We must start with what we agree we will spend and then design a tax system that collects that amount of revenue.

That's the easy part (determining budget and the designing the tax system).

The difficult part? Getting every single politician to keep their grubby fingers out of the cookie jar.

The difficult part? Getting every single politician to keep their grubby fingers out of the cookie jar.

BINGO!!! Give that man a ceegar!

Two solutions for the pro-progressive taxers:

Plan #1: Determine the total income in the US. Divide that by the # of people who are of wage earning age. Have everyone's pay sent to the government. The government keeps what it determines it needs and metes out the rest equally to the citizens.

Plan #2: Determine a wage allowance per person ... say $40,000 per person, plus $20,000 per child; limit 2 (that seems like a living wage, doesn't it?). Anyone making over their limit stops getting a paycheck and the rest is sent to the goverment. People making less than their allowance get the difference in a weekly check from the goverment. The government keeps the rest to spend as it wishes.

Bottom line: It's not your money. It belongs to the government. That is the cost for you living here.

"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. "

In my opinion, rich people should pay higher taxes than poor people, since why should people who are born with better cognitive capabilities and richer parents e.g. live a better life than poor people that were not so fortunate. After all a big part of your income depends on your brains and herritage. Not all of course. Tinbergen, a noble prize winner in economics from the Netherlands, thought of a tax which depends on your income earning abilities, of course this is theoretical since it is impossible to measure exactly everyone's capabilities, but in this way everyone earns the same income. Isn't that fair?

Some JoeUsers say a 15% falt tax would not cut the taxes for the wealthy.

Who said that?

Here is a proposed Tax that a close friend of mine came up with (who has to remain unnamed since he is a politician).

Who has to remain unnamed since he is a politician?

"My tax: Less than $50k per person: no tax. 50% on the amount over $50k. So if you make $100,000 pay $25,000 gross $75,000 which is less than what people pay now. Now the rate goes up to 39%, 36% depending on how you count it. 50% on over $50k per family member is a great deal -- if you have a family of four, you pay no taxes until you hit $200k, with no EIC."

I don't think I much like the idea of somebody making 200,000 quids paying nothing at all.

A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar. There they meet an advocate of a progressive tax system who explains to them why a flat tax would cause a recesssion.

Who has to remain unnamed since he is a politician?

Sorry, I should say former politician since he left politics a few years ago, and unless he says otherwise I have to leave him nameless. I didn't think much of that idea at all either, it was just a different idea I thought that could be brought to the table.

A flat tax still doesn't do anything for all the ceo's earning $1.00 a year. The loopholes are the problem. As long as there are loopholes, the poor will kick and scream about the wealthy. As the matter of fact, you could raise taxes to 50% on the wealthy and the poor will still cry foul simply because they are envious of the wealthy.

A flat tax still doesn't do anything for all the ceo's earning $1.00 a year. The loopholes are the problem. As long as there are loopholes, the poor will kick and scream about the wealthy. As the matter of fact, you could raise taxes to 50% on the wealthy and the poor will still cry foul simply because they are envious of the wealthy.

Then don't tax income at all.



But wouldn't these CEOs have to pay taxes for their income from shares?

The point is that when the budget is passed by Congress and signed by the President each year, that is what the country will spend - Like it or not and Bush and the Congressional leadership follow that process every year. It is the next step they do not accomplish-- Passing taxes that pay for what THEY HAVE CHOOSEN TO SPEND. That can not continue-- Either cut the spending or increase the taxes. That is what I as a Moderate want the government to do. NO MORE CHARGE AND SPEND.

I always laugh when he calls himself a moderate.

That is what I am. I do not support NEW spending programs, except help for things like Katrina. I want a balanced Budget. I do not support Nation Building. The notion that the conservatives are fiscal conservatives is NUTS. No true fiscal conservative would follow the CHARGE AND SPEND policy the Bush and the GOP are following.

Col, you support every radical liberal idea out there. You are no moderate.

What radical ideas do I support? Balancing the Budget? Protecting our borders? Reducing the Trade deficit? Funding Social Security and Medicare? Rebuilding our infastructure? Please list the Radical Ideas you claim I support.