Make everyone pay similar rates regardless of income. It's the only "fair" way to do it. Billionnaires shouldn't pay less than the poor, but the percentile range should be (nearly) equal for everyone. Essentially a progressive tax resembling a flat tax would be great and stop many people from bickering over this. Income tax in general has created more problems than it's solved and honestly needs some reform.

However then the government would be getting less money - which in the eyes of the rich politicians who live off this money (and the services it provides such as "free" healthcare) is a bad thing. If the government would stop spending so damn much all the time for no real reason, this wouldn't be a problem. Creating short-term programs that benefit people yet leaving them to run long past their usefulness is a drain on the economy and the funds of the government. Not to mention the absolutely inane conflicts in the Middle East...

Saturos3091

A flat tax like that sounds good on paper, but then you realize that the higher up you go in the financial food chain the more you benefit from gov't resources. They benefit more from good infrastructure, stable institutions, protection of physical and intellectual property, a military to back up your shipping, etc. The bottom line is the rich benefit more from a stable US that the lower cl@ss. They invest and live here because the system is stable. Capital if very mobile. If tax rates were such a problem, the "rich" would have moved their capital from the US a long time ago.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

[QUOTE="Syk0_k03r"] which is why we should not only cut defense. Cutting defense, medicaid, social security, amnesty, federal bailouts, and foreign aid would drastically decrease government spending allowing the budget to balance out within time. I admit I am a noob to economics, but this all has potentialSyk0_k03r

Even if you cut welfare and SS to zero, reduce the defense budget by 90% (not realistic), and cut from every other aspect of government you will still have a federal budget that's tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars.

It's just not realistic...the only way you could get rid of income tax is to replace it with something else...like a consumption tax or heavy federal taxes on property sales, ect.

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"]

Supposedly this is the wealth distribution in the US

A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it's more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.

kuraimen

Does that mean the majority of americans are closet communists? :P

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

[QUOTE="Syk0_k03r"] Because of the useless wars we are involved in. Ending all US foreign intervention would cut alot from the defense budget, but will still efficiently defend this country.Syk0_k03r

No, not because of all the wars. Our defense budget is like 20%-25% without all the spending on wars. There's a million and a half US military personnel that have to get paid whether they are in the states or in another country fighting. Aside from that, there's equipment, facilities (hospitals, ect), housing, defense research, intelligence, and other costs like pensions and other reoccurring costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Budget

Your idea is simply not based on reality.

You listen to alot of talk radio don't you? Yeah you do:). Yeah you do:P. I recognize the talking points. Who's your favorite. Personally, I'm a bit partial to Neal Boortz here in ATL.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

tax whomever you want at what ever rate you want you wont get over 18% of GDP and there is no way to make up the short falls when you are spending 28% of GDP outside of debt. all the class warfare in the world wont change the historical ceiling for governmental revenues.

-Sun_Tzu-

Seriously though, why 18%?

Supposedly this is the wealth distribution in the US

A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it's more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.

We already had this topic earlier today.

Go to IHOP if you can. I didn't really like pancakes until I tried theirs. If you make them from scratch it's a little tricky especially if you never had them before.

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Back in the day Wikileaks and Bradley Manning were condemned for being a rogue, traitorous and dangerous news outlet and soldier. This was done mainly by the US but also by many other governments while the US and western governments congratulated chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo for being a good rogue, traitorous and dangerous person for the chinese government.

Some time later the western governments were thrillled with the "social media revolutions" going in arab countries. For them social media was giving people the chance to come together and rise against their opressive governments and take matters into their own hands. They highly condemned the blocking of the internet or social networks done by these governments. Now fastforward to England today with all those riots that undoubtely demonstrate many people are not very happy with their government and these are the measures taken by the English government:

1. Police will be given discretion to remove face masks from people on the street.

2. The government would work with the police to stop people communicating via social websites.

3. The army could be used for guarding duties.

4. Last but not least: Curfew!

So yeah of course, as always, what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander.

I still find it ridiculous that the english government is trying to make us think these people are all just thugs and thieves while ignoring the real issues underneath the discontent.

II_Seraphim_II