Taxes, time to pay your fair share
-
24valvenotak;190871 wrote:
agreed, but you make a million a year and no matter how big your tv already is 10% of a million is a hell of a lot more then 10% of 30k so you are still paying a majority of the taxes are you not?i am missing how a flat tax will equal the playing field in terms of who pays what % of our nations taxes?
your supposed to learn something every day, apparently i was gone the day they were handing out flat tax is bomb pamphlets, so fill me in.
Mitch, the way the tax system is set up right now, rich people pay a higher percentage of THEIR income. Flat tax is a proposal to make everyone pay the same percentage of their money. Yes, the rich would still be paying the majority of the country's taxes, but, they would be paying LESS on their earned dollars, ultimately leaving the government with one choice which would be raising everyone else's taxes.
-
yea, ive got that part, which is why i fail to see why it is such a wonderful idea for the majority of the people?
-
Because technically it is unfair to charge a more wealthy person a higher percentage of their income as taxes just because they have become more successful. The current tax system is borderline communist IMO. The truth is though, that tax money has to come from somewhere.
-
wannabe;190876 wrote:
Because technically it is unfair to charge a more wealthy person more taxes just because they have become more successful. The current tax system is borderline communist IMO. The truth is though, that tax money has to come from somewhere.Mitchell needs a nap before allowing is open mind to be further cluttered with nonsense. I understand the principle of a flat tax. I guess I just fail to see the christmas miracle of it all. I agree it is unfair to punish the wealthy for being wealthy. I agree taxes are lamesauce. That is all before more exhaustion and alcohol clouds my train of thought, or lack thereof
go bison.
-
Didn't I run the numbers a few months back and determine that ~12% income tax FLAT across the board would pay for EVERY current gov't program, including SS, Welfare, SCHIPS, etc.... I'll see if I can't find the thread, a quick search did not yield any quick results
-
I was wrong, I figured it at 20% http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9510&highlight=flat
for those that don't want to dig:
http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=151840&postcount=37
For those that don't want to click:
The GDP of the US is $12,980,000,000,000 with a labor force of 151,800,000 (thanks wikipedia!!) and our gov't spent $2,600,000,000,000 last year.
so, 2,600,000,000,000 / 12,980,000,000,000 = 20% which is 5% lower than I paid this year.
I guess I didn't need the labor force total number for that equation, but I found it so I thought I'd post it.
-
lol @ Jason. But you're right, President Bush is the "decider" by his own admission.
-
DaveH;190859 wrote:
A little analogy from the stats in my original post. If there are 100 people eating at Red Lobster, they all finish eating and the waiter comes out with the bill. The rich guy in the corner gets the tab for himself and 39 other people. He says wtf is this, the waiter says this is fair because you make $xx more money than everyone else. He give the next 5 wealthiest people the tab for the next 59 people for the same reason. The 50 people sitting there that are the poorest all pool their money together and pay for one persons meal. Seems pretty fair.Word, that pretty much sums it up.
-
wait...you'd rather see the bottom of the middle class pay proportionally a higher percentage of taxes? Tell me what is wrong with "If you make $1 you pay $.20; if you make $10, you pay $2; you make 1000, you pay 20; etc; etc; etc..."
And for the record, I'm fairly certain I'd pay less with the method Dave presented, so its not a personal issue for me.
-
tjamz;190898 wrote:
wait...you'd rather see the bottom of the middle class pay proportionally a higher percentage of taxes? Tell me what is wrong with "If you make $1 you pay $.20; if you make $10, you pay $2; you make 1000, you pay 20; etc; etc; etc..."And for the record, I'm fairly certain I'd pay less with the method Dave presented, so its not a personal issue for me.
The problem with your flat tax is that the lower tier of wage earners who currently end up paying 0 in taxes or actually earn money from the tax system would start having to pay in. I personally don't care because it's not the Governments job to play Robin Hood and redistribute wealth to make everyone equal, but, the outcry from Democrats and the poor people would never allow a flat tax to happen.
-
FG2;190888 wrote:
Me too, president Bush does a great job destroying our country....he doesn't need our help. :rolleyes:No offense but changing the tax rates do more than you think. The government may do it to slow or speed up the economy. This can be due to inflation or unemployment. Every little thing stimulates the economy and can easily be broken down in consumer spending, investments, and government spending. Either way the multiplier effect takes place and will effect the economy one way or the other. That is why government transfer payments are important because it keeps adding to our economy. (such as after the depression) Aggregate demand also plays a huge key on how our economy is going and our government will react according to that. I dont know if presidnt bush has a clue, but I will tell you one thing they got some smart people up there that know a hell of a lot more than we do. Next you will tell me that deficit spending is bad right?
-
SmitEvo;190909 wrote:
I dont know if presidnt bush has a clue, but I will tell you one thing they got some smart people up there that know a hell of a lot more than we do.The statement above makes me think you know very little about politics Brian. :icon_jokercolor:
-
So I wonder how much in tax everyone would need to pay if the only thing the Govt spent money on were the things it was SUPPOSE to spend money on. ie: military, interstate road systems, etc and not all these friggin handouts or some special library named after xyz congressman.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;191240 wrote:
So I wonder how much in tax everyone would need to pay if the only thing the Govt spent money on were the things it was SUPPOSE to spend money on. ie: military, interstate road systems, etc and not all these friggin handouts or some special library named after xyz congressman.Short answer: Not much.
-
If you listen to enough Ron Paul Q&A you'll know that less than 1/3rd of the federal governments revenue comes from the income tax. If we could spend 2/3rds what we do now, we could abolish the income tax entirely.
The income tax was first introduced to fund the civil war. It became a permanant fixture of US politics in 1913. The reagan tax cut was the largest in history -- prior to it, the top bracket was 50%.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login