, I guarantee you there'd be more crime in rich neighborhoods.
there's more property and violent crime in poorer neighborhoods because, for the most part, criminals don't wander very far.

i live in one of the lowest-incident neighborhoods in chicago. here are some observations:
- it's middle class (there's a range, but middle class)
- there's no police station nearby
- there's a small street police presence

why is the crime low?
- mostly single-family housing
- for the most part, people take care of their property (imo, that means they're more likely to care for the neighborhood at large)

contrast this to the cabrini green area of chicago, which has a much higher crime rate:
- low-income high-rises
- police station right in the middle of the projects

iow, i don't think your police-presence analysis holds up. cops go where the crime is while criminal patterns follow their own logic.

[pseudobrit]

iow, i don't think your police-presence analysis holds up. cops go where the crime is while criminal patterns follow their own logic.

IOW, criminals **** where they eat.

[zimv20]

Talk up flat tax all you want but we still have a bill to pay and factually the rich can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income. If they don't like it they can cease doing business or living in America. (Put that way I don't think any of them who have done so well paying 39% would choose to leave.) The flat tax is crap.
as numediaman (iirc) showed w/ his graph, all brackets pay about the same percentage when considering the overall tax budren.

a flat income tax would not work if all else remained equal. but if all deductions were disallowed, maybe a flat tax would produce about the same result. in which case, its benefit is in its simplicity.

i agree, however, that a flat tax hurts those who make less money and would lose the benefit of their first N dollars being tax free (which ALL of us enjoy, btw; sometimes i think people aren't aware of that).

[DavisBAnimal]

i agree, however, that a flat tax hurts those who make less money and would lose the benefit of their first N dollars being tax free (which ALL of us enjoy, btw; sometimes i think people aren't aware of that).

Just to clarify, almost all Flat Tax proposals that have been tossed around in Congress and economic circles call for a poverty-level line below which one won't get taxed. To be absolutely precise, these aren't "real" Flat Tax proposals - they're simply two-tiered Progessive Taxes - but I don't think anyone has proposed a flat tax without the first N dolalrs being tax free.

Davis

[Neserk]

Forget how much one person makes.
If you go to the Apple Store to buy a 15GB iPod, do they charge one person $299 and another person $2999 depending on how much they make?


Now I like that Idea :D

[Krizoitz]

I am in favor of a two, or probably three tier tax system. You have the base level below which you aren't taxed, they allready have this but I'd raise it some. Then you have a mid range level, and a slightly higher upper tax. I don't know the numbers or anything, but I like this best because obviously the minimum cost of living is the same whether you make $30,000 or $300,000, and even if you take 20% from both, it hurts the lower person more. So you have the minimum. No tax below that. For the rest you have a flat tax. Minimal exemptions, if any. Thats the best system i can think of.

[Neserk]

I am in favor of a two, or probably three tier tax system. You have the base level below which you aren't taxed, they allready have this but I'd raise it some. Then you have a mid range level, and a slightly higher upper tax. I don't know the numbers or anything, but I like this best because obviously the minimum cost of living is the same whether you make $30,000 or $300,000, and even if you take 20% from both, it hurts the lower person more. So you have the minimum. No tax below that. For the rest you have a flat tax. Minimal exemptions, if any. Thats the best system i can think of.


Actually the minimal cost of living (rent, my largest expense) is about 2x where I live than where my husband is from. And we don't live in a super nice area. We live with other common folk ;) That is the problem with the federal income tax system. It doesn't take into account ones basic living expenses.

If they accounted for that, then I like your system!

[zimv20]

That is the problem with the federal income tax system. It doesn't take into account ones basic living expenses.

for singles, the fed income rate on the first $7150 is 10%. w/ a standard deduction of $4850, the tax becomes .10*(7150-4850) = $230 = 3.22%

what's poverty level now, $15k? (for arguments sake, let's say so)

tax rate on 7151-29050 is 15%.

so in the case of a single person making $15k, what's their effective federal income tax rate?

$15000 - 4850 = $10150
tax on first $7150 (10%) = $715
tax on remaining $3000 (15%) = $450

total fed income tax = $1165 = 7.76%

the question is: is that unreasonable?

edit: tax rate table info (http://www.planningtips.com/QuikGuide/2004indrates.html)

[IIvan]

Hell- while we are talking about different taxplans, I think Ill spin my own commie pinko socialist idea. How about every cent of money everyone makes over 30,000 per individual and 60,000 per family is taken. The government is funded, and then all the surplus is divided up evenly and payed back to everyone.

YOu could adjust the numbers to better reflect what is a reasonable living amount, but seriously, does anyone need a personal inome of millions a year just to live? This way the poor are OK, and the rich.. well actually there would be no rich. Everyone can survive comfortably, and I bet the surplus would be huge, allowing everyone to do even better.

flame me all you want

[zimv20]

i'm gonna try another...

a family of four making $50k, filing jointly. here are the rates:
10% $1 - 14,300
15% 14,301 - 58,100
25% 58,101 - 117,250
standard deduction: $9500
each child: $3050
total deductions: $15,600

taxable income = $50k-15.6k = $34,400

$14,300 @ 10% = $1430
$20,100 @15% = $3015

total fed income tax = $4445 = 8.89%

[zimv20]

one more. a single person making $1,000,000.

rates:
10% $1 - 7,150
15% 7,151 - 29,050
25% 29,051 - 70,350
28% 70,351 - 146,750
33% 146,751 - 319,100
35% Over 319,100

standard deduction: $4850

taxable income = $1m-4850 = $995,150

$7150 @ 10% = $715
$21899 @15% = $3284.85
$41299 @25% = $10324.75
$76399 @28% = $21391.72
$172,349 @33% = $56875.17
$676,049 @35% = $236617.15

total fed income tax = $328,493.64 = 33%

of course, this lucky person has other things working in his/her favor, such as the FICA tax maxing out under $80k, plus there's probably a host of deductions. and -- they friggin' made a million bucks (well, some $670k) in one year.

neserk, i have concluded that the federal income tax rates do, in fact, take poverty living into account.

[zimv20]

YOu could adjust the numbers to better reflect what is a reasonable living amount, but seriously, does anyone need a personal inome of millions a year just to live?
well, there's still that idea that the more one contributes economically, the more one earns, loosely. there's also the idea that, by working harder and/or smarter, one can earn more. i'm not ready to do away w/ those ideas.

[IIvan]

well, there's still that idea that the more one contributes economically, the more one earns, loosely. there's also the idea that, by working harder and/or smarter, one can earn more. i'm not ready to do away w/ those ideas.

If those things actually did hold true, I would agree. However, usually having a high income does not mean working more, or having real talent. It is about having money to begin with. The lowest payed people in society usually are the hardest workers.

You could be very intelligent and hard working, but still be too poor to go to college, and have to work at the Burgershack your whole life. Does someone who was brought up in a rich family and had everything and inherited the CEO position of a company have a right to ahve more money than the first person? Did they have to work any harder?

[zimv20]

usually having a high income does not mean working more, or having real talent. It is about having money to begin with. The lowest payed people in society usually are the hardest workers.

You could be very intelligent and hard working, but still be too poor to go to college, and have to work at the Burgershack your whole life.
two things...

first, i am a perfect example of someone who was born lower middle class and succeeded. i worked very hard at my $3/hr jobs to put myself through college, but it doesn't begin to compare to how hard i worked when i was still working the 6-figure jobs. so i don't buy the "people at the top got it easy" comment.

second, read "The Millionaire Next Door" and you'll understand how/why your observations are not accurate.

[Neserk]

but it doesn't begin to compare to how hard i worked when i was still working the 6-figure jobs. so i don't buy the "people at the top got it easy" comment.
.

I don't think you are the norm. I've never worked harder than when I have had to work for minimum or barely above minimum wage jobs. Physically. teaching, especially subbing, is hard work but in a different way. Mostly it is more meaningful and takes considerable more skill. But that is not the norm.

[Desertrat]

Ilvan, a few thoughts: First off, if you spend your life flipping burgers, odds are you'd never have made it through college in the first place. You'd have had many mental problems besides IQ, if that's all the career you could put together.

I spent four years working among movers and shakers. I recall a VP from Exxon, the "main man" attorney for the King Ranch, some lobbyists for the petro-chemical industry...What stood out about the deal was while I was only putting in eight to ten hours a day, most of them regularly put in close to 16 hours. Hell's bells, even the evening meal involved their work, as did much of their entertainment. And IMO, a high level of responsibility justifies some part of the high pay. Burger flippers have no responibility for the economic well-being of others.

When I went to work for Chevrolet Test Lab as a young, would-be engineer, in 1962, I asked about my potential future, the upper limits of the job. I was told that while engineers were relatively cheap, good administrators were fairly rare. I got a comment to the effect, "If you and your wife put in 20 hours a day, you could become the General Manager of Chevrolet. 22 hours, and you might get Donner's job." (Donner was CEO of Generous Motors at that time.) So: How many hours a day do you and your wife work, totally focussed on the good of your company?

I've known far more people who created their own high net worth from their own efforts, than folks who inherited or stole or "lucked in" to a bunch of money. Sure these latter exist, but they're the minority. You know of them; Sens. Kennedy, Kerry, as examples...

:-), 'Rat

[wordmunger]

"If you and your wife put in 20 hours a day, you could become the General Manager of Chevrolet. 22 hours, and you might get Donner's job."

This presupposes a base level of education beyond what most people ever receive. I know several husband/wife teams who work well over that and will never make much money--they're baggage handlers, store clerks, etc. It's not *just* about how hard you work, though I agree, CEO types work a LOT harder than average Joes.

[wwworry]

From Business Week Summary of
Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else
by David Cay Johnston

--------------
The book also offers a warning that should alarm just about every BusinessWeek Online reader: Unless the tax system is rejiggered, any American who makes $50,000 to $500,000 a year is going to get hurt. Remember those huge tax cuts rammed through by the Bush Administration over the last three years? Most -- and in some cases all -- of the benefits are likely to be eaten up by new taxes, Johnston asserts, even if the official tax rate isn't raised.


PARALLEL CODE. At the same time, the tax burden on the wealthy has plunged. People in the top fifth of the income scale now pay only 19% in taxes -- and that figure takes into account state, federal, sales, property, and all other levies. The poorest fifth of Americans pay 18%. The people in the middle -- the other three-fifths -- presumably pay considerably more (I certainly do), though Johnston doesn't give a specific number. He points out that the only ones who pay less are scofflaws, whose numbers are soaring.

----------------



So maybe you flat tax people are right. If the super wealthy, through loop holes etc. are only paying 19% and if the poor can only afford 18%, then maybe us middle classers should only pay 18.5%

But, unfortunately, we still have a govt. to run. Just cut middle class rates and raise super wealthy rates!

----------------

BIGGEST HIT. Politicians -- mainly Democrats in this case -- have similarly gamed the Social Security system. Its taxes have soared because of changes made in the early 1980s that were supposed to keep the system solvent. Johnston calculates that from 1984 to 2002, the government collected $1.7 trillion more in Social Security taxes than it paid out. The extra money was supposed to go into a fund to help pay for baby boomers' retirements but instead was simply dumped into general revenue -- another way of saying it was used to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

As a result, Social Security is now the main tax paid by most average Americans. The maximum tax has soared, from $327 in 1970 to $5,400 in 2003 -- and you have to make only $87,000 to get hit by the maximum. Three-quarters of all households now pay more in Social Security taxes than in income taxes.

Worse, the original purpose of the tax -- to protect the poor from destitution in old age -- has been lost. Shamefully, the Democrat-controlled Congress dropped the minimum benefit for the poor in the early 1980s as a cost-saving measure.

RAMPANT CHEATING. Equally shameful is the way conservative Republicans have gutted the IRS. No one much likes the IRS, but it's a necessary evil because tax cheats basically just take money out of the pockets of honest people who pay. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress doesn't see it that way. It has repeatedly scored political points by hammering the IRS and slashing its budget. As a result, while the number of tax returns filed increased by nearly 50% from 1988 to 2002, the number of IRS auditors plunged 30%, to 11,500.

Little wonder that cheating is rampant. Partly because of mismanagement and partly because of budget cuts, the IRS doesn't have the computers and knowhow to go after the complicated offshore trusts, partnerships, and other scams the wealthy use to avoid taxes. And new rules passed by Congress in the late 1990s require that any IRS employee accused of certain infractions go through an administrative hearing and face mandatory firing if found guilty. This is a good reform in theory, but in practice it has allowed tax cheats to tie auditors up in red tape or intimidate them with threats of a complaint.

More and more people are simply refusing to pay income taxes -- and few, if any of them, are being punished. An IRS internal report found that in 2002 "at least 152,000 Americans filed bogus tax returns stating they owed no taxes or even seeking money back from the government under a variety of tax evasions marketed by promoters," Johnston writes. That's 1 in 900 U.S. returns. The General Accounting office estimates that 7,500 U.S. companies now simply don't bother to withhold taxes from employees, probably as a form of tax protest.

PERUSE BEFORE VOTING. Powerful as Johnston's indictment of the tax system is, I can't recommend his book as a great read. Like many books cobbled together from newspaper articles, it's poorly organized and full of repetition and familiar material. It's also short on meaningful suggestions for reforming the system. That's too bad, because if Perfectly Legal were better done, it would be one of the most important books of recent years.

As it is, every American who wants to be well-informed before voting this fall should at least slog through the key chapters. Flawed as it is, this is a seminal book about some of the most important issues facing the nation.

[wwworry]

I've known far more people who created their own high net worth from their own efforts, than folks who inherited or stole or "lucked in" to a bunch of money. Sure these latter exist, but they're the minority. You know of them; Sens. Kennedy, Kerry, as examples...

:-), 'Rat

and ????

preesssident who??? :)

I much prefer a rich guy who accepts the responsibilty of his money than a guy who wants to rejigger the system to get even more "lucky" money.

[pdrayton]

Okay. I could be swayed one way or another, and I'm certainly biased for it. So here goes.

Do you agree that taxes should only be used for purposes that are used EQUALLY by all citizens? If so, do you agree that a flat tax is an equitable way of paying for these purposes? Flat tax, as in $x amount per person, regardless of income.

For the federal government, that would mean, take the costs of running the court system, post roads, military, smelter for coins, printing press for paper money, administrative costs for Washington DC, add it all up, divide it by the number of people in the US, and thats your tax bill for the year.I don't agree that taxes should only be used for purposes that are used equally by all citizens. The long term implication of using taxes to fund only programs that are used equally by all would be to do away with our city/county/state/federal style of coordinating government programs and instead group government around clusters of people with similar wants and needs. Don't think that would work (and it's been tried, to some extent, in retirement communities such as Sun City, AZ which don't "need" schools and thus try to remove themselves from being a part of the greater community's school tax district. Rather selfish, I think.

I do think a flat-tax, without loopholes for the rich, would actually work very well. Raise the base rate at which one begins paying taxes and then let everyone pay an equal percentage... with lots of tax dollars coming in from those who have high incomes and relatively low tax dollars coming in from those at the low-end of the scale. It's possible to lower the tax rate of the wealthy while increasing the actual tax dollars they pay, thus taking pressure off those at the lower end of the pay scale while keeping a semblance of "we're all paying our fair share".

Unfortunately, most politicians who support a flat-tax find it difficult to convey to the public that "lowering" the tax rate percentage for the wealthy can still mean increasing the actual amount of tax dollars they pay... so the politicians come up with a caveat that their version of a flat-tax would be "revenue neutral".

It's time we drop the "revenue neutral" masquerade and learn about the benefits of a trully flat-tax system.

[jennyjennydz]

money money money blah blah blah
The idea behind the income tax is the theory of imperfect knowledge (Kant). Looking at the result - person A made more than person B - and coming up with a tax system is not how its supposed to be done. That is unless you're greedy and want to change the rules after the game is underway.

The idea is to look at the start - say a 1 day old child. Now come up with a tax system that is fairest to all of the 1 day old children. You have no foreknowledge of their families, their relative intellengence, their relative work ethic, or even their relative good fortune. But you must come up with the fairest tax system for all. That is the philosophical idea behind modern income tax systems.

Similarly, the justifications of the tax system you advocate, must therefore be predicated not on the results but on the ethical and moral considerations of the starting point. That is why every successful western democracy has chosen a regressive tax system.

Now flat tax versus non-flat is just an arguement over how regressive the curve is. I for one have no problem with a flat tax (linear tax curve) provided that the zero point on the taxation curve is set at at least 150% of the national poverty level. Every $ above that is taxed x percent. Fine by me.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[Krizoitz]

one more. a single person making $1,000,000.

rates:
10% $1 - 7,150
15% 7,151 - 29,050
25% 29,051 - 70,350
28% 70,351 - 146,750
33% 146,751 - 319,100
35% Over 319,100

standard deduction: $4850

taxable income = $1m-4850 = $995,150

$7150 @ 10% = $715
$21899 @15% = $3284.85
$41299 @25% = $10324.75
$76399 @28% = $21391.72
$172,349 @33% = $56875.17
$676,049 @35% = $236617.15

total fed income tax = $328,493.64 = 33%

of course, this lucky person has other things working in his/her favor, such as the FICA tax maxing out under $80k, plus there's probably a host of deductions. and -- they friggin' made a million bucks (well, some $670k) in one year.

neserk, i have concluded that the federal income tax rates do, in fact, take poverty living into account.

what you don't take into account is that the rich can afford tax lawyers that can get them every deduction under the books, so they sometimes spend next to nothing in income. Its not a long shot either it happens all the time in corporate america with ceo's etc. You make that much money, you hire a guy for $50,000 to do your taxes, he cuts it in half (conservative estimate), you just saved over $100,000. Not to mention that if you are making $1,000,000 that $200,000 you spend doesn't come close to making it difficult for you to live. Where as a person making $40,000 who is taxed 20% is now down to a $32,000 disposable income, minus house payments, car payments, insurance, etc. All those average joe things multi-millionaires will never have to worry about.

[wwworry]

The average multi-millionaire pays on 19% of it's total income in taxes.

How much do you pay?

[zimv20]

what you don't take into account is that the rich can afford tax lawyers that can get them every deduction under the books, so they sometimes spend next to nothing in income.
to be fair, i mentioned it. what i was examining was how the federal income tax rate tables are set up and, to neserk's question, if they "take into account" poverty.

for me to do an exhaustive analysis taking into account any/all tax dodges available would be prohibitive.

in other news, the state of illinois has a flat income tax rate of 3%

[Neserk]

neserk, i have concluded that the federal income tax rates do, in fact, take poverty living into account.


You missed my point. Poverty looks different in different parts of the country. Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in a mediocre neighborhood in Southern California costs over $1000 a month. In the Greater Pittsburgh area it is about $5-600 a month. Deciding what rate of income is poverty needs to depend on the cost of living for that area. The Federal Government has a flat rate that has nothing to do with how much of your income goes toward rent.

[zimv20]

You missed my point. Poverty looks different in different parts of the country.
i did a lot of work to miss your point :-)

i understand what you're saying, and i've got two comments:
1. where you live is your choice
2. it's not the fed's job to recognize that difference; if it's anyone's job, it's the states'

[IIvan]

A few things- sure, a person who makes a 6 or 7 digit salary might work more than one who makes 20 grand a year but do they really work 1000 times harder to deserve that much money?

What do you do with that much money? Surely you don't need it to survive. Maybe you could make it so that the wealth is redistributed until everyone makes a certain amount to live comfortably, then divide the surplus up among those who paid the most?

On burger-flippers, yes some are really stupid. But some minimum wage people I have worked with are actually fairly smart, and have goals in life. They just can't advance much farther than where they are without a degree, which is, IMHO, the best way for the rich to keep things the way they are. They don't have the time or money to go to college. They don't want to be rich, just make enough to live decently. It just isn't fair that they can live in poverty while some peopple can afford several mansions and Ferraris and servants and the like.

[zimv20]

A few things- sure, a person who makes a 6 or 7 digit salary might work more than one who makes 20 grand a year but do they really work 1000 times harder to deserve that much money?
the market is what sets the value. working hard is only one part of creating value. luck has something to do w/ it, but it's not all luck.


What do you do with that much money? Surely you don't need it to survive. Maybe you could make it so that the wealth is redistributed until everyone makes a certain amount to live comfortably, then divide the surplus up among those who paid the most?

spoken like someone who doesn't make any money. once you make some, you'll want to hold on to as much as you can, either for consumption, security, retiring early, whatever.

They just can't advance much farther than where they are without a degree, which is, IMHO, the best way for the rich to keep things the way they are. They don't have the time or money to go to college. They don't want to be rich, just make enough to live decently. It just isn't fair that they can live in poverty while some peopple can afford several mansions and Ferraris and servants and the like.
then they should get a degree. if i can put myself through college, anyone can. i had to do so during the reagan years; he loved cutting education funding. such funding was much more available during the clinton years, what were your friends doing then?

i am all for funding education much more than we're doing so currently. but i also expect a little responsibility from those who bitch and moan while flipping burgers. are these smart people honestly doing everything they can to get ahead? or are they spending their money on ipods and cars?

i expect the federal gov't to fund education properly and provide an economy that creates jobs. but then i expect its constituents to take advantage of that.

if you read The Millionaire Next Door, you'll see that this "no one can be rich except those who are already rich" notion is crap.

/soapbox

[pseudobrit]

Why is income below the poverty line ($12-15k) taxed at any rate?

Isn't that a bit unethical?

[Sun Baked]

A few things- sure, a person who makes a 6 or 7 digit salary might work more than one who makes 20 grand a year but do they really work 1000 times harder to deserve that much money?They're paying some of those people to assume the liability with running a company, there are many factor which may crop up with their leadership that may be the paid public whipping boy when things go wrong, destroy their career, land them in jail, or place them in court for a couple years.

How much would you need to get paid to take their place in jail, court, or be the target of shareholders and media?

Look at some of our disgraced CEOs that followed in Al Dunlop's shoes and are now facing jail time.

Eisner got paid a bit and people were happy with him, but now he's a media/shareholder target.

Dick Grasso is facing years of court battles because he got "paid too much."

Ken Lay replaced Skilling as CEO and Lay assumed the company was in great shape it wasn't, now he's in a "what did he know?" position as the company crumbled months after he got back.

The dude that agreed to be interim CEO of Freddie Mac during the CEO hunt, got paid $16 million dollars to take over while the company fights the accounting problems and hunts for a CEO. Now that they are doing a bit better and have a new CEO, the board of directors is probably going to take him to court to take back the money the paid him -- not for his work or leadership, but because they think they paid him too much for 6 months of work. :rolleyes:

[Sparky's]

my coworkers and I had this discussion a few years ago, and someone came in with an article (can't remember the exact writer of the LA Times) but it was shown with a little simple math that if everyone in the nation, bar none, and they meant NONE, paid a 15% tax based on income (as well as net income from assets and investments, So Jobs pulling this $1.00 pay check wouldn't work) the national debt could be paid off in a few years, or sooner, I can't remember which.
If the math played out and the "rich" actually paid their share I would back such a plan. seeing as I am now in the 40% bracket and People like Trump, Jobs, Gates, and others are in the 0% bracket (I know but it seems like that) somethings gotta give soon. :mad:

[zimv20]

seeing as I am now in the 40% bracket
?????

which taxes did you combine to get to 40?

[Desertrat]

Addressing some of Ilvan's comments:

"A few things- sure, a person who makes a 6 or 7 digit salary might work more than one who makes 20 grand a year but do they really work 1000 times harder to deserve that much money?"

No, of course not. But they bear 1,000 times more responsibility--or more--for the economic well-being of the employees and stockholders. Remember, to get these sorts of high salaries, there must be a track record of previous success in business decision making.

"What do you do with that much money?"

Whatever you want. It's called freedom of choice. It's part of that philosophic concept known as "liberty".

"Surely you don't need it to survive."

What does "need" have to do with anything? Who has the right to determine another's needs in a free society, other than each individual, for himself?

"Maybe you could make it so that the wealth is redistributed until everyone makes a certain amount to live comfortably, then divide the surplus up among those who paid the most?"

That's basically a thief's belief. Take from those who produce a lot, and split it up among those who produce little. Take the rewards away from those who have risked, and give to those who function as some sort of spectator.

"They just can't advance much farther than where they are without a degree, which is, IMHO, the best way for the rich to keep things the way they are."

A guy named Bill Clements was governor of Texas in the 1970s. He got rich in the oil business, beginning as a roughneck and working his way into the drilling business as an owner-operator. He was an eighth-grade dropout.

I know another eighth-grade dropout. He's now in his middle-sixties. When he first showed up here in 1985, he'd already put together an empire in Fort Worth of some 1,500 rent houses. He built a motel here. Then a restaurant and filling station. Then another motel. Then more buildings and an RV Park. He hired locals during construction, and hired locals for the permanent jobs.

Sure, anecdotes. But they are among many which refute the idea that a college degree is a necessity to get ahead.

"It just isn't fair that they can live in poverty while some peopple can afford several mansions and Ferraris and servants and the like."

"Fair" is the wrong word, entirely. Life itsownself has no fairness, or there would be no birth defects. I submit that "biological luck" would be more apropos. Some people are just plain smarter, whether it's innate IQ or a rational use of one's IQ. Some people just innately have a drive to get ahead, whereas others don't. I know Mensans who have been among the homeless; I know some people who didn't impress me all that much for smarts, but who seemed to have an innate talent for making money. (My father stated a belief that for some, making money is indeed a talent, just as is an eye for color in painting or a perfect pitch in music.)

As long as folks don't lie, steal or cheat, I don't care how much money they earn or inherit or win from a lottery. What they have is not my concern; it's none of my business or anybody else's. Hank Williams said it quite well, with his, "If you mind your own business, you'll stay busy all the time."

:), 'Rat

[IIvan]

I agree that some poeple are smarter and some more inclined to make money, and some neither and some both. I just think it wouls be a great idea for society to give those all those who them want basic needs and comforts. In an economy where no-one is needy, Id say fine, free enterprise. But through skill and luck some people rise to the top, and others don't. You can speak of specific examples, but the vast majority of people just don't strike it rich. I believe that those who do should have to give back to everyone else, including those who they get their wealth from.

An example of my own- I have a friend. He is a nice person, but he comes from a wealthy family and is spoiled. Every year, his family throws away well over 130,000 dollars, and they have no idea where it goes. He gets thousands of dollars of computer equipment every year, and periodically is give large some of cash and credit cards to spend as he chooses.

Some would say that it is the perrogative of this family to waste all of the money, and always be well off. I however think that it should not be until everyone else who actuallly needs extra money is taken care of. It is wrong, I think, for one party to be able to spend many thousands on frivolity while another could pay their way out of debt, fix their car, or find a decent apartment with a smalll fraction of it. We in America are all supposed to be equal right?

One last thing- I have worked for 2 years now. I have seen bosses drive sports cars and huge trucks while his employees struggle along in cars fit only for junkyards. I am by no means an experienced person, but I am not completely niave either.

'night

[Krizoitz]

The rich couldn't get rich if two things didn't exist.

1) a well funed govt able to provide the infrastructure in which to do buisness. Without the following:
- transportation infrastructure
- common currency
- law enforcement
- national defense
- trade protection

it wouldn't matter how hard they worked or what they made, they couldnt' get it to market, people could steal it, no one would be able to pay for it, and other countries would be able to tariff it into non-existence, that is of course if they didn't just take us over first. A well funded gov't is essential and the rich benefit from it more than most, so if they have to pay a little bit higher percentage, say 20% instead of 10% so be it, its not like its bankrupting them any.

2) poorer people
these guys couldn't get rich if the people below them weren't doing all the work. Yes rich people can work hard, etc etc, but I think they vastly under appreciate in many cases the people who work for them. With all their excess wealth they could do a better job helping to take care of the people below them. And i'm not talking about handouts, but taxes which go to support things like schools and medical care and job training programs.

I know it flies in the face of all those libertarians and small gov't people, but frankly relying on human generosity writ large is asking for trouble. You think that if we don't have laws and taxes that the rich are going to pay for services out of the bottom of their hearts? Get real and take a look at history, when has that EVER happened on anything but the occasional individual basis. Andrew Carnegie is not the norm. If he was we'd be in great shape. Instead we have the rich getting richer an the poor getting poorer and the middle class is in trouble.

[Desertrat]

Ilvan, your friend spends his money in what you see as a wasteful and frivolous fashion. How about the people from whom he buys products? Should they refuse his money? :)

Few of today's giant corporations began as giants. And, most successful relatively-small businesses are being operated so as to make them grow. Any growth in any business means that profits are required in order to invest in more or new types of equipment to expand production and thus sales.

Almost 30 years ago, my wife started a small business making unfinished wooden boxes for the crafts/hobby people to paint and decorate for whatever use they wanted: Home decor, gifts, or resale as a finished, decorated product. Starting with two employees, the business grew to some 15. The reason my wife makes more money than the employees is that she's the only one with the drive and imagination to put the deal together. She's the one with the responsibilities involved in keeping a business going. It's not an issue of how hard she works, or how many hours she puts in. It's the issue of making the correct decisions which keep fifteen people employed, the bills paid and the doors open.

The only difference between my wife's little deal and Exxon is the size. The types of responsibilities are the same.

And insofar as taxes on businesses go, no business actually pays taxes. The customers do; the taxes are built in to the price of the product. I'm including franchise taxes, property taxes, exise taxes of whatever sort, as well as taxes on profits.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Hell- while we are talking about different taxplans, I think Ill spin my own commie pinko socialist idea. How about every cent of money everyone makes over 30,000 per individual and 60,000 per family is taken. The government is funded, and then all the surplus is divided up evenly and payed back to everyone.

YOu could adjust the numbers to better reflect what is a reasonable living amount, but seriously, does anyone need a personal inome of millions a year just to live? This way the poor are OK, and the rich.. well actually there would be no rich. Everyone can survive comfortably, and I bet the surplus would be huge, allowing everyone to do even better.

flame me all you want


No thanks, you've left no incentive to work other than to better society. And that doesn't work real well for motivation thanks to human nature. No flaming intended, but that is the fundamental objection I have to a system like that. There are other issues as well of course, but this is the core one.

[applebum]

Forget how much one person makes.
If you go to the Apple Store to buy a 15GB iPod, do they charge one person $299 and another person $2999 depending on how much they make?

Frohickey - you keep using purchases to try to make your point - a meal, an iPod. The problem with this comparison is one simple thing. If I can't afford the meal or the iPod, I don't go to the restaurant or the Apple store, so I don't pay anything. With the head tax you keep arguing for, I don't have the option of not paying - if I can't afford it, I am screwed. You are using bad examples.

[2jaded2care]

Actually, I want to modify my support for a flat consumption tax.

Still no tax on food or medicine.

However, I want the tax on cigarettes to be 100%, to help pay for putting out the brush/forest fires caused by careless smokers, and for the litter they cause.

Sorry, pet peeve.

[Frohickey]

Actually, I want to modify my support for a flat consumption tax.

Still no tax on food or medicine.

However, I want the tax on cigarettes to be 100%, to help pay for putting out the brush/forest fires caused by careless smokers, and for the litter they cause.

Sorry, pet peeve.

Yeah, but that tax is not gonna be spent on firemen or streetsweepers. Its going to be spent on other unrelated governmental boondoggles.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey - you keep using purchases to try to make your point - a meal, an iPod. The problem with this comparison is one simple thing. If I can't afford the meal or the iPod, I don't go to the restaurant or the Apple store, so I don't pay anything. With the head tax you keep arguing for, I don't have the option of not paying - if I can't afford it, I am screwed. You are using bad examples.

That is what you are missing. You pay for the things that you use. You pay the tax because you are benefiting from the uses the tax pays for. Court system, post roads, printing money, defense. If you are not using it, then you are probably not living here, and hence, you wouldn't need to pay for it.

[Frohickey]

No thanks, you've left no incentive to work other than to better society. And that doesn't work real well for motivation thanks to human nature. No flaming intended, but that is the fundamental objection I have to a system like that. There are other issues as well of course, but this is the core one.

We are on the slippery slope for what IIvan wants, everytime you talk about more taxes for the rich. And its always more taxes for the rich, and more governmental assistance programs for the poor.

[Frohickey]

An example of my own- I have a friend. He is a nice person, but he comes from a wealthy family and is spoiled.

We in America are all supposed to be equal right?

One last thing- I have worked for 2 years now.

You don't deserve the friend you have. Tell him that he HAS TO, HAS TO GIVE YOU money. Tell him that he cannot refuse to give you money. Tell him that if he refuses, bad things will happen to him. Tell him that he can't refuse, and you will take it from him anyway. When you do all of this talking to your friend, do so with a LOUD voice, a clenched fist, or a baseball bat. Also, do it in front of a police officer.

We in America are created equal... created equal. If I spend most of my time in the library/at work studying/working hard, and you spend most of your time sitting in front of the television playing Grand Theft Auto 3, at the end of all of that, we are not equal anymore.

Work a bit longer... work a bit harder... work a bit smarter. Do all of that and you will end up being the boss driving the sports car and big truck.

[Frohickey]

my coworkers and I had this discussion a few years ago, and someone came in with an article (can't remember the exact writer of the LA Times) but it was shown with a little simple math that if everyone in the nation, bar none, and they meant NONE, paid a 15% tax based on income (as well as net income from assets and investments, So Jobs pulling this $1.00 pay check wouldn't work) the national debt could be paid off in a few years, or sooner, I can't remember which.
If the math played out and the "rich" actually paid their share I would back such a plan. seeing as I am now in the 40% bracket and People like Trump, Jobs, Gates, and others are in the 0% bracket (I know but it seems like that) somethings gotta give soon. :mad:

Steve Jobs' $1 salary is income. Not his only income, mind you, but its the income he gets from Apple. If he exercises stock options, then thats income as well, if its within 2 years. If its after 2 years, its capital gains.

[Sun Baked]

Steve Jobs' $1 salary is income. Not his only income, mind you, but its the income he gets from Apple. If he exercises stock options, then thats income as well, if its within 2 years. If its after 2 years, its capital gains.I'm just waiting for the California Employment Board to go after Apple for violating minimum wage laws, and the IRS -- they hate it when people try to claim too small a wage package to get around the FICA, state, federal, etc. taxes. ;)

[Frohickey]

spoken like someone who doesn't make any money. once you make some, you'll want to hold on to as much as you can, either for consumption, security, retiring early, whatever.

i expect the federal gov't to fund education properly and provide an economy that creates jobs. but then i expect its constituents to take advantage of that.


You don't really mean what you said in the first paragraph, do you? You are sounding a lot like me, and not like mactastic or pseudobrit. :eek:
Waitaminute... what did you do with the real zimv20? Should we call report a kidnapped zimv20? Activate the Amber alert system? What did you do to the real zimv20? :p

Education is best funded close by. Meaning if its funded by the parents directly to the teacher, then more of it goes to teaching your child. Move it up a notch, and if the parents give to the school, and the school gives to the teacher, then the school takes a cut of it for administrative purposes.

Move it up yet again, parents give it to the county, county gives to the school, school gives to the teacher, and you get another cut taken out for administrative purposes.

Move it up yet again, parents give it to the state, state to the county, county to the school district, school district to the school, school to the teacher, and yet another cut it gone.


"Provide an economy that creates jobs"... who are the people in the economy? Is government in the economy? Aside from the governmental jobs, do they create anything, or are they all consumers? The economy is you and me, my boss, your boss, his suppliers, etc. The best thing that government can do your "provide an economy that creates jobs" is to punish fraud, and get out of the way.

[IIvan]

Wow- I was going to quit arguing in this thread, but I saw Frohickey's post, and I just had to respond.

You missed the whole point of my stupid example. My friend sits around on his ass and is rich, while I work and am poor. For example we have both been in accidents last year. He was not out a single cent. His parents bought him a new car, and they still pay for his gas insurance and all expenses. I on the other hand, have to fix my car myself (talk about work!) and watch as many months of my income go down the drain. I have to pay all my expenses, including higher insurance, and he is not at all affected. Now I am not trying to say that I should be pardoned for my mistake, but it seems wrong that I should have to pay so severely, while he ends up better off (new car!) for his problems.

It all comes down to this. I have to pay all of my expenses except rent (live with my parents), and I never get a break. I resent those who have money and can so easily pay their way out of any problems, and always have nice things, and never have to worry about going into debt. Their wealth cushions them from hardship. YES, some of them earn it, and deserve to not be short of money. But I think that anyone who makes over a certain amount, can give the rest to those who aren't so lucky or skilled, and still live well.

Yes, some rich people deserve it, but many don't. Either way, they should be obligated to help out those who don;t have the luck and or skills to live decently.

We are on the slippery slope for what IIvan wants, everytime you talk about more taxes for the rich. And its always more taxes for the rich, and more governmental assistance programs for the poor.

DUH!!! rich people don't need assistance- the poor do!! You can obviously afford to pay much more tax when taking care of all of your basic needs and a decent living expense leaves you with much extra money!

[IIvan]

Sorry to seem like a whiner- my life provides me with the best examples I can think of.

[Rebel]

There are currently four tax plans being reviewed within our government ranks. The current tax system, a consumption only system, a mix of consumption and income, and an income only tax system. One of these systems will be your only choice in the near future. At the bottom of this home page you will find side-by-side comparrisons of all four. Tax Comparrisons (http://www.ucanation.org/)

Choose your poison for the future. But once you decide, back the plan you like till the bitter end. There are no other choices available to you.

[zimv20]

You don't really mean what you said in the first paragraph, do you? You are sounding a lot like me, and not like mactastic or pseudobrit. :eek:
Waitaminute... what did you do with the real zimv20? Should we call report a kidnapped zimv20? Activate the Amber alert system? What did you do to the real zimv20? :p

heh heh

i must be arguing the "those who need help should get it" positions too often. i do believe that (though the devil's always in the details), but at no point do i advocate ditching a system where those who possess the skills, luck, desire and smarts can get ahead.

after all, that's how i pulled myself out of near poverty to the life of luxury i lead today.


The best thing that government can do your "provide an economy that creates jobs" is to punish fraud, and get out of the way.
punish fraud, yes yes yes. fiscal policy has a big effect on the economy and its ability to create jobs.

[Frohickey]

Wow- I was going to quit arguing in this thread, but I saw Frohickey's post, and I just had to respond.

You missed the whole point of my stupid example. My friend sits around on his ass and is rich, while I work and am poor. For example we have both been in accidents last year. He was not out a single cent. His parents bought him a new car, and they still pay for his gas insurance and all expenses. I on the other hand, have to fix my car myself (talk about work!) and watch as many months of my income go down the drain. I have to pay all my expenses, including higher insurance, and he is not at all affected. Now I am not trying to say that I should be pardoned for my mistake, but it seems wrong that I should have to pay so severely, while he ends up better off (new car!) for his problems.

It all comes down to this. I have to pay all of my expenses except rent (live with my parents), and I never get a break. I resent those who have money and can so easily pay their way out of any problems, and always have nice things, and never have to worry about going into debt. Their wealth cushions them from hardship. YES, some of them earn it, and deserve to not be short of money. But I think that anyone who makes over a certain amount, can give the rest to those who aren't so lucky or skilled, and still live well.

Yes, some rich people deserve it, but many don't. Either way, they should be obligated to help out those who don;t have the luck and or skills to live decently.

DUH!!! rich people don't need assistance- the poor do!! You can obviously afford to pay much more tax when taking care of all of your basic needs and a decent living expense leaves you with much extra money!

Oooooooooh... Just what I like, a target-rich environment...er post. ;)

Envy is such an ugly thing that you really should work at not becoming envious of others.

First, if your friend can get into an accident and not be affected too much by it, then that is his good luck. You are now, in a position to be affected severely by an accident, but let's say that you work hard, get a couple of breaks, and are now earning good money, and later on, even better money, and finally make enough so that you are not affected severely by an accident... oh wait, we should take your earnings and give it to someone else that is more undeserving of it, like you were before you worked hard and got your breaks. You see, if its fair to take from your friend when he was rich, its fair to take from you when you are rich. It cuts both ways. The axiom of "A government that can provide you with stuff, is also a government that can take it away."
Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address, 1801

Did he steal from you to make himself rich? Did his parents steal from others so that they can give to your friend? If property is acquired legally, meaning, no coersion, no fraud, no threats, etc, why does the amount that is accumulated by one person trigger your desire to take it away from them? Who determines how much a person is allowed to accumulate?

[IIvan]

ouch. I wouldn't mind giving my extra money to help others at all. Problem is, I don't have any :) the idea is not to take away the money people need, but the money that they don't need, just want, and give it to those who do actually need it. My case is not that bad, others are far worse off. Yeah, its his good luck, but would it be "X's good luck" when someone else who can't pay rent or is starving could be helped out by just the extra money X has, but suffers without it, and X spends it on a speedboat or something?

Im not talking about taking the money people need, just the extra.

Maybe I should support something else like the tax based completely on consumption (consumption tax?).

[Frohickey]

ouch. I wouldn't mind giving my extra money to help others at all. Problem is, I don't have any :) the idea is not to take away the money people need, but the money that they don't need, just want, and give it to those who do actually need it. My case is not that bad, others are far worse off. Yeah, its his good luck, but would it be "X's good luck" when someone else who can't pay rent or is starving could be helped out by just the extra money X has, but suffers without it, and X spends it on a speedboat or something?

Im not talking about taking the money people need, just the extra.

Maybe I should support something else like the tax based completely on consumption (consumption tax?).

Speedboat manufacturers have to eat too you know.
Speedboat engine manufacturers have to eat too you know.
Speedboat propeller manufacturers have to eat too you know.
Speedboat maintenance people have to eat too you know.

Who determines 'the extra'?
If you worked hard at your job, hard enough that you are given a promotion, how would you feel if your boss said "Here's your promotion, but I'm not going to give you more pay because you don't need it and it would be 'the extra'."

[zimv20]

Who determines 'the extra'?

i'm not sure why you're bothering to argue w/ him -- he's advocating a system like the communist soviet union (whether he realizes it or not).

[mactastic]

Oooooooooh... Just what I like, a target-rich environment...er post.

See, I tried to tell you I'm not a true leftist. :p

Once you meet some you'll realize I'm actually quite a moderate progressive.

[Rebel]

There are currently four tax plans being reviewed within our government ranks. The current tax system, a consumption only system, a mix of consumption and income, and an income only tax system. One of these systems will be your only choice in the near future. At the bottom of this home page you will find side-by-side comparrisons of all four. Tax Comparrisons (http://www.ucanation.org/)

Choose your poison for the future. But once you decide, back the plan you like till the bitter end. There are no other choices available to you.


FREEDOM!!! (Sorry, I watched Brave Heart the other evening and had to scream.)

You can still debate all you want on this issue, but the reality is; citizens only have 3 other choices regarding a future tax system, besides our current system. The current system will definatley change in the future, so the question you need to ask yourself is; which other 3 proposals would you rather have?

I will no-longer be an economic slave to crooks and thieves.

[Desertrat]

Aw, Rebel, you don't have to look at it as economic slavery. Back in 1979 when I went into semi-retirement--more accurately described as dropping out--I just decided I wouldn't create wealth to be taxed by idiots and my money spent on stupid stuff.

Once you understand Schedule C and develop some entrepreneurial talent, life becomes much more fun and you get to keep much more of your money. I figured I hadn't made the rules, but it behooved me to learn them. Sometimes, playing by their rules means you have to give some thought to "creative interpretation". :)

Zim, the Ilvans of this world are great fun. They're good-hearted, sincere and generally honest. Trouble is, they lack a lot of "BTDT" knowledge. The most serious fault or flaw, if one can call it that, is a lack of understanding of human nature.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

See, I tried to tell you I'm not a true leftist. :p

Once you meet some you'll realize I'm actually quite a moderate progressive.

Moderate progressive... you know, there are drugs you can take to cure you of that. :p

Besides, conservative chicks are sexier. :D

[mactastic]

Moderate progressive... you know, there are drugs you can take to cure you of that. :p

Yeah, leftism is a disease. And you wonder why there is acrimony between the parties... :rolleyes:

Besides, conservative chicks are sexier. :D

Even if that were true, why should I care?

Oh crap, is acrimony too big a word? Am I sounding pseudo-intellectual yet?

[Rebel]

Aw, Rebel, you don't have to look at it as economic slavery. Back in 1979 when I went into semi-retirement--more accurately described as dropping out--I just decided I wouldn't create wealth to be taxed by idiots and my money spent on stupid stuff.

Once you understand Schedule C and develop some entrepreneurial talent, life becomes much more fun and you get to keep much more of your money. I figured I hadn't made the rules, but it behooved me to learn them. Sometimes, playing by their rules means you have to give some thought to "creative interpretation". :) 'Rat

It is not me that I am concerned with. I have not paid my fair share for a long time. What concerns me is the vast majority of our countrymen, and what it holds for the future of our nation.

The average American is overburdoned with taxation (you can see it in their face), our children are angry and troubled, and our seniors are not enjoying the time they have left on this planet.

If I were self centered, I could take care of myself and my family, and care less for everyone else. But I will not take this stand.

When I organized the United Citizens of America (http://www.ucanation.org/), I had to fight with lawyers and board members to keep our main focus of refunding everyones donation. Too many orgnizations are fighting this tax fight, but looking into their finances, they are taking donations and pocketing them. The UCA will not, and with our refund policy, cannot place the money into our own pockets. Nobody in this organization will ever get rich from member donations. This is what a non-profit organization is supposed to be.

This organization is for the people. US as a whole will benefit from the organization.

[Desertrat]

Back maybe ten or so years ago, I sat down and played "Let's pretend" with tax numbers. I pretended I was still working at my old job, but with current pay scale. I pretended I still lived in Austin, with a wife and two kids and all the accoutrements of middle class America. The house, the cars, the usual bills and such.

The state and local taxes, fees and mandated costs were a much higher percentage of the gross salary than the federal income tax. With FICA, the total bill was roughly 46% of a $50,000//yr salary. With deductions, the federal income tax ran some 11% or so. The state and local "take", then, was right at 30% of the salary.

You get down to the nitty-gritty, it's the state and local taxes that have forced many women out of the house and into the job market. Sure, for many it's a matter of free choice as to what to do with their time, their lives, but it's not at all a matter of choice for a whole bunch. It just takes more money--from a percentage of pay standpoint--to live the same life style as their parents at that same age.

'Rat

[Rebel]

Back maybe ten or so years ago, I sat down and played "Let's pretend" with tax numbers. I pretended I was still working at my old job, but with current pay scale. I pretended I still lived in Austin, with a wife and two kids and all the accoutrements of middle class America. The house, the cars, the usual bills and such.

The state and local taxes, fees and mandated costs were a much higher percentage of the gross salary than the federal income tax. With FICA, the total bill was roughly 46% of a $50,000//yr salary. With deductions, the federal income tax ran some 11% or so. The state and local "take", then, was right at 30% of the salary.

You get down to the nitty-gritty, it's the state and local taxes that have forced many women out of the house and into the job market. Sure, for many it's a matter of free choice as to what to do with their time, their lives, but it's not at all a matter of choice for a whole bunch. It just takes more money--from a percentage of pay standpoint--to live the same life style as their parents at that same age.

'Rat

You are correct. The largest burdon of tax is taken at the local level. Unfortunately, the other flat tax proposals only flatten federal dollars. When I clarified the U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm/) system to one tax expert, he thought I was out of my mind, and that it would take a revolution to make such a system happen. Here was my reply to this gentleman.

First, we are not trying to play within our current political realities. We are attempting to squash this abusive reality. Now, this may be viewed as naive and simplistic, but in all reality, our nation’s tax system should be simplistic from top to bottom - and at all levels of government. As we state within our Mission , in essence we a calling for a modern day revolution. One not fought with muskets and bayonet’s, but with money and people - and a lot of it.

Is this considered naive? At this moment in time, that tag could be applied. But our revolutionary war was considered naive at its onset. And a whole new nation was created. If enough Americans get behind our vision as happened in the revolution, then this nations tax laws will change for the betterment of us all.

This is in no way an attempt to over through our government. We have the greatest nation on this planet. Nevertheless, as far as taxation, our system can be tweaked and changed, without jeopardizing our country or our key social programs.

A monumental undertaking? Absolutely. A prohibited undertaking? Absolutely not.

In answer to your 2nd point, Washington D.C. and the Tax Foundation has estimated the total tax burden per person, for every state in the nation. Their figures calculate all local, state, federal, and consumption tax – but not homeowner’s taxation. On average, homeowner’s taxation adds roughly 6% additional burden annually (as a percentage to income earned). Taking the lowest taxed state citizenship, Alaska at 27% and the highest, Connecticut at 36.7%, the average burden plus homeowner taxation is between 33% thru 42.7% for every citizen in the nation. In addition, these figures were established in 2001. Well before the tobacco and gasoline tax booms, and before the frenzied municipality fee increases that every community across the nation is being nailed with. These are easily adding another 5% income tax burden to every American. Apply this to the above percentages, and Americans are averaging approximately 43% annual tax burden. This is not 50%, but I would say it is pretty darn close.

We certainly understand the huge burden that all levels of government undertake every year to keep our communities operating at our American standards. It takes money, and lots of it. The U.C.A.’s economist friends will be creating a budget scenario for us in the near future. It will emulate a section of a community at all levels so that people will get a full understanding of how U-ACT compares to what community budgets are today. You will be surprised at how little an impact U-ACT will really have on local governments. Using our current estimation of $1.8 trillion federal dollars annually under U-ACT vs. the $2.2 trillion dollar 2004 budget, we have a difference of $400 billion annually between these two systems.

As far as program cuts to make-up this $400 billion annual difference, the U.C.A. does not believe there will be a huge impact to any of our major social or research programs. Why? Because this is not where a huge amount of our waste exists. These programs are strictly monitored by government institutions and their waste is minimal.

The huge amount of waste exist in government contracts. This is where we will make-up this $400 billion. I would stake my life on being able to find this difference in these contracts, and at all levels of our government institutions. Here is a for instance; in my own community of approximately 20,000 residence, our local government built a new town hall for $18 million dollars. If you look across this establishment’s parking lot, you can see million dollar homes that are twice the size of this $18 million dollar eyesore. In addition, $8 million dollars was approved for the new town library which is 1/4th the size of these million dollar homes. Now, we understand that commercial property has different value calculations. However, these are not commercial properties, and our governments need to negotiate much better deals. We could understand maybe $5 million for the town hall, and possibly $2 million for the library. These seem reasonable figures. This would be a savings of $19 million in a very small American community. Using this analysis, we can definitely find $400 billion at the federal level.

Everyone in this nation knows that when you deal with the government, add zeros at the end of every quote. Our politicians (at all levels) cannot take American tax money and put it into their own pockets. Therefore, they give it to others in the form of contracts; grants etc., and then get it back through donations. Will campaign reform eliminate this waste? I doubt it. Our politicians are the ones creating a reform system. You are basically asking the fox to create a security system for the chicken coup. Whatever they decide will not come close to stopping the abuse. They will just be able to hide it differently.

If you really step back, take a fresh approach, and think out of the box, a system such as U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm/) , that redefines our nation’s taxation system at all levels, is quite possibly the best scenario for every American citizen. Is U-ACT the answer? I don’t know. But it is definitely a start to a new system of American cooperation in regards to taxation. It will put all of us on the same team and fighting for the same goal - American prosperity. The revolution has to start somewhere, and then let the negotiations and refinement begin.

The other flat tax reform plans do not go far enough.

UACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm/)

[Rebel]

Besides, conservative chicks are sexier. :D


Yeah, but they don't give it up............

[Rebel]

This is a very depressing time for Americans.

"The economic recovery has arrived and turned out to be much healthier and stronger than advertised," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "But 2004 won't be as rosy as 2003." He said that some of the unexpectedly strong earnings could be attributed to the dollar's depreciation as well as 2003 tax cuts.

But those effects could be more tempered in coming quarters, while the risk of rising interest rates continues to grow. "It's possible the market's expectations have run ahead of economic fundamentals," Sohn said.

So according to this expert, we actually had a healthy economy in 2003, even though 16 million people and counting are out of work, and he is suggesting that 2004 will not be as good as 2003.

Why am I fighting for a Universal American Citizens tax (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm) ? Here are projections that a leading economist organization garnered from the U-ACT tax system.

According to projections, the U-ACT plan will help the economy to create 6.5 million jobs over the next three years vs. the 1 million projected by the current tax cut. With 16 MILLION Americans currently out of work, U-ACT will have all of America working in 5 years. The current tax system will take 16+ years.

Taken together, the U-ACT tax proposal will put an additional $650 billion to work in the private economy within the first year. "And there's no better way to help our economy grow than to leave more money in the hands of the men and women who earned it,"

The U-ACT tax proposal will bring real and immediate benefits to ALL Americans. Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $4,500 more of their own money. A family of four with two earners and $39,000 in income will receive more than $4,000 in tax relief -- real money to help pay the bills, raise a family, send children to college, save for the future, and push the economy forward.

[numediaman]

I've resurrected this old thread because there is a good piece on the flat tax by former CalPundit blogger Kevin Drum, now at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/.

It's an amazing coincidence, isn't it, that conservative tax proposals always seem to result in the rich paying less tax? I wonder if Mitchell (Daniel Mitchell of the National Review) is equally in favor of converting the Social Security tax into a flat tax?

But what really gets me is how they always present these things as if we need a flat tax because the tax code is too damn complex. Well, the tax code is too damn complex, but the least complex thing about it is the part where you look up your adjusted gross income in the tax table to figure out how much you owe. The complex part is figuring out your adjusted gross income in the first place, something that has nothing to do with whether the tax rate for millionaires is higher than the tax rate for those at the poverty line.

It is columns like this that cause me to lose patience with the tax jihadists on the right. It is dishonest to pretend that flattening tax rates has any connection to simplifying the tax code. It is dishonest to pretend that a flat income tax is "fair" while conveniently forgetting to suggest the same for Social Security taxes. It is dishonest to pretend that "income" is the same for everyone while failing to even mention capital gains, tax shelters, corporate perks, deferred compensation, pension contributions, stock options, or the thousand other options the wealthy have for making money that doesn't quite count as "income." It is dishonest not to mention that simple arithmetic guarantees that any flat income tax proposal would raise taxes for practically every middle class family in the country.

[SlyHunter]

First I admit I only read every other page of this thread for it is very long.
Flat tax as defined by that first post is unrealistic how would homeless people pay their taxes debtor prison? Odds are the tax would be more than the income set for those in the poverty level of income.

Now the Flat tax as reported by the Libertarian Party also called the national retail sales tax where you pay 15% or something like that. The US government would pay every "legal" US citizen every month the estimated amount of money that equates to the tax paid on your survivable grocery bill every month irregardless how much in income you make. They would use some statistic to figure out what this amount would be. I'm sure future politicians would campaign stuff like I'll add reimbursement of your tax spent on average poverty level rent to that every month and so forth. That would fix the homeless problem, if they didn't drank it all.

My problem with this plan is 1. with schedule C and my 34 cents per mile gas credit I only had a taxable income for 2003 of 36 bucks (this is what financial aid at college is causing me problems over). As such I would lose allot of money and it would be wise for me to quit my job and go to work for McDonalds or even Wal-mart if this plan was enacted.

Second problem is that rich people don't pay retail. In fact smart people don't pay retail. When I needed a computer I didn't go to a store. I paid 35 bucks for a business liscence and 15 bucks for a sales tax stamp and found me a local wholesaler and bought it from them. Tried it with motorcycles but they would'nt sell me just one.

Plan sounds great on paper but I don't think it would work.

[skunk]

Sounds a lot like VAT to me. Sales tax (not just retail) which intermediaries can reclaim. Food, children's clothes and books are exempt.

[Desertrat]

numediaman, I follow the guy's points. Seems to me that if you had a flat tax, and none of the shelters and suchlike, a 10% rate would increase the governmental income from the very wealthy. All money is income, with no distinction between salary or capital gains or interest or dividends. Same deal for corporations: Subtract costs of production from income from sales, and send in 10%.

Again, to me it's the state and local taxes which impact the middle class a lot harder than does the income tax.

I won't comment on FICA, other than to say it's a government-sanctioned Ponzi scheme and always has been. The only way to "save" it is to kill off everybody over 70, and for me, you'd better bring your lunch, 'cause I ain't volunteerin' to leave early. :D

AW, well, TANSTAAFL...

'Rat

[numediaman]

Again, to me it's the state and local taxes which impact the middle class a lot harder than does the income tax.

'Rat

Bingo! You're absolutely right. And to think, I was going to that site you recommended to call you names! (private joke, well, not that private, I guess.)

[Rebel]

I've resurrected this old thread because there is a good piece on the flat tax by former CalPundit blogger Kevin Drum, now at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/.

It's an amazing coincidence, isn't it, that conservative tax proposals always seem to result in the rich paying less tax? I wonder if Mitchell (Daniel Mitchell of the National Review) is equally in favor of converting the Social Security tax into a flat tax?

But what really gets me is how they always present these things as if we need a flat tax because the tax code is too damn complex. Well, the tax code is too damn complex, but the least complex thing about it is the part where you look up your adjusted gross income in the tax table to figure out how much you owe. The complex part is figuring out your adjusted gross income in the first place, something that has nothing to do with whether the tax rate for millionaires is higher than the tax rate for those at the poverty line.

It is columns like this that cause me to lose patience with the tax jihadists on the right. It is dishonest to pretend that flattening tax rates has any connection to simplifying the tax code. It is dishonest to pretend that a flat income tax is "fair" while conveniently forgetting to suggest the same for Social Security taxes. It is dishonest to pretend that "income" is the same for everyone while failing to even mention capital gains, tax shelters, corporate perks, deferred compensation, pension contributions, stock options, or the thousand other options the wealthy have for making money that doesn't quite count as "income." It is dishonest not to mention that simple arithmetic guarantees that any flat income tax proposal would raise taxes for practically every middle class family in the country.

There is only ONE organization (http://www.UCAnation.org/) that is lobbying for a Tax System that will flatten taxes at every level of our government institutions.

The below tax plans only flatten federal taxation. Your local, county, state and homeowners tax is not included.

Arlen Specter proposed a flat 20% tax on earned income (working people's wages), from which rich people's unearned income (capital gains, interest and dividends) would be exempt.

Congressman Dick Armey supports similar legislation in the House.

Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes (who became wealthy by inheriting his late father's publishing empire) made as a centerpiece of his failed campaigns, a flat tax scheme that salutes the idle rich by exempting UNEARNED income gained as a return on investment (not merely protecting the value of the principal, but allowing those who gain wealth without working for it, to avoid taxes while those who work hard for what they gain pay all the taxes).

Once again, it means the middle class working people would be the ones squeezed to make up for benefits to the rich.

U-ACT (http://www.UCAnation.org/uact.htm) flattens our entire taxation system, at every level, and does not distinguish from rich to poor. Neither will it allow exemptions to the wealthy. Truly, this system is fair for every American.

Donate some cash, folks, if you want to shape our future tax direction.

[numediaman]

There is only ONE organization (http://www.UCAnation.org/) that is lobbying for a Tax System that will flatten taxes at every level of our government institutions.

The below tax plans only flatten federal taxation. Your local, county, state and homeowners tax is not included.

Arlen Specter proposed a flat 20% tax on earned income (working people's wages), from which rich people's unearned income (capital gains, interest and dividends) would be exempt.

Congressman Dick Armey supports similar legislation in the House.

Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes (who became wealthy by inheriting his late father's publishing empire) made as a centerpiece of his failed campaigns, a flat tax scheme that salutes the idle rich by exempting UNEARNED income gained as a return on investment (not merely protecting the value of the principal, but allowing those who gain wealth without working for it, to avoid taxes while those who work hard for what they gain pay all the taxes).

Once again, it means the middle class working people would be the ones squeezed to make up for benefits to the rich.

U-ACT (http://www.UCAnation.org/uact.htm) flattens our entire taxation system, at every level, and does not distinguish from rich to poor. Neither will it allow exemptions to the wealthy. Truly, this system is fair for every American.

Donate some cash, folks, if you want to shape our future tax direction.

Not a chance. I am firmly against a flat tax.

[Sayhey]

...flattens our entire taxation system, at every level, and does not distinguish from rich to poor. Neither will it allow exemptions to the wealthy. Truly, this system is fair for every American.

Flat tax schemes, by their nature, hurt the poor the most. The idea that working people should pay the same as those in the top 1% of income is just nonsense. Why would anyone who is not a shill for big business propose such a rip off of working americans? You can wrap it in red, white, and blue all you want, but it is all about more green for the wealthiest. When I go to the store and I get a sliding scale for my purchases, then I will support a flat tax, not a minute before.

[Rebel]

Flat tax schemes, by their nature, hurt the poor the most. The idea that working people should pay the same as those in the top 1% of income is just nonsense. Why would anyone who is not a shill for big business propose such a rip off of working americans? You can wrap it in red, white, and blue all you want, but it is all about more green for the wealthiest. When I go to the store and I get a sliding scale for my purchases, then I will support a flat tax, not a minute before.


What you are talking about is a consumption tax system. This type of system taxes you whether your employed or not, retired, low wage earner, etc. In addition, it will not stop tax increases, especially for things that the government considers excessive or bad for you and the environment - i.e. tobacco, gasoline, fast food, chips and dip, etc... This system will not force government to work for the people. It will continue the current trend of outsourcing to other countries.

And income only tax system will ensure that your government works to keep Americans working. It will ensure that taxes will not increase. It places government and the citizens who they are supposed to work for, on the same page.

[mcrain]

Back maybe ten or so years ago, I sat down and played "Let's pretend" with tax numbers. I pretended I was still working at my old job, but with current pay scale. I pretended I still lived in Austin, with a wife and two kids and all the accoutrements of middle class America. The house, the cars, the usual bills and such.

The state and local taxes, fees and mandated costs were a much higher percentage of the gross salary than the federal income tax. With FICA, the total bill was roughly 46% of a $50,000//yr salary. With deductions, the federal income tax ran some 11% or so. The state and local "take", then, was right at 30% of the salary.

You get down to the nitty-gritty, it's the state and local taxes that have forced many women out of the house and into the job market. Sure, for many it's a matter of free choice as to what to do with their time, their lives, but it's not at all a matter of choice for a whole bunch. It just takes more money--from a percentage of pay standpoint--to live the same life style as their parents at that same age.

'Rat

How many times did you argue with me on this point? I guess you finally get it.

[numediaman]

Hey, you want a flat tax? Move to Iraq!

Battlefield of Dreams
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 4, 2004

Last November the top economist at the Heritage Foundation was very optimistic about Iraq, saying Paul Bremer had just replaced "Saddam's soak-the-rich tax system" with a flat tax. "Few Americans would want to trade places with the people of Iraq," wrote the economist, Daniel Mitchell. "But come tax time next April, they may begin to wonder who's better off." Even when he wrote that, the insurgency in Iraq was visibly boiling over; by "tax time" last month, the situation was truly desperate.

Much has been written about the damage done by foreign policy ideologues who ignored the realities of Iraq, imagining that they could use the country to prove the truth of their military and political doctrines. Less has been said about how dreams of making Iraq a showpiece for free trade, supply-side tax policy and privatization — dreams that were equally oblivious to the country's realities — undermined the chances for a successful transition to democracy.

A number of people, including Jay Garner, the first U.S. administrator of Iraq, think that the Bush administration shunned early elections, which might have given legitimacy to a transitional government, so it could impose economic policies that no elected Iraqi government would have approved. Indeed, over the past year the Coalition Provisional Authority has slashed tariffs, flattened taxes and thrown Iraqi industry wide open to foreign investors — reinforcing the sense of many Iraqis that we came as occupiers, not liberators.

http://nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04KRUG.html

[Frohickey]

Ah... Paul Krugman... the liberal editorial writer that thinks he's an economist.

[Sayhey]

Ah... Paul Krugman... the liberal editorial writer that thinks he's an economist.

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

NYT bio (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/KRUGMAN-BIO.html)

Damn his delusions, Frohickey! How dare he call himself an economist! By the way, where did you get your Ph.D. in economics? The von Mises on line University of laissez faire nonsense? :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

NYT bio (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/KRUGMAN-BIO.html)

Damn his delusions, Frohickey! How dare he call himself an economist! By the way, where did you get your Ph.D. in economics? The von Mises on line University of laissez faire nonsense? :rolleyes:

Paul Krugman is the token economist that the NYT keeps around because his leftist views hold precedence over economic theory, at least in his writings.

All the other economists stay far away from Paul Krugman.

[numediaman]

All the other economists stay far away from Paul Krugman.

Why? Doesn't he brush his teeth?

[Sayhey]

Paul Krugman is the token economist that the NYT keeps around because his leftist views hold precedence over economic theory, at least in his writings.

All the other economists stay far away from Paul Krugman.

I know, those radicals at Princeton, Harvard, and MIT who keep promoting his "leftist views" are so crazy in their economic theories, right? :confused: This coming from someone who holds libertarian economic views so far out of the mainstream that Ghengis Khan appears to be a marxist. Frohickey, you don't have to agree with him, but it is your views not Krugman's, that mainstream thinkers want to stay away from.

edit: spelling

[SlyHunter]

Paul Krugman is the token economist that the NYT keeps around because his leftist views hold precedence over economic theory, at least in his writings.

All the other economists stay far away from Paul Krugman.

Thank God for this Man! A Princeton University professor who pens a column for the New York Times, Krugman is probably the most visible mainstream media commentator, among a handful, who "gets it." He views the Bush Cartel as "revolutionary power...a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system." In short, Krugman understands that the Bush gang is anti-democracy at its core.


ok How can he be a "mainstream media commentator and be 100% anti-Bush? So in order to be "Mainstream" or "centrist" means you have to be "left". I dont' think so.


BUZZFLASH: You make the case that a revolutionary, right wing movement has set out to transform the United States, and they're succeeding. So much of the print media and so many television broadcast journalists have become more like stenographers for the official government spin than probing journalists. What's your take on that?

KRUGMAN: Well, a couple of things. The first is that a good part of the media are essentially part of the machine. If you work for any Murdoch publication or network, or if you work for the Rev. Moon's empire, you're really not a journalist in the way that we used to think. You're basically just part of a propaganda machine. And that's a pretty large segment of the media.

As for the rest, certainly being critical at the level I've been critical -– basically saying that these guys are lying, even if it's staring you in the face –- is a very unpleasant experience. You get a lot of heat from people who should be on your side, because they accuse you of being shrill, which is everybody's favorite word for me. And you become a personal target. It can be quite frightening. I've seen cases where a journalist starts to say something less than reverential about Bush, and then catches himself or herself, and says something like, "Oh, I better not say that, I'll get 'mailed.'" And what they mean by "mail" is hate mail, and it also means that somebody is going to try to see if there's anything in your personal history that can be used to smear you.

It's like shock therapy, aversion therapy. If you touch these things, you yourself are going to get an unpleasant, painful electric shock. And most people in the media just back off as a result.

oh yeah he's not left wing uhuh.
BTW I got this from a left wing web site.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/11_krugman.html

Oh and the person interviewing aint biased at all is he? :eek:

[numediaman]

I present for your entertainment, the Sly Hall of Fame:

1) I think Bush lied about Osama Bin Laden. I mean where is he we havn't found him maybe he doesn't really exist.

2) So someone who has to live decades on a dialisist machine (a machine that processes your wastes when you are out of kidneys)

3) All from the same post:

I believe the highway construction bills are covered under military preparedness. They original came up with interstates to make it easier to move military ordinance around . . .
And corporate wellfare isn't a current issue although its not somethign I'm thrilled about . . .
A little is ok, everything is wrong.

4) Bush doesn't have to justify the war, those who are against the war need to justify their existance.

5) Cirminals will always be able to get guns. Their not any harder to make than coke, heroin, or a variety of other things that are also illegal.

6) ok maybe that is a little harsh for it can be extrapolated to mean much further than I originally intended it to mean . . .
. . . Those oppose to the war need to get a grip on what they are really oppose to.

7) Ah that's right, you are the only one with a direct line to the founding fathers....
Here let me give you their number http://www.foundingfathers.info/

8) Because some dips are out to save the world

9) I wish my memmory was good

10) Concerning Sen. Byrd:
He was a member of the KKK during the civil war. And Dodd said he would've been a perfect "leader" during the civil war.

[Sayhey]

numedia,

your post on Sly reminded me of something I read concerning right-wing blogs. This is useful because so many of your nominations for Sly's "hall of fame" are also duplicated in the post below:

Meanwhile, in the Alternate Universe ...*

I can't read all the rightwing blogs out there (Oy!) so I cruise over to Instapundit on occasion to gauge the general drift of things in Wingnut World. And let me tell you ...

Amid the demands for Teresa Heinz's tax returns (This just in: She's rich), misspellings of John Kerry's last name ("Kerrey" is a popular variation) and nostalgic posts about the UN's oil-for-food pseudo-scandal, they have actually taken some time to address that little problem in Abu Ghraib.

The verdict? The Instapundit gang is bored, frankly, by all this talk of torture and the steady drumbeat of voices calling for Rummy to go. It has become a distraction from the more entertaining debate over whether John Kerry threw his medals or his ribbons over the White House fence in 1971. They believe there's a "lynch mob" forming around Rumsfeld, part of a "partisan, crass, politically-motivated campaign" on the level of the Starr investigation (Wait -- now conservatives think Starr was a political hack? Finally!). And, as usual, there are dire predictions for the Democrats, who, in the minds of the Instapunditry, wouldn't be so bad if they would just, you know, start acting more like Republicans. (Paging Senator Leiberman!)

Kerry, they argue, is walking into a minefield, once again precipitated by his misguided decision to serve in Vietnam when he could have escaped to Europe or served in the Massachusetts National Guard. Did you know that war crimes were committed in Vietnam? By U.S. soldiers? Whoa! That, says the Instapundit crew, pretty much negates anything Kerry might say about the atrocities in Iraq, a country more than 30 years and thousands of miles removed from Vietnam. Thank goodness President Bush avoided that little conflict of interest.

At Instapundit, every move Kerry makes is a potential disaster for his campaign.

At Instapundit, every member of Bush's administration who jumps ship is a disloyal Judas in search of a book contract.

At Instapundit, every time a cabinet member is hauled before Congress to answer for the latest screwup, it's a dignified and statesmanlike performance. (If we get much more of this "statesmanship," we're really going to be f--ked.

At Instapundit, every time a former ally criticizes the U.S., it's a cold political gambit. (I'm shocked. Shocked! Did you know that some of these countries actually believe their opinions matter?)

At Instapundit, every time the U.S. botches something else in Iraq, we are reminded that Saddam killed little babies and once shared a cab with Osama bin Laden's third wife's fourth cousin.

At Instapundit, every time the media shows flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, it could be running stories about that school Halliburton painted (for a mere $100,000).

They believe this because they must believe it. Once they concede the point -- any point -- the dam will break. They, like the president, are ardent believers in the continuum that drives the GOP strategy -- 9/11=Muslim=Patriot Act=Saddam=war=orange alert -- to the point that it is a mantra to be repeated ad nauseum, a quasi-religious statement of belief, an article of faith long past the need for any empirical evidence.

Instapundit is a veritable festival of equivocation, which is always the last line of defense. America's infantile (and toxic) obsession with firearms is rationalized by the occasional (and truly unusual) gun murder in Europe. Strom Thurmond's recalcitrant racism is negated by Robert Byrd's youthful (and long since disavowed) association with bigotry and the Klan. The daily death toll in Iraq is likened -- favorably -- to the risks incurred by drivers on California's Interstates. The Bush administration has gutted the EPA and sold out to Big Oil, but John Kerry owns an SUV.

The current crisis is no different. Iraqis are being abused, tortured and murdered in Abu Ghraib? Well, did you know that a jailer in Germany abused some inmates in his lockup? So there you go. Bad things happen everywhere, and everyone is a hypocrite. It makes one wish that Professor Reynolds would take this (inadvertantly ironic) advice offered by James Lileks, his favorite folksy-fascist blogger:
Go away for a week. Blog not. You’re not a public utility! We won't call our city councilman if the tap's dry for a while.
Yes, a nice long break. We can't help but agree.


link (http://ejswanso.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_ejswanso_archive.html#108400702688020076)

Sound familiar?

[parrothead]

Wouldn't a flat tax get rid of class envy. Each citizen is treated equal. Each citizen pays equal. Every citizen shoulders the same burden. Wouldn't this be a good thing?

I think that this would cause class envy to spiral out of control. Imagine that you are a checkout clerk that makes minimum wage at K-mart. You pay. $15000 per year in taxes. Then you look at the doctor that comes through your line who makes $250,000 a year. He, too, pays $15000. in taxes a year. Is that going to make you more jealous or less jealous. That is not even close to being the same burden. What about a retiree that has no income? Do they have to pay the same $15000 per year? Is that fair? Maybe if everyone paid the same percentage you could talk about equal, but not the same dollar amount.

[Frohickey]

I think that this would cause class envy to spiral out of control. Imagine that you are a checkout clerk that makes minimum wage at K-mart. You pay. $15000 per year in taxes. Then you look at the doctor that comes through your line who makes $250,000 a year. He, too, pays $15000. in taxes a year. Is that going to make you more jealous or less jealous. That is not even close to being the same burden. What about a retiree that has no income? Do they have to pay the same $15000 per year? Is that fair? Maybe if everyone paid the same percentage you could talk about equal, but not the same dollar amount.

If you are the checkout clerk, that happens to see the doctor's paystub, does that make you jealous?
If you are the doctor, that happens to see the tech-company CEO's paystub, does that make you jealous.

Call it a fee then. A governmental fee. Or a tax. Government is supposed to be a one-size fits all... equal protection under the law, and all of that jazz. In saying that someone else should be paying more means that they are getting more. Isn't that getting away from the idea of 'all equal under the law'? Are some people more equal than others?

[zimv20]

You pay. $15000 per year in taxes. Then you look at the doctor that comes through your line who makes $250,000 a year. He, too, pays $15000. in taxes a year.
a flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage amount, not the same absolute amount.

a 10% flat tax would mean $1500 and $25,000 in taxes / year, respectively.

[Voltron]

a flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage amount, not the same absolute amount.

a 10% flat tax would mean $1500 and $25,000 in taxes / year, respectively.
I agree with your assessment of what is commonly referred to as the flat tax. However Frohickey in the first post of this thread was using a different deffinition.

Do you agree that taxes should only be used for purposes that are used EQUALLY by all citizens? If so, do you agree that a flat tax is an equitable way of paying for these purposes? Flat tax, as in $x amount per person, regardless of income.

For the federal government, that would mean, take the costs of running the court system, post roads, military, smelter for coins, printing press for paper money, administrative costs for Washington DC, add it all up, divide it by the number of people in the US, and thats your tax bill for the year.
Its not a very realistic system the tax would end up higher than allot of people could afford to pay they not only wouldn't have enough left to pay the rent but they wouldn't have anything to buy food with. This is never going to happen.

What would be more realistic would be take the total cost divide it up by the citizens of the US then at the state level multiply that number by the total in that state and that is what you charge the state. It would then be up to the state to figure out how they would collect it from their citizens. However this aint going to happen either.

[parrothead]

a flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage amount, not the same absolute amount.

a 10% flat tax would mean $1500 and $25,000 in taxes / year, respectively.

This is a more "equal way to do it" however my example was trying to point out the inequality of Frohickey's plan, which is not what you just described.

[Giaguara]

Do you agree that taxes should only be used for purposes that are used EQUALLY by all citizens? If so, do you agree that a flat tax is an equitable way of paying for these purposes? Flat tax, as in $x amount per person, regardless of income.

Not everyone has income. What if your income is less than the theorical flat tax?

[zimv20]

This is a more "equal way to do it" however my example was trying to point out the inequality of Frohickey's plan, which is not what you just described.
nevemind then

[Frohickey]

This is a more "equal way to do it" however my example was trying to point out the inequality of Frohickey's plan, which is not what you just described.

Where is the inequality?

When you go to the market to buy a $2.19 loaf of bread, does the amount they charge you depend on how much you make? No, it depends on the amount of the loaf of bread.

If governmental services is equal to all, then the cost should be equal for all.


BTW, where is the class envy that you were talking about before? Each person can rise up and become whatever they wish to be, more in the US than in any other country in existence. If some choose the path of financial freedom, and another chooses the path of spiritual freedom, and another, creative freedom, etc, why are some penalized for their choice, and others, not?

[Frohickey]

Not everyone has income. What if your income is less than the theorical flat tax?

There lies the issue. What to do if you cannot contribute equally as your peers. What would your solution be? What would the solution be for other organizations where a member couldn't afford the membership fee?

[Voltron]

There lies the issue. What to do if you cannot contribute equally as your peers. What would your solution be? What would the solution be for other organizations where a member couldn't afford the membership fee?
You can't be implying that we expel those who can't afford the "membership fee"? Who would cook the hamburgers, sweep the floors, pick the cotton, etc. You cannot tax someone to the point where they cannot work for a living. Nor could you expect only those who pay get police protection, or fire protection. That just isn't realistic. That is just taking things too far.

[Frohickey]

You can't be implying that we expel those who can't afford the "membership fee"? Who would cook the hamburgers, sweep the floors, pick the cotton, etc. You cannot tax someone to the point where they cannot work for a living. Nor could you expect only those who pay get police protection, or fire protection. That just isn't realistic.

Think of government as a group of people that joined together in order to achieve something they couldn't otherwise. Shrink it down to its smallest level, it could just as well be a small town. There are ways of paying for the 'membership fee'. The town drunk could also be the street sweeper. It could be that you do 'free' work for the government to pay your tax debt.

Its the sentiment that if someone that is unable to contribute, that they shouldn't be expected to contribute. This sentiment enables on the one hand, favoritism or a sense of 'eliteness' on the ones that can contribute, and contribute largely, and on the other hand, entitlement on the ones that could not contribute. Both are not good for a government that professes to view all as EQUAL under the law.

US tax history (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.html)
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

[pseudobrit]

If governmental services is equal to all, then the cost should be equal for all.

They're not and it's not.

[skunk]

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
I suppose that whether you believe this simplistic statement or not defines whether you think that the system you support is working or not. It seems to hinge on whether you describe America as "free for all" or a "free-for-all".

[mactastic]

You know Frohickey, you are free to cut a check to the government for $15,000 at any time. No one is stopping you from taxing yourself however you want as long as it's more than what you owe. :eek: :D :eek: