Thunderhawk88
Moderator
What was this thread about? I forgot.....
I told Edwards that this article would be seen...
- Thread starter badbob
- Start date
WeedWacker
New member
One last OT post:
A flat tax was a determination of a set percentage that everyone would pay. In other words everyone would pay 20% (example) of their income to the IRS. A man making $400 a week would pay $80 and a doctor making $4000 a week would pay $800. It is not dispropotionate as it is a percentage and each pays a proportionate sum that is statistically equal to the other.
Back on topic: I think the Edwards need to talk to the guy and make a point to be open minded as they claim to be instead of just hating him because he has guns and a socialising problem or whatever.
A flat tax was a determination of a set percentage that everyone would pay. In other words everyone would pay 20% (example) of their income to the IRS. A man making $400 a week would pay $80 and a doctor making $4000 a week would pay $800. It is not dispropotionate as it is a percentage and each pays a proportionate sum that is statistically equal to the other.
Back on topic: I think the Edwards need to talk to the guy and make a point to be open minded as they claim to be instead of just hating him because he has guns and a socialising problem or whatever.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No, a flat tax would not work. Simply put, to a person that needs every dime they make in order to survive (like a single mother) losing 20% of their income could mean not being able to feed their children.
The tax code is complicated because in the real world complex problems sometimes need complex solutions. Antone that tells you differently listens to too many talk shows.
But I'm supposed to believe you because you say so?
A flat tax is the most equitable solution to our current problems. The reason why it won't be implemented is that the government is making too much off of people currently and they don't want to give up any revenue.
Besides, who says that 20% is the magic number? Furthremore, even with a flat tax it would be likely that people under a certian income would pay no tax at all.
Bottom line, the tax code is complicated because the people collecting the money have a vested interest in confusing those paying it.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Maybe you could do some math and deal with reality. Some people on the bottom of the scale with mouths to feed cannot afford to pay taxes and still feed their children or care for their families. That is why a sliding scale exists. A flat tax would push some people barely making it into total poverty. I would not think I would have to point that out to you. Not every problem has a simple black and white solution...not matter what FOX news says.
Mr. Johnson may have considered that to be the "appropriate time", but methinks he was just being an immature jackass. I generally keep my handgun on my person at home, but nobody's going to see it unless I feel my life or those of my loved ones are in imminent peril.
Sure, he has the right to show up and act like a stereotypical armed hick, but that sort of behavior doesn't engender happy neighborhoods.
How about you folks?
BoringAccountant
New member
While it may not be disproportionate it is unfair. While the 100g a year family pays lets say 20% and is left with 80,000 to survive, a single mother may make 25K and be left with 20,000 after taxes. Yea, its applied equally, but it defintely does not affect the 100k family near what it does the the single mother.
Great summary...maybe I should have you read some other things to summarize for me...if you read the Quran would it tell you that they love Americans too
, jk SecDefHuh? so are you saying we have the tax system we need or that it needs work? From what it sounds like, you are saying that because we have such a diverse society making it complex and hard to tax simply on income that our tax system is the best it can be. If this is not correct please feel free to explain. I just do not think an answer of because the world is complex so should the tax code.
Why is that "unfortunate"? Someone who is very wealthy has usually paid a great deal in taxes already. The idea that we would be "fortunate" if even more of the person's money could pass to the government instead of remaining in private hands seems strange to me. Why should we want fewer wealthy people and more government? I want less government and more wealthy people.
Scott Conklin
New member
Well, now we have one obvious reason you are into income redistribution. Regardless, what you and those like you are saying is nothing more than that nobody actually owns anything. We are all just renting it from the government and at the end government gets it all back. OUR wishes, those of us who earned it, who make things work, who pay the bills for the vast segment of lazy bums and failures who won't do for themselves, don't get to determine what happens with our labors since it all belongs to the government in the interest of being "fair" to someone...
Here's a clue, it doesn't matter WHAT the second son, or the third or the fourth or the first, thinks. What matters is what the owner wants the outcome to be. If I want to give you something that's nobody elses business, whether I do it now or at the end of life.
Fortunately, there are effective ways to screw the government and avoid the schemes of those who feel they have more rights to one's earnings than those who earned it.
Yes, big money interests found a way to continue to try and stick it to normal people. Certainly something to be proud of, eh? But like I said, there's ways around it.
Scott Conklin
New member
AMEN! Now that bears repeating.
WeedWacker
New member
Well what kind of schooling did this single mother go through? She made bad choices in life if she were a single mother by the age of 16 or was unfortunate in cicumstance to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. My dad is an anesthesiologist and paid his own way through college and medical school without monetary help from his parents. It took him close to 30 years to pay it off and is finally dept free just as his kids are going to college.
But he had close to 11 years learning his trade. First four years pre med BSN then 4 years med for a Ph. D then 3 more for a masters and MD. Then it was 3 more years as an intern before he started making any real money. He had to make budget choices and we as a family went without for several years. We in fact were worse off for three years than most low income families just because there was so much debt incurred from med school. Then he took business classes and started basically a free lance anesthesia group which employs itself and sells it's services. So by thinking and working hard my dad went from poverty to sucessful businessman and doctor. Instead of living for the moment when he was 18 he thought about where he was going and decisions were what really made him sucessful. Now as for taxes, this woman is probably currently being taxed lower than 20% because she has children. I was a single male college student last summer making $7.25 an hour being taxed 20% of my income. That being said my dad is taxed around 50% of his wages. So tell me it's fair that the government can gouge someone who worked just as hard if not harder as the next guy to get where he is.
targetshootr
New member
Just as a woman gets a tax break if she has kids and is head of household, no doubt your dad gets a break for a hefty mortgage along with tuition write-offs, to name a couple. There is a baseline of income required for anyone who doesn't live on welfare. Rent only goes so low, food is the same price for everyone, gas, etc. A flat tax eats up the disposable income for the lowest earners. Some people overcome adversity but it's almost always the result of being born into a strong support system or finding one outside their family.
BoringAccountant
New member
Exactly...that is why it is not "fair" or equitable.
Ok, thats great...your dad is a great man and prolly worked his a$$ off to do all of that...I am sure there are many more success stories out there but this isn't Oprah, what I am saying is that it doesn't matter how you describe it a flat tax wouldn't work.
Here's an example again...if your dad (who worked his a$$ off) makes $60,000 a year and is taxed at 15% to be reasonable, he still has roughly $50,000 to spend on his basic needs, savings, retirement, and anything else he chooses. BUT for the same single mother or single dad who has 2 kids in school and is also BUSTING HIS A$$, he only makes $25,000 so after taxes he only clears roughly $21,000 to use to support his kids, food, rent, mortgage, etc. and therefore whatever is left over can be put in savings, retirement, college fund, etc. The whole point of this is that while your dad overcame the odds to do what he did after taxes he still has the $$$ afterwards to "live a little" The other one doesnt.
This is not to say that your dad getting taxed at 50% is right either...I am just trying to see what other options we have.
Playing devil's advocate doesn't make me the devil.
Not saying he did. It's not illegal have a beer and shoot a gun, but some people would find it a big problem. Shooting a handgun sideways ain't illegal, but that doesn't mean I want to be in the lane next to them.
He has never spoken to them, even met them, but he is moving because they don't like him? What did they do to him? Run for president? Call him a name? Toss dog poop over the fence? It's just neighbors not liking or even knowing each other.
Let it Bleed
New member
Theoretically, the personal exemption supposed to be the minimum income necessary for an individual to make ends meet. Although I oppose all income tax, a flat tax would be a fair solution if a certain amount of income were exempt from all income tax. Maybe the first 30K of income would be exempt from any income tax and then a flat rate for all income over that.
All economic systems, even capitalism, seek to distribute wealth equitably. I am certainly not a supporter of arbitrary governmental reallocation. But when worker productivity increases and wages do not, there may be a problem in the system. Simply stated, so-called "old money" is much harder to tax than so-called "new money." Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but it is a necessary evil. After all, without infra-structure (e.g. highways), commerce would be severely hindered. Wealth is not created in a vacuum.
I also want the minimum government necessary and for individuals to retain the assets they or their ancestors have accumalated. The question is how to fairly distribute the tax burden to support whatever is deemed the minimum amount of government. There will always be disagreement as to how much government is necessary and who should pay for it.
The one thing I remember from political science is that the greater the disparity between rich and poor is directly correlated with increased political unrest. However, using the tax code is a counterproductive way of redistributing wealth. Free and fair markets are the most efficient and equitable method of wealth allocation. Fairness being the operative component in accomplishing this goal.
All economic systems, even capitalism, seek to distribute wealth equitably. I am certainly not a supporter of arbitrary governmental reallocation. But when worker productivity increases and wages do not, there may be a problem in the system. Simply stated, so-called "old money" is much harder to tax than so-called "new money." Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but it is a necessary evil. After all, without infra-structure (e.g. highways), commerce would be severely hindered. Wealth is not created in a vacuum.
I also want the minimum government necessary and for individuals to retain the assets they or their ancestors have accumalated. The question is how to fairly distribute the tax burden to support whatever is deemed the minimum amount of government. There will always be disagreement as to how much government is necessary and who should pay for it.
The one thing I remember from political science is that the greater the disparity between rich and poor is directly correlated with increased political unrest. However, using the tax code is a counterproductive way of redistributing wealth. Free and fair markets are the most efficient and equitable method of wealth allocation. Fairness being the operative component in accomplishing this goal.