Everyone says Bush lowered the taxes. TRUE or NOT? NOT... According to YOU. TRUE according to ME.
You are telling me what the legislative process is. And I get that. But that's not my point. Hussein has been preaching for 6 yrs about raising taxes on everyone making over $250K. Let me put it other way around..If Congress would have lowered the tax rate, both House and Senate, you think he would have vetoed the bill or signed it into the law? Sometimes I feel you argue for the sake of arguing..No I wasn't bitten by Bird Brain. I really do.
In 2012, My Marginal Tax rate,at the Federal Level, was 28%. I am classified as Single by IRS and on the lower side of the income range. So, by no means I am considered as wealthy. But my effective tax rate was 14% after all the deductions and everything.
I find it rather unsettling that if I make some good investments and start a business and really succeed in life, Uncle Sam would want more cut out of my paycheck. So instead of being happy with marginal tax rate of 28%, they would want 35%, and lo and behold, if I really succeed and make something like half a million per year, it would be 39.6%. Is that Obama's way of showing us how he was flirting with the idea of 40% income tax, but threw us a bone and let us have 39.6%. And if they elect Hillary, she might just go Hollande's way.
Progressive taxation is unethical. Period. You are penalized a bigger chunk of your paycheck for succeeding. To compensate that, people are given tax breaks that distorts the picture even further, and we end up in situation where sometimes wealthy and rich people (and I say that with admiration) end up paying taxes lower than someone making much less. That too is unethical. So, when the left, and the "rich left" complains that the "rich right" paid less in taxes than average guy, I see the root of that problem to be in the tax system.
A flat tax, on the other hand will give you incentive to succeed. If I make $30,000, I pay 10%, which is $3,000. If I make $100,000, I pay $10,000 and not what I would have paid otherwise under the current system (about 21.3% of my income, which comes out to be $21,300). The difference is your incentive to succeed. Yes some people who pay NO tax right now, or very little tax will end up footing the bill, but that is OK because if they do succeed, they wouldn't get getting penalized. And if you are really patriotic, you wouldn't mind doing that would you? Every American should have skin in the game. Under the current system, the ones that are not rich are more than willing to pay the penalty for succeeding anyway..
Its a sad fact that no advanced western country has this system except for Russia. Whether to consider Russia as an advanced nation is a different debate, that I only will have with Serafima (in the privacy of my bedroom)LOL I know Australia was flirting with the idea, but that debate died a few yrs ago when John Howard shot it down.
Now some of these countries that have Flat Tax system are quite funny. Ever fucked a girl from Abkhazia? Now that's the next thing on my bucket list.
So, back to my opening statement. I am more than willing to pay more in taxes now (under the new Flat Tax), if the numbers come out to be that way, if there is incentive for me to succeed.
that all desire to exceed is based on financial awards.
that flat tax could work... people earning more have more disposable income, tend to have better employment benefits (think pension, 401k match and health insurance). Thinking that a multi millionaire should pay the same tax rate as someone earning 10k a yr wont help our deficit either.
like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet because most of their income comes in form of dividend payments.
Barack Hussein Obama just raised it from 15% to 20% for the top earners...So his lap dog Warren Buffett, who clearly wants to fuck CNBC's Becky Quick, will be paying more....
Why not make it flat for everyone...Its not a new idea...Its quite mainstream idea on the right.
Also, you are not accounting for the demand that it will create. What you do when you have money left over that you don't pay to Uncle Sam. You go out and spend it. That helps the economy
Last I checked...and feel free to confirm this..Congress enacts tax laws.
The POTUS can either approve of veto the bills.
Barack Hussein Obama just raised it from 15% to 20% for the top earners...So his lap dog Warren Buffett, who clearly wants to fuck CNBC's Becky Quick, will be paying more....
Why not make it flat for everyone...Its not a new idea...Its quite mainstream idea on the right.
Also, you are not accounting for the demand that it will create. What you do when you have money left over that you don't pay to Uncle Sam. You go out and spend it. That helps the economy.
You are teaching me Govt. 101?
has the power to legislate tax law changes.
Please show me so I can understand that.
Otherwise my understanding of the legislative process has been seriously inept LOL
I know Congress passes the law and President signs or vetos it. And then Congress has the power to override the Veto..
Did you forget how your homeboy Barack Hussein Obama cornered The House Republicans into the tax deal. Why didn't Hussein let Bush Tax cuts extend forever? Why did Hussein threaten a veto?
Barack Hussein Obama just raised it from 15% to 20% for the top earners...So his lap dog Warren Buffett, who clearly wants to fuck CNBC's Becky Quick, will be paying more....
Why not make it flat for everyone...Its not a new idea...Its quite mainstream idea on the right.
Also, you are not accounting for the demand that it will create. What you do when you have money left over that you don't pay to Uncle Sam. You go out and spend it. That helps the economy.
Does that about summarize this? Or do you want to spin some conspiracy theory?
Did you forget how your homeboy Barack Hussein Obama cornered The House Republicans into the tax deal. Why didn't Hussein let Bush Tax cuts extend forever? Why did Hussein threaten a veto?
Everyone says Bush lowered the taxes. TRUE or NOT? NOT... According to YOU. TRUE according to ME.
You are telling me what the legislative process is. And I get that. But that's not my point. Hussein has been preaching for 6 yrs about raising taxes on everyone making over $250K.
Let me put it other way around..If Congress would have lowered the tax rate, both House and Senate, you think he would have vetoed the bill or signed it into the law?
Sometimes I feel you argue for the sake of arguing..
Or "Reagan Tax cuts" for that matter.
Quit nitpicking, ObamaCare was also a tax increase and it too has Obama's name all over it.
Nice hijack though, somehow you got Curly to defend whose tax increase it is/was and got completely of the topic. Well played. lol
I understand having disposable income and spending it. The issue lies with the top 1%. They dont tend to spend anywhere near their income, savings and investments yes but many of those arent taxed until you take money out. I dont think there are any Flat tax countries with governments and private industry performing well together. I actually believe a stable tax system without tax codes changing every yr would be the best thing we could do. With local, state and federal tax code changing at the drop of a hat its hard for businesses and investors to have a real plan for hiring and expansion. Freezing corporate america for 6 months every 4 yrs for a presidential election is a joke.
I actually like the german tax system but thats just me. I am not a tax expert but can say when the top 1% hold 35% of public wealth and its growing at a near unprecidented rate something is wrong. 80% of public wealth is held by less than 20% of our population. The numbers are actually staggering.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Barack Hussein Obama just raised it from 15% to 20% for the top earners...So his lap dog Warren Buffett, who clearly wants to fuck CNBC's Becky Quick, will be paying more....
Why not make it flat for everyone...Its not a new idea...Its quite mainstream idea on the right.
Also, you are not accounting for the demand that it will create. What you do when you have money left over that you don't pay to Uncle Sam. You go out and spend it. That helps the economy.
realistically flat tax is not going to happen. First, there is a whole frigging industry geared to tax complexity. Second, the govt uses the tax code to drive certain outcomes through behavioral change. Third, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'm OK with a progressive tax code w/in reason.
Did you know that the IRS only collects 85% of expected revenue? That's about $450B a year. That alone would end all the finger pointing and debate...right? The only way I can see fixing that is through a fair tax aka national sales tax. Why? Because it goes after the underground economy, and eliminates tax fraud. Key is to make it progressive so we can keep "The Progressives" happy. But that's not going to happen either.
Because the taxes, the way they are right now are within reason according to Barack Hussein Obama.
With Flat Taxes, the equation is plain and simple....
The national Sales tax idea was floated by Hermain Cain in his 9-9-9 plan. It was a bold idea that was laughed at by his own Party.. Don't know if the numbers add up or not, but certainly hard for Congress to pass. A lot harder than flat tax.
I like the sales tax agrument and think itd promote saving but how to tax private sales is a big issue. To make it work I ve seen estimates at nearly 20-24% sales tax (i could be wrong). Also are some items exempt? Homes, food, clothing?
I havent actually read very much about it and actually am curious.
To me it's the only tax I can see that would eliminate tax fraud, and tax the underground economy.
Trust me, Intuit (Turbo Tax), H&R Block, IRS, Tax Attorneys, CPAs, liberals, and God knows who else would descend on Washington to fight against a Fair Tax aka National Sales Tax.
There is already huge amounts of fraud where it comes to sales tax, taxing the underground economy is about as likely as taxing your local drug dealer or hooker, it's just impossible to do.
That's just one of the problems I see with it, the other main problem you have already alluded to, there is a massive entrenched establishment where it comes to tax law, tax filings, etc supplanting them with something as simple as a national sales tax is about as likely as Mari's colleagues stopping their ambulance chasing, or you imbibing one of his white wine spritzers. lol
If I want to cheat, I have the same opportunities and avenues to cheat just like those currently in the underground economy without fear of audit.
I think the only way it could work is for us to become a "cashless" society, the technology is here, but the possibilities of creating a truly Orwellian society scare the shit out of me.
I can see an even larger and even more insidious version of the IRS to ensure compliance, No, as much as I like it in theory, the reality would be a nightmare.
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040.
-- Modified on 5/3/2013 6:24:45 PM
But I think you missed the point...
If congress gives us flat tax, a lot more people would benefit in the longer run, and I am willing to sacrifice in short term for a long term benefit. That was my precise point.
The opening statement was a sarcastic one. A lame attempt maybe, but an attempt nonetheless.
Some might benefit...others not so much.
Flat taxes are utilized in other countries (as you attached the link) with varying degrees of success (and failures).
This is not a novel idea...it's been bantered around for decades.
If congress gives us flat tax, a lot more people would benefit in the longer run, and I am willing to sacrifice in short term for a long term benefit. That was my precise point.
The opening statement was a sarcastic one. A lame attempt maybe, but an attempt nonetheless.
You might.. And that's great because you have deserved it. And I want that benefit, so I will work hard. And when I work hard and make more money, I will keep more money....Simple as that..
And no.. I ain't sending no donation to nobody. But I will gladly accept it if the Congress legislates it.
they hear good ideas, but for political reasons (like the power to control the tax code), they do not act upon them.
indicate, then
a. the Boston Marathon runners who lost limbs would get no medical deduction;
b. the Octomom would pay the same tax as you - a single man - will pay on the same money;
c. charitable donations would dry up significantly;
d. the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction would kill mortgage lending, freeze the housing market just when it is starting to recover, and plunge the economy close to recession;
e. the elimination of the IRA and related deductions would mean we'd spend this money on hookers instead of building for retirement.
The parade of horribles goes on and on.
If you say we will keep some of these deductions then it is not really a flat tax is it?
Seems a heavy price to pay to give you an "incentive to succeed" which we already have anyway. At the very least, you have to make a better argument that the progressive tax system - which I think is a work of genius - is "unethical."
A. Valid Point. Exception can be made for terrorist activities and victims of terrorism.
B. People would think twice before having kids because they would now know that government ain't feeding them. They will have to themselves. Would encourage personal responsibility.
C. Very valid point.
D. Not really. Canada doesn't have tax deduction and yet home ownership in Canada is same as US. Somewhere between 65-67%
E. Not bad idea to spend some money on pussy...LOL
Dont forget that people have bought homes, had children and need the deductions to make ends meet month to month.
the current tax code allows the government to give. If you are ok with the government legislating winners and losers than you should re-examine your philosophy.
A flat tax would GREAT diminish the power of lobbying by K street, one of the major problems in government today.
A flat tax would guarantee that not just the top 10% are really paying any taxes, which would result in citizens actually paying more attention to what is going on.
A flat tax would not penalize risk takers who managed to success, and would result in more people trying to actually make something, resulting in more businesses hiring more people.
Flat taxes tend to result in MORE MONEY into the treasury. Based on our current debt, sounds like a good idea to me.
But if you start drawing up a plan. All supporters of the FT think their taxes would go down, but if the revenue stays the same a large number would go up. People will no longer support this when "their taxes" are the ones being raised.
Look beyond the slogan and a "flat tax" is less fair than a balanced progressive tax.
If paying more taxes is going to let me keep more money in my pocket, then I am all in.
And if drinking more Vodka is going to help me stay sober, I am all in again....
Viva the Obamessiah.