My thought has always been that without deductions, the playing field kind of gets leveled a bit.
There are a lot of deductions that only the wealthy can 'qualify' for. Here is a good starting point. Tax ALL income equally. This shit where you get taxed a lower rate on income earned from 'capital gains' is bull shit. Money is money, right? On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > it sounds fair until you stop looking at amount paid and look what the > money would be spent on instead if taxes were different. If people are > paying taxes instead of their rent, there's a social problem there, > assuming we're talking about a reasonable rent. If it's a matter of flying > second-class instead of first when the family goes on vacation, you don't > have the same desperate flavor to the choices. You may still feel that > there are inequities, but they won't be those inequities. > > Cam and I had a huge thread on this a couple of years ago. Assuming I > understood him, he feels sure that a flat tax would only apply past a > certain income level. It is possible that if that "certain income level" is > high enough, you might avoid the worst consequences of this structure. In > other words, you wouldn't be taxing money people need to live. We did not > agree on where "a certain level" would be, and it may depend a lot on the > local cost of living, the situation and the actual legislation that might > pass. > > However, a tax would still be not be "progressive" because that's defined > as a tax structure model where the percentage of income paid in tax goes at > higher income levels. Larry may correct me here, but I don't think it would > be "regressive" either, as the proportion is, well, flat. An example of a > regressive tax is Social Security, which only taxes the first 80-something > thousand, so Bill Gates pays proportionately much less into that system > than you do. > > It's tempting to want to simplify the tax code, god knows, but everybody > likes the deductions they get to use, so it's hard to get consensus behind > eliminating loopholes. Also, the usual number I hear bandied about in flat > tax proposals is 10%, also, which would represent a considerable tax cut > for upper-income taxpayers. Whether eliminating deductions would balance > that out is a good question. > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> OK..I can see it now. >> >> FWIW - My thought has been for a while that we rework the tax code so >> that there are no deductions...at all..none. >> >> Its simple...how much money did you make, regardless of where it came >> from, from January 1 to Dec 31? Ok, you owe us this much. >> >> Of, course, there would be a progressive scale there as well. >> >> That would likely put a lot of people out of business, though. >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > OK lets see how bad of a hash I can make of this. A sales tax hits >> > lower income people far more than those who make more, as a percentage >> > of income. >> > >> > 10% of a grocery bill of $100 is less of a hit to someone making >> > $100,000 a year than someone making $20,000. >> > >> > Its still a hit but a much greater hit for the person making $20,000. >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> First, let me say, I am not advocating a 'flat tax' . These are >> >> legitimate questions (not trolling). I really don't understand (and >> >> want to) >> >> >> >> How would it 'hit the poor far more than any other group'? >> >> >> >> How would they (the poor) be paying for 'the rich or upper class >> >> indulgences'? If the rich purchase 'indulgences' wouldn't that benefit >> >> everyone - more money spent = more tax revenue, would it not? >> >> >> >> Again...not trying to be a shit stirrer (this time). I really just >> >> don't understand how this would be considered a 'poor tax'. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), >> it >> >>> that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other >> group. >> >>> Why should they pay for the rich or upper class indulgences? Frankly >> all >> >>> the proposal I've seen on this could only be classified as a Poor Tax. >> >>> >> >>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "The solution isn't to just raise taxes. It's to also put rules in >> place >> >>> to >> >>>>> safe-guard and penalize against hiding your money to avoid paying the >> >>>>> taxes." >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Or ditch the monstrosity that is the progressive income tax and move >> to a >> >>>>> national sales tax. >> >>>> >> >>>> I can certainly get behind reforming the tax code to steamline it and >> >>>> remove most (if not all) of the specialized deductions that keep >> >>>> adding entropy to the system. I certainly can't agree on the wisdom of >> >>>> switching from a progressive income tax to a national sales tax >> >>>> though. A progressive income tax is still, philosophically, the right >> >>>> way to go in my opinion. Obviously its current implementation leaves >> >>>> something to be desired. >> >>>> >> >>>> Judah >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348192 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
