gene how would you have it? tax the wealthy more than others? how is that by any stretch of the imagination fair?

anytime you single out a group for special treatment be it unfair or fair, you are on the road to totalitarianism.

Why don't you go answer the question of how much each "class" should pay in taxes?

Gene, did you take into account deductions?

First, to not consider what it takes to just live is NOT FAIR. The impact of a person' making$20,000 or $35,000 would be negative. We have had a progressive tax rate since the Federal income tax was passed. The wealthy in the 1990's did BETTER than at any other time with the higher tax rates prior to the Bush tax cuts. To push a flat tax that would increase taxes on low to average income worker while granting more tax cuts to people at the income level of Bush and Cheney is WRONG. I also suspect the 15% tax would not come close to balancing the budget.

Bush is saying the Annual deficit this year, with the imporved economy, will be $330 Billion. However, that is after he has deducted the $200 Billion surplus from Social Security and Medicare this year. The real Federal Budged Deficit for the year that ends Friday is $530 Billion without Social Security and Medicare surplus.

I'm agreeing with a flat tax because:

1) It's consistent. If I make $10,000 I know that I'll be able to keep 85% the majority of it. No more guessing whether that contract that I just took on the side to pay off a couple medical bills will cost me more in the long run (currenlty, it might bump me into a higher bracket and cost me having to pay additional taxes later).

2) It's fair. Everyone has to pay the same percentage of their income as taxes. So, if someone makes $10,000, they'll only have to pay the same PERCENTAGE as someone makeing $100,000 or $1,000,000. Sure, they'll end up paying LESS than the person making $100,000 or $1,000,000, but isn't it a given that the poor are less able to pay a larger share of the taxes? Aren't people screaming that the wealthy should pay more in taxes than the others? This will cause them to do so.

Also, that person making $4,700,000 in a year should pay a large chunk of money in taxes. Not 40%.

3) It eliminates any loopholes or other ways to avoid paying. Everyone pays, noone cheats the system. If it's everyone paying the same RATE (note it is not the same $$$ amount), then it's fair. If you cannot avoid paying these taxes, then it becomes fair. There are currently too many ways to avoid paying most of the taxes that are due.

Yes, I used the Standard deduction of $9,700 for a couple filing a joinr return. For the $20,000 couple that showed a line 42 Taxable income of$10,300 and $25,300 for the $35,000 couple.

What amount should we return to: The rates in effect prior to 2001 except for the elimination of the marriage penalitty, 10% bracket and Child care credit of $1,000 per child. We should also increse the point where the minimum tax takes effect and then index that higher amount to inflation in the future. Then we should cut the PORK and more fully enforce the tax laws. After we have done all that, we need to see if we have balanced the budget.

At least everyone would be paying their equal share in taxes as a percentage of their income. I find this more fair than the bracketed system. At least I'll know that the guy making $1m will be contributing his $150,000 and the guy making $15k will be ponying up his $1500. I make $40k/yr. and a flat tax sounds just grand to me. Why should the rich have to pay more of a percentage of their income just because they're rich? Because they can afford it? Please.

With a flat tax, everyone would be chipping in their fair share. If a flat tax was considered, I only think it was a good idea if exemptions were done away with, or reduced so only a certain amount of that 15% could be deducted (say, maximum exemptions only equal to 10% of the total tax owed). That way there is still a way to get a "discount" on your tax bill, but everyone is still chipping in according to their income.

Maybe this would give the lesser people more of an incentive to live within their means, and stop trying to live off the government tit (disclaimer: blanket statement, take at face value).

-- B

The issue is NOT to be CONSISTANT but to be Fair. The wealthy pay higher taxes from THEIR SURPLUS the poor and Middle income would pay it from their HIDE.

Have each state place the question on the ballot. See is the majority want a flat tax knowing what it will mean. We would also have to determine if 15% would belance the budget. Hell it might take 25%.

The issue is NOT to be CONSISTANT but to be Fair. The wealthy pay higher taxes from THEIR SURPLUS the poor and Middle income would pay it from their HIDE

How is it fair for someone who is successful to pay more money?

You're not taking into account deductions and loopholes and welfare and other assistance programs offered to low-income families either. It's not as clear-cut as you would make it out to be Gene. And just because someone can afford to pay more doesn't mean they should or that they're obligated to. A system that over-taxes the wealthy in an attempt to level the playing field results in stagnation since there is no longer any incentive to do well beyond a certain level. Many people who have money had to earn it the hard way just ike the rest of us.

I worked hard to get a college education so that I could get a better job that pays more money. I work hard at my job so I can get a raise. Should I be penalized for my hard work? Should Brad be penalized because he busted his butt to build a successful company? Should my father be penalized for spending the past 30 years working to expand our knowledge of science, teaching, and international outreach education?

It sounds great in theory, make the rich pay more... until you think about what it means... it's punishing success. It hurts the drive to succeed and do better. I know if I knew making over X amount would cause me to get taxed significantly higher, I'd actually work to stay BELOW that line. That's less money in the economy circulating as I have less to spend. How would THAT solve any problems?

Ok, so we'll excempt the first $40,000 (indexed for cost of living by area since there is a world of difference between what $40k is worth in Sheboygan and what it is worth in Anchorage), then tax everyone else 15% of everything else. The same for everyone, no deductions, breaks, loopholes or any other weapon of class warfare warriors. The government wouldn't be entitled to any bigger cut from anyone than anyone else.

No wonder everyone with a brain should prefer a flat tax... But that wouldn't play into your bigoted Class Warfare now would it.

Everybody paying the same amount is fair.

Everybody paying the same percentage is fair.

Everybody paying nothing (i.e. the same amount and the same percentage) is fair.

A progressive tax is NOT fair.

What you want is not fairness but forced assistance. Whether forcing people to help others in a society is a good thing or not is a good question. But calling it fairness doesn't help.


A regressive tax is also not fair, and for the same reasons too.

It sounds great in theory, make the rich pay more... until you think about what it means... it's punishing success

Well aren't you punishing success with a 15% flat tax too since the more you make the more that 15% rate will take?

COL Gene, apparently I'm the only one on your side here. And no one has said anything about the failure of our government to ask the public to make any sacrifices for our forces at war in Iraq. I don't think yellow magnets are getting the job done at supporting the troops if continued military involvement is bankrupting our country without a tax system to support it.

Suspeckted Returns!

Reply By: SuspecktedPosted: Monday, September 26, 2005

nice to see yer around again sus, look forward to future headbanging with ya.

welcome back.