Forums Register login What's New?
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Page 7 of 9
  1. of course. the argument "i am not paying enough in taxes" is never valid, because you can always pay more if you like. it just a way to frame the argument "i want the rich to pay more". it is not relevant that you are making the argument as a rich person yourself. its still simply an appeal to take more money from people.

    whether the argument is made by lasalle, or warren buffet it is the same.
  2. Ironically, Buffett is saying all of this to please Obama so he won't raise his taxes.
  3. I'm not armed with the proper numbers and I'm not an accountant. So this is theoretical.

    I'd start with the federal budget. That's how much income we need every year. Then take the total income of all the taxpayers and determine what percentage of that is required to meet that. for the sake or argument, lets say that is 18%.

    Then you make everyone, I mean everyone, owe the 18% on all of their annual income. No tax credits, no tax subsidies, no deductions, no deferments, no avoidances of any kind.

    For practical reasons there would have to be a minimum income, below which no taxes would be owed. I'm talking 10,000 or 15,000 . . . bare subsistence income. The widows, elderly, students, and people working low-pay and part-time jobs really can't be taxed at those incomes. Every cent they earn goes directly to food, shelter, medicine, and transportation to work.

    We might have to raise the minimum wage ($14,500 for a full-time job) so that those people can afford to pay their fair share of income taxes. It's hard to see anybody getting by in America under $20,000 in this century. $10/hour is not unreasonable for full-time work. Taco Bell pays $8.50 already.

    Then, with a flat tax, nobody will have to pay for a tax specialist to figure out their taxes. You just divide your income by the rate. This number would be adjusted every year. if spending got too high, the rate would go up and people would complain to congress. If spending got to low and infrastructure was falling apart and services unmanned, then the rate would go up enough to compensate for spending.

    The deal would be that whatever spending Congress did or whatever cutting congress did would directly impact all citizens. When people lobby for a upgraded new interstate system, congress would have to say we can do this, but the tax rate will go up 1%. If the public felt that it was justified their representatives could make it happen. Conversely if the tax rate rose to 22% and people felt uncomfortable, then services and infrastructure could be curtailed and people would see it in their taxes.

    It would end us going off to war without the support of the people. War expenses would come directly out of income and rates would go up to pay for it. This will keep public pressure on to keep wars rare and short. We paid for WWII with higher taxes and War bonds and rationing, we should go back to that. A war effort should involve everybody, not just the tip of the spear.
    1 person likes this.
  4. more pay for the purpose of more taxes doesnt really benefit the worker, does it.

    lets just let the poor bastard make less and pay less tax instead of artificially increasing their salary so they can pay more taxes. lets just let employers and workers negotiate their own salaries eh?
  5. I would agree to this mostly as a transition to much lower rates.
  6. I haven't created a comprehensive plan myself considering I'm not about to run for office but between you, rex, martin and myself, it seems we're all pretty much on the same page. Things need to be simplified and all of the backdoor loopholes, special deals, goodies, fees need to be closed. It's fair for everyone.

    That way the only thing to really discuss is what the government should and shouldn't pay for and we're not engaged in this class, gender, race warfare where everyone gets their own little special deal and everyone is pointing fingers.
    1 person likes this.
  7. well said, it eliminates all the class warefare talk, no loopholes, and everyone has a stake.

    but what are the chances we ever see this?
  8. In general I think people shouldn't pay anymore than 25% of their income to all government entities. Of course war and other extreme circumstances would require temporary tax hikes.

    Congress needs to approve military operations that way there is accountability and people accept that there is an actual cost to war, as if the cost of American lives isn't enough.

    Maybe people wouldn't be so quick to back a war if they realized they are actually paying for it.

    The poor (and that floor is debatable) should also pay something so that every American realizes that April 15th isn't Christmas day and that government is something that actually costs money
  9. We're talking about what is best for the nation, Scooter. And it does benefit the minimum wage worker. It allows him to pay his fair share of taxes without giving food or bus fare. It makes him a full part of the working world, taking no subsidy, and all he need do is keep climbing the ladder.
  10. Then why are you a republican? They will fight this tooth and nail. Complex tax codes benefit those with the resources to take advantage of them and the GOP see's this as an attack on rich people's cherished tax havens.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 7 of 9