stevkc wrote:I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.
bman wrote:I don't think anyone should pay income tax, I think all taxes should be in the form of sales tax. The tax rate could be determined by the type of item being sold:
Food = no tax unless it is at a restaurant.
clothes 2%
furniture 5%
gas 10% (or whatever percentage is needed to maintain roads)
entertainment like movies, CDs, games etc... 20%
alcohol & cigarettes 25%
normal stuff would have lower taxes while luxury items would be higher.
bman wrote:I don't think anyone should pay income tax, I think all taxes should be in the form of sales tax. The tax rate could be determined by the type of item being sold:
Food = no tax unless it is at a restaurant.
clothes 2%
furniture 5%
gas 10% (or whatever percentage is needed to maintain roads)
entertainment like movies, CDs, games etc... 20%
alcohol & cigarettes 25%
normal stuff would have lower taxes while luxury items would be higher.
aloneibreak wrote:just because youre "rich" enough to afford some "luxury" items shouldnt mean youre taxed more on those items IMHO...
Copper Catcher wrote:stevkc wrote:I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.
So if don't think 50% is outrageous then what percent is in your opinion? Do you think the top 10% of income earners should foot the bill for 70% of all people living in the US? Is this fair in your opinion?
What do you think is a fair way to tax all people or do you think most people should be given a FREE pass?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from and hopefully we both can agree to disagree if we need to.
No82s wrote:Flat tax period. No deductions. Everybody pays.
Bluegill wrote:Income tax should be abolished. Period. It's immoral and unethical.
To all the whiny statists who complain about lack of revenue to fund your commie welfare programs and your imperial wars, and a bloated bureaucracy of government departments designed to do your thinking for you and protect you from yourself, take note. This nation was at it's peak, with the largest middle class ever known to man, when people world wide aspired to be "Americans". When we were a humble Republic and truly were the "land of opportunity" and "land of the free", with the most personal freedom and liberty ever in recorded history, when we had NO income tax. No IRS , no MaMa Government and no CENTRAL BANK.
Grab a cigarette and a cup coffee, sit down and relax, and ponder that for a while...
But, if this nation truly desires to be an imperial welfare/warfare State, then an income tax becomes inevitable. So, if that is the road we choose to travel, we will obviously need a source of revenue.
If we truly want equality and everybody paying their fair share, not the Democrats Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the word, but the real definition of the word, a flat tax is not it. It gets a lot closer, but no. Ditto with a national sales tax. You still have some paying more into the kitty than others. Yet not receiving any more services than the others.
The total Federal bill will need to be determined. Then a head count of everyone who reside within our nation. People utilizing the benefits, safety and services of said nation. Divide that number into the first number. The resulting figure is your annual tax bill. it's as fair as it gets, with EVERYBODY paying their fair share for equal services.
Nowhere ever,in society anywhere, has the pricing of products and services been a moving target, based on the purchasers income. Why is it different with taxes..?
Copper Catcher wrote:
If we are being fair then and asking everyone to pay their "fair share" of the National Debt they eveyone would owe $50,011 per citizen versus $138,165 per taxpayer according to
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
No82s wrote:Flat tax period. No deductions. Everybody pays.
Treetop wrote:first I DESPISE income AND property taxes.
So I support a sales tax. However sales taxes really hit the poor more then the wealthy. I never verified the numbers but I once heard a flat tax plan that taxed EVERYTHING including food at 23%. BUT EVERYONE got a check for the estimated amount of taxes paid up to the poverty level. they claimed that since this gets rid of the IRS, and the need for many social programs that we would bring in as much as we do now. Yeah sure, losers might gather together like sardines and live off the cash, but who cares, doubtful many would starve under such a plan. (it would also be taxed as they bought things of course)
theo wrote:Copper Catcher wrote:stevkc wrote:I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.
So if don't think 50% is outrageous then what percent is in your opinion? Do you think the top 10% of income earners should foot the bill for 70% of all people living in the US? Is this fair in your opinion?
What do you think is a fair way to tax all people or do you think most people should be given a FREE pass?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from and hopefully we both can agree to disagree if we need to.
I think he met 50% is not implausable when you figure in children and the elderly. However he thinks 12% in the 60s is unlikely. I don't believe he was making a value judgment.
I'm pretty sure this 50% only includes those of working age and excludes children and those (elderly and otherwise) who are institutionalized. I believe that today's number is much higher because the tax code includes many deductions and tax credits that didn't exist 40 years ago. As a result many of those who make 30k and above pay zero in net federal income taxes.
Return to Economic & Business News, Reports, and Predictions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests