15% flat tax?

[NNN0LHI]

Well lets see:

Guy making $10,000 a year pays $1500 in taxes leaving him $8,500 after taxes.

Guy making $1,000,000 a year pays $150,000 in taxes leaving him $850,000 after taxes.

Which guy is going to be hurt worse here?

Don

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. I think it fine, as long as ALL CORPORATIONS PAY 15% too

All loopholes gone... ALL. No deductions.

So General Electric pays 15%. And so does Ebay... and so forth.

[NNN0LHI]

4. So it is fair to tax the guy living in poverty the same tax rate as GE?

Does that sound right?

Don

[seabeyond]

5. then per dollar earned the person making the least amount of money pays the highest amount of tax

that is fair to you? the repugs love this plan. for a reason.

[tk2kewl]

37. i am for progressive taxation, but I must point out that per dollar earned

everyone would pay exactly the same amount if you had a 15% flat tax. ;)

[Marrah_G]

17. The problem with that is that 15% impacts incomes differently.

For someone who has to spend every dime to survive (and therefore is putting back 100% of their income into the economy, much of it again taxed by sales taxes)that 15% can break them. For someone making large amount of money that 15% won't cause them any hardship at all except perhaps lowering their financial accounts.

[GOTV]

31. It's not OK to take a dime from someone choosing between food and medicine for their kids ...

... for this reason the flat tax is immoral.

[GoCubsGo]

2. But, but, but...

It's more FAIR. :sarcasm:


One has to wonder if the Ron Paul cultists ever do the math when they spew their "Fair Tax" BS. Of course, given their displays at recent Tea Party "debates", they likely don't give a shit. I got mine. Screw you.

[Atman]

3. The wealthy love the idea of a flat tax.

Their taxes will go down AGAIN, and they get to call it "fair" because everyone is paying the same rate. Fair, like a Ferrari racing a Hyundai Accent is fair because both cars have engines and tires.

[N7Shepard]

19. WRONG, Put in a flat tax and count

capital gains as income and subject it to FICA (and make the social security component a flat tax with no cap too). That would hurt the rich.

For the most part it would hurt the super rich because they would pay 21.65% instead of 15%

[Atman]

21. Not WRONG...you're just dreaming.

They will never tax CG as income or subject it to FICA...because the rich people are writing the laws. Americans are as stupid a 2x4, and all Joe Politician has to do is make speech saying "15% for everyone is FAIR!" and the morans will line up to praise it's fairness. I agree with what you're saying, I just don't ever see it being reality. Again, it's not you and me writing the laws, it's the guys with all the money.

.

[N7Shepard]

23. I agree, just saying in principal

it would be fair if done that way.

Though I'd like to exempt $15,000 of everyone's income from taxes. That way the poor still pay nothing, the working class plays little, the middle class pays a decent chunk, the rich pay basically the full rate.

[demwing]

28. Then extend that to the first 30K

because 30K is still freaking poor

[Exilednight]

54. This would be a fair option if those making less than $30,000 a year were

exempt from the tax.

[krispos42]

46. Put in a flat tax of 60%...

...with a $75,000 standard deduction for singles, twice that for married.

:evilgrin:

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Who is allowed this 'marriage' of which you speak?

More bigoted laws on top of other bigoted laws....

[krispos42]

53. Any two consenting, competent adults.

The way it should be.

[Daphne08]

20. You're so right! n/t

[supraTruth]

49. Which is why liddle stevie forbes has been pushing it for SO LONG!

& FIXEDnewsCORP backs him up.

[KharmaTrain]

6. You'll Never See A System Without Deductions...

In many ways we already have a flat tax...the national sales tax. We could raise that and everyone gets hit according to your schedule above. But there's no way a congresscritter will vote to eliminate deductions...big or small.

OK...then let's go one step further. Let's go with a flat tax...now what about capital gains? Do you tax that money a second time? I always run into this argument with rushpublicans. Lets see how you tackle it...

Cheers...

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. There is no national sales tax in the US

sales taxes are assessed at the state and local level, not by the Federal government. There are Federal taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco, which are not the same thing at all.

[KharmaTrain]

10. The Proposal

I hit "send" before I qualified those who support the a point of purchase tax (similar to the gas tax) vs. a one time April 15th flat tax. Sorry I rushed the words.

FTR I'm not for any of these...just prefer the existing tax laws were enforced...

[Atman]

22. As much as I dislke the idea, there is merit to a national sales tax.

It isn't nearly as regressive as some would make it out to be. A family with a meager income is going to buy a TV or a fridge anyway. They'll buy the cheap one, because it's all they can afford. They'll pay X% of the cost of their $399 fridge. A wealthy couple will buy the French Door Fridge with multiple cooling zones, selectable ice shapes and a Julienne Fry maker in the door, and also pay X% of the cost of their $3000 fridge.

I don't see the sales tax as regressive as some claim, just for that reason. The wealthy aren't shopping at The Dollar Store. If the National Sales Tax is written fairly (IOW, no loopholes), then the rich will still buy their sports cars and yachts and they'll pay a percentage of the cost in tax. Meanwhile, Working Joe will pay that same percentage on the used salvage food from The Dollar Store, but it will amount to about 15 cents, not $1,500.

.

[n2doc]

25. Ok, riddle me this

I make 15,000 a year. And spend all of it, thus getting taxed on all of it (maybe minus rent?)

I make 15 million a year. No way I spend all of that. Maybe I spend 5 million. My effective tax rate is 1/3 of the poor person's. And you think this is a fair way to go? The rich already hoard too much money, which does nothing to generate jobs.

[jeff47]

27. The reason you don't think it's regressive is you're only thinking about purchases

The reason it's regressive is the poor buy goods subject to sales tax. The wealthy buy services which are not subject to sales tax.

If you're lower-income and need to mow your lawn, you go buy a lawnmower for $200, which is subject to sales tax.

If you're wealthy and need to mow your lawn, you hire a gardener, which is not subject to sales tax. And while that gardener bought a $2000 lawn mower subject to sales tax, he's spreading out that tax across 30 yards.

[Atman]

30. Then that is an issue that must be addressed.

We're talking on the most basic level here. Who said it was just a flat tax on purchases? Since we're talking purely hypotheticals, then make one of those hypotheticals a tax on services, too. Just sayin'. Nothing is written yet, just ideas.

[jeff47]

51. What you propose is the exact mirror image of a flat income tax

The only difference is you're taxing the person spending the money, instead of taxing the person who receives the money. It has exactly the same problems as a flat income tax. Specifically, the burden on the poor is too high.

[demwing]

29. Besides being regressive, it also discourages consumer spending

better to reuse the old and save your tax $$$, than to purchase new.

[WinkyDink]

36. There is NO merit to a VAT. 1. Most states have sales tax already. 2. Oh, gee; let the poor just

keep shopping at THE DOLLAR STORE! HOW NOBLESSE OBLIGE OF YOU!

[Occulus]

39. .

.

[supraTruth]

50. The POOR ALREADY PAY MORE THAN 10% IN SALES TAXES NOW IN CA!

IT IS A BAD IDEA!

[jmowreader]

58. The national sales tax called the "FairTax" has no merit

That's because it is a tax on New Items Only--the proposal clearly exempts sales of used items from the tax.

The effect of such a law would be to destroy the market for new items. Purchasing a pre-owned $75,000 Rolls-Royce would not create a tax liability, but purchasing a new $100 bicycle from Walmart would.

[n2doc]

24. All money is taxed several times

When I earn it, when I spend it or when I invest it...Why CG's are considered 'special' is only because the rich make a disproportionate amount of them.
And a sales tax is not the same as an income tax. Because the rich don't have to spend everything they earn to survive. The poor and most of the middle class do.

[PA Democrat]

8. What the flat taxers don't ever mention, is all of the other

REGRESSIVE forms of taxation that would still hit the poor and middle class if there were a federal flat tax on income. Things like state sales taxes, federal and state gasoline taxes, excise taxes, real estate taxes, etc.

[HughBeaumont]

9. Some people HERE lurves the idea. You know, until that pesky "reality" gets in the weigh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5860668

Hilarious thread regarding this topic, complete with it's own "DON'T TAX TEH JOB CRATERS!" troll. Feel free to spool through.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Thanks for posting that link. It was a real eyeopener wasn't it?

I will be holding on to that one for future reference too.

Don

[mmonk]

12. You're starting to get it. That is why the rich are for it and have been

pushing for it.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Starting to get it?

I understood this when I was a kid.

Don

[mmonk]

48. I got you. My reply was designed for those looking in and might be

buying into it (flat tax).

:thumbsup:

[Lasher]

13. As if the Bush/Obama tax cuts weren't enough.

Gotta have MORE MORE MORE tax cuts for the rich.

[baldguy]

15. The only way taxes can be fair is if they're progressive.

[bullwinkle428]

16. What do you think this entire "broaden the base" tax reform movement is all about?

Obama has been making noises suggesting he's on board with this, which bothers me even more.

[quinnox]

18. wow, if Obama starts pushing something like this it would be a

right wingers dream. And a nightmare for the Democratic party.

[Mr Gerrity]

26. Tax The Rich

The flat tax is a regressive tax on the poor.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. Any flat tax is regressive.

[RegieRocker]

33. How about this....

Under 45,000 single no tax
Under 85,000 joint no tax
Above this to 250,000 pays 25%
Above 250,000 pays 50%
No deductions
All income

Example:
Single making 150,000
150,000-45,000=105,000x25%=26250
123,750 before fica etc.

Do something like this and the economy will sky rocket because people will have money to spend.
The wealthier already do.
Tax the hell out of the rich. Ceo's especially.

[WinkyDink]

34. THANK YOU. Every moron in favor should trade me 15% of his $100K for my 15% of $10.

"CLOSING CORPORATE LOOPHOLES" MEANS NOTHING TO THE POOR GIVING UP 15%.

[galileoreloaded]

35. Taxing ISN'T Collecting........

There is pretty good historical data about taxes and unemployment.

40% of total income is about where collections fail, and 25% unemployment is about when people start to burn things......

[starroute]

38. It would also totally screw the elderly

Who already paid taxes on their income when they earned it and under this system would be taxed a second time when they spend money out of their investments or Social Security.

Try proposing that all Social Security income be taxed at 15% and you'd get AARP on it in no time. But somehow this thing is flying under the radar.

[kentauros]

40. The millionaire is hurt the worst

because he has to pay taxes at all.

;)

[thelordofhell]

41. 15% flat tax on anything over triple the poverty line

Everything under triple the poverty line is exempt

[Gregorian]

42. I'm rec'ing this because I don't see what the problem is. Please explain.

[WinkyDink]

45. It would raise the tax on the poor. See my post #34 for the math.

[Gregorian]

47. Whoops. I should have actually read the OP.

I see.

[WCGreen]

43. Flat tax is a bad idea....

It's very regressive in nature.

[The Genealogist]

44. Flat taxes are regressive taxes.

A flat income tax would be another nail in the coffin for lower and middle class people, and the upper classes would still find ways to not pay up.

[quaker bill]

55. We should not be taking a dime

from anyone making minimum wage. As it is, we have to subsidize their food and housing, and in fact already do so. Taxing them is stupid. Taking money in tax revenue to just hand it back to the same folks in social services does not make a bit of sense. Supporting a minimum wage so low that we need to provide their kids free food at the schools, issue block grants to developers to build them cheap housing, issue them food stamps and sometimes direct cash assistance through TANF is stupid.

[reformist2]

56. I'd be in favor of a 3% flat tax... on NET WORTH.

Do the math, you'd raise far more revenue from the rich that way than any other tax reform. Plus, you'd finally tax the ultra rich who don't work and thus have very little income.

[NNN0LHI]

57. What happens if the wealthy hide their money offshore as they do so often?

Then no taxes for them.

Don