Printable View
One thing nobody is considering, though, is that governments, like investors, need a certain amount of diversification of revenue. It's not a good idea to get all our income from one source, because when that source suffers, your options are few.
As an example, if the federal government -- just as a for instance -- only taxed income, then when unemployment was high, federal revenues would be down -- just at a time when more revenue was needed to stimulate the economy.
Just a caution.
j
I absolutely must have an Armani suit. It's a necessity.
I believe that Hamilton mentioned it in one of the Federalist Papers, so it should be considered a right under framers' intent.
So under any calculation, Armani suits must be exempt. Otherwise, no deal.
j
:D Yes, I think we can all agree that an Armani suit is a necessity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
James.
guys, I hate to say it, but in some professions an Armani (or other brand) suit is a necessity. Imagine a lawyer walking into a courtroom in painted-on jeans, and t-shirt. No, a suit is a necessity.
However, the progressive flat tax takes into consideration the necessities of survival. living on $20k a year, you would only spend on the necessities of survival. after that your necessities are covered, and the rest can be subject to tax.
Matt
And how easily I can see that happening here :cry:. Perhaps when it comes to politicians and taxes, the devil you know is better than the one you don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
I don't know. Sounds like tax reform is needed everywhere. In Australia, the taxation system is kinda like the Microsoft coding ethos - don't fix the problem, just patch it. After a while it ends up heavy and unwieldy, no-one really knows all of it, there's more exemptions from rules than there are actual rules, and the whole thing is a mess. We need a Taxation XP, or maybe an open-source Lin-tax system. :hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!
James.
To right Jimbo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Then take away the loopholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottS
I read statistically that the wealthiest 10% pay on average between 5 and 15% of their income in taxes. I make a very good wage when work is available to me, and the government takes between 25% and 35% of every one of my pay checks.
I'm single with no kids... enough said.
The Church only asks for 10%, why should the government get more?
Frankly I would whole heartedly support a 15% or even 20% flat income tax across the board. No deductions, no loopholes, everybody pays the same percentage.
The problem here comes when you own a small business... How much of my profits are income? If I reinvest into my business, I'm still going to end up doing tons of tax paperwork to avoid Uncle Sam Taxing me out of business.
Right now, everything I'm making is going towards school, so will be tax deductable, I'm paying all shipping out of my regular paychecks as a way of saving more in my business account, and all of that will be a business loss, and when I stock up heavily on razors at the end of the year, I will have a huge net business loss.
I might actually have enough deductions this year to avoid getting raped by the IRS. :shrug:
I don't mind paying taxes, but people who use or abuse the system need to pay back into it. If you are collecting Welfare, you should be required to work to earn it.
Welfare should have an absolute limit to how long you can collect. Just like unemployment, you get it for so long, and you'd better be working on something else for income, because when it runs out, you're done. and NO, you don't get a bonus for getting pregnant.
If it was a flat tax taken out of your paycheck, we would all feel equally.
The only deductions are investments. If you invest in stocks, bonds, education, government approved charities, etc... the taxes you paid on that income is refunded.
When you get returns from your investments, you get taxed on the income then. No exceptions. The only way to avoid paying the same % of taxes as everybody else is to continually invest your money, and take no income from it.
If you put the money in your bank account, it get taxed. If you spend it, it gets taxed.
The invested money is helping the economy, it doesn't need to be taxed. It helps us all. When the investor takes it out, they pay taxes on it. Collected right then and there by the investment broker/bank. If they re-invest it they get a document from the new investor to take to the old, and the taxes that were taken out get electronically transferred to the new investment, or can be refunded as income, and appropriatly taxed.
This is equal and fair. Billionaires can remain rich, but they would start living off their savings, and putting their profits in investments that help our economy. The average Joe would get taxed a little less, and wouldn't have to deal with the IRS at all, no tax forms to file, you paid 15% yes, then you're good. Did you invest anything? no fine, yes, then the Bank sends the documents and Uncle Sam sends you a check.
Small business owners would still do profit loss statements, and if they had a loss they wouldn't pay taxes, if they profit, then they pay on their profits. The same as everyone else.
Also IMHO preventative medicine should be the only medical bills that are deductable. Medical insurance is an investment, you pay your deductible for getting sick, it's not a deduction, you pay the same deductable to stay healthy, you get to write it off.
They were things I learned about while in the military some 20 years ago!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
I did a little searching before I had to leave this morning but couldn't find anything!
Now that I am home I will make a more thorough search!
Because the government has the guns and various pain inflicting means which the church doesn't anymore (or they say they don't) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
Closing loopholes is fine, but once you start what is an investment - education, healthcare, razor collection....
I also don't see a reason for charitable donations to be tax exempt, or education, insurance, health care etc. expenditures. If you'll be making flat tax make it truly flat (why not a flat sum too - everybody chips in 10000 a year and call it a day). I'm thinking that if you are going to let people have as much freedom and responsibility as you can give them, well then don't penalize them for picking a BMW over a year at Harvard.
I think we can all see how a general statement seems all neat and easy, but once you start looking at the details things are not all that clear cut.