Muledancer
 |
Not a flat rate tax. My plan is to eliminate ALL taxes currently in force; All federal, state, and local taxes and levys will be eliminated and laws passed to prohibit their reinstatement.
To replace these cash sources, I propose a 30% retail sales tax with NO exceptions. No intermediate VAT, no skimming by the local governmental bodies, just a 30% sales tax at the consumer level. This will force 99.9% of those people in the country to pay tax on what they _use_, it will stimulate the economy, generate more governmental revenue than the current multi-thousand page tax code, and the very few people who will circumvent the new tax will not be in sufficient numbers to worry even the most progressive of liberals.
It's fair. It's balanced, therefore it will not even be considered by our power-hungry politicos. |
|
murrayc
 |
no because low income ppl will suffer more than ppl that make a lot of money. yes they will pay more as they can afford to take a hit but a low income person cannot afford a flat tax |
|
Stewie Griffin
|
No, because nearly oeveryone except the richest would be paying more in taxes, assuming you are thinking this would be a revenue neutral change.
As the rich make marginally more, they generally have a marginally increase in ways they benefit from government services (ie, roads and infrastructure, patent and copyright laws, education at state supported universities for jobs requiring college degrees, licenses such as being a doctor ect).
Hey, I can't start up my own pharmacy and be a pharmacist without a license, I can't copy DVD's and legally sell them either. Eliminate the laws that prevent me from doing those things, then get back to me arguing for a flat rate tax.
These rich people moaning about high taxes are truly scum. The richest are ripping off with paying far too few taxes from the rest of us from having better government goods and services with their propaganda. They have no appreciation for all of the government goods and services that have paved the way for them to get rich. |
|
DaniGirl
|
Definitely not! People make different amounts of money, have different expenses, debts, children, etc. I do not think rich people should get to pay the same as the poor. The middle class are the ones that get shafted the most. But, the only candidate for president that was going to represent the Middle class dropped out. The stimulus package is a joke, and it takes more money to send out checks to everyone. They should have thought of this sooner, and changed the deductions for 2007. |
|
shrdlu
|
The best form of taxation would be a federal sales tax.
That way you would pay tax on what you spend. Then all those that work "under the table", drug dealers, some self-employed, etc. would pay taxes. |
|
Cupid
 |
Definitely not, because then low income tax payers would suffer and taxes wouldn't effect the rich.. the richer would get richer and the poorer would get poorer.. and since we already are experiencing this in the first place, why make it worse for the poor? The poor rely on the extra deductions and lower taxes based on their income, they also rely on the EIC which would need to be taken away if a flat rate was incorporated. Best Wishes. |
|
peytonbarclay
|
Perhaps it would be fairer. However, I would think that every taxpaying household would get a deduction equal to the poverty level income of their household size. Capital gains and the like would also have to be taxed at the same flat tax rate.
At the same time, I would think we might need some sort of consumption tax, kind of like a national sales tax. If you are rich enough to afford a car, then you also require the government to pay for infrastructure like roads, bridges, police to patrol the highways, etc. Not only that, but your demands for gasoline drive up the cost of things like heating fuel. In general, your consumption of resources drives up the cost of those resources as well, making them less affordable for people at the lower end of the economic scale. It probably costs the fire department more resources (water, time, personnel) to fight a fire at a 5000 sq. ft mansion than it does a 1200 sq. ft. single family home. And as others have said, taxing purchases raises tax revenue from those who are hiding their income from taxation (those who work under the table, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc.) |
|
Darth Scorn
|
It is more fair by definition. People shouldn't be penalized (our current system) merely because they, or their ancestors worked a bit harder, or a bit smarter. |
|
remowlms
|
It would be a much better system all around and it would cost much less to administer - therefore, it would never get passed the lobbyists and their puppets (congress). |
|
politicallyincorrect
|
Absolutely, as long as there are no loop-holes or deductions for anyone. However, I don't think people at poverty level incomes or full time college students with a part-time income should be taxed at all. They would be the only exceptions. What sense does it make to take tax from someone at poverty level and then pay for a government program to give it back to them? In my opinion, taxing someone in college full time making a $3,000 or $4,000 dollar a year income on a part time job is obscene. In addition, the IRS costs 10 billion dollars a year to operate so we would add an extra 10 billion or so to the pot by doing away with them. |
|
Dart Swinger
 |
Yes, as long as it's fair to everyone. |
|
| |
|
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
