What type of tax plan do you support/want

[epicstruggle]

This morning there has been much coverage on flat taxes. Although I favor eliminating the irs and just having a flat tax for everyone. I would rather see a gradual phasing out of the current system to a consuption sales tax.

A national sales tax. The more you spend the more you pay. Everyone starts out with some amount of money given by the govermnent and then they would pay taxes everytime they buy things (with the money given + the amount you earn).

what do you favor/want?

later,
epic

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I want no tax.

 

[pax]

Sales taxes are regressive and should be abolished. They also distort the consumer economy. I like Delaware for that. You can say the rich spend more they would still pay more than the poor but they would pay less than they do now as they are the ones pushing this idea. Its an obvious attempt at trying to make the middle class and poor pay more of the tax burden then they do already.

However Im ready to overlook this if they include stocks and currency trades in the sales tax.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Flat tax!

Everyone pay 11% of their income, no loop holes.

How could you get more fair than that?

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[pax]

The idea of no loop holes is nice but it wont exist. It doesnt exist now what makes you think it wont exist later? Progressive tax system keeps the loop holes from getting too big. Flat tax will have loop holes just as much as the progressive one has.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

pax,

I don't know too much about tax structures so I might be way off base, but my idea/concept is simple. For those employed by others, it would be quite simple. For every dollar that my company gives me for pay, the government gets 11%. No loopholes. Businesses would have to make sure that they claimed all profits as profits, I would guess that that is not done now 100% (Enron and the like).

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

Our current system of gradated taxation is partially based on the idea of a standard of living, i.e. there is a baseline for the standard of living in this country, and the closer you are to that baseline, the less taxes you should pay. A flat tax would completely negate that and force everyone, despite ability, to pay the same amount. It would never pass simply because of that factor alone.

Someone making $25,000/yr would have a far more difficult time paying 11% of their income in taxes than someone making $250,000/yr, due to a required standard of living, which is also partly why we have a minimum wage.

 

[epicstruggle]

Our current system of gradated taxation is partially based on the idea of a standard of living, i.e. there is a baseline for the standard of living in this country, and the closer you are to that baseline, the less taxes you should pay. A flat tax would completely negate that and force everyone, despite ability, to pay the same amount. It would never pass simply because of that factor alone.

Someone making $25,000/yr would have a far more difficult time paying 11% of their income in taxes than someone making $250,000/yr, due to a required standard of living, which is also partly why we have a minimum wage.

Thats why a national sales tax coupled with a living allowance would make more sense. Give everyone a set amount and then tax people for buying anything.

There are many people who currently pay no taxes at all (or cheat to pay very little), having a sales tax would force them to pay. Prostitutes, waiter (and other who make a living of tips), drug dealers, small business people, ....

later,

 

[Saem]

Private sales? You can't easily tax those. Unless you monitor everyones accounts, but then you can keep money at home. Loop holes there too. Not to mention invasion of privacy all over the place.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Someone making $25,000/yr would have a far more difficult time paying 11% of their income in taxes than someone making $250,000/yr, due to a required standard of living, which is also partly why we have a minimum wage.

I have made well below $25,000/yr in my life while I was living on my own. I would have no issues if I payed the same percentage that others did regardless of how much they made. I did almost say a 2 tier flat tax for the poverty level, but again I don't know much about tax system.

Headin out to take the dogs to our town's festival. WOOT! =)

Later,
Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

Someone making $25,000/yr would have a far more difficult time paying 11% of their income in taxes than someone making $250,000/yr, due to a required standard of living, which is also partly why we have a minimum wage.

I have made well below $25,000/yr in my life while I was living on my own. I would have no issues if I payed the same percentage that others did regardless of how much they made. I did almost say a 2 tier flat tax for the poverty level, but again I don't know much about tax system.

Headin out to take the dogs to our town's festival. WOOT! =)

Later,
Dr. Ffreeze

Well it also depends on where you live in the country. While $25,000 might go far in some place like Maine or West Virginia, you would have a far more difficult time trying to live in some place like San Francisco or New York on that salary.

 

[Willmeister]

Taxes aren't the problem. It's how it's spent. I do agree that most of these tax loopholes have to be eliminated, but that might mean massive White Collar unemployment on the Potomac...

 

[Evildeus]

If any tax, poll tax 8)

 

[pax]

Britain had riots over the poll tax. Heck Id have rioted myself over that ;P... 23% sales tax would send the economy underground. Tho it would be a LOT lower if we had a modest financial transactions tax of 0.2% on stocks and currency... Some would add bonds but I think that would be an insult...

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Well it also depends on where you live in the country. While $25,000 might go far in some place like Maine or West Virginia, you would have a far more difficult time trying to live in some place like San Francisco or New York on that salary.

Ahh, I would agree with that. Making only $25,000 in San Fran would really suck. But I guess you could argue that you chose to live in San Fran. You could always move. =)

I would think even with a flat tax that people that were deemed to not make enough money to survive, should not have to pay taxes (as they would be on some type of welfare anyway). I don't know, maybe it would be better if they did pay taxes, even if they got it back though some program? I just don't like the idea that the more money you make, the larger percentage the government takes out of your paycheck. I work hard so I make $30,000 and I give the government 24%. If I go to school, get a degree and then make $120,000 why should I give the government 36% on anything I earn above $100,000? I worked for it, I worked harder. Just make everyone pay the same percentage and let it be at that. In that way you don't find yourself working harder, and bringing home less of what you make.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[epicstruggle]

actually you didnt read the liberal hand book Dr. Ffreeze. It clearly states that if you make more than $100,000 that you must be living off an inheritance that you clearly did not earn and that your somehow responsible for all of the worlds problem.

later,

 

[cthellis42]

Are taxes already flat?

But basically, there are SO #%$@&^in' many forms of tax, that there's absolutely no way to MAKE them all "flat". For the most part, people in favor of the "flat tax" think in terms of federal income tax only, which is our biggest form of progressive taxation. Meanwhile the country is chock-full of many regressive forms, so "flattening" the income tax would have the net effect of placing the burden far more on on those who can least afford it.

So where to next? Flatten ALL forms of taxation? Income, payroll, excise, et al at ALL levels, federal, state, and local? Um... Good luck. (Not that many of them are in a position to be "flattened" or make any difference to do so, if they hit one side or another too hard.) Remove certain taxes while balancing those that make sense to? I'll think you'll find that Republican or Democrat, NONE of them are really in favor of shrinking government. (Bush seems to be one of the fastest at expanding us, all while draining our coffers and putting it in the wrong hands for quick economic stimulus.)

Meanwhile, taxes are used for all sorts of purposes and creating all sorts of incentives, and unless we somehow could bring ourselves to remove ALL of them, going "flat" will have no purpose since we'll still have the same unbalancing loopholes as before.

The true unfortunates are those stuck in the "cracks", where they have too much money and are taxed higher, but don't have ENOUGH money--nor enough knowledge--to take advantage of all the breaks they could be. But it's not like any system could possibly be "fair" to 290,000,000 people and the myriad of businesses at the same time.

Basically, "flattening" is not only impossible to implement, but we would likely hemorrhage to death trying to implement it.

 

[covermye]

(Bush seems to be one of the fastest at expanding us, all while draining our coffers and putting it in the wrong hands for quick economic stimulus.)

Congrats. You win this month's award for the biggest opinionated statement trying to pass for fact.

Meanwhile, taxes are used for all sorts of purposes and creating all sorts of incentives,

All sorts of purposes? Yes. All sorts of incentives? How many of these incentives would be necessary if the people paying the taxes wouldn't have to pay SO MUCH?

and unless we somehow could bring ourselves to remove ALL of them, going "flat" will have no purpose since we'll still have the same unbalancing loopholes as before.

Agreed, for the most part. A "flat tax" will need to have all the loopholes removed. No mortgage interest deduction, no investment loss deductions, no child tax credit, etc... etc...

 

[Natoma]

Our current system of gradated taxation is partially based on the idea of a standard of living, i.e. there is a baseline for the standard of living in this country, and the closer you are to that baseline, the less taxes you should pay. A flat tax would completely negate that and force everyone, despite ability, to pay the same amount. It would never pass simply because of that factor alone.

Someone making $25,000/yr would have a far more difficult time paying 11% of their income in taxes than someone making $250,000/yr, due to a required standard of living, which is also partly why we have a minimum wage.

Thats why a national sales tax coupled with a living allowance would make more sense. Give everyone a set amount and then tax people for buying anything.

There are many people who currently pay no taxes at all (or cheat to pay very little), having a sales tax would force them to pay. Prostitutes, waiter (and other who make a living of tips), drug dealers, small business people, ....

later,

I would suggest that if the loopholes in our tax laws, allowing corporations to incorporate offshore in tax havens such as Bermuda, were closed we would be able to close a good portion of our deficits. The US loses billions of dollars a year because of those loopholes. That is where most of the revenue loss comes from.

 

[pax]

We have 15% sales tax here in Canada and its a national sport on how to avoid paying it (along with the driving in springtime pothole obstacle course). We have a handful of corporations avoiding tax vs the millions who would avoid a high sales tax...

Really tired of the word tax. How much would it cost to produce a breakdown of what taxes pay and how much more (or once in a blue moon less) it would cost in the private sector for same?