Quantcast
Flat tax rate system should be enforced now.

Forums - General Discussion - Flat tax rate system should be enforced now.

Flat tax rate system should be enforced now.

Sounds like a fair tax system. Sign me up!!! 22 24.44%
 
Another crazy numonex thread!!! 13 14.44%
 
You have got to be kidding me!!! 48 53.33%
 
Candy!!! 7 7.78%
 
Total:90

Billionaires and nobility holding dual citizenship will still be able to go on the tax exempt list. Billionaires in Monte Carlo run the world and we do not want them to trigger a global nuclear war. Billionaires voluntarily pay taxes to governments and they donate to charitable Not-for-profit organisations. 



Around the Network
Hapimeses said:

Indeed, I think it's unfair that the comfortably rich can't be even richer. After all, just how many millions are enough? There's no limit, obviously.


Except for the fact that people who have millions of dollars tend not to pay income tax at all, and progressive income taxes actually only tax small business owners (the drivers of the economy) heavily.



HappySqurriel said:
Hapimeses said:

Indeed, I think it's unfair that the comfortably rich can't be even richer. After all, just how many millions are enough? There's no limit, obviously.


Except for the fact that people who have millions of dollars tend not to pay income tax at all, and progressive income taxes actually only tax small business owners (the drivers of the economy) heavily.


What Republican manual have you been reading? You should stop believing them.



MrT-Tar said:

Where I think our tax system fails is that it generally (with the exception of inheritance and capital gains) taxes income rather than wealth.  I read in the New Statesman not too long ago that 1% of the U.K population owns roughly 70% of the land in the country.  If a 'land tax' was introduced and it had a threshold high enough to not include most farmers, believe that it could produce a much fairer tax system.

Farmers being the key bit of that statement as out of the 70% of that land majority of it is farm land. Introducing a land tax and having a high threshold would be hard to introduce based on the fact there are so many type of farm in this country. My families farm is mainly fruit and requires less land to make a profit (not that any farmers really make a profit) but a farmer could be 4 times the size and mainly farms wheat and will make less money per acre then my family.

Farmland is dominant round my way, what few 'rich' there are, the land is tiny in comparison to the size of the local farms. That beside, some farmers are rich and some rich might try and pass their land as farming to be exempt (many do rent land out to farmers).

Although the idea is a nice one.

I do however agree that the 0% then 20% then 40% etc thresholds are a good tax system.



Hmm, pie.

We already have privatized schools and health care.

Charter schools = privatized schools where the wealthy send their kids to mingle with other wealthy kids because they don't want them socializing with the dregs in the public schools. Talk about 1950s style segregation, except this time it is by class, not race.

Health insurance = privatized health care. Luckily, I do have health insurance at the cost of a higher salary. Take away my health bennies and I would be making $5 to 10 more per hour. I feel sorry folks on Medicaid, which is the US version of healthcare for poor people.

Medicare and Social Security plus a Conservative = Convenient Socialist. I love how these Conservative Republican folks rant over the deficit and fawn over Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh in a restaurant, but forget how someone like me sitting in the booth behind them and sighing at their every deluded word is paying for their Social Security and Medicare.They sure as hell did not work long enough to be drawing benefits for as long as they have. If they were such Conservatives then they would agree with this:

You get what you put in. You pay in for 20 years and retire at 60 then you should not be receiving Social Security or Medicare past age 80.

Charity replacing Social Security? How did that work before and during the Great Depression? Yeah, uh huh chin check baby!



Around the Network
gwrath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Hapimeses said:

Indeed, I think it's unfair that the comfortably rich can't be even richer. After all, just how many millions are enough? There's no limit, obviously.


Except for the fact that people who have millions of dollars tend not to pay income tax at all, and progressive income taxes actually only tax small business owners (the drivers of the economy) heavily.


What Republican manual have you been reading? You should stop believing them.

People don't become multi-millionares as wage slaves, they make that money through being an entrepreneur or through investing; as such they don't earn income they make capital gains, and don't pay income taxes they pay capital gains taxes. Do everyone a favoure and educate yourself on how the tax system works



If the American government disappeared  tomorrow who stands to lose more ,the man making minimum wage or the man taking home a million dollars?

Flat taxes aren't fair because the need for government services is disproportionate, someone making millions a year has far more need for the military, police and education system to safeguard their fortunes and ability to make more money by protecting our  country, foreign interests, travel systems, banks, stock system and to train their next group of employees.  



flagship said:

If the American government disappeared  tomorrow who stands to lose more ,the man making minimum wage or the man taking home a million dollars?

Flat taxes aren't fair because the need for government services is disproportionate, someone making millions a year has far more need for the military, police and education system to safeguard their fortunes and ability to make more money by protecting our  country, foreign interests, travel systems, banks, stock system and to train their next group of employees.  


Even if you're correct (which I doubt you are) one would assume that the dependence on services would be proportional to income, and a person earning $20,000 would use $4,000 in services while a person earning $100,000 would use $20,000 and a flat tax would adequately serve that.

 

Why I think you're wrong is that crime disproportionately impacts poor people, wealth transfers are the majority of government budgets today, and the cost of educating or providing medical care for a poor person is basically the same as the cost of educating or providing medical care for a wealthy person.



numonex said:

Flat tax rate system should be enforced now. 20% tax rate on every dollar you earn. Fair simple tax system.

Government only provides Police services and military services. Both health and Education are fully privatised and run by free market system. Charity replaces social security system. Aged pensions are self funded, not from government. Water and utilities are provided by private enterprises, no government monopolies. 

No discrimination on socio-economic background. More jobs would be created and everyone would be better off. 

The 20% flat tax rate applies to all  individuals and all companies. A flat tax rate system applying to companies and individuals would be fair and reasonable.

How about a flat tax rate system? 

Flat tax can't work. I mean, it would work out well for someone like me, but my friends earning $10 an hour would be severely impacted. It would hit peopel at the poverty line very hard. And you couldn't afford to let them off the hook(as is done currently) since you've essentially reduced taxes on the middle and upper middle classes.

Privitization of education would be a disaster. Think poor inner city kids have it tough now? See how well they do when their single mother needs to pay a tuition she can't afford.

Pensions self funded? And anyone who doesn't plan ahead starves to death when they're too old to work. Or maybe they do plan ahead and run into expensive medical problems.

Why on earth would you want water provided by private companies? It's cheap and always there. When something isn't broke, leave it alone.

As for "No discrimination on socio-economic background", unless you're anticipating the government creating mind control devices, it's an ideal, but impossible to fully enforce. (Technically, that's already law) The fact is, if you're a black inner city kid, you have a tougher time getting a real job. Even though discrimination is illegal, an employer can take one look at a resume and know DeSean Williams isn't as desirable an employee to interview as James Davis.

In short, your system sounds fair at a high level, but a poor family gets higher taxes, and suddenly no more free schooling. You basically cripple them. Whereas the upper-middle class can finally afford their his and her BMW's, while their kids get top tier educations, which they can afford.

You wanna make society more class-based than it is now? This is how.



I see no difference between a 'fair tax' and corruption.  Countless empires before America have succumb to corruption because the elites thought that they deserved more, which in turn takes money away from the government which provides for and protects society, and then the empire falls.

The same thing is happening to America.  For the past 50 years, tax rates have become more and more flat, from 80% tax on the wealthy in the 1950's to 25% tax on the wealthy today.  Not suprisingly, America's economy and strength continue to fall from grace.  Pushing for even flatter tax rates is akin to insanity, trying something that doesn't work over and over again expecting different results.  If the square block doesn't fit in the circle hole, push harder.