[quote]ZEB wrote:
Steve Forbes had it right a decade ago. Everyone pays a flat tax of 20% and all loopholes and deductions are eliminated.
End of tax mess and the current inherent unfairness built into the tax system.[/quote]
Put all income into the same catagory, every person files as an idividual and exempt the first $30,000.00 for every individual and I’m ready to climb on board. [/quote]
I would not want anyone under 30-k paying 20% but I do not want them exempt either. Everyone and I mean everyone should pay something.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Steve Forbes had it right a decade ago. Everyone pays a flat tax of 20% and all loopholes and deductions are eliminated.
End of tax mess and the current inherent unfairness built into the tax system.[/quote]
Put all income into the same catagory, every person files as an idividual and exempt the first $30,000.00 for every individual and I’m ready to climb on board. [/quote]
I would not want anyone under 30-k paying 20% but I do not want them exempt either. Everyone and I mean everyone should pay something. [/quote]
I think the everyone thing sounds better in theroy than it works in practice, but your position is reasonable.
Progressive tax is a stupid idea. Punish the successful? Fuck that.
Exempt the first 30K and issue a flat rate for everyone.
Formula:
If (income - 30K) > 0, you pay X% flat tax on the difference, which is (income - 30K).
If (income - 30K) <= 0, you, pay no tax.
This eliminates the tax bracketing and the fact that getting a raise at work might cost you.
The government tunes the formula by adjusting the flat rate every 1-3 years by a few tenths of a percent in either direction.
Corporate tax follows a similar model with a more reasonable number for income instead of 30K. The 30% corporate tax is too damn expensive for small businesses to grow … second highest in the world.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Progressive tax is a stupid idea. Punish the successful? Fuck that.
Exempt the first 30K and issue a flat rate for everyone.
Formula:
If (income - 30K) > 0, you pay X% flat tax on the difference, which is (income - 30K).
If (income - 30K) <= 0, you, pay no tax.
This eliminates the tax bracketing and the fact that getting a raise at work might cost you.
The government tunes the formula by adjusting the flat rate every 1-3 years by a few tenths of a percent in either direction.
Corporate tax follows a similar model with a more reasonable number for income instead of 30K. The 30% corporate tax is too damn expensive for small businesses to grow … second highest in the world.[/quote]
I always thought that the progressive tax was counter productive. Can you imagine being in charge of a sales force and told your crew that the more you sell the less money that you make? It is a huge disincentive for people to be productive.
And Obama wants the tax to be even more punitive on the those who fuel the economy.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Progressive tax is a stupid idea. Punish the successful? Fuck that.
Exempt the first 30K and issue a flat rate for everyone.
Formula:
If (income - 30K) > 0, you pay X% flat tax on the difference, which is (income - 30K).
If (income - 30K) <= 0, you, pay no tax.
This eliminates the tax bracketing and the fact that getting a raise at work might cost you.
The government tunes the formula by adjusting the flat rate every 1-3 years by a few tenths of a percent in either direction.
Corporate tax follows a similar model with a more reasonable number for income instead of 30K. The 30% corporate tax is too damn expensive for small businesses to grow … highest in the world.[/quote]
Really? I heard it was second highest, but your point is well taken.
Under my plan, people would still rather make 31K rather than 30K because they are only paying a few hundred bucks (a fraction of that extra thousand) in taxes. There is never a case where a raise at work is punitive, and no one would be clinging to stay at their current income just to avoid taxes.
ZEB: The issue I see with making people under 30K pay taxes is that it can’t be the flat rate, and now you’ve given people an incentive to NOT make more than 30K. Essentially we’d be creating a progressive tax for those who make over 30K which defeats the purpose of my plan. True, people living on 30K make about $15/hr assuming 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. You probably aren’t going to buy a house or raise a family on this income, but those people’s life choices aren’t my problem (or yours, either).
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Really? I heard it was second highest, but your point is well taken.
Under my plan, people would still rather make 31K rather than 30K because they are only paying a few hundred bucks (a fraction of that extra thousand) in taxes. There is never a case where a raise at work is punitive, and no one would be clinging to stay at their current income just to avoid taxes.
ZEB: The issue I see with making people under 30K pay taxes is that it can’t be the flat rate, and now you’ve given people an incentive to NOT make more than 30K. Essentially we’d be creating a progressive tax for those who make over 30K which defeats the purpose of my plan. True, people living on 30K make about $15/hr assuming 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. You probably aren’t going to buy a house or raise a family on this income, but those people’s life choices aren’t my problem (or yours, either).[/quote]
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Really? I heard it was second highest, but your point is well taken.
Under my plan, people would still rather make 31K rather than 30K because they are only paying a few hundred bucks (a fraction of that extra thousand) in taxes. There is never a case where a raise at work is punitive, and no one would be clinging to stay at their current income just to avoid taxes.
ZEB: The issue I see with making people under 30K pay taxes is that it can’t be the flat rate, and now you’ve given people an incentive to NOT make more than 30K. Essentially we’d be creating a progressive tax for those who make over 30K which defeats the purpose of my plan. True, people living on 30K make about $15/hr assuming 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. You probably aren’t going to buy a house or raise a family on this income, but those people’s life choices aren’t my problem (or yours, either).[/quote]
I agree, so let’s lower the flat tax rate to about 17% and include everyone! No loopholes no deductions and no way to escape it.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I suppose that’s true, too. I always thought it was stupid as hell to offer tax deducations based on being married, having kids, or owning a house.
What if I don’t want any of those things? I should pay more in taxes?[/quote]
I agree, the most wealthy have always used loopholes to cut their taxes. I don’t blame them anymore than I blame the poor for using loopholes to collect funds from the government. Where there is a way to beat the system people of every economic class will find it. With a flat tax there is no way to beat the system unless you outright lie about your income. And there are ways to prevent this as well.
A fair flat tax is the only way to go.
But we’ll never see it because the democrats would prevent anything that makes this much sense from becoming law. They must continue to pander for votes pitting each class against the other.
But we’ll never see it because the democrats would prevent anything that makes this much sense from becoming law. They must continue to pander for votes pitting each class against the other. [/quote]
Oh my, the Republicans are just floating like a ghost over the waters and they would implement a crazy serious tax reform, if only the Dems would let them.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I suppose that’s true, too. I always thought it was stupid as hell to offer tax deducations based on being married, having kids, or owning a house.
What if I don’t want any of those things? I should pay more in taxes?[/quote]
I agree, the most wealthy have always used loopholes to cut their taxes. I don’t blame them anymore than I blame the poor for using loopholes to collect funds from the government. Where there is a way to beat the system people of every economic class will find it. With a flat tax there is no way to beat the system unless you outright lie about your income. And there are ways to prevent this as well.
A fair flat tax is the only way to go.
But we’ll never see it because the democrats would prevent anything that makes this much sense from becoming law. They must continue to pander for votes pitting each class against the other. [/quote]
Yes we don’t like things that make sense. If you promise not to let this secret out I won’t tell anyone you guys want to keep all women in the kitchen while the lower class men go fight a war for more oil so the upper class men can make more money.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I suppose that’s true, too. I always thought it was stupid as hell to offer tax deducations based on being married, having kids, or owning a house.
What if I don’t want any of those things? I should pay more in taxes?[/quote]
I agree, the most wealthy have always used loopholes to cut their taxes. I don’t blame them anymore than I blame the poor for using loopholes to collect funds from the government. Where there is a way to beat the system people of every economic class will find it. With a flat tax there is no way to beat the system unless you outright lie about your income. And there are ways to prevent this as well.
A fair flat tax is the only way to go.
But we’ll never see it because the democrats would prevent anything that makes this much sense from becoming law. They must continue to pander for votes pitting each class against the other. [/quote]
Yes we don’t like things that make sense. If you promise not to let this secret out I won’t tell anyone you guys want to keep all women in the kitchen while the lower class men go fight a war for more oil so the upper class men can make more money.[/quote]
Not sure if this is serious, but if it is, it’s one of the stupid things I’ve heard on this site.
Seriously dude, when did ZEB or I mention anything about those three topics? You are a fool if you think rich people should be punished for being successful.
PS - Since you bring up combat, are you a veteran? I am, and I am also the richest person I personally know for my age. Save the sob story, please.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I suppose that’s true, too. I always thought it was stupid as hell to offer tax deducations based on being married, having kids, or owning a house.
What if I don’t want any of those things? I should pay more in taxes?[/quote]
I agree, the most wealthy have always used loopholes to cut their taxes. I don’t blame them anymore than I blame the poor for using loopholes to collect funds from the government. Where there is a way to beat the system people of every economic class will find it. With a flat tax there is no way to beat the system unless you outright lie about your income. And there are ways to prevent this as well.
A fair flat tax is the only way to go.
But we’ll never see it because the democrats would prevent anything that makes this much sense from becoming law. They must continue to pander for votes pitting each class against the other. [/quote]
Yes we don’t like things that make sense. If you promise not to let this secret out I won’t tell anyone you guys want to keep all women in the kitchen while the lower class men go fight a war for more oil so the upper class men can make more money.[/quote]
Not sure if this is serious, but if it is, it’s one of the stupid things I’ve heard on this site.
Seriously dude, when did ZEB or I mention anything about those three topics? You are a fool if you think rich people should be punished for being successful.
PS - Since you bring up combat, are you a veteran? I am, and I am also the richest person I personally know for my age. Save the sob story, please.[/quote]
Possibly serious if I have a chance of winning the stupidest post on the site prize. Top contenders so far are my obvious sarcasm vs your post thinking it might be serious.
OK. You got me. I don’t claim to have all the answers but I’ve seen some monumentally stupid shit posted in PWI before. Hard to tell when I’m just reading text.
I didn’t see anything mentioning corporate taxes. if you tax capital gains at a regular earned income tax rate the taxation on profits would be ridiculous.It would discourage investing and slow growth. Any flat tax rate would have to be close to the rates that people above 250k earn anyway since most tax revenue collected is derived from the rich anyway (In no way am I implying 250k is rich), even if they lower their effective tax rate to well below that of the middle class.
My solution, cut the military budget. Our military budget is more than all of the members of NATO COMBINED! Do we really need bases surrounding Russia and in South America with our long range capabilities? I bet we could close several bases, give RAISES TO OUR SERVICE MEN and still cut the budget.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I suppose that’s true, too. I always thought it was stupid as hell to offer tax deducations based on being married, having kids, or owning a house.
What if I don’t want any of those things? I should pay more in taxes?[/quote]
[quote]Deercalf wrote:
My solution, cut the military budget. Our military budget is more than all of the members of NATO COMBINED! Do we really need bases surrounding Russia and in South America with our long range capabilities? I bet we could close several bases, give RAISES TO OUR SERVICE MEN and still cut the budget. [/quote]
Careful, here. The biggest expense to the US DoD by far is personnel. The American serviceman is the best paid and best trained in the world when it comes to raw dollars. Full medical, dental, life, and disability insurance on top of that. Two different kinds of GI Bills, VA vocational training and home loans at extremely low interest too. Cutting the military budget also means unemployment and a loss of benefits for out veterans. The whole world still relies on the USA (Syria, anyone?) for military assistance. I don’t think we should be the world’s policeman, but that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Besides, the other countries in NATO could barely even wage a war since their military budgets are so low. Almost none of them have made any substantial contributions to combat since 1990, and even then it wasn’t much.
If you are going to take money away, take it away from a zero-profit program like medicare or medicaid. People who haven’t earned shit but think they are entitled to it. Americans generally leave the military with new skills and work experience, even at high cost. Any veteran will agree with that. Maintaining a strong military is one of the only things a government SHOULD be spending money on.
[quote]Deercalf wrote:
My solution, cut the military budget. Our military budget is more than all of the members of NATO COMBINED! Do we really need bases surrounding Russia and in South America with our long range capabilities? I bet we could close several bases, give RAISES TO OUR SERVICE MEN and still cut the budget. [/quote]
Careful, here. The biggest expense to the US DoD by far is personnel. The American serviceman is the best paid and best trained in the world when it comes to raw dollars. Full medical, dental, life, and disability insurance on top of that. Two different kinds of GI Bills, VA vocational training and home loans at extremely low interest too. Cutting the military budget also means unemployment and a loss of benefits for out veterans. The whole world still relies on the USA (Syria, anyone?) for military assistance. I don’t think we should be the world’s policeman, but that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Besides, the other countries in NATO could barely even wage a war since their military budgets are so low. Almost none of them have made any substantial contributions to combat since 1990, and even then it wasn’t much.
If you are going to take money away, take it away from a zero-profit program like medicare or medicaid. People who haven’t earned shit but think they are entitled to it. Americans generally leave the military with new skills and work experience, even at high cost. Any veteran will agree with that. Maintaining a strong military is one of the only things a government SHOULD be spending money on.[/quote]
Good point about the bennies. I didn’t think about that. I still feel that if we closed some bases we could give the men a raise. Especially in Europe, these countries are not 3rd world. I’m personally biased towards medicare because I’ve seen my great aunt live out her last days on medicare. She had no children and he husband had died long ago. My mother took care of her but as a LPN my mother doesn’t exactly make a kings ransom.