yet again the flakes, bumms, looser and lazy ones are beeing rewarded !

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p><em>"Once paid off, the rate could drop to the 2% range."</em></p>

<p>And that's when it will be raised to 4%. Those who's political livelyhood depends on spending other people's money never fail to do just that. </p>
 
<p>Well, Nude, that's possible, but recall, no pun intended, what happened to Davis when he let the California Vehicle Tax return to it's 3% level... It's what I like about property tax. You can't hide it and people really hate it.</p>
 
Tax is a complicated issue. There are many players involve with many different agendas. The most basic Pub. 17 and most don't even bother reading through it. Good luck on making taxation simple.
 
I'm taking my household $1200 to Vegas and play the 3/5 no limit game at the Wynn. It's either that or strippers and blow, and Mrs. _vaseline doesn't like to share for some reason.
 
A flat tax is unfair because "A flat tax makes the poor poorer and the rich richer."?





So if 10% of Bob's income is $100 and 10% of Carl's income is $1000, and both pay their flat 10% income tax, then Bob is short 10% of his income and Carl is short 10% of his income. Didn't they both lose 10% of their income?
 
In absolute numbers they are being taxed at the same rate. However, Bob has no money left after covering his basic necessities (as in shelter, food, utilities) and taxes. Carl on the other hand is living it up and has $500 left after covering basic necessities. How is that possibly fair in your world view?
 
<p>It's fair because Bob made his choice.</p>

<p>Bob has many options. Fair is not everybody being restricted to the same level, fair is everybody having the same access.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Bob made his choice to be born into a lower class family. Bob made his choice of having no parental involvement when he was a kid. Bob made his choice of growing up in a crime ridden area. Bob made his choice of not being able to attend SAT prep courses. Bob made his choice of having to work as a teenager to sustain his family. Bob made his choice of not having positive role models around him.





Oh wait! You probably think life is a Will Smith movie and the only reason people fail is because they are lazy - my bad ...
 
<p>Sounds like Bob's Parent's choice. The government isn't Bob's parents. I am not Bob's parents. I am the government. If one produces greater value, one should get greater benefit. IF one doesn't, they won't produce over the minimum. That has been demostrated over and over and over. From each according to their means is a failed concept.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
Under my flat tax scheme, everyone would pay the same % flat Federal income tax with no deductions or write-off's. Then all legal US citizens age 18+ will be given $500/month, regardless of income. So if Jane makes $1 million/year and Bob makes $30,000/year, both will pay the same % in Federal income tax, then receive $500/month from the government.





Bob can be unemployed and still receive $500/month, should he decide to live out of a van and eat $1 burgers, & complain to others that he's a victim of circumstance. Note that the $500 benefit only applies to legal US citizens, not illegals, p. residents, or green card holders.





Each state will retain its power to levy state income tax and use whatever deductions scheme they wish, with the sole exception that the $500/month payment from Feds will not be taxable, nor will it be used to penalize any retirement benefits (SS?).





I'd also consider rolling back community college fees to $5 per unit, and make registering for selective service at age 18 (for both men and women) as a requirement to receive government benefits.
 
I am not say that Bob is lazy but Bob gets to make his own decisions and he has opportunities, maybe not like others, to better himself and to create an opportunity for his children to do better than him. It's not a question of choices it a question of determination and self motivation.



A fairtax is a much better way to solve this problem.
 
<p>I disagree. . .most of those who make 1 million+ benefit from having a well-fed, stable, healthy, and prosperous society in which they could make the amount of money they did. They have benefited more than most of the other people in society and have a greater responsibility to ensure that such a society remains prosperous. Otherwise, you will have a society in which money becomes more and more concentrate among a few. (see late 19th century Europe and US, Mexico, and most third world countries.) </p>

<p>A equal-rate tax does not work because 10 percent to Warren Buffet has a completely different effect than on someone making $30,000. </p>
 
"If one produces greater value, one should get greater benefit. IF one doesn't, they won't produce over the minimum. That has been demostrated over and over and over."



How does this work with people inheriting large sums of money? Usually people that argue as you do above also want to reduce or remove taxes on inheritance. If you want to reward those who produce, a meritocracy, you have to tax that inheritance so rich kids doing nothing don't get the biggest rewards. Not taxing it produces an aristocracy.





"From each according to their means is a failed concept."



How so? How have the progressive taxes in this country failed compared to the regressive ones?
 
"Fair" doesn't have an objective meaning. It means different things to different people. If you plot out different tax plans along with income, you will get some type of line, curve, or what have you. What makes one line more fair than another line?
 
<p>The end of the progressive tax system foreshadowed the collapse of the Greek and Roman civilization.</p>

<p>A flat tax is a regressive tax.</p>

<p>Some pepole who are at the top of the pile (like Buffett) realize that they are the biggest benificaries of the government. It provides them a structure where the peasants can't revolt and confiscate thier stuff. Others........don't care.</p>

<p>The guy at the bottom doesn't have much to lose (by comparison) if the government colapses.</p>
 
<em>"IF one doesn't, they won't produce over the minimum. That has been demostrated over and over and over."</em>





Can you name me one example where people won't produce over the minimum because they are getting taxed more when they earn more? Please enlighten me on how this has been shown over and over.
 
<p>Green,</p>

<p>One example is the dead beat that is on Social Security Disablity. He is a minimum wage or slightly higher earner. The governement subsidizes his housing, his food and cuts him a check every month.</p>

<p>If he went to work he would lose all of the benefits. When it all worked out at the end of the month he would actually make less working. So instead he sits at home all day playing X Box, football with his nephews and goes to the Mall 3 times a week. However his back is too bad to get a job.</p>

<p>This person lived next to me for over a year. In a family HUD apartment that they paid 1/3 of what I did.</p>

<p>Example two. When my wife goes to work we jump a tax bracket. At the end of the year it quite honestly isn't worth our time because of the jump in taxes owed. Instead we cut out some basic things so she can stay home.</p>

<p>However if we could keep more of her income she would work and we could spend or save more of OUR money. Instead she stays out of the work force.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>T.J.</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top