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.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Lab4Us
That’s why I support a consumption tax over a flat tax...then EVERYONE gets to help those in need and the wealthy can’t hide behind borderline fraudulent deductions.
The first thing we need to do is break away from the "rich are evil" agenda. If the tax code offers write-offs then so be it. I'm sure you didn't say hey I'm not going to deduct my house interest, or I'm going to send back child tax credit etc...lol
Simple code is best, all should pay too whether it is 1%, 2% 5% etc all should pay something.
originally posted by: Lab4Us
I hold no ill will toward wealthy folk. However I hold much ill will toward those who try to get over while the average joe/joline can’t afford to pay a tax attorney thousands of dollars to find all the loop holes. Thus the consumption tax; one pays tax on what they buy, no deductions. Probably a flat tax for capital gains (I suppose you could apply some type of consumption tax on capital gains earnings).
originally posted by: allsee4eye
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, these all have flat tax.
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: allsee4eye
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, these all have flat tax.
These are all poor countries with low incomes. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. We have graduated tax systems in the richer West because people have incomes high enough to allow it.
1% tax and the Romans. They also had a slave economy and high mortality.
Anyway, the last time I visited the States I noticed the roads were falling apart. You need to raise taxes to fix the roads.
Romans only had 1 percent tax. This is what I agree with.
Why should I pay for someone to go to the doctor everytime they cough or anytime someone is depressed then pay for pills that don't do any good (and actually can be shown to cause even more real damage to the body thus creating more future healthcare costs)?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: allsee4eye
It is cheaper to pay-off state officials than federals.
originally posted by: GenerationGap
There would be far more representatives to have to buy. This also increases the odds that the buyers get caught, because the odds of running into a straight edge only in it for the people representative go up.
With the federal system having so much power, they can ensure, from a central platform, that only those in on the game get elected to DC. If one is not in on the game with the DC corrupted, one never holds position in DC. Remove the unbalanced centralized DC power structure and you now have to try to managed 50 distributed power paradigms...which is 50 times harder than just doing it in DC.
Mussolini wrote all about that, it's why he advocated for centralized power structure and disagreed with the idea of a republic with out an over seeing and ruling central authority - which goes against every tenet of what it means to be a republic...
originally posted by: allsee4eye
In the early days of the Roman Republic, public taxes consisted of modest assessments on owned wealth and property. The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war.