New Tax structure

[Conga3]

Why cant there just be a flat rate all across the board? 10%. 15%. 20%. it doesnt matter what you invest in. It doesnt matter what your assets are. It's doesnt matter how much you spend on day care. 15% (or whatever figure) of your paycheck is going to income tax. And guess what. Come April?-youre not gettin any back, and youre not payin any in.

 

"Why should I have to pay as much taxes as that rich CEO?".

 

Youre not. Your income is 34,000/yr. Youre paying (15%) 5100/yr in tax. That CEO making 5.6million is paying 840,000/yr. And that 1.2 million dollar bonus he received? He paid 180,000 in tax for that. Now, he can do whatever he wants with his remaining 5,780,000$ after taxes, and it's no one's business but his own.

 

I have yet to be explained to or shown why such a system would not work. Close the loopholes, set a flat rate, and all should be well, right?

Exactly.

 

But for some, taxes represent an opportunity to redistribute wealth through progressive tax rates and minimum incomes.

 

Taxes are meant to pay for government services, defense, and infrastructure we all use. We should all pay, equally - that's the ONLY fair way about it that doesn't give politicians a tool to divide and conquer the masses.

 

Once you open the door to tax one guy more than the other guy, it slides out of control as politicians try to "sweeten" the deal for the majority and ensure they remain in power - or provide special interest groups an advantage in return for campaign contributions.

 

---

Constitutional Amendment

• Congress is limited to generate income from ONE FLAT RATE TAX levied on all voting citizens equally.
  
• No Corporate Tax Rate. Ever.
  
• Income can only be taxed once.
  
• Congress is not able to pass laws that reduces the tax rate for individuals, corporations or organizations.
  
• All sitting Congressmen are not eligible for re-election if spending exceeds 3% revenue during any year of their term - OR - if they fail to pass a budget.
  
• Surplus revenues are immediately distributed back to the citizens in the form of a credit to be applied against future tax returns.
  
• If spending is more than the revenues collected, up to an additional 3% tax over the flat rate will be levied on all citizens equally to compensate for the deficit.
  

---

 

 

 

That is a bad, bad plan. No corporate rate? Really? Why should they be immune to paying taxes?

Because the income will be taxed when it's distributed in the form of salaries to employees or dividends to investors. What isn't distributed, is never taxed, and therefore reinvested in the operations of the company to expand.

 

Define 'income only taxed once' You are calling to protect investment income. BS. Income ins income is income, regardless of source. It is not taxed twice. As the guy getting the investment income did not pay taxes on it before. And he didn't work for it either.

Well, in my proposal to get rid of Corporate Tax rate, you are right - investment income would be considered income because the corporation wouldn't be taxed as an entity and taxing it when it's distributed to the investors would be the first time it will be taxed.

 

So we are in agreement.

 

My point is - IF YOU VOTE YOU PAY TAX. Corporations don't vote...so...

 

--

 

Good plan, punish the general population when the Congressmen are fools. Or when some disaster strikes.

 

Huh?

 

I'm not opposed to a flat tax in theory. I just don't think it would be implemented correctly. As you post shows. Investment income can not be exempt from taxation. And that is going to be a sticking point.

OK, so since I explained how investment income IS regular income when you get rid of the Corporate Tax rate - we are in agreement that my idea is awesome. Good.

[74Hunter]

Lame, as if people aging has caused our current debt and deficit. It hurts, but has absolutely nothing to due with pet pork projects, earmarks, waste, and ineptitude by our government.

You realize that Social Secruity and Medicare/Medicaid makeup one of the single largest portions of the national debt right? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%, and they have almost everything to do with people getting older...

Yes. But it has little to do with the wars that racked up debt, having unneeded military bases overseas, the out of control department of education, etc. etc. or earmarks such as the 20 something million that we spent on the nice but unnecessary Bob Kerry Bridge. If we could cut out garbage, we would be well better off.

[74Hunter]

Besides, Obamacare's death panels may end some lives prematurely.

You have got to be trolling. Do people really still believe this?

Some people do. But who really knows, remember, we had to pass it before the idiots in Congress read it, so we had no idea what we were getting. Besides, who knows what it will morph into down the road, once the costs start adding up and we find out that the BS that was fed to us (and ate up my the intellectually lacking public) was not true.

[BigRedBuster]

I like the flat tax rate and exempting the first $50K +/- of everyone's income. Depending on how you look at it, that doesn't necessarily create a class that pays and a class that doesn't pay because nobody is paying on that first $50K.

 

The problem with allowing ANY exemption, is the politicians will simply move the bar. Why let them tinker with something like this? They will only pervert it for their own gain. (See Congress History)

 

Not to mention, it's not needed. The tax rate isn't going to be very high if it's a flat rate.

 

See : http://en.wikipedia....lat_tax_systems

 

Even if you have to start it out at 18% or whatever... the motivation for politicians getting elected will become how to spend less, more efficiently, and cut the flat rate tax.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it could get as low as 10% - with programs shifting back to states where they belong.

 

 

You have to have a system where all citizens are motivated to only support expenditures that are important and necessary. You can not have a system where a majority of people are pushing for more expenditures and a minority of the people paying the bills.

But a system where the very small minority have most of the money is just fine? The minority's only focus seems to be on amassing more money, not on making the country a better place, or even a functioning place.

 

 

Why is it anyone else's business how much money someone else has? Is being rich illegal now?

[carlfense]

How about the politicians stop spending like drunken sailors?

If we could just figure out a way to keep old people from aging . . .

Lame, as if people aging has caused our current debt and deficit. It hurts, but has absolutely nothing to due with pet pork projects, earmarks, waste, and ineptitude by our government.

 

Besides, Obamacare's death panels may end some lives prematurely.

^^^quite revealing.

 

Lets see, just off the top of my head, deductions and loopholes, the current uneven tax rates, and taxing certain moneys multiple times.

Would you explain the bolded section for me?

[carlfense]

 

Besides, Obamacare's death panels may end some lives prematurely.

 

 

You have got to be trolling. Do people really still believe this?

I think that he's probably trolling . . . but I've almost reached the point where willful ignorance doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

[carlfense]

Some people do. But who really knows, remember, we had to pass it before the idiots in Congress read it, so we had no idea what we were getting. Besides, who knows what it will morph into down the road, once the costs start adding up and we find out that the BS that was fed to us (and ate up my the intellectually lacking public) was not true.

[74Hunter]

^^^quite revealing.

Please elaborate.

 

Would you explain the bolded section for me?

If you don't simply understand how taxes are currently bracketed incrementally, then there is no sense in discussing them with you. Go take a look at irs.gov, maybe you will become educated on how the system works.

 

Get back to me when you have have an understanding, i would enjoy discussing it with you further.

[JJ Husker]

 

But a system where the very small minority have most of the money is just fine? The minority's only focus seems to be on amassing more money, not on making the country a better place, or even a functioning place.

 

 

Why is it anyone else's business how much money someone else has? Is being rich illegal now?

 

With the current trend, it could be very soon but I think they'll probably claim the rich peoples money for the "good of the people" and we won't have to worry about having rich people anymore. Then who will we blame for Washington's spending problem?

 

The part that disturbed me the most about this statement, I bolded. I'll probably get crucified for this but, why is it my job or any individual citizens job to make the country a better place or to make it function? Isn't that what we elect representatives, senators, Presidents, etc. to do for us? I have a wife and kids to take care of. I have a business to take care of. I have all kinds of things that I expend energy and resources on in an effort to make them better. I can contribute to charities and organizations to help make things better for certain interests. But it is NOT my job to take care of large swaths of our population that have failed at taking care of themselves. I can vote for and encourage politicians to make things better for these people to the extent I feel public funds need to be used towards that end. But the bolded part of Strigori's post is the "collective good" view that just drives me nuts. Have a level playing field and let people take care of themselves. Just because some people are born into money or poverty or somehow manage to amass wealth doesn't mean the playing field is not level. It just means some people have to work harder to get ahead and some people don't have to do much of anything to get or stay ahead. If you're born and raised in an inner city slum, you're going to have a much harder go of it than if you're born in an affluent suburb with educated parents. Life isn't fair but everyone in this country has opportunity. Life, liberty, and the pursuit "PURSUIT" of happiness. Outcomes not guaranteed.

[carlfense]

^^^quite revealing.

Please elaborate.

Oh, I don't think that will be necessary. Some people do say some things about death panels though . . .

 

If you don't simply understand how taxes are currently bracketed, then there is no sense in discussing them with you. Go take a look at irs.gov, maybe you will become educated on how the system works.

Specifically, what unfairness do you see in marginal rates? I have a sinking suspicion that you don't really understand how they are structured . . . That said, I do hope that you understand our system of marginal rates and actually have some insightful comments about why they are unfair.

[74Hunter]

Some people do. But who really knows, remember, we had to pass it before the idiots in Congress read it, so we had no idea what we were getting. Besides, who knows what it will morph into down the road, once the costs start adding up and we find out that the BS that was fed to us (and ate up my the intellectually lacking public) was not true.

Curious, what do you find funny, that we have a Congress that was stupid enough to vote for a bill they didn't read, or that our populace is stupid enough to vote for people who would do that?

 

I personally find it sickening that we have alleged representatives worsening or down right destroying health care because a small percentage of our population didn't have health insurance.

 

[carlfense]

Some people do. But who really knows, remember, we had to pass it before the idiots in Congress read it, so we had no idea what we were getting. Besides, who knows what it will morph into down the road, once the costs start adding up and we find out that the BS that was fed to us (and ate up my the intellectually lacking public) was not true.

Curious, what do you find funny, that we have a Congress that was stupid enough to vote for a bill they didn't read, or that our populace is stupid enough to vote for people who would do that?

 

I personally find it sickening that we have alleged representatives worsening or down right destroying health care because a small percentage of our population didn't have health insurance.

I don't think that you caught the part that I was laughing at . . .

 

Sickening, eh? Pun intended?

[strigori]

Why cant there just be a flat rate all across the board? 10%. 15%. 20%. it doesnt matter what you invest in. It doesnt matter what your assets are. It's doesnt matter how much you spend on day care. 15% (or whatever figure) of your paycheck is going to income tax. And guess what. Come April?-youre not gettin any back, and youre not payin any in.

 

"Why should I have to pay as much taxes as that rich CEO?".

 

Youre not. Your income is 34,000/yr. Youre paying (15%) 5100/yr in tax. That CEO making 5.6million is paying 840,000/yr. And that 1.2 million dollar bonus he received? He paid 180,000 in tax for that. Now, he can do whatever he wants with his remaining 5,780,000$ after taxes, and it's no one's business but his own.

 

I have yet to be explained to or shown why such a system would not work. Close the loopholes, set a flat rate, and all should be well, right?

Exactly.

 

But for some, taxes represent an opportunity to redistribute wealth through progressive tax rates and minimum incomes.

 

Taxes are meant to pay for government services, defense, and infrastructure we all use. We should all pay, equally - that's the ONLY fair way about it that doesn't give politicians a tool to divide and conquer the masses.

 

Once you open the door to tax one guy more than the other guy, it slides out of control as politicians try to "sweeten" the deal for the majority and ensure they remain in power - or provide special interest groups an advantage in return for campaign contributions.

 

---

Constitutional Amendment

• Congress is limited to generate income from ONE FLAT RATE TAX levied on all voting citizens equally.
  
• No Corporate Tax Rate. Ever.
  
• Income can only be taxed once.
  
• Congress is not able to pass laws that reduces the tax rate for individuals, corporations or organizations.
  
• All sitting Congressmen are not eligible for re-election if spending exceeds 3% revenue during any year of their term - OR - if they fail to pass a budget.
  
• Surplus revenues are immediately distributed back to the citizens in the form of a credit to be applied against future tax returns.
  
• If spending is more than the revenues collected, up to an additional 3% tax over the flat rate will be levied on all citizens equally to compensate for the deficit.
  

---

 

 

 

 

That is a bad, bad plan. No corporate rate? Really? Why should they be immune to paying taxes?

Because the income will be taxed when it's distributed in the form of salaries to employees or dividends to investors. What isn't distributed, is never taxed, and therefore reinvested in the operations of the company to expand.

 

Define 'income only taxed once' You are calling to protect investment income. BS. Income ins income is income, regardless of source. It is not taxed twice. As the guy getting the investment income did not pay taxes on it before. And he didn't work for it either.

Well, in my proposal to get rid of Corporate Tax rate, you are right - investment income would be considered income because the corporation wouldn't be taxed as an entity and taxing it when it's distributed to the investors would be the first time it will be taxed.

 

So we are in agreement.

 

My point is - IF YOU VOTE YOU PAY TAX. Corporations don't vote...so...

 

--

 

Good plan, punish the general population when the Congressmen are fools. Or when some disaster strikes.

 

Huh?

 

I'm not opposed to a flat tax in theory. I just don't think it would be implemented correctly. As you post shows. Investment income can not be exempt from taxation. And that is going to be a sticking point.

OK, so since I explained how investment income IS regular income when you get rid of the Corporate Tax rate - we are in agreement that my idea is awesome. Good.

But SCOTUS says a company is a person.....

[Conga3]

But SCOTUS says a company is a person.....

 

In the courtroom, yes, so what is your point?

 

We don't allow them to vote though...so the concept I'm advancing in the thread - that if you have 1 vote, you have 1 tax rate doesn't apply to the "personhood" granted corporations in our court system.

[carlfense]

But SCOTUS says a company is a person.....

In the courtroom, yes, so what is your point?

 

We don't allow them to vote though...so the concept I'm advancing in the thread - that if you have 1 vote, you have 1 tax rate doesn't apply to the "personhood" granted corporations in our court system.

Not just in the courtroom . . . corporations recently gained constitutional rights.