--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> authfriend wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 
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.

Yes, thanks, that's what I meant!

   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.
>


Reply via email to