Poor people tend to be fatter because they lack discipline and determination in their lives. This deficiency has pervaded not only their professional careers, which has led to their impoverished status, but has also infested their social life and health. They tend to have less friends and be overweight as a result of their weakness.
I tend to agree but I do not have any fact to back this up. It just seems to make sense to me. Can you explain your statement? Can you explain why this is such a bad idea?
LOL Because we all know the rich are rich solely because of hard work and determination. I'm a successful middle-class guy mostly because I was born to two successful middle-class parents. I was born on third, but I have no delusions about having hit a triple. I'm just a pinch runner.
Do you deserve to tell them what to do with the money that their families have earned throughout the years?
And please do not post 80 page articles. Your opinion will suffice. I usually hate coming to the D&D because all you get is: Poster1 - I think you are wrong. Poster2 - I think you are wrong. Poster1 - I'm not wrong, read said article (25 pages) Poster2 - Well thats crap because that news source is biased. etc etc etc Poster1 - Well you suck Poster2 - You suck too Poster2 - Democrat r****d Poster1 - Conservative b*stard The End
Can you explain why this is such a bad idea? A flat tax impacts the ability of a lower-wage individual to survive much more significantly than a high-wage individual. Lets say you need $10,000 per year to survive, no matter what your income (food, rent, electricity, etc). Let's say your flat tax rate is 25%. Income / Disposable Income (taking out the $10k) / Taxes Paid / % of Disposable Income Spent on Taxes $20,000 / $10,000 / $5,000 / 50% $40,000 / $30,000 / $10,000 / 33% $110,000 / $100,000 / $25,000 / 25% With a flat tax, your tax rate on your disposable income goes down as you get wealthier. Now, a solution to this is to tax only disposable income. Then, you truly get a flat rate on useable income. However, this still puts a disproportionate burden on lower-income individuals and families - and that's in no one's interest. A flat tax would raise the tax burden on a majority of Americans (sorry, but the bizarre theory of a 15-16% flat tax is just flat not going to work ... the rate would have to be higher). We already have a growing and dangerous wealth gap in this country - anything that makes that gap even worse is not beneficial. While we have an excess of deductions, a flat tax also eliminates the ability for government to influence public policy through tax policy. For example, I would argue that tax breaks for education or home ownership are a positive - those can't exist in a flat tax, unless you keep chucking up the rate (and the whole point of a flat tax is to get rid of all these tax exceptions). Beyond that, what we have works just fine. The rich aren't overburdened in any way, shape, or form. Contrary to the bizarre theories mentioned above, raising taxes slightly on high incomes doesn't make people stop wanting to make lots of money. I've been well into the highest tax bracket, and it was never a challenge to pay those rates because you have so much income. $1 to someone making $25,000 is FAR more valuable than $1 to someone making $1,000,000. They are far more likely to spend it, and in a consumer-based economy, you want more money in the hands of the poor - it will circulate faster and create more jobs. Further, raising the tax burden on the poor will just shift more people into needing more government services to survive. If you just take where we are now and take tons of money out of the hands of the poor (who currently pay little or no taxes), the government will have to provide that much more in social services, or you're going to have more homeless, more hungry, etc. That's just a start. There's no real sensible argument for the flat tax except that it sounds appealing. On the surface, it sounds fair, so it appeals to people who don't actually look at the issue in any detail, and ignore all the effects it will have on both society as a whole and the individuals affected. It's a great campaign issue, but it holds no merit in real life.
No I was being straightforward, Poor people have poor diets because they eat cheap food. I apologize if our poor people aren't starving to do, but their standard of living isn't great because they aren't living like Somalians. You're comparing two completely different things. If your argument is that they can eat so why should they have cheaper taxes, then I guess, if eating is all you think people in should have easy access to, but their weight has nothing to do with how good the poor have it in this country.
Major, I am against flat tax but all for a simple, loop-hole free system. Am I just delusional (not in general, I know that answer , but I mean about taxes)? I am worried that there is no simplified answer. A lot of tax breaks (e.g. kids) make some sense. Who's to say which loop holes are worthy, and then there are too many brilliant people who would not sleep until they found a way to cheat the system.
I am against flat tax but all for a simple, loop-hole free system. Am I just delusional (not in general, I know that answer , but I mean about taxes)? I am worried that there is no simplified answer. A lot of tax breaks (e.g. kids) make some sense. Who's to say which loop holes are worthy, and then there are too many brilliant people who would not sleep until they found a way to cheat the system. I would like to see fewer loopholes as well - we have waaaaaaaay too many right now. I think most were started with good intentions, though. It's just that once a tax break is in place, it can't be removed or you're "raising taxes." I'd agree with starting over with a progressive system with no taxbreaks and then adding the tax breaks that everyone can agree on. Force each individual tax break to be voted on separately, so that (hopefully) only the truly popular ones (home ownership, etc) would survive. Or play a game and tell all congresspeople that there can be only 10 tax breaks - y'all choose which ones. That way, the truly stupid ones would get junked.
No, certainly not, not the money they earned. But on the extra millions of dollars of interest they made on their fortune this year?... It seems that most civilized countries dare to ask for some percentage of that, yes. There, I answered your question. Now, would you like to answer mine? Did Paris Hilton earn the right to a yacht (or some other luxury item, she could purchase an assortment) more than a single working mom earns the right to keep an extra small amount of cash? Yes or no? Or do you see the two as equally worthy?
Major, You Suck! Actually you made exactly the concise informed post that can make a D&D forum worth while.
The GOP's efforts to set up a permanent overclass are going to backfire eventually...maybe not even in my lifetime, but it's going to be nasty, nasty, nasty. In that vein, I still have no idea why we are pursuing a banana republic fiscal policy combined with a gilded age philosophy of wealth concentration and a Hooverite approach to regulation and social services. Not one public statement from Grover Norquist or any of the tax-zealot crowd has ever explained this course of action to me. THe only explanation is pure greed and avarice, plain and simple. It didn't work last time we tried it, I have a hard time believing that it will work again.
I wonder why some of these guys who argue that America provides to many services to the none rich just don't move to countries like Mexico, or El Salvador, or Columbia where it is almost impossible to pick yourself up from poverty. Those seem like swell places to live.
Before I respond to this quote directly, I am not for a flat tax, but not for an extreme difference between wealthy rates and poor rates. The people I've heard (mostly idealists, not politicians) who want a 15-16% tax rate have a very different view of what government should be spending money on than liberals and it would work under their spending ideals. My view on federal income taxes are that they should be lower for all brackets and that the local taxes should be higher to ensure money from an area stays in that area to care for its unique problem set. As money trickles down from Washington back to the people, I expect a good portion is lost in both pork projects for leaders of the ruling regime and bureacracy. A high national income tax takes power away from the people because the ruling regime has used federal dollars to influence nonfederal local issues. For instance if a city was trying to improve a mass transportation system, but a representative could get legislation passed with city-specific language to hinder this project unless his district gets it first or maybe a huge freeway instead.
Not only that, but Iraq is a libertarian paradise; no government regulation, an armed populace...what's not to love? It's bamaslammer's wet dream. I don't know why all these professed "smalll government" types are spending my tax dollars on ruining paradise.
What about having no income tax but but a national sales tax. It could promote unbridaled entrepenuership and frugality. You could influence social agendas by it's application, like taxing Mercedes but exepmting Huggies. Seriously, we could leave money in the hands of those who need it to survive AND cut down on the conspicuos consumption that makes us the bane of the rest of the world.
I suppose there might be some merit to this, at least in the philosophical realm, but in reality I would guess that the level of corruption is much higher at the local levels than the Federal. That's not to say there are not big, whopping scandals at the Federal level, but if we sent more to the locals without many controls, there would be more big, whopping scandals at the local level. You also get into the problem of deciding which types of funds should go where. For instance, I rather like the CDC being the lead on AIDS and wouldn't like, say, the Alabama Agency for Abstinence (run by the Governor's cousin) calling the AIDS shots in Alabama. I could see a hugely reformed public housing program being the purview of the locals, but it would have to be highly regimented and capable of creating a basic level of services while doing everything possible to guard against graft and corruption. Finally, there would still have to be decisions made on who gets what money and this would essentially be a Federal decision unless we decided to distribute to states exactly what they pay in... a policy that would have disastrous consequences for many localities.
