Pay your fair share

Yvonne's hubby · #21 08/22/11, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narshalla

That's easy -- add the Balanced Budget Amendment, as well as an amendment that states no more Federal debt -- i.e. Treasury Bills -- that they need to be paid from general funds as they come due and fed.gov isn't allowed to print more of them.

Cutting fed.gov spending is the biggest solution!

Actually its the ONLY solution.

Yvonne's hubby · #22 08/22/11, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

No, the last time I checked if we put in a flat tax with a rate of 13% with no deductions we could cover ALL the cost of running the government. This was a few years ago and didn't have to cover the huge debt nor its interest.

That would have been a LOT of years ago... Like before FDR started borrowing huge sums and imposing astronomical taxes on the wealthy. There is simply no way a flat tax can create the revenue required by the federal governments spending... and if by some miracle of voodoo math it did.... they would simply increase spending by double!

Yvonne's hubby · #23 08/22/11, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelCowboySnB

O ok. 13% does sound better if the numbers work.

Dont worry, the numbers dont work.... not even close.

tarbe · #24 08/22/11, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

We are spending about 4 trillion per year.. if you divide that between 300 million people, you get a bit over 12K per person per year... if you have a stay at home spouse and 2 kids... YOUR fair share of that becomes around 48 grand per year.

the only way to be "fair" is to reduce the spending to an affordable level. Any other plan is going to gouge someone quite unfairly.

Hey, that's me this year.

One income, two kids in college and my total tax bill is going to be about $50k. No state income tax either.

I guess someone will come on here and tell me I ought to be paying more, because it is only fair. Heck, I might have even thought the same thing, back when my income was more like my current total tax liability.

I am thinking it isn't worth working as hard as one must in order to make this kind of money. Too much of it ends up in other people's pockets. I may as well spend my time fishing or reading.

If I think about it too much, I feel like a sucker...

watcher · #25 08/22/11, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelCowboySnB

O ok. 13% does sound better if the numbers work.

I did not mean that could be the only exemption but one that it would be needed. Food exemption is allready in effect in some states an I think candy bars are in on them a eating out is not but I have not looked in to it.
Drugs may need to be exempted to.
Rent should not be eximpt. Rent prices would change very little because of the tax change. Remember the rental owner is already figures in there income taxes in to the price of the rent. There figures would not change much. You are just substituting the words income tax with the words sales tax in there books. Now rental owners may chose to change prices because of the change in everyones take home income an everyones general change in expenses.

The main thing is you would have more control over your money. The government only gets it when you chose to spend it.

You missed the points. Point #1, once you start having exemptions you have opened the door for more and more and more. I asked about food because in one place, FL?, unpopped pop corn is not taxed, i.e. food, but popped pop corn is taxed, i.e. non-food.

Point #2, if you have exemptions you are in effect changing the tax rates making the higher income earners pay a higher rate because a lower percentage of their money goes for the exempted items.

watcher · #26 08/22/11, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

That would have been a LOT of years ago... Like before FDR started borrowing huge sums and imposing astronomical taxes on the wealthy. There is simply no way a flat tax can create the revenue required by the federal governments spending... and if by some miracle of voodoo math it did.... they would simply increase spending by double!

Actually it was back in either 92 or 95. Again the problem isn't the tax income its government spending as proved by the huge increase in income brought in by the Reagan tax cuts.

Edited to add, you have to remember there are a lot of people paying a LOT less than that right now. I won't give our income but will say its below 6 figures. With all the allowed deductions I can tell you for the last many years we have never paid over 5% of our income in federal income taxes. It usually runs around 3%. So a flat tax would actually raise our tax bill by 300 to 400 percent.

sirquack · #27 08/24/11, 04:45 PM

Yep, cutting gov't spending is the key to any successful future tax system. We have to stop feeding the beast before we can start to recover.
To the original point, giving money back either in the form of earned income credit or refunds that have paid $0.00 in federal or state taxes seems like a travesty. Most of these same people are already receiving state or federal aid for housing, food or medical care. I won't say all, but many expect those of us paying into the system to satisfy their every need.
Many of the folks who I have seen using state food cards are wearing designer clothes, driving newer cars than I and dining on junk or food I can't afford on the government dime.
It is not only not fair, it is just not right.