[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
That is exactly why America needs to go to a flat federal sales tax. Then it won’t matter if you are an illegal or not as far as taxes go. The more you buy the more taxes you pay no matter how you got paid. Plus for anyone that is against big government the IRS could be cut at least in half. You also wouldn’t have to worry about filing in April.
theoretically, I think a flat tax is a great idea. Realistically, I don’t know if it would work. As people on here have pointed out so often, the top 5-20% currently pay much more in taxes than others…if we went to a flat tax, that tax would have to be high enough to account for the money we get from that top 5%… in other words, it would be so high as to make life quite difficult (re: impossible) for lower classes. Now we could offer some sort of “tax break” for these lower classes, as we currently do…but then don’t we have the same problems as the current system?
But there would be millions of more people to pay the taxes.
It worked for decades federally. It still works for several states.
Edit: Not to mention eliminating tons of government waste in the for of the tax codes and IRS. There would be no way for rich people to find loopholes and dodge taxes with fancy lawyers either.[/quote]
Agreed. But unless you slant it in some way, a sales tax is awfully regressive.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
That is exactly why America needs to go to a flat federal sales tax. Then it won’t matter if you are an illegal or not as far as taxes go. The more you buy the more taxes you pay no matter how you got paid. Plus for anyone that is against big government the IRS could be cut at least in half. You also wouldn’t have to worry about filing in April.
theoretically, I think a flat tax is a great idea. Realistically, I don’t know if it would work. As people on here have pointed out so often, the top 5-20% currently pay much more in taxes than others…if we went to a flat tax, that tax would have to be high enough to account for the money we get from that top 5%… in other words, it would be so high as to make life quite difficult (re: impossible) for lower classes. Now we could offer some sort of “tax break” for these lower classes, as we currently do…but then don’t we have the same problems as the current system? [/quote]
There are of course going to be problems, but let say it is 6% tax on all goods. Theoretically it is the Wealthiest that are buying the $4,000 big screen TV’s and the $50,000 cars. In those cases they pay $240 and $3,000 respectively. I know this is a sticky subject, but if you can’t afford the good with the tax you shouldn?t buy it in the first place. This would help solve several problems to include America’s love for credit and living above your means. Yes your grocery bill and other necessities will go up, but so will your pay check since no tax will be taken out. The wealthy pay more in taxes now, but they also buy more goods and more expensive goods at that. I think a balance can be found and tax evasion would be much harder to commit.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
That is exactly why America needs to go to a flat federal sales tax. Then it won’t matter if you are an illegal or not as far as taxes go. The more you buy the more taxes you pay no matter how you got paid. Plus for anyone that is against big government the IRS could be cut at least in half. You also wouldn’t have to worry about filing in April.
theoretically, I think a flat tax is a great idea. Realistically, I don’t know if it would work. As people on here have pointed out so often, the top 5-20% currently pay much more in taxes than others…if we went to a flat tax, that tax would have to be high enough to account for the money we get from that top 5%… in other words, it would be so high as to make life quite difficult (re: impossible) for lower classes. Now we could offer some sort of “tax break” for these lower classes, as we currently do…but then don’t we have the same problems as the current system?
But there would be millions of more people to pay the taxes.
It worked for decades federally. It still works for several states.
Edit: Not to mention eliminating tons of government waste in the for of the tax codes and IRS. There would be no way for rich people to find loopholes and dodge taxes with fancy lawyers either.
Agreed. But unless you slant it in some way, a sales tax is awfully regressive.[/quote]
What do you mean by slant it?
If you mean a certain tax for certain goods I agree. You could have a 4% tax on necessities and a 6% tax on other goods. Of course who would determine what a necessity is and what is a good. For me Protein powder is a necessity, but to some Pepsi is a necessity so there would have to some sort of criteria in determining the tax.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
That is exactly why America needs to go to a flat federal sales tax. Then it won’t matter if you are an illegal or not as far as taxes go. The more you buy the more taxes you pay no matter how you got paid. Plus for anyone that is against big government the IRS could be cut at least in half. You also wouldn’t have to worry about filing in April.
theoretically, I think a flat tax is a great idea. Realistically, I don’t know if it would work. As people on here have pointed out so often, the top 5-20% currently pay much more in taxes than others…if we went to a flat tax, that tax would have to be high enough to account for the money we get from that top 5%… in other words, it would be so high as to make life quite difficult (re: impossible) for lower classes. Now we could offer some sort of “tax break” for these lower classes, as we currently do…but then don’t we have the same problems as the current system?
But there would be millions of more people to pay the taxes.
It worked for decades federally. It still works for several states.
Edit: Not to mention eliminating tons of government waste in the for of the tax codes and IRS. There would be no way for rich people to find loopholes and dodge taxes with fancy lawyers either.
Agreed. But unless you slant it in some way, a sales tax is awfully regressive.[/quote]
As in luxury taxes on high end items, no tax on necessities like food?
I disagree, but I think it would be an okay compromise.
You have to remember that 6% of 150,000 is still way more than 6% of 30,000.
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
Am I really supposed to give a shit about the person who hopped a fence to have their baby here on my medicaid dollar?
No, not all of us are christians/religious, so I can accept that you don’t care for those less fortunate than you.
Why would you bring up religion? Trolling? I’ll retort.
Yeah, well I’m religious, so I have a soul.[/quote]
Just pointing out the obvious. Us religious folk often feel it necessary to care about the less fortunate, regardless of where they were born or what they’ve done wrong. But I don’t expect or demand that others to have similar values.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
I’m not against the idea of a flat tax, but it would have to account for a heck of a lot of things. [/quote]
I do agree 6% is low and only used as an example, but I think with 20-35% is way to high. If our government continues to spend like it currently is then yes it would never work without a huge tax, but with the proper budgeting and cuts it could work. I mean just think about all the corporation, tax every building, chair, pen, computer, etc…That they buy and you have a lot of tax money. I agree it would be a very difficult process, but our tax system is entirely too complicated and a flat tax would eliminate many problems.
Of course our citizens and our government would have to learn how to be fiscally responsible and that is more of a dream then a flat tax.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
I’m not against the idea of a flat tax, but it would have to account for a heck of a lot of things.
I do agree 6% is low and only used as an example, but I think with 20-35% is way to high. If our government continues to spend like it currently is then yes it would never work without a huge tax, but with the proper budgeting and cuts it could work. I mean just think about all the corporation, tax every building, chair, pen, computer, etc…That they buy and you have a lot of tax money. I agree it would be a very difficult process, but our tax system is entirely too complicated and a flat tax would eliminate many problems.
Of course our citizens and our government would have to learn how to be fiscally responsible and that is more of a dream then a flat tax.
[/quote]
Like I said, I don’t see anything wrong wrong with the theory behind a flat tax, but implementation seems near impossible. Did you read the link? 20-35% are the numbers we are dealing with. If you want to argue for huge budget cuts in addition to a flat tax, that’s fine but, as you say, more of a dream than anything else.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
I’m not against the idea of a flat tax, but it would have to account for a heck of a lot of things.
That is a whole lot less than what I currently pay, and I’m not rich.[/quote]
With the numbers proposed, assuming you’re not rich, you would pay much more under a flat tax. That’s one of the major arguments against it: that it would be a regressive tax (i.e. the non-rich would pay more).
Think about it, the money has to come from somewhere, so if we’re taxing the rich less, we’d be taxing the non-rich more. Now if you want to cut the budget, that’s fair and good, but not what we’re discussing here.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
I’m not against the idea of a flat tax, but it would have to account for a heck of a lot of things.
That is a whole lot less than what I currently pay, and I’m not rich.
With the numbers proposed, assuming you’re not rich, you would pay much more under a flat tax. That’s one of the major arguments against it: that it would be a regressive tax (i.e. the non-rich would pay more).
Think about it, the money has to come from somewhere, so if we’re taxing the rich less, we’d be taxing the non-rich more. Now if you want to cut the budget, that’s fair and good, but not what we’re discussing here. [/quote]
In the 1986 amnesty, we were told 1 million would get a break, but it extended to 6 million. Now that we have at least 20 million here illegally, what should we expect this time around, 100 million?
What about all these people that would then have to contribute their fair share?
I do see a hurdle in the conversion process too. If I’ve already payed income tax on money and invested or saved it and you change systems, I get screwed.
Am I really supposed to give a shit about the person who hopped a fence to have their baby here on my medicaid dollar?
No, not all of us are christians/religious, so I can accept that you don’t care for those less fortunate than you. [/quote]
If you want to help the less fortunate more than your tax dollars already do feel free to donate to charity. People like you complain that we spend to much money on foreign aid and war. Do a little research and see how much of a burden illegal immigrants are on this country both criminally and financially.
The jail I work for holds 500 inmates, we currently house over 150 illegal mexicans, a large majority of which are in for aggravated assault/sexual assault, robbery, burglary and possesion with the intent to distribute. At a cost of roughly 30,000 dollars a year to feed and clothe these people thats 4.5 million a year in tax payer dollars to house them.
Their children go to school, yet they pay no taxes. They receive medicaid, yet pay no taxes. They receive welfare and section 8, yet pay no taxes. Why don’t you do me a favor and not pay your taxes this year and let’s see if you’re afforded the same “help” they are.
Am I really supposed to give a shit about the person who hopped a fence to have their baby here on my medicaid dollar?
No, not all of us are christians/religious, so I can accept that you don’t care for those less fortunate than you.
Why would you bring up religion? Trolling? I’ll retort.
Yeah, well I’m religious, so I have a soul.
Just pointing out the obvious. Us religious folk often feel it necessary to care about the less fortunate, regardless of where they were born or what they’ve done wrong. But I don’t expect or demand that others to have similar values. [/quote]
They tend to think of government as some sort of robber-gang, and voting is how you get the gang to rob for you.
Actually that pretty much sums up how it works in this country too. Politics wouldn’t be so hotly contested otherwise.[/quote]
Uh, yeah. We’re pretty much an oligarchy of the financial class at this point. Hank Paulson was a former Goldman Sachs CEO, former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin is a FORMER co-CEO of Goldman Sachs, and his proteges Geinther, Summers, and Orzag are getting positions in the Obama administration.
None of the voters wanted the bailout, but the financial class got it anyway. None of the voters want an amnesty, but the financial class wants cheap labor at the expense of the American worker.
Am I really supposed to give a shit about the person who hopped a fence to have their baby here on my medicaid dollar?
No, not all of us are christians/religious, so I can accept that you don’t care for those less fortunate than you.
Why would you bring up religion? Trolling? I’ll retort.
Yeah, well I’m religious, so I have a soul.
Just pointing out the obvious. Us religious folk often feel it necessary to care about the less fortunate, regardless of where they were born or what they’ve done wrong. But I don’t expect or demand that others to have similar values. [/quote]
There are also us religious folk who would prefer that the Federal government not be in the charity business. There are those Faux-religious people who think it is the governments job to be our god.
Am I really supposed to give a shit about the person who hopped a fence to have their baby here on my medicaid dollar?
No, not all of us are christians/religious, so I can accept that you don’t care for those less fortunate than you.
Why would you bring up religion? Trolling? I’ll retort.
Yeah, well I’m religious, so I have a soul.
Just pointing out the obvious. Us religious folk often feel it necessary to care about the less fortunate, regardless of where they were born or what they’ve done wrong. But I don’t expect or demand that others to have similar values. [/quote]
Did Jesus teach to give to the poor, or to force others at gunpoint to give to the poor?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
I’m not against the idea of a flat tax, but it would have to account for a heck of a lot of things.
That is a whole lot less than what I currently pay, and I’m not rich.
With the numbers proposed, assuming you’re not rich, you would pay much more under a flat tax. That’s one of the major arguments against it: that it would be a regressive tax (i.e. the non-rich would pay more).
[/quote]
As opposed to the current system where the truly rich also pay less percentage wise?
[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
No one is talking about anything near 6% for a flat tax. figures between 20-35% are more the norm, or a two-tiered system of sorts. Even with around 20-25% we’d end up with huge revenue shortfalls. (Armey-Shelby plan was 17% but had huge revenue shortfalls)
I’m not against the idea of a flat tax, but it would have to account for a heck of a lot of things.
That is a whole lot less than what I currently pay, and I’m not rich.
With the numbers proposed, assuming you’re not rich, you would pay much more under a flat tax. That’s one of the major arguments against it: that it would be a regressive tax (i.e. the non-rich would pay more).
As opposed to the current system where the truly rich also pay less percentage wise?[/quote]
THis actually is a good point…system sure ain’t workin’