I'm not a math magician by any means, but wouldn't a 25% flat tax on income make sense? Can someone explain the problem with this?
The problem is that it affects those that make less to a much greater degree than it does those that make more. A person who pays 25% of 20,000 ends up with only 15,000. That's much harder to live off of. A person who makes 2,000,000 ends up with 1,500,000. That isn't difficult to live off of at all.
A flat tax also doesn't do anything to correct for the regressive nature of all other taxes that Americans pay.
A flat tax would necessarily increase taxes on the poor, and assuming it's revenue-neutral, decrease taxes on the wealthy. Over the past 10-20 years, virtually all the new wealth and income in society has gone to the top 5% of the country. Given that, what would increasing the tax burden on the 95% and lowering it for the 5% help accomplish?
It just seems to me the fair thing to do would be to tax everyone 25%. But what I have learned in this country, especially in the last 5-10 years, is this country is anything but fair.
It would be fair, but there is fairness in nothing in life. It's not fair that some people are born to families where they have don't have to work (Hiltons) while others have to work for everything they had.
It depends on what you mean by fair. If fairness has anything to do with the amount of hardship that tax would cause, then it isn't fair at all. If fairness means an equal percentage, then it would be fair.
Hell yeah. Of course, shifting that slight tax burden on the rich into a relatively much greater tax burden on the middle class and poor will solve that.
I did. But I also don't think you should have a higher tax rate if you make more money. A flat tax would be incentive, to make more money. I know there's all kinds of loopholes and deductions and what not, but I really think there is a way to tax everyone equally regardless of how much you make. If you make 20k and get taxed 25%, well then you should look into finding a new career. Go to school and get a degree, get specialized training. I mean that'd be like in the NBA season taking the teams with the best players and making them start each game down 10 points to make it more fair, no? I don't know JMO.
flat tax would result in weaker growth as the middle class buying power would shrink. Republicans forget it's the middle class who powers our economy, not them.
Also, would someone please tell me what is the suggested middle class? I hear 200k, I hear 75k. Both my parents make well over 6 figures each, but we were not wealthy by any means (my dad was a police officer). He worked his way up from doing construction, to joining the Marine Corps, to becoming a police officer, to now working at the Federal Courthouse. So I usually tend to disagree that people have no choice but to drown in poverty.
Depends who you are talking about. Me personally, I am going to school to get a career after my stint in the military. However, I have friends who are getting paid $840 every two weeks off unemployment and collecting foodstamps. They are happy right where they are. So I guess it depends who it is.
All a flat tax does is reward the wealthy, as if they need more "rewarding," and place a heavier tax burden on lower income Americans. For the middle class, many would see their tax burden rise if itemized deductions were eliminated. The progressive tax system is far more equitable than a regressive tax system, which is what a flat tax would give us. The reason why the GOP leadership often calls for it is the same reason they always push for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy more than anyone else, while claiming, time and time again, that the wealth increase for the wealthy will "trickle down," which is bull****. It's good for their patrons, the wealthiest Americans. You say that you don't think someone with a high income should pay a higher tax rate than anyone else with a moderate to low income. My own income would be considered high by many people, especially in a state like Texas, and I don't mind paying a higher rate because of that. What drives me round the bend is seeing a man worth hundreds of millions, like Mr. Romney, with tens of millions a year in income, paying a lower rate than I do. It's obscene. Why you think that's just fine is a mystery to me. That's what I get for reading part of an asso thread. My bad.
There is no definition. It depends on how big your household and where you live. Anecdotal evidence is the worst example of, well, anything. For every person like your parents, there are others who do everything right, get cancer or in a disabling accident, and then go bankrupt. Do you think your friends would suddenly be incentivized to work if they were getting $700 instead of $840? And do you think reducing the payment would be helpful to those who are using it properly and just trying to survive until finding their next job?
I think as long as you provide them anything without having to work, it is a bad thing. For example, in my friends specific case, we'll call him Josh (which happens to be his name anyway), provide him with $840 every two weeks but require he do public works labor. I know not all people who collect government checks are not capable of working, but for those who are, simply pick up trash, paint over graffiti, clean up parks, etc... "e incentivized to work if they were getting $700 instead of $840? And do you think reducing the payment would be helpful to those who are using it properly" To this, I would say, what is properly? Candy and chips and beer and smokes is not properly, so why allow them to buy that with food stamps?
I agree 100%. I see someone paying 14% (real or doctored) taxes on that kind of income an insult. However, because he makes say, over 450k a year, I dont think he should have to pay 40% taxes. A flat tax IMO is the most fair way to go. Now you could raise the min. amount of income of those to have to pay taxes to say, 45k a year (I dont know Im just throwing out a number as an example) so if they paid 25% in taxes they wouldnt be in the crapper. I dont even know if that would work, just trying to learn a thing or two.
Most people that are calling for a flat tax want to abolish deductions as well. In this scenario, most of the wealthy would end up paying more in taxes (if you put at at say 20%), while the middle class would pay less or in the worst cases about the same as what they already pay. You would want to keep the poor exempt though. I'd raise the taxes on Capital Gains to match. To me this would be as fair as possible.
