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?
Yes
No
Dont Know
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.
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by steven
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!
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.Originally Posted by tomac
Originally Posted by therising
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.
From today's front page New York Times story about the deficit shrinking drastically:Originally Posted by tomaccontrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households,
Truth springs from argument among friends.
That is a fallacy, as income goes up so does the percentage paid in income tax.Originally Posted by tomac
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.
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by biker
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.
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.Originally Posted by DelawareDistrict
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by therising
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!
All deductions have to be documented now.Originally Posted by tomac
How would this differ?
Truth springs from argument among friends.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)