Guess what else is wrong with America, Taxes, even Russia knows better.

If a person creates jobs for other people they should get a tax break. It is expensive enough owning a business and a business can take a lot of hours to run. They should take into consideration how much time you spend working to figure your taxes.

If a person has two jobs to survive, they have more expenses just to work. They do not have time to save money to prepare their own healthy meals from scratch. They do not have time to fix their stuff on their own, they need to hire people to fix things or pay high rent. Our inequity is a lot more complex than most people think.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You can have a flat tax rate that has every bit as many allowances, loop holes and exemptions as a progressive one.

This is true. The devil is in the details! But I believe when most people speak of a flat tax (at least in the USA), they are referring to a specific "Flat Tax" plan that not only institutes a single tax rate, but simultaneously eliminates all credits, deductions, etc., thus also eliminating all loopholes.... and, consequently, the IRS -- at least in its present form. This plan has been floating around at least since the 90s. As I remember, Steve Forbes was the first presidential candidate to run on this plan -- and that's why we voted for him!

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

To think that no taxes is "anarchistic" just goes to show how beaten down people are these days. The U.S. didn't have an income tax until 1913, and there were roads.. And bridges... Etc.

My superior system is the free market, look into it. The great part about it is there's no one person in charge.

a reply to: rockintitz

I don't think it's a justifiable comparison though. We're a long way from 1913. But what do I know.

Do you have any reading material you could point me in the direction of? Are there any serious political theorists/scholars that hold this view? And have they elucidated on how this would work in a modern context? Any modern examples of states or other regions that have tried similar policies with success? There's some serious questions about the implications such policies would or could have.

Free market, yes. I'm sorry if I'm being daft but people would still have to collectively pay these private endeavours would they not?

No one person in charge huh. One of the reasons we have gotten so far technologically and culturally is expressly because of our ability to organize on, for example, a national level. No one in charge.. I'm skeptical of the validity of that idea but I'm no political theorist and I don't have the educational background to assess it's functionality. But colour me intrigued.

a reply to: Boadicea
That would be multi millionaire supports flat tax rate shocker. I find it puzzling that so many people believe that a flat tax rate would benefit the majority of people.
The issue of tax avoidance and tax rates are completely separate. However there is a deliberate attempt by commentators and politicians of a certain mindset to conflate the two.
Every flat tax scheme I have ever seen benefits the richest at the expense of others. That it is sold, often successfully, as a way of making the rich pay more is a miracle of political marketing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Boadicea
That would be multi millionaire supports flat tax rate shocker. I find it puzzling that so many people believe that a flat tax rate would benefit the majority of people.
The issue of tax avoidance and tax rates are completely separate. However there is a deliberate attempt by commentators and politicians of a certain mindset to conflate the two.
Every flat tax scheme I have ever seen benefits the richest at the expense of others. That it is sold, often successfully, ad a way of making the rich pay more is a miracle of political marketing.

There are probably many reasons why folks would support the flat tax. For me, it's not because I think it would force the rich to pay more, but because the progressive tax we have is basically inequitable and therefore unjust, creating class warfare (on both sides) and pitting people against each other. Likewise for the credits and deductions built into the tax code that just creates special rules for "special" people. It just creates a honey pot for politicians to exploit and manipulate for their cronies.

In my ideal world, there would be no income tax on earned income at all at any income level. The fruits of our labor are ours alone. On the other hand, I fully support income taxes on unearned income. If someone is lucky enough to make $$ without lifting a finger, by virtue of govt created financial programs, they shouldn't have a problem paying a portion of it in taxes -- but, again, a flat tax. Likewise for corporations.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

"What has government done to our money" is a great book to read.

By "no one in charge" I was speaking strictly of the economy. Economic manipulation is the worst thing for the economy.

And I believe you misunderstood my first post when I said "federally speaking" I'm talking about federal taxes. State and local taxes should be left up to the states and communities.

Ron Paul is the last politician I heard saying abolish the income tax. Most politicians won't because.. well I'm sure you can guess why.

They take your money, spend it on stuff you don't want/need/will never get to use, and end up spending a billion dollars on a gd website! (Just one example)

government is the most irresponsible thing you could give your money to. That's why it's mandatory! No one would give their money to an organization that is corrupt, bloated with bureaucracy, and can't even produce a balanced budget if they weren't forced to.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: MensaIT3

Flat tax is great.. How about no tax?

I can't name one thing that has come out of the government that has benefited me. (Federally speaking)

But still, my taxes go to people who can vote on whether or not they get a raise.

Something about a fox and a henhouse comes to mind.

The Interstate ? Internet ? The power in your house was one way or another using rail roads . There is a lot of things . Problem is alot of crap as well. We need taxes unfortunately . What we dont need is useless spending.

originally posted by: speeddr2000

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: MensaIT3

Flat tax is great.. How about no tax?

I can't name one thing that has come out of the government that has benefited me. (Federally speaking)

But still, my taxes go to people who can vote on whether or not they get a raise.

Something about a fox and a henhouse comes to mind.

The Interstate ? Internet ? The power in your house was one way or another using rail roads . There is a lot of things . Problem is alot of crap as well. We need taxes unfortunately . What we dont need is useless spending.

The minute someone needs a front end alignment from hitting a pot hole they realize how roads are maintained. We have to have taxes unfortunately but I can say the tax system needs to be redone it's way to complicated. Simplify it and you could even so away with the IRS. As for the people that want to bash the rich they are clueless how much they pay in taxes. Of course there going to try to keep as much as they can they are footing most of the bill.
The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of federal taxes taken in by the government.

If you are lower income the current system benefits you. You'll get most of what you pay in back in poor households more than they paid in.

a reply to: Boadicea
Fair enough, I disagree with your view that progressive taxation is unjust for a number of reasons but appreciate your point of view. However your second paragraph to me illustrates one of the main problems for a flat tax. What is income? Do you treat wages the same as profits, the the same as dividends, the same as capital growth and so on.
Also if you introduce flat tax on income unless you also remove all indirect taxes you are creating a regressive overall tax system.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Boadicea
Fair enough, I disagree with your view that progressive taxation is unjust for a number of reasons but appreciate your point of view.

I understand the other side of the coin, and I can see both the advantages and the disadvantages of the progressive rates system. Perhaps at the state level -- especially if federal taxation is reined in and the congress critters are bound (and gagged?) -- a progressive tax rate could be more practical.

However your second paragraph to me illustrates one of the main problems for a flat tax. What is income? Do you treat wages the same as profits, the the same as dividends, the same as capital growth and so on.

I draw the line between earned income -- wherein you and I actually labor to earn our wages, showing up and getting a real job done -- and unearned income -- dividends, profits, etc.. wherein an investment (of $$, not labor) reaps the rewards. Real estate investments and capital gains would be taxes as unearned income -- not primary residences, but invesment properties.

Also if you introduce flat tax on income unless you also remove all indirect taxes you are creating a regressive overall tax system.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to this.... could you expand on your thoughts for me please?

a reply to: Boadicea
Interestingly most flat tax proposals go down the other route of excemptions for most forms of unearned income. This is generally justified as avoiding double taxing. However as the proposers are often those whose income is mainly unearned then I think an alternative reason suggests itself.
Personally I agree with you to the extend that taxation should be higher on unearned income than earned.

Indirect taxation affects those on low income more that those on high. If you buy product X which costs 1000 and has a 10% sales tax that 100 is a higher % of your income the less you earn. Progressive taxation on income helps redress this balance. If income is taxed a flat rate and you have sales taxes (or other indirect taxation) lower earners will pay a higher % of income as taxation. (on average individual consumption / savings obviously affect it at individual level)

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Boadicea
Interestingly most flat tax proposals go down the other route of excemptions for most forms of unearned income. This is generally justified as avoiding double taxing. However as the proposers are often those whose income is mainly unearned then I think an alternative reason suggests itself.

Yes, I've noticed that, and it makes absolutely no sense to me... except, of course, to those who benefit (as you already pointed out.) Much like "conventional wisdom" about eliminating corporate taxes -- it only makes sense to those who benefit. But from my perspective, it's double-taxation on the consumer, who really pays the corporate taxes (and that's assuming the corporation even pays any income taxes!). In effect, the consumer pays his own income taxes, the corporate taxes, and a sales tax, so actually triple-taxation -- all on the sweat off our brow. There are those who truly want to create a slave-worker class. That's all it is in the end.

Indirect taxation affects those on low income more that those on high. If you buy product X which costs 1000 and has a 10% sales tax that 100 is a higher % of your income the less you earn. Progressive taxation on income helps redress this balance. If income is taxed a flat rate and you have sales taxes (or other indirect taxation) lower earners will pay a higher % of income as taxation. (on average individual consumption / savings obviously affect it at individual level)

Okay. Gotcha. That's what I was thinking you meant, but I wanted to be sure before I admitted that I do see the problem, but I'm not as sure about the best way to handle it. Eliminating income taxes on earned income would help level the playing field so to speak, but it's not the whole answer. Perhaps exclusing essentials from sales taxes, like groceries and clothes, etc., so that only non-essentials are subject to sales tax?

In some ways, I believe the sales tax does as much harm as good. For example, I drive an '07 vehicle (paid in full), which I'm very happy with. If I were to buy a new car, I would have to pay thousands of dollars in sales taxes on it, and then hundreds of dollars in registration fees for years. It's not worth it to me, so I keep driving my older vehicle. It gets the job done, so why put myself on the line for thousands of more dollars just to feed govt coffers? For years, I drove a classic muscle car -- again, owned free and clear, minimal registration fees, and exempt from smog inspections. Plus, my husband was able to do virtually all of the repairs and maintenance himself -- another huge cost saver. Not so good for the environment, but good for us, and it got me where I needed to go. Others may be quite happy to fork out those extra dollars to have the latest and greatest -- but I think most people would rather make do, whether thru want or need or a combination thereof. The same would be true of most household appliances -- washers, dryers, fridges, etc. When we bought a "new" washer a few years ago, we bought a re-conditioned older model and saved ourselves several hundred dollars.

Didn't mean to go off-topic... to me, it's just all part and parcel of the ridiculousness of how taxes are imposed and collected. It all needs a major overhaul.

a reply to: rockintitz

Thank you, that clears things up. Added the book to my buy list.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: MensaIT3

Flat tax is great.. How about no tax?

I can't name one thing that has come out of the government that has benefited me. (Federally speaking)

But still, my taxes go to people who can vote on whether or not they get a raise.

Something about a fox and a henhouse comes to mind.

Military deterrent, space program, schools, roads, and medicine.

If you want specific examples, the aircraft carriers that give the US the ability to project force required federal spending.

The space program that brought you things like 3d modeling (used often in entertainment or rapid prototyping) and GPS devices use federal funding.

The advanced mathematics that create cryptographically secure algorithms so that your financial information isn't compromised required federal funding.

The universities that taught the necessary math and engineering courses to lay the groundwork for all of the above required federal funding.

The average medication today requires $5 billion to research and bring to market, approximately 60% of that is covered through federal funding, both speeding the development of medications and bringing down their cost.

The nations most important roads, the interstate system again require federal funding.

originally posted by: dragonridr
The minute someone needs a front end alignment from hitting a pot hole they realize how roads are maintained. We have to have taxes unfortunately but I can say the tax system needs to be redone it's way to complicated. Simplify it and you could even so away with the IRS. As for the people that want to bash the rich they are clueless how much they pay in taxes. Of course there going to try to keep as much as they can they are footing most of the bill.
The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of federal taxes taken in by the government.

If you are lower income the current system benefits you. You'll get most of what you pay in back in poor households more than they paid in.

You would hit fewer potholes if you could be responsible about taxes and argue for increasing the gas tax. It is 18.4 cents/gallon and has been the same since 1993. The real inflation rate (not CPI instead using goods like tuition and food) since 1993 has been 150%. That means the tax is only 40% of what it used to be. You want to know why the roads are in such bad shape? It's because we're not funding their maintenance. Not because government is bad at the job.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't volunteer to give my money to any of those things.

Give me a choice with MY MONEY. Since I actually worked for it.

So you want something.. Everyone should pay for it?

Donate to what you want.

True democracy?

On the whole russia is a crap hole. You may have a few more bucks in your back pocket, but you'll be living in Russia. I think living in America would be much much better than living in russia, definitely worth paying taxes for

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Please name the last thing the US federal government did for you.

a reply to: rockintitzim british, but don't ask what my country can do for me. It does however pay for infrastructure hospitals and schools
I'm