News

Flat Tax(ish)

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by randall, Jan 8, 2004.

  1. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    I'm curious how people on here would feel about having a flat income tax regardless of dependants of 20% for incomes above $50,000? Below $50k it would be best to still have a curve, lets say lowering the tax by 7% for every $10k less than $50k.

    What are the drawbacks to this? I see it as being fair to more people, but I'm sure some people would complain about the guy that earns $20k not paying enough. It also gets the government out of the marriage business, so state and federal governments don't have to worry about the pesky gay marriage issue.
     
  2. lotustt

    lotustt Formula 3

    Aug 28, 2002
    2,026
    Full Name:
    TRM
    ACtually i like the no income tax at all for anyone idea! Lets have people keep there money and use it how they like and when they want. Tax all products instead, anything bought or sold tax it. Then people can spend or save accordingly how they want and keep all there money and when they want to buy something its taxed. Simple idea but im sure no one will like it.
     
  3. Juice It

    Juice It F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Sep 22, 2002
    3,233
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Full Name:
    Jeff
    I am not an accountant but I like this idea as well. Raise sales tax to 20% or whatever and give people a choice on paying taxes based on what purchases they want to make. I would like to see real guestimates what kind of revenue this would generate compared to what is brought in now. Anyone have a clue? I would think this would eliminate a bunch of pencil pushers in the Govt. as well due to only having to deal with retailers to collect from instead of the average deadbeat.
     
  4. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    I would think if there was no income tax, sales tas would have to be 40-50%. I'm not sure I like that at all. Actually, I am sure. I don't like it at all.
     
  5. MarkPDX

    MarkPDX F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Apr 21, 2003
    10,921
    I'm to lazy to go find out right now but didn't Steve Forbes advocate a 10% flat tax?
     
  6. Evolved

    Evolved F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 5, 2003
    8,204
    Pittsburgh, PA
    It was 13% and you got credits up of 5,000 pre dependent if I remeber correctly.

    Our economy is driven by people buying crap they want but don't need. If we raised the sales tax to 20% it would really hamper our spend everything you make system.

    The tax system exists to not only generate revenue for gov't but also influence behavior of people and businesses.
     
  7. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest

    10%-15% flat, I would support.

    Plus, it owuld unemploy legions & legions of lawyers & scummy financial advisors. Which would be worth it alone.
     
  8. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    Do you all pay that little in taxes? I'm all for a flat of 20%, just because it would lower my taxes and seems fair to everyone. I think it would take years to streamline our government enough to have a tax lower than that.
     
  9. henryr

    henryr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 10, 2003
    15,987
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Juan Sánchez Villa-L
    i would be for it but it will never happen.

    politicians would be giving up alot of power, it would actually be fair, would greatly add to productivity be eliminating all the energy that goes in to gaming the tax system and avoiding the taxes.

    our new little state "IRAQ" will have a flat tax of 13%. seems when they decide they want to develop and promote economic growth is makes sense for them. hmmm.
     
  10. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    I've heard the upper class are more against this idea than anyone else. No more skating out of lot's of tax money for BS reasons.
     
  11. Erich

    Erich Formula 3

    Sep 9, 2003
    1,138
    Poway CA
    Full Name:
    Erich Coiner
    All the wide eyed flat tax zealots advocate how "simple" a flat tax is.
    The graduated rates are not what makes the tax system a nightmare.

    The mess comes from defining what is income.

    What money is allowed to be taxed?

    Salary, capital gains, interest income, inheritances, what is taxable?

    Forget howling about the rate, lets focus on what gets put on the table first.

    Erich
     
  12. gabriel

    gabriel Formula 3

    Interesting. I've never heard any of the "upper class" come out strongly against it, but then many of them may. I'm all for it as a modifier to the current taxing system. Basically, I'm against the social enginering that seems to be built in and modified to suit politics de jur. And if it closes BS loopholes, well, that's all to the good... But I do not believe it will anything remotely easy or simple to do. If it's ever done at all.

    >Salary, capital gains, interest income, inheritances, what is taxable?

    >Forget howling about the rate, lets focus on what gets put on the >table first.

    Well said...
     
  13. henryr

    henryr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 10, 2003
    15,987
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Juan Sánchez Villa-L
    well from the flat tax proposals that i have read - that is addressed. you simply add up all the money you made - salary, cap gains, interest etc and thats your income number. deduct some exemptions and multiply by X and your done.

    will never ever pass in this country. the bottom far outweighs the top in votes. and in typical american fashion, they all want the benefits without having to shoulder the payments. you see it not enough to pay more at the same rate you also have to pay more at a higher rate.

    as the jesse jackson likes to say "equal opportunity is not enough...we need equal results"
     
  14. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall

    What do you mean by this? Everyone I've talked to that makes $20-50k a year love this idea. Frow what I know, it's mostly the upper incomes that want to avoid this type of policy.
     
  15. henryr

    henryr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 10, 2003
    15,987
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Juan Sánchez Villa-L
    doesn't square with my logicon why the "top" would not like it.

    these "alleged" loopholes etc --- i don't see them. your itemized deduction start getting phased out at $128k or so and then are dissallowed above $230ish (somewhere around there). and then if you can skirt by that you have to worry about the AMT.

    as for those on the bottom now. they don't pay any income taxes, so a flat rate of 20% would be a tax increase. plus they've all been brainwashed into thinking the rich don't pay their fair share.
     
  16. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest


    You heard wrong, Randall. Most wealthy people HATE playing all the games as much as they hate paying usurious tax rates. SImpler & lower rates = better among the wealthy folks I know.
     
  17. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    Somebody is clearly preventing this type of tax system, and I would have to say it's more likely the rich than the poor. I'll check my tax statements from last year to see what % I paid, but I know I don't get to write off cars, SUV's and boats. At least a flat tax without regard to dependants would be fair to most everyone.
     
  18. lotustt

    lotustt Formula 3

    Aug 28, 2002
    2,026
    Full Name:
    TRM

    Well, my idea got one vote! I still like it and makes some sense to in regard to the govt. pencil pushers would be reduced. But no i have not entirely thought this one out.
     
  19. henryr

    henryr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 10, 2003
    15,987
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Juan Sánchez Villa-L
    editorial section of the wall street journal mentions that several former soviet boc countries have neacted a flat tax.

    oh, and the 2004 index of economic freedom rankings came out

    the US ranked 10th, behind

    hong kong, singapore, new zealand, luxembourg, ireland, estonia, UK, denmark, switzerland

    wes clark has an op ed piece detailing his tax reform:

    those making $50k wont pay any income taxes and complains that right now that family must pay $1,500. what a joke
     
  20. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    Wesley Clark also says those that earn <$30k a year will also pay no taxes under his plan. Sounds good to me.
     
  21. RacerX_GTO

    RacerX_GTO F1 World Champ

    Nov 2, 2003
    11,562
    Oregon
    Full Name:
    Gabe V.
    13% across the board. Forbes idea was that the rate went down after the momentum kicked in. 12%, 10% etc.

    I'm for it. Nobody escapes it. If I do my taxes right now under 13% flat, I will KEEP more of my OWN money. We are so used to the current 'system' that is so ingrained, we think the government is doing us a favor.

    You could own your own home without your government, if it wasn't for your government.

    My goal is to follow the American dream and increase my income. The sky is the limit. If I hit the $200,000/year bracket under 13% flat, I still keep more of my own money. If my business grows and I reach $700,000 per year or what the hell, lets say $2,000,000 per year under 13% flat, I still keep more of my own money compared to the current system.

    When the new plan shows a win for all brackets and the flat means the chopping block for IRS agents across the land, you are damn right I am for it!
     
  22. racedecknc

    racedecknc Karting

    Nov 24, 2003
    198
    Winston Salem
    Full Name:
    Ed
    I'm for the flat tax in theory, but I don't think that there is any practical way to "undo" the IRS. Its like a snowball rolling down a hill. I'd love to see some simplifications, for sure.

    All the tax people and financial planners could find work helping the debt ridden amongst us get their financial sh*t together, and we'd be much stronger as a nation financially.

    I'm interested to hear DrTax's response to this post.

    Ed
     
  23. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Three Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    38,914
    Texas!
    Randal, based on your previous posts you are a Navy recruiter. Please don't take this personally, but either the Navy has really changed a lot or you the exception that proves the rule. Either way, I would suggest that you do a bit more research before commenting on public policy issues.

    For example, the "Flat Tax" is actually a "Rich Republican" theory. My clients would love a 20% flat tax because many of them are paying taxes at an effective rate of 25% to 30%. A 20% rate would be party time!

    Now, some people call a Flat Tax one where you disallow alll deductions and lower the tax rate to a flat 20%. This is supposed to prevent people from writting off SUVs and race cars (sic). Only problem with this proposal is that the lawyers and doctors would get a huge tax break because they normally net 50% of gross. For these folks, paying a 20% tax on gross would be a tax break. The corner grocery store owner will go to jail, however, because his pretax net is only 4% (on a good day) and if he has to pay a 20% tax on his gross -- He skips GO and heads straight to jail.

    Randal and others, the simple truth is this. Our current tax system is highly progressive and is maxed out. Basically the top 50% of income earners pay almost 100% of the individual income tax. To illustrate, according to the Joint Committe on Taxation numbers, guess what is the single biggest tax shelter? At $600 BILLION, the winner is employer paid health insurance.

    Sorry Randal, there is no more juice left in the lemon.

    The reason the the Federal budget got balanced in the 90s was, in the words of our former fearless leader, the economy, stupid.

    Why is California facing a huge shortfall? It's the economy, stupid.

    So the real question that we should be asking during this election cycle is what happened to the economy during the 90s that made it so smart.

    Once we understand this question, we should then take a look around and examine what we have learned and how these lessons might apply today.

    As a homework assignment I'll give you this --

    During the Rubin, uh I mean Clinton, administration, we had a strong dollar. Today, we have a weak dollar. Why did a strong dollar work so well, at least for a little while, in the 90s and is a weak dollar the right policy today?

    I want 20 pages double spaced by tomorrow, ha!

    DrTax
     
  24. gabriel

    gabriel Formula 3

    >Why did a strong dollar work so well, at least for a little while, in the 90s and is a weak dollar the right policy today?


    Wow! What a complex question. Without a whole lot of research to back me up, I'll go out on a limb and state that the weak $ IS the right policy, at least in the moment. China is the 600 pound gorilla in international currency equations, and complicates the whole mess. But, the weak $ isn't helping us vis a via the crooks in OPEC at all, and that's a downside. The strong $ certainly helped the oil equation in the 90s, but hurt our exports a bit. Besides, there would be repercussions to propping the $ market today. Or am I on the wrong track here?

    I haven't even touched on the bond and debt aspects - someone elses turn... :)
     
  25. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest

    #25 maranelloman, Jan 10, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017

    OUTSTANDING post, Dale!!!!

    Randall, that ol' DNC class warfare crap is getting mighty stale. Only so long you can tell the same lie & have people still believe it...
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     

Share This Page