authfriend wrote:
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> I think some reasonable attention could be put on our social
>>>>> programs without having to resort to charges of socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> According to what I've read, Jim, in order to balance the U.S.
>>>> federal budget, the government would have to raise payroll
>>>>
> taxes
>
>>>> by 30% and cut all entitlements by 50%.
>>>>
>>> Or just roll back the gigantic tax cuts for Bush's
>>> superrich cronies.
>>>
>> Or, as some economists have pointed out, simply
>> institute a flat tax of 15% of income, NO deduc-
>> tions, for all working individuals and all companies
>> and corporations. NO deductions or exemptions of any
>> kind for corporations.
>>
>> According to their figures (because a great
>> number of corporations pay no taxes at all as
>> a result of loopholes and incentives), this plan
>> would raise nearly double the amount of tax
>> dollars per year as are raised now, while prov-
>> iding most people with an effective tax *cut*.
>>
>
> Actually, a flat income tax would make the tax
> system as a whole regressive, so that the poor would
> pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes,
> while the rich would pay a smaller percentage. And
> the middle class would also suffer if there were no
> deductions. Plus which, if corporations have to
> pay more tax, they'll just pass it on to consumers
> in higher prices, and to their workers in lower
> wages.
No, no, the percentage stays the same. The argument is that 15% of a
poor person's income would be a much greater blow to them than to a rich
person. There was a proposal by a 1980's third party Presidential
candidate who suggested that one wouldn't pay the flat tax until they
had an estate worth $100K. I think the same candidate was where I heard
the idea of 100% tax once someone has an estate of $12 million. We
don't need billionaires throwing their weight around and everytime they
sneeze putting 1000s out of a job.
