Flat Rate Tax

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
DSO

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Instead of paying progressive taxes that increase as income increases, wouldn't a flat tax rate be a lot more fair to the whole of society.

One would pay the same percentage of income, thus different amounts based on your income. Lower incomes would pay the same percentage as the higherincomes, but due to the ammounts of money, the lower income brackets would pay less money then the higher income brackets. This to me would be a lot more fair then the current tax system that makes it bad to be rich and rewards those who don't work as hard (in general). A flat rate tax system would be benifical to the economy since the higher income would have more to spend, thus boosting commerce. It would also restrict the size of governemt since it woudl lower the amount of money avalible to them, forcing effeciency and downsizing.

I know some of you may not agree, but falt rate tax is benifical and should be instituted, soon.

-DSO




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DSO
Instead of paying progressive taxes that increase as income increases, wouldn't a flat tax rate be a lot more fair to the whole of society.


No.



One would pay the same percentage of income, thus different amounts based on your income. Lower incomes would pay the same percentage as the higherincomes, but due to the ammounts of money, the lower income brackets would pay less money then the higher income brackets.


Nevertheless, a flat tax would raise taxes on those least able to pay them, while reducing taxes for those most able to pay them. No, that would not be fair, nor would it make any sense.



A flat rate tax system would be benifical to the economy since the higher income would have more to spend, thus boosting commerce.


Investment in commerce now is not limited by how much the wealthy are able to invest. It is limited by how much they are willing to invest, and that in turn is limited by how much investment would likely see a good return.

An investment in commerce and industry is likely to generate a good return to the extent that a market exists for the goods produced. A market for the goods produced is provided by masses of middle-class people with plenty of money to spend.

So if you want to boost investment in commerce, don't lower taxes on the rich (who already have more capital available than they're willing to invest anyway). Lower taxes on the middle class, so they'll have more money to spend and make commercial investment more attractive.

A flat tax would do exactly the opposite, and so hurt, not help, the economy.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
DSO I 150% support the concept of a flat tax. However you are wrong about lower income workers they often work just as hard as there high income counterparts. Here in NZ many people dont get paid what there worth due failed government policys and shorted sighted buissness people e.t.c



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I am in favor of a flat tax.However this would hurt families with a lower income.Also the remark about people with lower incomes not working as hard is just not true my parents worked hard all their lives and were middle class,just because you dont make as much as other people doesnt mean you dont work hard.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Flat rate taxation sounds nice, simple and good for all.

But.

Is it really fair?

No!

Let's say that we set a flat tax rate of 10% of income, no exemptions, no deductions, No Loopholes!

Now let's say that I make $300,000 a year, and you make $30,000 per year. I'd have to pay $30,000 dollars in tax; you'd pay only $3,000.

You're smiling, I can tell!

OK, now lets say we both have to pay our own health care insurance out of pocket: you, because you don't belong to a union that provides for an HMO, me because I own the company that you work for (Guess who won't let the union organize MY workers?)

Let's say we both pay the same amount per month in HMO premiums: $300. That works out to $3600 per year for health insurance.

But that leaves you, and your family just $23,400 to live on. I've still got $266,400!

And consider, we both still pay the same for gas, food, and all the other needs and wants in life. Rich or poor, milk is still a buck fifty a gallon at the grocery store.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DSO
Instead of paying progressive taxes that increase as income increases, wouldn't a flat tax rate be a lot more fair to the whole of society.

One would pay the same percentage of income, thus different amounts based on your income. Lower incomes would pay the same percentage as the higherincomes, but due to the ammounts of money, the lower income brackets would pay less money then the higher income brackets. This to me would be a lot more fair then the current tax system that makes it bad to be rich and rewards those who don't work as hard (in general). A flat rate tax system would be benifical to the economy since the higher income would have more to spend, thus boosting commerce. It would also restrict the size of governemt since it woudl lower the amount of money avalible to them, forcing effeciency and downsizing.

I know some of you may not agree, but falt rate tax is benifical and should be instituted, soon.

-DSO


Getting rid of the income tax entirely would be the best thing the government could do for its people. Taxing on what people buy makes more sense, if you make millions but you aren't living it up like a king yo won't get taxed, but however you won't live it up like a king. A flat sales tax also fairly taxes all people based on the goods they purchase, poor and rich alike.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Flat rate taxation sounds nice, simple and good for all.

But.

Is it really fair?

No!

Let's say that we set a flat tax rate of 10% of income, no exemptions, no deductions, No Loopholes!

Now let's say that I make $300,000 a year, and you make $30,000 per year. I'd have to pay $30,000 dollars in tax; you'd pay only $3,000.

You're smiling, I can tell!

OK, now lets say we both have to pay our own health care insurance out of pocket: you, because you don't belong to a union that provides for an HMO, me because I own the company that you work for (Guess who won't let the union organize MY workers?)

Let's say we both pay the same amount per month in HMO premiums: $300. That works out to $3600 per year for health insurance.

But that leaves you, and your family just $23,400 to live on. I've still got $266,400!

And consider, we both still pay the same for gas, food, and all the other needs and wants in life. Rich or poor, milk is still a buck fifty a gallon at the grocery store.


You can't make everyone entirely equal now can you? Your example is fitting, however you use a very wide income gap, 300,000 compared with 30,000. Also if there is no incentive to get wealthy for the work you do, then like in the USSR under communism, good quality drops and economies fall.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
This post is uber disgusting! Do you realize that a graduated income tax punishes hard work & rewards laziness!!!
It takes uber sacrifice to achieve wealth in this day & age!
I work a 14 hour to 16 hour day everyday 360 days a year, why should I be penalized to take care of people who won't get off their ass?
Why should a individual who works only 8 hours a day pay the same as a guy who works 16 hours a day?
Communism is pure evil!!!!!
Wake up!!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
There are some good aspects to a flat rate tax, but there must still be some allowance(s) for deductions and so on. More fair would be a relatively low flat rate tax coupled with a national sales tax. A national sales tax collects more money from those who spend the most and is thus a progressive tax, but it does not penalize poor people nearly so much as a pure flat rate would. Our present tax structure promotes large families and I think it should be changed to stop that because it would help in the population control area--and lord knows we need to do what we can to limit population growth.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Absolutely not.

A flat tax rate while it does seem good, is bad.

It's bad for the lower income earners.

Lower income earners need thier cash so survive. with a flat tax rate thye have to pay more tax.

'd rather high income earners pay a bit more tax than the low income earners anyday of the week. Why? becuase they can spare it where as the low income earner CAN NOT!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
"it bad to be rich and rewards those who don't work as hard (in general)"

==================================

I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word work now, huh???

to me, work it the effort that is exerted to move something from point a to point b. under this defination, the gardener's helper that is pushing the wheelbarrel full of dirt all day is definately working much harder than the paper pushing ceo....but more than likely is bearly able to make it through the week on his paycheck...

but, by all means, take more money out of his check, make it harder for him to make it through the week, and well, sooner or later, the ceo can push his own wheel barrel full of dirt himself because the gardener's helper didn't make it halfway through the week!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I think the best scenario would be a flat rate tax that gradually increases until you reach those whose income exceeds the national average. I suppose you could fiddle with the cut-off income amount, but this would still be more fair than the current system we have. There's no need to punish those who make good investments and honestly are the ones that help create jobs for the less fortunate. Will the rich get richer? Most likely but how does this affect my income? My personal income is limited mainly by my personal interest in obtaining money. Of course lady-luck has some say-so in how much money you make, but as a whole it's up to you if you're sucessful.

News Flash for those that want the rich to pay more while the poor get a free-ride. You're favoring socalism which we know from history, is a failed experiment. Just look at the Soviet Union or check out how well things are going in France right now if you don't believe me.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
They should really explain this better when you get ready to graduate from college. It would have been nice to know that all your hard work in life up to this point will be penalized and a larger portion of your earnings will be taken away to give to the people who made the wrong decisions in life. "Oh yes, Ms. X, you will be able to enjoy your 19th birthday with your 4 children and 4 'babies-daddies'. Don't worry, they sacrificed and worked hard to get where they are today so that you can live comfortably where you are today." Ahh, such a sweet, sweet system isn't it?

Now before you hit the "reply" button, think long and hard about this concept. While the above example may have been a tad over-the-top, it nonetheless applies. You could absolutely decide to drop out of middle school, have 5 children with 5 different fathers, never work, not go back to school, make no attempt to better the life of yourself or your children, and yet the check will arrive on the first of the month and the Red Lobsters will be full to capacity.

So work hard, young girls and boys! One day you too can fund the life of the people who gave up on life long, long ago.

THE END



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
They should really explain this better when you get ready to graduate from college. It would have been nice to know that all your hard work in life up to this point will be penalized and a larger portion of your earnings will be taken away to give to the people who made the wrong decisions in life.


If you had had that education, then you would be aware that welfare payments constitute only the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the outlays your taxes go for. The largest portions go to the military and to entitlement programs such as Social Security. Compared to that, welfare is so insignificant it might as well not exist.

If you did know that, you would also know how silly the above-quoted passage is.

Government has certain expenses that must be met. These expenses require taxes to pay for them. A graduated tax is a way to put the chief burden on those best able to bear it, who also happen to be the ones with the most to gain from a stable and prosperous society as ensured by good government.

If we did institute a flat tax, thereby shifting the burden downward, you can be sure that it would not fall on welfare recipients. It would, rather, fall on those who DO work very hard, but whom the system we have, with its mandated ratio of winners to those just-making-it, rewards less lavishly.

Perhaps you call that fair. I do not.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Interesting...no where in my above post did I promote the idea of a Flat Rate Tax. Actually, I did not even mention the word 'tax'. It's good to see your speculation about my educational qualifications, but let me assure you that if you...had had read between the lines (i.e. deeper meaning than is portrayed), you would see that my rant was on the absurdity of this one aspect of the overall system in which monies are taken away from the hardworking and given to the--not so hardworking.

p.s. glad to see your usage of the word 'silly'; it's been a while.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
welfare payments constitute only the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the outlays your taxes go for.

A small infraction on my earnings is still an infraction on my earnings. I suppose you never accept coins as change after a purchase, since this would only be a a tiny fraction of your total spending? You just leave that 58 cents on the check-out stand for the next guy that needs it more right?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
touche my dancing friend...touche.


It's all fun and games until you personalize it.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I never understood why there is a lower limit to taxation where no taxes are collected, yet no correlating increase at an upper level.

If you can establish a 'poverty level', why can't you set a 'rich level' and tax accordingly?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Interesting...no where in my above post did I promote the idea of a Flat Rate Tax.


Well, that is the subject of this thread, is it not? I can't see how the example of welfare payments can, with any logic at all, be used to argue AGAINST a flat tax. And if you are not using it, therefore, to support the idea of a flat tax -- what in the world is your post doing in this thread? Maybe you meant to post it elsewhere?



my rant was on the absurdity of this one aspect of the overall system in which monies are taken away from the hardworking and given to the--not so hardworking.


If that was your only intention, and there was no connection with the thread topic, then indeed perhaps it would have been better to post your message somewhere else.



p.s. glad to see your usage of the word 'silly'; it's been a while.


My pleasure.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
welfare payments constitute only the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the outlays your taxes go for.

A small infraction on my earnings is still an infraction on my earnings. I suppose you never accept coins as change after a purchase, since this would only be a a tiny fraction of your total spending? You just leave that 58 cents on the check-out stand for the next guy that needs it more right?


Well, let me put it this way.

If I forgot to pick up 58 cents at the check out stand, and realized this a bit later, I might be mildly upset with myself.

But if I lost a money clip with $500 in the street, I believe I would find myself severaly disgruntled indeed.

It's all a matter of perspective. If you want to get upset about how your taxes are being spent, why focus on the small change? Even if I concede, for the sake of argument, that welfare payments constitute government misspending, it is so trivial compared to the other, far more serious misspending that, were it secretly abolished and taxes lowered accordingly, most likely you would not even notice the difference.

Until you noticed the increase in the homeless population and the crime rate, that is.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join