Flat Tax

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

What are your thoughts on a single rate 17% Federal Flat Tax?

Single deductions of 13,200
Married deduction of 26,400
4,000 deduction for each dependent or child.
No death tax.
No tax on SS.
There would be a choice to stay with the current plan or choose the flat tax plan.
All corporate loopholes would be eliminated with the implementation of a flat tax.

Lets hear your thoughts.

 

[ponezone]

:clap: However, it makes WAY too much sense and most people, who have NO knowledge of economics at all... will believe that it's a welfare program for the rich. It's a great idea, and I was glad to see Steve Forbes have it in his platform when he ran for President.
:thumb:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Pone you are a wise Griz fan. It isn't a welfare program for the rich they lose all the loopholes they have now if it is done like Forbes has outlined.

The poor still get everything for free and don't chip in at all. The flat tax raises the level of income that the Federal Government would take in so all the politicians have more money to spend on shit we don't need.

 

[GrizWhiz]

Pone you are a wise Griz fan. It isn't a welfare program for the rich they lose all the loopholes they have now if it is done like Forbes has outlined.

The poor still get everything for free and don't chip in at all. The flat tax raises the level of income that the Federal Government would take in so all the politicians have more money to spend on shit we don't need.

The guy in there now will find a way to spend it! :tounge: This so-called conservative republican is the most fiscally irresponsible president in our country's history! Of course, he's had lots of help from congress. :naughty:

 

[BWahlberg]

Any part of that flat tax where we take loans from China and India for billions of dollars every year? Just curious...

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Sure Whiz, Bush is the only president that has spent this way.

He is spending money on our military and it's operations, and you are against that kind of spending. Then you will go out in the next breath and bitch about the lack of body armor they have. He is spending money on technology and you hate that because that has been a Liberal idea and the "dumbass" has stolen your thunder.

I like the fact he is cutting education spending and trying other avenues since the current ones don't work. Dumping money on education in it's current state is the single biggest waste in our budget every year. I am not saying education isn't important, just that the current system that has been controlled by the left for the last 50 years sucks ass. The left unions and teachers groups are the biggest problems and they need to be dealt with, so I have no problem with taking away federal funding.

You have to spend money to make money. Sad but true fact in the world. If you are honest with yourself you will admit that your not mad about HOW MUCH money he is spending, but rather WHAT he is spending it on. If it were a Liberal program you would defend it the same way I am doing now.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

What are your thoughts on a single rate 17% Federal Flat Tax?

Single deductions of 13,200
Married deduction of 26,400
4,000 deduction for each dependent or child.
No death tax.
No tax on SS.
There would be a choice to stay with the current plan or choose the flat tax plan.
All corporate loopholes would be eliminated with the implementation of a flat tax.

Lets hear your thoughts.

Why have deductions for dependents or children? You've already undone the whole supposed philosophy of the flat tax by introducting social engineering into the process (incentives for having kids). Once that door is opened, then the whole process just starts all over again ... and the tax code will be complicated in about a month.

I'm also not sure that raising taxes on the poorest people in society by 17% is exactly the way to allow people to raise themselves up by their bootstraps and make their way in society. You'd essentially be making the obstacles to overcome in order to elevate yourself in society that much higher, thus keeping more people poor with the only apparent upside being reducing the tax bill of the wealthier people in society. Is that a mark of a good tax policy?

And I have a feeling that I know a bit more about economics and tax policy than most on this board, so I assume pone won't dismiss my input?

 

[GrizWhiz]

alpha-I don't believe in deficit spending, period. Bush's record in this area is poorer than any prior president. The amount of money we owe foreign countries is staggering and bad for our national security. If you disagree on this point, please explain. Also, the flat tax is a consumption (i.e. sales) tax. I read Boortz's book. It, in large part, does away with the idea that the more you make, the more you pay (i.e. the graduated income tax). Obviously, many rich people love it since it would shift a greater share of the tax burden to the middle class. I also wonder how many people actually understand what the deficit is and what the national debt is. Prior to Bush, we finally achieved a national surplus and were beginning to pay down the debt. We are leaving one hell of a tax mess for our kids to pay for. :crybaby:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

BAC you may know about economics but you know little about the flat tax proposal under Forbes. There are limits on dependents in the household so it wouldn't create social engineering as you think.

I don't but the poor EXCUSE either. Everyone should pay the same amount regardless of income. That is fair. Letting them get off scot free has to stop sometime it isn't fair to the workers in this country.

Whiz, yes the deficit spending is getting out of hand, but you can't blame only Bush. I also disagree about the surplus, that was done through creative book keeping and your dreaming bigtime if you think it really did exhist. Also anytime the federal government has a surplus of OUR money that is BUL*LSHIT.

If they were really serious about payingoff the deficit they would actually CUT spending instead of what they do now. There has never been a real cut in spending, where they just quit spending money like you or I would have to if we didn't have it. The budget has never been reduced it always goes up.

 

[GeorgeAllen]

I agree with what everyone is saying about Bush. He is spending us over a cliff. He campaigned in 2000 for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. You don't hear many conservatives talking about a balanced budget amendment any more, do you? Interesting. Probably for the same reason Ronald Reagan, in 8 years, never once submitted a balanced budget proposal to Congress. In fact, Congress actually lowered total spending below Reagan's proposed budgets in 6 of his 8 years in office. Hypocrites. As far as defending Bush's spending decisions goes, who the heck actually believes we should have invaded Iraq?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

BAC you may know about economics but you know little about the flat tax proposal under Forbes. There are limits on dependents in the household so it wouldn't create social engineering as you think.

I don't but the poor EXCUSE either. Everyone should pay the same amount regardless of income. That is fair. Letting them get off scot free has to stop sometime it isn't fair to the workers in this country.

So are we talking about the Forbes plan, or the plan that you detailed in your first post? I don't recall speaking to the Forbes plan -- just the one you laid out.

Hey, if you think dramatically raising taxes on the poorest people is a good thing, I can't argue with you. Just know a whole lot of us would still be very poor (and saddled with taxes we couldn't pay) if our families hadn't benefitted from paying lower levels of tax when they were struggling.

Of course, you do realize that the net result of such a change in tax law would be to dramatically lower the average federal tax burden on people in CA, NY, CT and MA, while dramatically raising the average tax burden of MT and other relatively poor "red" states. So if you really, really like that tax proposal, I'm sure the blue states would be happy to let MT double it's federal tax burden while we enjoy dramatic tax cuts. Then we can buy that much more property in MT with the tax dollars we save. You're right, the blue states have been subsidizing the red states for we too long. No more excuses ... it's time that everybody pay their fair share.

 

[ponezone]

What are your thoughts on a single rate 17% Federal Flat Tax?

Single deductions of 13,200
Married deduction of 26,400
4,000 deduction for each dependent or child.
No death tax.
No tax on SS.
There would be a choice to stay with the current plan or choose the flat tax plan.
All corporate loopholes would be eliminated with the implementation of a flat tax.

Lets hear your thoughts.

Why have deductions for dependents or children? You've already undone the whole supposed philosophy of the flat tax by introducting social engineering into the process (incentives for having kids). Once that door is opened, then the whole process just starts all over again ... and the tax code will be complicated in about a month.

You DO raise an interesting and valid point.. and one I partially agree with. See... I didn't dismiss your input! I mean, a broken clock is right twice per day... :thumb:

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Hurray! I got some partial validation!

 

[GrizWhiz]

alpha- the creative bookeeping you refer to mainly involves factoring the current Social Security surplus into the calculations. Not even that can significantly help the huge Bush deficits. Also, unfortunately, if we do run a surplus, as we did for several years before Bush, it has to go towards paying down the staggering national debt. You can't just refund it to tax payers when we owe over 7.4 Trillion $. Much of this is owed to Communist China (approaching 1 Trillion $). The interest on this debt is also staggering and is big part of our deficit. We are in big trouble here. :crybaby: If you don't think being in debt to Communist China to this extent is a national security problem, please explain your reasoning.

 

[Bronco]

I'd rather have a consumption tax..
On a flat tax it's too easy for them to say we have this to deal with and we're raising it two points...but will go down when the problem is solved...never goes back once they get their hands ion the money.

look how sales tax started ...we'll have a 2% sales tax and it won't go up...now 6 to 8 % in some states.

Too easy access to the wallets.

 

[GeorgeAllen]

The so-called “flat tax” in lieu of a graduated income tax is a failed concept for a number of reasons:

· Neither the Alphagriz version the Forbes version, the Specter version, nor the Armey version would tax unearned personal income (e.g., capital gains, interest, dividends), which means there’s no political courage out there to close the loopholes that benefit the rich more greatly than the middle income. The rich would also see a huge cut in their tax rates.

· A “flat tax” takes the lowest-rate income taxpayers entirely out of the tax system, then forces the middle class taxpayers to subsidize the wealthy.

· A “flat tax” concept confuses the need for tax reform and simplification with the unrelated issue of whether the rate applied to income is flat or graduated.

· The so-called “death tax,” by the way, which Alphagriz would eliminate is really a misnomer. No one pays taxes to die. The reality is, if someone receives an inheritance of greater than $667,000 in value, he or she pays taxes on it. Geez, what a nice problem that would be to have. I wish Mom or Pop had left me something that large. I would gladly pay the taxes.

:twocents:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The so-called “flat tax” in lieu of a graduated income tax is a failed concept for a number of reasons:

· Neither the Alphagriz version the Forbes version, the Specter version, nor the Armey version would tax unearned personal income (e.g., capital gains, interest, dividends), which means there’s no political courage out there to close the loopholes that benefit the rich more greatly than the middle income. The rich would also see a huge cut in their tax rates.

· A “flat tax” takes the lowest-rate income taxpayers entirely out of the tax system, then forces the middle class taxpayers to subsidize the wealthy.

· A “flat tax” concept confuses the need for tax reform and simplification with the unrelated issue of whether the rate applied to income is flat or graduated.

· The so-called “death tax,” by the way, which Alphagriz would eliminate is really a misnomer. No one pays taxes to die. The reality is, if someone receives an inheritance of greater than $667,000 in value, he or she pays taxes on it. Geez, what a nice problem that would be to have. I wish Mom or Pop had left me something that large. I would gladly pay the taxes.

:twocents:

You shouldn't be able to tax unearned income. That money is taxed 2-3 times the way the system is now and that is bullshit. The rich should get a cut in the taxes they pay, they pay way to much as it is and that isn't fair. Everyone should pay the same rate.

You can structure the flat tax to not entirely remove the poorest people in the country. They are basically removed form paying taxes now, so I can't see why this would matter to anyone.

It should be flat and not graduated. Hence the "Flat tax" Don't understand this point?

Misnomer or not why should anyone have to pay taxes on property and money that has once again already been taxed 2-3 times over the course of the owners life. Now they want to nail you again, I call more bullshit.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I'm still curious as to people's thoughts about how a flat tax would dramatically raise taxes for "red" states and lower them for "blue" states. Is that something that the proponents are comfortable with? And are they comfortable with the notion that this would make it that much easier for the residents of the blue to buy up all of the red land?

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I'm still curious as to people's thoughts about how a flat tax would dramatically raise taxes for "red" states and lower them for "blue" states. Is that something that the proponents are comfortable with? And are they comfortable with the notion that this would make it that much easier for the residents of the blue to buy up all of the red land?

Explain how it would "raise" taxes in red states?

The federal tax rate your at is the same in every state because it is based on your income? What am I missing?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I'm still curious as to people's thoughts about how a flat tax would dramatically raise taxes for "red" states and lower them for "blue" states. Is that something that the proponents are comfortable with? And are they comfortable with the notion that this would make it that much easier for the residents of the blue to buy up all of the red land?

Explain how it would "raise" taxes in red states?

The federal tax rate your at is the same in every state because it is based on your income? What am I missing?

Mostly, when I say it would "raise" the taxes in red states, I mean that the tax that people in red states would be more under your proposal than they pay now.

Because people in the blue states I mentioned (CA, NY, CT and MA, among others), make way more on average than people in the red states (as almost without exception red states are low salary/low cost of living states, and nearly all blue states are among the highest average income states). If we went to a flat tax, the people in the red states would pay more $$ than they would under the current system, and people in the blue states would be less $$. This would be a definite and irrefutable huge increase in taxes for the red states on average, and a definite tax cut, on average (and in a huge way, in the aggregate), for the blue states.

The blue states are the wealthy states, and red states are the poor states. The mariginal tax stucture benefits the poor states (not to mention the disproportionate federal dollars the red states get due to the Senate/electoral college system, wherein MT gets 2 dollars for every one it pays in tax). So in a flat tax system where everybody pays their "fair" share, you are saying that Montanans should pay on average much higher federal taxes, and CA residents (on average) should get tax cuts. Is this really what you want? If so, we'll take it. Just mail me a check, if you want to speed up the process.

I personally don't agree with the idea, but I'm not against taking your money.