R, What, you want to punish the overacheivers? The people who supply the majority of the jobs in this country? Why punish someone because they are rich...why not just try to become one of the rich. I like a small progressive tax system...but not one that GOUGES the rich simply because they are more successful. The reason our country and system work is that people can be rewarded for their hard work, why take that away. Socialism doesn't work...for examples see Russia, China...heck any socialist country. DD
My personal opinion is that a consumption tax would be a proper way to go. If someone (and corporations are legally people, too) buys a NEW item that is not a NEED (food, medicine, some clothing), there is a tax for consuming that good. This way, if someone buys a Mercedes, whether it is a person or a company, the tax for that item is paid. The true problem with this method of taxation is that it tends to be regressive and hit the lower and middle classes disproportionately. If the tax were only on NEW goods, one could conceivably save on the tax bill by purchasing used or surplus goods, allowing the rich (who have too much money to care) to pay their share of the taxes for the HUGE purchases they make. If we were to set the rate high enough, we could have a modest surplus to apply to the national debt and when the debt is paid, hold tax holidays for back to school, like Texas does in August every year. I agree that using a sales tax to promote certain goods could end up with some problems, but I think that if we make the process transparent enough, we could give tax breaks for hybrid cars, solar and wind energy, and many other items. It is certainly something to consider when discussing a national sales tax.
So what exactly is your idea of a "small" progressive tax as opposed to a "large" progressive tax that "gouges the rich? As for "socialism" not working, I would disagree. Without govt sponsored public schools, transportation, Medicare, and so forth it is highly unlikely that the US would be as wealthy as it is today because people born in poverty would have a much harder time getting out of poverty were it not for many of the "socialist" programs in the US and other Western nations. As for China, the problem actually isn't too much socialism but too little socialism. Unlike the US where there is Medicare, decent good free public schools, Social Security, etc, China lacks these things and this is why the move to a more privatized economy in China is causing a lot of problems there. Some socialism is always needed in order to maximize societal success and wealth.
I have two possible solutions. The first, and I can guarantee least popular (especially in the lefty crowd) is to eliminate everything except the IRS and the National Defense agencies (FBI, CIA, Military, etc) The drastically reduced cost is split with a flat tax rate amongst everyone. All other federal programs (corporate and farm subsidies, SS, etc) are simply eliminated. The American people's money is put back into their pocket. All the services that are removed (for example, highway maintanence) are paid for on a per use basis. The same scheme can be used for state and local taxation. The second is to determine what money is required to survive (foor, clothing, shelter, health care) and tax any income over this subsistence level at a flat rate.
The first, and I can guarantee least popular (especially in the lefty crowd) is to eliminate everything except the IRS and the National Defense agencies (FBI, CIA, Military, etc) The drastically reduced cost is split with a flat tax rate amongst everyone. All other federal programs (corporate and farm subsidies, SS, etc) are simply eliminated. So I presume that under this system, we would have no environmental regulation, labor fairness enforcement, SEC, etc?
R, The rich pay more already simply because they have more.....I don't mind a sliding scale, but the top end should be no more then 30%. Anything more then that and you are simply gouging successful people and redistributing wealth... Now...I am in favor of a general education fund in which every single school district in the country gets the EXACT same amount of monies. Rich, middle class, poor....they all deserve an equal education. If the Rich don't like it they can send their kids to private shools. DD
The rich pay more already simply because they have more.....I don't mind a sliding scale, but the top end should be no more then 30%. Why is 30% "right" and 33% (or pick any number above 30%) "wrong"? What's the fundamental difference?
Major, I just think that no one should have to pay more then 30% of their income to the government for taxes. If you take 30%, then add all the other things like property tax, gasoline tax, sales tax etc...it all adds up to around a 50% tax rate, and in my opinion that is too high. I think 30% is as high as we should go, and you have to draw the line somewhere. DD
I think 30% is as high as we should go, and you have to draw the line somewhere. Fair enough. I think its better to determine what services are necessities and base your line on that, rather than arbitrarily picking a number and basing the services provided on the money available.
I think a lot of big government needs to be cut back...and entitlements have to go....personally I would like to see the government adjusting to the economic downturn that we are in...instead of increasing spending. DD
I think a lot of big government needs to be cut back...and entitlements have to go....personally I would like to see the government adjusting to the economic downturn that we are in...instead of increasing spending. I totally agree here. I think Medicare and SS need to be entirely revamped and limited. I think defense spending needs to be re-evaluated and all the pork crap needs to be junked. Other pork spending needs to go, and then the government needs to look at limited streamlining (not to the extent of business, though). Then we need to see where we are and go from there.
Russia and China weren't socialist. But why do people assume because you make more money, that somehow you've worked harder, and it's their hard earned money that's getting taxed? That's one of the biggest myths in America today. Did George W. Bush work harder for his money? He's made millions but he's been a failure at every business he's ever run, not to mention that connections and inheritance got him where he got to in business, not that he outworked, and out-thought his competitors. There are plenty of rich people who are where they are because of connections, inheritance, and while they may or may not have worked hard. I know people with multiple jobs, who aren't rich, but work much harder and actually have better ideas than others who are making millions.
Right on...any members here who HONESTLY, 100% believe that we are ALL created equal and have the same chances for a good life and success are in serious need of an adjustment...
I agree with you on both points - That this would be a good direction to move and that it is not realistic.
FranchiseBlade, Getting connections and moving in the proper circles is work too.....most people are where they are because of hard work and taking risks. Risk taking is the key element in becoming successful. George W has not failed at all his businesses...you are not a FAILURE when you make millions of dollars at a business. Man...talk about jealousy....SHEESH !! DD
I am a fiscal conservative with a sense of social justice. On the conservative side, I think that the government is there to provide services that no other entity can provide like national defense and interstate transportation infrastructure. On the social justice side, we need to have agencies to police all the crooks who WILL try to bilk people out of their money, pollute their neighborhoods, or otherwise take advantage of people. Everything else (pork projects, etc) should be killed. I personally think that people should be taxed on what they consume rather than what they earn. I think that a national sales tax on new non-essentials would be a fairer system than an income tax. If a rich person doesn't want to pay tax, they can avoid it just like the rest of us.
Prove it, PlantBoy. I don't want Major, No Worries, Macbeth or whoever to jump in and attempt to save you, I want *you* to prove this. Can you prove it? PlantBoy, you really discredit the left's argument when you jump in with your typical baseless demagoguery. You perfectly illustrate why the granola peaceniks have no credibility on financial matters. You don't understand the issues and you must resort to the same tired cliches such as Enron (amazingly this has become a one-word attack -- ridiculous), Big Business, giant corporations, "the rich stealing from the poor", etc. I challenge you to advance beyond these superficial platitudes and provide objective arguments. My opinion has already been summarized in countless classic posts on the topic of taxation.
