Flat Rate Tax

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Well, that is the subject of this thread, is it not? I can't see how the example of welfare payments can, with any logic at all, be used to argue AGAINST a flat tax. And if you are not using it, therefore, to support the idea of a flat tax -- what in the world is your post doing in this thread? Maybe you meant to post it elsewhere?

I know that the lifestyle of gay cowboys has been gaining popularity as of late, but I was unaware of your 'Post Police' badge.

But seriously...
I make a valid point by showing that I neither argued for nor against a Flat Rate Tax, which is what you attempted to reem me for, and you get quote-crazy with instructions on how and where to post. Give me a break my friend. My rant was based on one aspect of the overall system--which I believe is a direct quote--and that would make my post relevant to the thread title.

Now let us move on from this attempt at a technicality infraction and explore our thoughts and beliefs about the topic at hand; that is, as long as we can all put our badges down and allow the tread to run its course.

Originally posted by backtoreality
I make a valid point by showing that I neither argued for nor against a Flat Rate Tax, which is what you attempted to reem me for

It was not a valid point, it was a diversion. And I did not attempt to "reem" (or even ream) you for anything; I simply tried to expand your statement from its narrow point of view into something more realistic.

All I did was to point out that welfare is not really what you are being reamed by the government (not me) to support, and if you are serious about lowering the nation's tax burden you'll go after military spending, which is the biggest item. You, along with the rest of the nation, are being gouged to support the American Empire, not to support the homeless.

That does have a tangential connection to the argument for a flat rate tax, which -- despite disguises -- is an attempt to shift the burden onto those less able to pay for it, and who also derive less benefit from it. To do that, because our overall taxes are high, because we are supporting a massive military machine in service to corporate profits, is downright perverse, if not particularly surprising.

You are missing one major point: without tax breaks, how would you still be able to receive that nice deduction for your hybrid? A Prius would be my guess based on your previous post. Sure, they have the Civic hybrid along with some SUV hybrids, but I'm betting you wouldn't choose a domestic--and you'd go for something easily recognizable as a hybrid. The only thing I can't figure out is if the "Save the Planet" bumper sticker is on the left or right side. Hmm, maybe the right side so people can see it as you pass them in the HOV lane.

Anti-government people are hillarious. There are some 220+ countries in the world. If you are unsatified with the way your small chunk of the planet is making decisions, pick up your hemp bags, sandals, thrift store clothing (bought by choice, not necessity), and move to another chunk of the plantet.

But therein lies the problem, doesn't it? You realize that your government/country is one of the most successful and there aren't any more appealing choices. That, plus your beliefs probably aren't strong enough to motivate you to make such an extreme change.

So until you gain the courage, why not just be openly anti-government as opposed to hiding behind certain key causes: enviromentalism, anti-globalism, pro-choice (in every aspect of life), etc.

Remember, no one is holding you prisioner in your country.

Flat rate tax would mean that there would have to be some changes in our nations. For one the cut off place for tax may be raised to make the system appear more fair too the poor. Secondly governments would ahve to lean down to make due with less money (hopefully meaning cutting down on red tape and personale).

I'm not saying it would be perfect, but it would be more fair to the majority of citizens then the current system. Those who contribute the most to soceity should get rewarded. Since our country has strayed to far away from capitalism, those who don't contrubte still get rewarded. Now mind you there are exptions such as single parent housholds and those unable to work, who should be rewarded. But those abusing the welfare system, and those who do minimal work should not benifit.

Flat rate tax may teach people about what is valuable. Those who are in lower income brackets tend to smoke and have a trend towards alcohol/drug abuse. This may be due to their situation, but if they can see that under the new system that they can have more incentive (ie income) by gettig away from these problems and working harder then perhaps the system may help out all in our soceity.

Originally posted by backtoreality
I neither argued for nor against a Flat Rate Tax

Maybe should, as that's the topic of this discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with someone else on this thread. I forget who said it, but we should abolish the income tax.

In 1913, the United States Secretary of State, Philander Knox, “committed fraud” when he declared the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had been “legally ratified,” the People Foundation charges.

It was never “legally ratified, with evidence to prove it,” the Foundation contends.

In 1913, there were 38 States in the Union. There is no legal documentation that the majority of the 38 States ratified the 16th Amendment in the “exact wording” submitted to the States by U.S. Secretary of State Philander Knox, according to documents discovered by the People Foundation.

Some States did not even bother to respond to the 16th Amendment proposal, according to Robert Schultz of the People Foundation, and former IRS Agent Joseph Banister, who have researched the controversial tax issue for the Foundation, along with Constitutional scholars and legal organizations throughout the nation.

“The Constitution of the United States is all that stands between the people and tyranny,” the Foundation declared. “What does a free people do when faced with evidence of ratification of fraud? The Constitution tells the people to address their grievances with their government. But what does a free people do when their government doesn’t listen, or respond?”

Under the federal law as written, only foreigners working in the U.S., or U.S. citizens working abroad, are legally required to pay federal income taxes. And employers are not required to withhold federal income taxes.

www.ahherald.com...

Good idea. It creates the most equality for the most people.

While the CEO vs the “working man” is very valid you have to remember that the CEO prolly started out as a working man. People don’t magically become highly paid individuals unless they are born into it. Taxing the wealthier more JUST because they can afford to pay more takes away drive to become rich. You take away the drive to become rich and watch the economy stumble just like with communism. With no/little drive to become riche and have your rewards taken away just because you have more, you erase surges in technology and such because there will be no reward to produce them.

Communism (everyone gets the same no matter your work; hard or smart)-quantity over quality - their economy failed
Capitalism/free market (hard/smart work= reward)- quality over quantity- strongest economies in the world.


And most tax breaks are given to business's( not individuals per say) because they are the majority of the tax payers and they are the greatest measure of the economy. Bob the millionaire may higher a maid, butler and a gardner but his business hires 1000 programmers, 18704 assmbly workers......so in order to grow his company to higher even more and increase his spending, therefore tax payments, and increase the living standard, his business and its shareholders need incentives to take the nessacery short terms loses for the long term gains.

posted by Two Steps Forward

Well, let me put it this way .. if I lost a money clip with $500 in the street, I would find myself severally disgruntled indeed. It's all a matter of perspective. If you get upset about how your taxes are being spent . . welfare payments is so trivial . . Until you noticed the increase in the homeless population and the crime rate, that is. [Edited by Don W]

The first rule I’d impose is any tax system must bring in as much revenue as we spend. Only in case of nuclear war or unemployment over 20% can the government borrow money.

Our national economy is rated at $12 T. I don’t know how much of that is taxable. Suppose half of it is. $6 T. We are spending $2.75 T. annually. About $1.75 T. is Social Security and Medicare which are both in the black. That is, they take in more than they pay out. That leaves $1 T. as the discretionary budget. It’s my opinion we ought to collect enough in taxes to balance the budget, without crediting the surplus in Social Security and Medicare as we have been doing since LBJ adopted the “Consolidated Budget.” This is the root cause of the Social Security sky is falling naysayers.

Back in the good ole days of WW2, the highest tax bracket was 91%. That rate was lowered to 70% in JFK’s term.



[edit on 8/13/2006 by donwhite]

I assume you would also go for a dont spend more than on the flip side of take in as much as you spend?

I only say that because with the latter wording its like you want to tax to try and equal spending inseadof cutting spending to equal taxes. Taxes are high enough, spending just needs to be brought into controll by vetoing bills and not adding in so much pork. Right now both the presand congress suck at spending too much.

The folloiwng links will help make this shouting match into an informative thread.


www.federalbudget.com...
mwhodges.home.att.net...
www.whitehouse.gov...







[edit on 8/13/2006 by donwhite]