BigRedBuster Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I would think a fair/flat tax (with a lower or zero rate for those under the poverty line or at a threshold of $40K or below) would make both sides happy.So someone who makes $41,000 would take home $32,800 after your "fair tax" . . . while someone making $39,000 would take home $39,000? Might want to work on your proposal. That or come up with a new name. who the f*ck are you? Imposter....call the FBI. Link to comment
Landlord Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Also, many fair tax proposals actually call for 0% tax if you fall below poverty level. Socialist! 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 At one time I put out a proposal that, with some tweaking, I think could be a good tax policy. First off, you have to have a balanced budget amendment. Now, that wouldn't be a hard core line in the sand. There would be situations where the government would be allowed to go over budget and those situations can be debated. Then, there would be an amendment that you can not tax income of anyone over a certain level. That might be 30% or 40% or whatever. Personally, I think that should definitely be below 45% and probably in the 30s%. No loop holes. Anyway. Now, Obviously, the higher income people will all be paying the maximum amount. Let's say you can fund the government taxing everyone over $95,000 at the maximum amount. Great. Everyone below that doesn't pay income tax. Let's say some great big government program is proposed. Well, either the masses need to find something to cut or that level of income that is taxed is going to go down to include more people being taxed to fund it. Maybe, that level would be everyone from $50,000 to 95,000 needs to be taxed at only 20% to fund the program. What this does is makes more people a consumer of government programs instead of demanding more and more and more only to expect everyone else to fund it. No matter what, there has to be a better way of taxing than what we have now. It is so overwhelming that absolutely nobody fully understands it. What that allows (and I believe is the goal) is politicians on both sides can play politics with the numbers and nobody can fact check most of what they say. Simplify it so most people can easily understand it and more of the politics over the issue goes away. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 It would need to be a gradual increase so people who make $99k don't feel like they have to purposely stay at $99k to avoid taxes. A completely flat tax is a bad idea. There will always be threshholds where it gets raised but it should be that you go from paying 0 to paying 5%. Not 0 to 30%. I'd be fine with maxing what you have to pay if we got rid of loopholes and make it really hard to cheat the system. E.g. put $ in overseas banks but do business here and then not pay taxes on that $. But like Big says there should also be a min. income requirement. It's not like those people are paying no taxes. They just aren't paying a certain type of tax. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I'm a little strange, I admit. I definitely agree with the bolded part here. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 It would need to be a gradual increase so people who make $99k don't feel like they have to purposely stay at $99k to avoid taxes. A completely flat tax is a bad idea. There will always be threshholds where it gets raised but it should be that you go from paying 0 to paying 5%. Not 0 to 30%. I'd be fine with maxing what you have to pay if we got rid of loopholes and make it really hard to cheat the system. E.g. put $ in overseas banks but do business here and then not pay taxes on that $. But like Big says there should also be a min. income requirement. It's not like those people are paying no taxes. They just aren't paying a certain type of tax. That's fine. You could have maybe three different levels of taxation. Then, if the income threshold that is taxed needs to be lowered, the tax levels would expand out like an accordion to accommodate the taxable group. As for the person wanting to stay at $99k, that wouldn't really mean much because that taxation level would be moving. One year maybe they are in the 20% tax bracket but the next (due to an increase in the budget) they are bumped up into the 25% bracket. This would motivate them to try to find ways for the government to be either more efficient or spend less. (probably both). Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I try to ignore Trump's existence, but seriously, f#*k this a-hole. Women who aren't related to him or who aren't f#*kable (in his eyes) are worthless. There is no doubt in my mind this is how he feels. He can pretend he respects women by namedropping Omarosa but I don't buy it. About Fiorina: "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?" Trump said to Solotaroff. "Can you imagine that, the face of our next president." Trump added, "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" I'm guessing the craziest of Trump supporters will just say Rolling Stone made these quotes up. Link to comment
Recommended Posts