[Brenda]

Unnecessary loopholes/write-off areas that the "rich" won't necessarily feel in their daily life.
The middle class and below will tho. We have to watch out for that. If the middle class and lower have not as much to spend, jobs will not be created, but lost. The higher incomes will not change their spending when they pay more, but do not necessarily miss it. When you cut the middle class from being able to go out to dinner, go to a movie, buy some extra clothes etc etc, you are only creating a bigger problem.

[martin14]

peck420 peck420:

There is no such thing as equal sacrifice.

Even with equal wages.

You could be a family of 4 with a mortgage and an income of $50,000 (total).

I could be a single person with no mortgage and an income of $50,000 (total).

Would it be fair to tax us the same? Would it be equal? We have equal incomes, but my bare cost of living is substanially lower.

Under 'equality of sacrifice' I should be taxed more to represent the extra burden you have with your family and mortgage.

Or maybe the family should be taxed more to represent the extra costs
society must pay, for raising the kids, school, doctors and such.

After all, they will consume more of societies' resources.




/sarcasm off
( for those of you too blind to see it )



But there is no equality of the citizen where one citizen is taxed more
simply because they make more money.

It is a punitive system, discourages work and entrepreneurship, and in the end,
as money becomes more and more fluid, will be self defeating.

Those who bleat "tax the rich" more and more are using a tired, old argument,
and they are going to be sadly disappointed.

A flat tax is the way to go forward. At least it is equal, in that everyone
pays the same rate, and the rich do pay more.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

If you impose a flat tax of x%, you will never have a number that is affordable to lower classes AND still generates enough reveneue from the upper classes to fund our service requirements.

Has it occured to you then to lower your service requirements from government and, ergo, from your fellow citizens?

[peck420]

Brenda,

Unneccessary loopholes and writeoffs, to me, would be things that the majority of middle class and poor will not have significant access too. But, incase they do, I think that any changes in that area should be tied directly to toal income on a progressive scale (which is already in place for a significant portion).

A big one for me should be capital gains. Why is it fixed at 50% taxable. Why isn't that tied to your income? If I have an income in the highest tax bracket and my primary income is derived from capital gains...you see where this goes. Things like that should have caveats attached, ie: you make over $128,800 capital gains should be 100% taxable, etc.

The idea would be to have more tax income from rich, and less from poor, with middle class kind of where it is.

Martin,

Non sarcasm stuff only.

I agree with you in principal, but we have to address reality. A flat tax would not be able to cover the costs we have placed on our government without having a significantly higher rate for low income earners.

Example (federal taxes only):
If flat tax is 15% the lowest tax bracket would see no change, but the government would see a substantial decrease in revenues...and would have to cut services accordingly.

If the flat tax is 22% the middle would see no change, but the low end earners would see a substantial decrease in income. That would neccessetate more government services for those people, but we would still face decreased government revenues.

If the flat tax is 26 or 29% it would just get worse.

I don't know if these could be offset by sales taxes, etc, but that would just add more stress to the lowest income earners.

[martin14]

peck420 peck420:

Martin,

Non sarcasm stuff only.

I agree with you in principal, but we have to address reality. A flat tax would not be able to cover the costs we have placed on our government without having a significantly higher rate for low income earners.

Example (federal taxes only):
If flat tax is 15% the lowest tax bracket would see no change, but the government would see a substantial decrease in revenues...and would have to cut services accordingly.

If the flat tax is 22% the middle would see no change, but the low end earners would see a substantial decrease in income. That would neccessetate more government services for those people, but we would still face decreased government revenues.

If the flat tax is 26 or 29% it would just get worse.

I don't know if these could be offset by sales taxes, etc, but that would just add more stress to the lowest income earners.

A flat tax rate of 20-22% ( which isnt bad )..

for lower income earners, it could still be mitigated by looking at the beginning
Basic Personal Amount that everyone gets right off the top.
I believe it's around $10,000 a year now.
Essentially the first 10k anyone makes in a year is tax free.

You keep this, maybe even bump it a little for the low income earners,
thus creating the balance for them.

[andyt]

Capital gains taxes in the US are 15% - big reason why he rich are taxed at a lower rate. All income should be taxed at income tax rates. Don't know what the big attraction is to flat taxes - what's the advantage?

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

Capital gains taxes in the US are 15% - big reason why he rich are taxed at a lower rate. All income should be taxed at income tax rates. Don't know what the big attraction is to flat taxes - what's the advantage?

Not only don't you know, you would never take the time to find out, or listen to someone who does.
Or ever ever dare to agree the system may have some merit.


So why bother ?

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

If you impose a flat tax of x%, you will never have a number that is affordable to lower classes AND still generates enough reveneue from the upper classes to fund our service requirements.

Has it occured to you then to lower your service requirements from government and, ergo, from your fellow citizens?

No, because we value things like education and healthcare up here. Theres a reason why Canadian students are near the top of the western world and US students are near the bottom.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

Capital gains taxes in the US are 15% - big reason why he rich are taxed at a lower rate. All income should be taxed at income tax rates. Don't know what the big attraction is to flat taxes - what's the advantage?

Not only don't you know, you would never take the time to find out, or listen to someone who does.
Or ever ever dare to agree the system may have some merit.


So why bother ?

The only benefit is for high income earners. You can remove tax loopholes with a progressive system just as well. So it's just a shift of tax burden from the top to the bottom. How is that a good idea? As Peck has pointed out, it will just leave the govt with a huge deficit, since the working poor isn't where the money is.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Capital gains taxes in the US are 15% - big reason why he rich are taxed at a lower rate. All income should be taxed at income tax rates. Don't know what the big attraction is to flat taxes - what's the advantage?

Probably because it is less onerous for the wealthy - and it's usually the right who push for it, because the mantra is that lower taxes on the rich create more jobs.

But let's face it, for a student earning 25,000 to give up 20%, it hurts a helluva lot more than it does a lawyer to give up $40,000 from his earnings of $200,000.

Flat taxes have absolutely nothing to do with fairness, just greed.

[martin14]

See what I mean............................



Look at it this way...



Capital Gains is 15% in the US.
In Canada, it is half the amount at your personal rate.

from wiki... so easy..

$1:

For example, if your capital gains (profit) is $100, you are only taxed on $50 at your marginal tax rate. That is, if you were in the top tax bracket, you'd be taxed at approx 43%. A formula for this example using the top tax bracket would be as follows:

Capital gain x 50.00% x marginal tax rate = capital gain tax

= $100 x 50.00% x 43%

= $50 x 43%

= $21.50

In this example your capital gains tax on $100 is $21.50, leaving you with $78.50.

The US rate would be $15.00




Where would you like to make your capital gains andy ?

[andyt]

I would like capital gains to be taxed at the same rate as any other income, and have a progressive tax system with lots of small incremental steps, so that as people earn more money, they pay a higher rate on the higher income. I don't see the point of taxing capital gains differently than other income. That would mean Buffet would have to pay well over 30% tax on his income, instead of the 17% he actually paid. And the US wouldn't be in such deep shit.

[DanSC]

Cutting taxes on the rich won't create jobs. Warren Buffett doesn't hire that many people, but Berkshire Hathaway hires lots of people. Cutting the corporate tax rate from the ludicrously-high 35% will lead to lots of hiring from companies too small to use every loophole the big companies do.

[andyt]

DanSC DanSC:

Cutting taxes on the rich won't create jobs. Warren Buffett doesn't hire that many people, but Berkshire Hathaway hires lots of people. Cutting the corporate tax rate from the ludicrously-high 35% will lead to lots of hiring from companies too small to use every loophole the big companies do.

I could see cutting corporate tax to 0. Just make sure that the profits that flow out of that corporation to people are taxed, and change the law so corporations are not deemed persons under law. EG the campaign contribution issue - disallow corporate campaign contributions.

[DanSC]

andyt andyt:

disallow corporate campaign contributions.

Bah Humbug. I just invested in local television and radio broadcasters in Iowa and Ohio.