View Poll Results: should the country institue a flat tax?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 61.54%
  • No

    4 30.77%
  • Dont Know

    1 7.69%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: should the country institue a flat tax?

  1. #1
    Member steven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Side!
    Posts
    11,541

    should the country institue a flat tax?

    Should the country institue a flat tax to replace the system we have now?
    People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.

  2. #2
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    My answer is probably "no" but I'm not quite sure what you mean by a flat tax. Would it replace property taxes, sales taxes, surcharges and fees? Would it be a City of Yonkers style income tax or a property tax?
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  3. #3
    Member steven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Side!
    Posts
    11,541
    Im "dont Know" .

    Wasnt the last one proposed an income tax?
    People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.

  4. #4
    Member tomac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by steven
    Should the country institue a flat tax to replace the system we have now?
    If you're talking about everybody, citizens and businesses paying, say 15% with NO deductions and no excuses, then yes, I'd be all for it.
    It beats the wealthiest 1% not paying much of anything in taxes because they have all the loopholes.
    Think you can trust the government?
    Ask an Indian!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by tomac
    If you're talking about everybody, citizens and businesses paying, say 15% with NO deductions and no excuses, then yes, I'd be all for it.
    It beats the wealthiest 1% not paying much of anything in taxes because they have all the loopholes.
    You HAVE to still allow for deductions. If a business grosses $100k / year, but has legit expenses of $40k (ie netting $60k) , you can't expect them to pay taxes on $100k.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    910
    Quote Originally Posted by therising
    You HAVE to still allow for deductions. If a business grosses $100k / year, but has legit expenses of $40k (ie netting $60k) , you can't expect them to pay taxes on $100k.

    Uh, why not? As long as it was applicable to all, wheres the problem?


    Of course. I advocate a European style VAT in the 17 to 20% range on all retail purchases. Instead of taxing what we EARN, tax what we SPEND. Those who can afford to SPEND more can afford to PAY MORE.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Parkside
    Posts
    10,049
    Quote Originally Posted by tomac
    If you're talking about everybody, citizens and businesses paying, say 15% with NO deductions and no excuses, then yes, I'd be all for it.
    It beats the wealthiest 1% not paying much of anything in taxes because they have all the loopholes.
    From today's front page New York Times story about the deficit shrinking drastically:
    contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households,
    Truth springs from argument among friends.

  8. #8
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by tomac
    It beats the wealthiest 1% not paying much of anything in taxes because they have all the loopholes.
    That is a fallacy, as income goes up so does the percentage paid in income tax.
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  9. #9
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    When you take businesses in to account, the higher income brackets are taxed much more heavily. They pay business and corporate taxes before receiving their income and then pay income taxes too.
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Parkside
    Posts
    10,049
    DD:

    I think that graph is just statutory rates.

    If you had a chart that showed the portion of taxes paid by income, the top 1% pay something like 30% of all taxes.
    Truth springs from argument among friends.

  11. #11
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by biker
    DD:

    I think that graph is just statutory rates.

    If you had a chart that showed the portion of taxes paid by income, the top 1% pay something like 30% of all taxes.
    That is the effective rate after all "loopholes" and deductions are taken in to account. The statutory rates are higher. Here's the page with the chart and a lot more information also, including the information of % of taxes paid by income.
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Parkside
    Posts
    10,049
    Quote Originally Posted by DelawareDistrict
    When you take businesses in to account, the higher income brackets are taxed much more heavily. They pay business and corporate taxes before receiving their income and then pay income taxes too.
    I believe a significant number of corporations are "S corps" which pay no taxes themselves, but are flowed onto the owner's individual tax returns.

    I'm not sure how this interacts with what the wealthiest pay or how it would interact with a flat tax. But it's certainly a distorting factor.

    For instance, the return of a hardware store owner could contain a lot of income, but also a lot of those dastardly deductions. Reducing his income drastically. Not because of any sharp accounting practices, but because hardware stores are not inherently very profitable.
    Truth springs from argument among friends.

  13. #13
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    Many smaller corporations elect to register as a sub chapter S corporation. They are limited to 75 total stockholders who must be real live human beings. They can not sell stock to investment groups and venture capital organizations. There are other restrictions as well. One of the prime concerns is how long they want to keep the business. If it is going to be sold in a few years it is often more advantageous from a tax standpoint to register as a regular corporation. Also, corporate tax rates are not as high, compared to personal income tax rates, as they used to be.
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  14. #14
    Member tomac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by therising
    You HAVE to still allow for deductions. If a business grosses $100k / year, but has legit expenses of $40k (ie netting $60k) , you can't expect them to pay taxes on $100k.
    For businesses, the flat tax (according to Graham's Bill back in the late 1980s) would have been on profits, so your scenerio (proved) would be 15% of $60k, or $9,000 (hmmm, small business). Multiply the profits by 100 ($6million) would get you $900,000.
    Any deductions for businesses would have to be justified with receipts. Still easier than the existing nightmare.
    Think you can trust the government?
    Ask an Indian!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Parkside
    Posts
    10,049
    Quote Originally Posted by tomac
    Any deductions for businesses would have to be justified with receipts. Still easier than the existing nightmare.
    All deductions have to be documented now.

    How would this differ?
    Truth springs from argument among friends.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Past experience
    By WNYresident in forum Issues concerning Indian Sovereignty, Land Claims and Casinos
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: April 13th, 2007, 12:58 PM
  2. Did you see Country Boys on PBS?
    By LaNdReW in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 13th, 2006, 09:05 PM
  3. A Country Divided??
    By therising in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 6th, 2005, 11:08 PM
  4. Guess who was voted worst politician in teh whole COUNTRY
    By havemercy7 in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 20th, 2005, 10:18 AM
  5. Ten Commandments vs King of Kings? Says alot about who controls this country?
    By moadib in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 28th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •