It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ben Carson reveals his new tax plan (flat tax)

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
video.foxnews.com...=show-clips
(links to a video)

Carson's tax plan is a 14.9 percent flat tax with no exceptions and no loopholes. I have supported the idea of a flat tax for many years now - this makes me want Ben in office even more. Everyone should pay an equal percentage in taxes and anything else is unfair.

While it's nice he wants it without any loopholes we will see how it actually works though - if the rich can find a loophole they will. I'm thinking of Zuckerberg's "charity" where he founded an LLC with his family in control of all the money. I wonder if the next generation of the upper crust will all be self-proclaimed philanthropists in charge of billion-dollar "charities"?

IMO a flat tax is elegant, simple, and inherently fair. If you are upset with our current tax system please consider Ben.
edit on 1/4/16 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Will never happen and this is the nail on carsons coffin.

The 1% like complicated and hidden loop holes. Their is no way that a billionaire will want to pay 15% on their income.


BTW i'm for the flat tax and would ignore all of Carsons other cookyness and vote for him just for a flat tax. However the GOP and the DNC are just a front for the established .05% and would never endorse flat tax.

A flat tax means they would have to pay more in taxes and the upper middle class and below would pay less in taxes.
edit on 02131America/ChicagoMon, 04 Jan 2016 13:02:55 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
We should still try though. I would love to see Ben get in office and see how far he can get with this tax reform.

If I heard him right he's also thinking about setting the corporate tax rate at 15% too. I believe that right now the corporate tax rate is around 35%. Lowering that by over 50% could bring a lot of business back to the US even if the rich would be paying more in personal income tax.
edit on 1/4/16 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Would be nice for us 'non-billionaires' Let’s start with “lower.” Taxes cannot be lower for everyone and still raise the same amount of money. For every dollar that your taxes are low/lower, someone else’s has got be a dollar higher.

Yup, we know the argument "cutting taxes may cause people to work harder and thus substantially increase government revenue".

This theory has dominated conservative economic thinking for three decades with scant evidence to support it. If you want to give everyone a tax cut—under the current system, under a flat tax, or under any other arrangement—all you have to do is lower the tax rate. This has nothing to do with flatness.




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader
Taxes cannot be lower for everyone and still raise the same amount of money. For every dollar that your taxes are low/lower, someone else’s has got be a dollar higher.

Yup, we know the argument "cutting taxes may cause people to work harder and thus substantially increase government revenue".


Not if it attracts foreign capital and investiture or compels domestic companies to invest here instead of abroad.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

A flat tax would be lower for the lower class and middle class. At present the upper class uses exceptions and loopholes to get out of a lot of their tax burden. When they say "We pay more in taxes" they are referring to the dollar value, not by a percentage. Oh I bet a billionaire pays more $'s than I do at tax time, but I'm paying a higher percentage of my income than he is.

In a perfect flat tax, we would all pay a fair percentage, and the rich would be paying more under a flat tax than under our current tax system. But the thing is, under a flat tax everyone pays a fair and equal amount. Right now they aren't. They use financial loopholes to lower their burden and then tell the average Joe that they are paying more and quote the big numbers they paid to "prove" it. But we need to look at the percentage of income paid in taxes, not the dollar value.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The rich should contribute more because they are overpaid to begin with in my opinion. They're going to send that money to an offshore account that can't be taxed anyways.

They are siphoning money out of the economy and not putting anything back into it, so I think their salary should be taxed more than the average citizen. It's only fair in my opinion because they have made it unfair for us by rigging the system in their favor.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ReadLeader
Taxes cannot be lower for everyone and still raise the same amount of money. For every dollar that your taxes are low/lower, someone else’s has got be a dollar higher.

Yup, we know the argument "cutting taxes may cause people to work harder and thus substantially increase government revenue".


Not if it attracts foreign capital and investiture or compels domestic companies to invest here instead of abroad.


if he lowers the corporate tax rate to 15% I bet there will be a HUGE boom in job creation and big business in this country.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
A flat tax with no deductions is the best imho. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

Congress critters won't do it though because it removes their ability to use the tax code to dole out favors to their lobbyist. This is why the tax code is so convoluted.

I also believe everyone should have to pay it. We can't have a system where people can vote themselves others people's money. Everyone needs skin in the game. If you want government to pay for something, you should see the money coming out of your own personal paycheck.

In addition, I want tax day to be the day before the general election so it is fresh in people's minds. Last, I want to end paycheck deductions. Everyone should have to pay it in a lump sum the day before the election.
edit on 4-1-2016 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Really, a flat tax? How is this a new idea? How many GOP candidates have proposed a flat tax over the years? It's not a new idea at all.

And, the idea that a flat tax works out for the lower and middle classes is nonsense. It's a tax scheme that benefits the wealthy, it's another trickle down system. Currently the wealthiest pay up to 39% in taxes while the lowest tax rate is 10%. Those who ear between $9000 to $37,000 a year pay a 15% tax rate. They will not see a tax deduction in their taxes from Carsons plan. However the CEO earning $1 million a year will see his taxes cut by 60%.

How is this a fair tax system? The wealthy get a reduction of up to 60% but those earning less than $37,000 see no change to their taxes? How does this work out? Is the wealth supposed to trickle down again?

A "fair" tax you say? No.
edit on 4-1-2016 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Paying our taxes as a lump sum is a terrible idea and would cause more problems than solutions in my opinion. What happens when tax time comes around and you don't have enough money in your account to pay your share? You'd probably be thrown in jail.

Paycheck deductions are the most reliable method in my opinion. People have a hard enough time paying their credit card bills on time, I can't even imagine what trouble a lump sum tax code would cause.
edit on 1/4/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yeah, I know... large percentage of the population doesn't know how to manage their finances. My point is that too many people don't realize how much they are paying because the money is slowly taken out of their checks. If they had to write a lump sum check, they'd pay more attention to what government is costing them.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
How about a zero tax on earned income. Seemed to work relatively well until the Introduction of the FRB followed by the IRS. Prior to that, the only tax paid by individuals was on income from investments. Of course it is all somewhat moot considering no matter how much money the Government steals from its citizens they will always expend more then they take in.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
So is this income tax, real estate tax, capital gains tax, investment tax? Because a 14% flat income tax would see the rich paying next to nothing since most of their income comes from investment, stocks, and real estate.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So is this income tax, real estate tax, capital gains tax, investment tax? Because a 14% flat income tax would see the rich paying next to nothing since most of their income comes from investment, stocks, and real estate.


I'd made it across the board. If it is income, it is taxed the flat rate. Of course, I am sure some lawyer will figure out how to redefine income...



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Well that may be tricky. Part of the appeal of getting people to invest in real estate, stocks, or another business is the tax rates you get for your return on investment. In fact, income is taxed more heavily of the (I believe its) 4 different types of taxes you pay in April for these very reasons.
edit on 4-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: peskyhumans

Really, a flat tax? How is this a new idea? How many GOP candidates have proposed a flat tax over the years? It's not a new idea at all.

And, the idea that a flat tax works out for the lower and middle classes is nonsense. It's a tax scheme that benefits the wealthy, it's another trickle down system. Currently the wealthiest pay up to 39% in taxes while the lowest tax rate is 10%. Those who ear between $9000 to $37,000 a year pay a 15% tax rate. They will not see a tax deduction in their taxes from Carsons plan. However the CEO earning $1 million a year will see his taxes cut by 60%.

How is this a fair tax system? The wealthy get a reduction of up to 60% but those earning less than $37,000 see no change to their taxes? How does this work out? Is the wealth supposed to trickle down again?

A "fair" tax you say? No.


The problem is we have too many tax takers and not enough tax payers. I believe everyone should have to pay something. I don't care if the poor have to pay as little as 1%, they need some skin in the game. As it stands right now, the top 5% of earners pay like 60% of all the tax revenue. The top 10% is like 80%.

There are only so many gazillionaires. Most of the people carrying the burden are high income wage earners making like $250-$500k a year. Your Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other working professionals. Not the uber rich.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Well that may be tricky. Part of the appeal of getting people to invest in real estate, stocks, or another business is the tax rates you get for your return on investment.


The capital gains rate is lower than the wage rate because of the risk / reward and the fact that taxing investment gains is double taxation as you are investing capital that had already been taxed. The rates need to be low enough that investment is not discouraged. Investment would still occur at 15-20% rates.

We need simplicity. Tax avoidance should not be considered an investment or business strategy. The fact that it is means that rates are too high.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

If I make $25,000, under that plan I'd pay $3,725 leaving me with $21,275 to live off of.

If I make $500,000 under than plan I'd pay $74,500, leaving me with $425,500 to live off of.

It's a helluva lot easier to live off of $425,000 than it is $21,000.

A gallon of milk or a loaf of bread costs the same to both people. The basic necessities for life don't become cheaper if you're poor or more expensive as you get rich.

Flat taxes hurt the lower income people the most.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: peskyhumans

If I make $25,000, under that plan I'd pay $3,725 leaving me with $21,275 to live off of.

If I make $500,000 under than plan I'd pay $74,500, leaving me with $425,500 to live off of.

It's a helluva lot easier to live off of $425,000 than it is $21,000.

A gallon of milk or a loaf of bread costs the same to both people. The basic necessities for life don't become cheaper if you're poor or more expensive as you get rich.

Flat taxes hurt the lower income people the most.


So?

Your motivation should be to improve your position in life. The other fallacy is that you assume people stay in one tax bracket. They don't. Some people who are 1%ers now fall back down to lower income brackets just as some people who qualify as "poor" now will be 1%ers.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join