The only tax solution for the U.S.

I am completely against this. equal taxes doesnt work at all. Someone who makes nearly a million dollarsa yearwill be able to afford even more things than someone who doesnt even make 20 thousand dollars a year. My mom for instance, (she is 60) works at Target, she is susposed to work 40 hours a week. but really she only works about 20-16 hours a week because Target has a stick up their you know what. She has been working with them for 7 years. She earns about $12 a hour. For the past 2 years. Target has been messing around with her hours, which has resulted in mom discovering that she is making less money now then she was making 25-30 years ago when she worked at Wards for like only $6 an hour. Some might know that Wards went out of business years and years ago. My mom would not be able to afford these flat taxes.

What would these flat taxes be? $50 dollars to 100? 100 to 200? I dont think so. The sad thing is with how things are going, my mom wouldnt even be able to pay the tax even if it was at the low end. Since we have all of our other taxes too. We arent even making enough money to buy food, so we go to our grandparents who live off of their Socialsecurity. It just happens to be enough to put food on the table.

The reason why the rich pay more taxes is because the government requires, or atleast should require, a certain percentage of their earnings. With percentage taxes rather than flat, the middle and low income people can also hopefully afford to live.

In concluson, this will not work, if it could or would work, the government would have thought of it already.

If we have a flat tax then it should be a sales tax with exemptions on food, shelter and healthcare.

I honestly believe that is we made pot legal and then made a hefty tax on it, we would solve a lot of our tax problems in the following manner,

Less court cases , less tax dollars to penalize them and imprison the dealers,

Less tax dollars for police force,

And finally, more money for tax on pot, the government would make out very well.

I do not smoke pot, but have my opinions on minimizing debt and tax

I honestly believe that is we made pot legal and then made a hefty tax on it, we would solve a lot of our tax problems in the following manner,

Less court cases , less tax dollars to penalize them and imprison the dealers,

Less tax dollars for police force,

And finally, more money for tax on pot, the government would make out very well.

I do not smoke pot, but have my opinions on minimizing debt and tax

daleerin24

Trust me, it won't make up the trillions we need.

[QUOTE="daleerin24"]

I honestly believe that is we made pot legal and then made a hefty tax on it, we would solve a lot of our tax problems in the following manner,

Less court cases , less tax dollars to penalize them and imprison the dealers,

Less tax dollars for police force,

And finally, more money for tax on pot, the government would make out very well.

I do not smoke pot, but have my opinions on minimizing debt and tax

Wasdie

Trust me, it won't make up the trillions we need.

It is a start, and I did not want to bring up ending the war,

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="daleerin24"]

I honestly believe that is we made pot legal and then made a hefty tax on it, we would solve a lot of our tax problems in the following manner,

Less court cases , less tax dollars to penalize them and imprison the dealers,

Less tax dollars for police force,

And finally, more money for tax on pot, the government would make out very well.

I do not smoke pot, but have my opinions on minimizing debt and tax

daleerin24

Trust me, it won't make up the trillions we need.

It is a start, and I did not want to bring up ending the war,

i was a fan of flat since the mid 90s.especially since i had just become old enough to vote in the early 90s.

as far as i remember the plan being talked about during that time was from the forbes magazine person and it was supposed to be about 17%.

if the plan is actually fairer, i suppose that is subjective.because people who made under 50k or so would pay no fed tax at all.it might have actually been 43k to 48,i can't remember exactly.but it would have also simplified the tax code,that seems to be a big issue.

Think of other countries, look up how much they make a year in total revenue, look at a country where it is legal, and then take that and apply a 40% sales tax, and multiply it by the difference of population, we are talking hundreds of billions a year.

Having more money =/= working harder in life.

[QUOTE="daleerin24"]

I honestly believe that is we made pot legal and then made a hefty tax on it, we would solve a lot of our tax problems in the following manner,

Less court cases , less tax dollars to penalize them and imprison the dealers,

Less tax dollars for police force,

And finally, more money for tax on pot, the government would make out very well.

I do not smoke pot, but have my opinions on minimizing debt and tax

Trust me, it won't make up the trillions we need.

[QUOTE="daleerin24"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Trust me, it won't make up the trillions we need.

LJS9502_basic

It is a start, and I did not want to bring up ending the war,

There is no one simple solution to the problem, but rather many things that, were we willing to implement them, could solve the problem. Why reject one out of hand simply because it alone would not fix the problem?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] well if we let out all of the drug related people in prison we would have plenty of room for any sort of real criminal, so it would just net out to -welfare

people make their way in society, society does not provied a way for people, but i do agree that 100% of people cant be employed becase some % of the population must be employers

surrealnumber5

Jobs are not there/they are unable to work (yes, some people CANNOT work due to conditions) so they will rob people/steal in desperation.

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] how dare i want to go back to what made this country great? give me your weak your tired your poorsurrealnumber5

So you want people to work for slave wages? The guilded age sure was great, wasn't it.

How anybody even defends tax cuts on the rich is mind blowing. Obama has lied on almost everything he promised and has literally screwed the country for probably another 6 years. How he can sit back and cave into the republicans when the majority of Americans have his back is just........insane.

How anybody even defends tax cuts on the rich is mind blowing. Obama has lied on almost everything he promised and has literally screwed the country for probably another 6 years. How he can sit back and cave into the republicans when the majority of Americans have his back is just........insane.

XileLord

He's got a good track record about keeping promises. Not to mention that without the stimulus we'd be deeper in a recession.

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

mr_poodles123

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

mr_poodles123

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

Vennligsinnet

flat tax will not tax lower income. for instance,with forbes plan,the first 46k is not taxed.armey's plan was similar,you get so many thousand in deduction depending on how many kids you have and if you are married.as far as i remember someone single with no kids would not be taxed on his or her first 15-20k.xromad01

That is not a flat tax; that's just a progressive tax with fewer brackets.

[QUOTE="xromad01"]flat tax will not tax lower income. for instance,with forbes plan,the first 46k is not taxed.armey's plan was similar,you get so many thousand in deduction depending on how many kids you have and if you are married.as far as i remember someone single with no kids would not be taxed on his or her first 15-20k.GabuEx

That is not a flat tax; that's just a progressive tax with fewer brackets.

In my ideal America, there is no income tax, no IRS, nothing. Cut spending to 1900 levels, roll back foreign empire, cut 95% of federal jobs in the main departments, cut military budget, stop foreign aid, end the CIA, etc. Too bad nobody will ever do that so we are doomed to follow the great nations that followed us in history straight into bankruptcy and failure. It is really quite incredible how many times the cycle has repeated, but every time people think they will be different. How very pathetic.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="xromad01"]flat tax will not tax lower income. for instance,with forbes plan,the first 46k is not taxed.armey's plan was similar,you get so many thousand in deduction depending on how many kids you have and if you are married.as far as i remember someone single with no kids would not be taxed on his or her first 15-20k.xromad01

That is not a flat tax; that's just a progressive tax with fewer brackets.

A flat tax would lead to record unemployment, poverty and people lacking the basic necessities. All while making the wealthier even wealthier. 1% of the people in this country have 90% of the wealth, how much richer do u want them to be?

Now if people in lower and middle classes have their taxes increased most would not have extra money to spend on luxuries like TVs, or a more expensive car, a computer, ect. as a result those companies lose money, and have to lay off employees who in turn do not have money to spend on said luxuries, it creates a vicious cycle which would creat a recession. Similarly, while the middle class is losing out on luxuries, the poor would have to cut back on basic necessities like food and water and electricity, now similarly because less money is being spent on necessities businesses lose money, lay off workers, and another vicious cycle of economic loss is created.

Now is the loss of jobs, a dramatic loss of quality of life and economic downturn really worth what u see as fair?

the majority of people in wealth are born into it and did not work for it, and making their already easy lives earlier really worth the problems it creates for everybody else?

In my ideal America, there is no income tax, no IRS, nothing. Cut spending to 1900 levels, roll back foreign empire, cut 95% of federal jobs in the main departments, cut military budget, stop foreign aid, end the CIA, etc. Too bad nobody will ever do that so we are doomed to follow the great nations that followed us in history straight into bankruptcy and failure. It is really quite incredible how many times the cycle has repeated, but every time people think they will be different. How very pathetic.

bachilders

lets just hope TC never runs for office

:?

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

mr_poodles123

Okay TC, a HUGE chunk of the lower class are either on welfare or unproductive. The fact that there is a vastly higher occurance of single motherhood and corresponding decrease of marriage among urban blacks compared to whites should make the second plainly obvious (women almost always marry men more financially well-off than themselves). The lower class (well the males at least) isn't simply lazy, its horrifingly ****ed up from, socially and economically speaking. And though cutting welfare sounds like a good proposition, doing so will invariably collapse the urban communities and essentially makes those areas inhospitable and spreads the criminals and thugs into the middle-class communities without any sort of stable foundation being established beforehand.

In my ideal America, there is no income tax, no IRS, nothing. Cut spending to 1900 levels, roll back foreign empire, cut 95% of federal jobs in the main departments, cut military budget, stop foreign aid, end the CIA, etc. Too bad nobody will ever do that so we are doomed to follow the great nations that followed us in history straight into bankruptcy and failure. It is really quite incredible how many times the cycle has repeated, but every time people think they will be different. How very pathetic.

bachilders

"Rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it."

A flat tax would lead to record unemployment, poverty and people lacking the basic necessities. All while making the wealthier even wealthier. 1% of the people in this country have 90% of the wealth, how much richer do u want them to be?

LostProphetFLCL

But...but they deserve it because they worked so hard!

Do you have any idea how long in school, how mich effort studying, and how many chances Paris Hilton took to become the obscenely rich person she is?!

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

A flat tax would lead to record unemployment, poverty and people lacking the basic necessities. All while making the wealthier even wealthier. 1% of the people in this country have 90% of the wealth, how much richer do u want them to be?

Pixel-Pirate

But...but they deserve it because they worked so hard!

Do you have any idea how long in school, how mich effort studying, and how many chances Paris Hilton took to become the obscenely rich person she is?!

Oh please, all that ***** had to do (thanks to her I presume naturally endowed good looks) was flash her boobs in a sex tape and look hot in the resulting surge of media attention in order to make her money. None of the financially well off men (and lets face it, the first thing we think off when we think of rich people is old/middle aged men) were afforded the room to have earned a fortune with that little effort.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

A flat tax would lead to record unemployment, poverty and people lacking the basic necessities. All while making the wealthier even wealthier. 1% of the people in this country have 90% of the wealth, how much richer do u want them to be?

rolfboy

But...but they deserve it because they worked so hard!

Do you have any idea how long in school, how mich effort studying, and how many chances Paris Hilton took to become the obscenely rich person she is?!

Oh please, all that ***** had to do (thanks to her I presume naturally endowed good looks) was flash her boobs in a sex tape and look hot in order to make her money.None of the financially well off men (and lets face it, the first thing we think off when we think of rich people is old/middle aged men)wereafforded the room tohave earned a fortune with that little effort.

And that is my entire point. Assuming anyone rich "earned it all through hard work" is hopelessly naive. Paris Hilton, Nicole richie, etc. A child born in a wealthy family didn't earn squat but they are rich by association.

Did some people earn it through hard work? Sure. All? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

But...but they deserve it because they worked so hard!

Do you have any idea how long in school, how mich effort studying, and how many chances Paris Hilton took to become the obscenely rich person she is?!

Pixel-Pirate

Oh please, all that ***** had to do (thanks to her I presume naturally endowed good looks) was flash her boobs in a sex tape and look hot in order to make her money.None of the financially well off men (and lets face it, the first thing we think off when we think of rich people is old/middle aged men)wereafforded the room tohave earned a fortune with that little effort.

And that is my entire point. Assuming anyone rich "earned it all through hard work" is hopelessly naive. Paris Hilton, Nicole richie, etc. A child born in a wealthy family didn't earn squat but they are rich by association.

Did some people earn it through hard work? Sure. All? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't exactly assume the opposite either, that a good chunk of rich people were essentially given their fortune. Is it exactly fair to rationalize that ALL rich people should be held to a higher tax bracket simply because a FEW of them got their money through easy labor.

Then again, I'd rather cut our rediculous government spending before any discussion on raising taxes.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

Oh please, all that ***** had to do (thanks to her I presume naturally endowed good looks) was flash her boobs in a sex tape and look hot in order to make her money.None of the financially well off men (and lets face it, the first thing we think off when we think of rich people is old/middle aged men)wereafforded the room tohave earned a fortune with that little effort.

rolfboy

And that is my entire point. Assuming anyone rich "earned it all through hard work" is hopelessly naive. Paris Hilton, Nicole richie, etc. A child born in a wealthy family didn't earn squat but they are rich by association.

Did some people earn it through hard work? Sure. All? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't exactly assume the opposite either, that a good chunk of rich people were essentially given their fortune. Is it exactly fair to rationalize that ALL rich people should be held to a higher tax bracket simply because a FEW of them got their money through easy labor.

Then again, I'd rather cut our rediculous government spending before any discussion on raising taxes.

Is it fair? I don't really know, but I wasn't arguing it in the first place.

The OP essentially said it was wrong to tax them higher because they always earned it. That makes no sense and is undeniably false.

Why do I believe the rich should have higher taxes? The same reason I believe that if I had a heavy crate I needed carried and I had two men, one a paraplegic and the other Hulk Hogan, I'd believe Hulk Hogan was more suitable to carry more of the load.

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

mr_poodles123

How would it affect tax revenue and services? How would it affect local gov'ts? Do you have any estimates?

In my ideal America, there is no income tax, no IRS, nothing. Cut spending to 1900 levels, roll back foreign empire, cut 95% of federal jobs in the main departments, cut military budget, stop foreign aid, end the CIA, etc. Too bad nobody will ever do that so we are doomed to follow the great nations that followed us in history straight into bankruptcy and failure. It is really quite incredible how many times the cycle has repeated, but every time people think they will be different. How very pathetic.

bachilders

In my ideal America, there is no income tax, no IRS, nothing. Cut spending to 1900 levels, roll back foreign empire, cut 95% of federal jobs in the main departments, cut military budget, stop foreign aid, end the CIA, etc. Too bad nobody will ever do that so we are doomed to follow the great nations that followed us in history straight into bankruptcy and failure. It is really quite incredible how many times the cycle has repeated, but every time people think they will be different. How very pathetic.

bachilders

Yay for regression.

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

And that is my entire point. Assuming anyone rich "earned it all through hard work" is hopelessly naive. Paris Hilton, Nicole richie, etc. A child born in a wealthy family didn't earn squat but they are rich by association.

Did some people earn it through hard work? Sure. All? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Pixel-Pirate

You can't exactly assume the opposite either, that a good chunk of rich people were essentially given their fortune. Is it exactly fair to rationalize that ALL rich people should be held to a higher tax bracket simply because a FEW of them got their money through easy labor.

Then again, I'd rather cut our rediculous government spending before any discussion on raising taxes.

Is it fair? I don't really know, but I wasn't arguing it in the first place.

The OP essentially said it was wrong to tax them higher because they always earned it. That makes no sense and is undeniably false.

Why do I believe the rich should have higher taxes? The same reason I believe that if I had a heavy crate I needed carried and I had two men, one a paraplegic and the other Hulk Hogan, I'd believe Hulk Hogan was more suitable to carry more of the load.

But that's not fair. Why should the Hulkster be expected to lift something heavy just because he's the stronger one?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

You can't exactly assume the opposite either, that a good chunk of rich people were essentially given their fortune. Is it exactly fair to rationalize that ALL rich people should be held to a higher tax bracket simply because a FEW of them got their money through easy labor.

Then again, I'd rather cut our rediculous government spending before any discussion on raising taxes.

worlock77

Is it fair? I don't really know, but I wasn't arguing it in the first place.

The OP essentially said it was wrong to tax them higher because they always earned it. That makes no sense and is undeniably false.

Why do I believe the rich should have higher taxes? The same reason I believe that if I had a heavy crate I needed carried and I had two men, one a paraplegic and the other Hulk Hogan, I'd believe Hulk Hogan was more suitable to carry more of the load.

But that's not fair. Why should the Hulkster be expected to lift something heavy just because he's the stronger one?

No one said it was fair. However the more able bodied are generally expected to do more heavy lifting.

If you owned a buisness and had the choice between a mildly retarded man to handle heavy lifting or a body builder, which do you choose? It would be unfair to make the body builder do all the lifting, yet most companies would choose that. Why? Because he can handle it without harming himself. There is less....risk, for lack of a better word, for him to do it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Is it fair? I don't really know, but I wasn't arguing it in the first place.

The OP essentially said it was wrong to tax them higher because they always earned it. That makes no sense and is undeniably false.

Why do I believe the rich should have higher taxes? The same reason I believe that if I had a heavy crate I needed carried and I had two men, one a paraplegic and the other Hulk Hogan, I'd believe Hulk Hogan was more suitable to carry more of the load.

Pixel-Pirate

But that's not fair. Why should the Hulkster be expected to lift something heavy just because he's the stronger one?

No one said it was fair. However the more able bodied are generally expected to do more heavy lifting.

If you owned a buisness and had the choice between a mildly retarded man to handle heavy lifting or a body builder, which do you choose? It would be unfair to make the body builder do all the lifting, yet most companies would choose that. Why? Because he can handle it without harming himself. There is less....risk, for lack of a better word, for him to do it.

Sarcasm dude.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="EmpCom"] Yes how dare you , who's jobs do you think they will take and enough us companies send jobs overseas because of the cheap labour. Quick lesson here oversupply of labour and employers will shoot for the lowest wages that they can pay. Former_Slacker

So you want people to work for slave wages? The guilded age sure was great, wasn't it.

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?mr_poodles123

the rich in america control almost all the wealth in america. Its not about how hard you work. Many people making 8$ an hour work very hard .

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

But that's not fair. Why should the Hulkster be expected to lift something heavy just because he's the stronger one?

worlock77

No one said it was fair. However the more able bodied are generally expected to do more heavy lifting.

If you owned a buisness and had the choice between a mildly retarded man to handle heavy lifting or a body builder, which do you choose? It would be unfair to make the body builder do all the lifting, yet most companies would choose that. Why? Because he can handle it without harming himself. There is less....risk, for lack of a better word, for him to do it.

Sarcasm dude.

Don't you know that the :P smiley is the offical sarcasm tag?!

I like it but I have a better idea, how about a 10% consumption tax (similar to a sales tax but SLIGHTLY different) except on neccessary items (like food etc.. which would take the burden off of farmers and ranchers as well). Then we abolish the Federal Income tax and the property tax as well (which is unconstitutional in the 1st place)

Flat tax. If you make more money, and invariably put more effort in and try harder at life, why should you be punished for doing so?

mr_poodles123