1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

O/T A new tax plan or ...................

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Big Az Al, Jun 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Big Az Al

    Big Az Al Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,294
    Location:
    near Tucson Trap
    Yesterday, watching a news channel, one of the Hot Up and Coming DUM's was announcing his new TAX plan to balance the budget.

    It is "that since those people making 300,000 dollars a year really have it made,'we will tax them' MORE"

    Now my problem with this,

    Is that when I was a child and the same type of idiot was proposing that since those people making 45,000 dollars a year really had it made we needed to go after them!

    So HOW many people making 45,000 a year have it made AT THIS time? How many years is it going to take for 300,000 to be barely squeaking by? I may not see it But I know for sure my children WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    SO what is a good fix to out tax system?

    Al Lingham
     
  2. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Flat 15%,with No deductIons for everybody above $20,000 single, $40,000 MFJ,,,,that way almost everyone has skin in the game when gov't wants to increase taxes
     
  3. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,025
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    Thats why they,govt, dont want a flat tax, they cant imcrease. We must fire them all Lee
     
  4. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,946
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    The main reason politicians don't want a flat tax is that it will put a lot of lawyers out of work and on the unemployment line.

    Oh ya, have you ever checked the ratio of senator's and congressmen who have law degrees??

    Another "group" who protect their own!

    It would also end the need of CPA's.

    I am all for a flat tax !! As long as it never goes above 9%.

    The last calculations I've seen showed all that was needed(when our country was in better shape) 5% would have covered everything then.(expenses and spending)
     
  5. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,045
    I not at ease with a flat tax but it is the only real fair way. These coropations that keep getting more hightech and have automated machines replacing the labor get by with keeping all the revenue from what they save on matching Social Security, Workmans comp. no overtime, no vacations, no insurance,on and on and on. All this money from revenue not going in to the system that we have to pay for all the entitlements. Think about it. These fat cats in the high managment show the shareholders how they bring up the bottom line. In turn the CEO, ask the board for a raise and the board ask the CEO for a raise. With all the revenue they are pocketing and we pick up the tab in higher taxes.
    It does no good to tax the wealthy. It don't work. They have the advantage to raise the price of their goods to make up the difference. And we are the difference.
    Have you people got this figured out yet. Its not rocket sience. Wild Bill
     
  6. TC

    TC TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    931
    A flat tax on all gross income. No minimum, no deductions, everybody pays. That way every voter has an interest in the system. I would estimate it could be as low as 5% on gross income.


    People will be a little careful who they vote for and what bond issues they support when their vote will affect them personally


    When people can get a tax "refund" even though they didn't pay any taxes, something is wrong! We need to stop social engineering through the tax system.
     
  7. Big Az Al

    Big Az Al Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,294
    Location:
    near Tucson Trap
    So few answers, all along the lines of what the people around me that can be accussed of having the ability to thing and reason are saying.

    But only a few answers.

    How to we get this out?

    Al Lingham
     
  8. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    You silly birds, it would take a WAY higher flat tax than any of the numbers you are discussing in order to make-up for the massive tax break the high earners would get.

    The top 25% of earners in this country pay 86.3% of all the federal taxes (2008 data). So how in the world is giving all of these people a giant tax reduction going help lower the taxes that you and I pay? Do you really think that forcing the slackers to pay 15% of their measly incomes is going to replace all of that lost revenue?

    Let me put it in even simpler terms for you. Future near-term government is looking like 40 percent of GDP (down from the current 45% or so). Even if we produce an efficiency and cost-cutting miracle, it's going to be 30-35% for the rest of our lifetimes. So somebody tell me how the hell everybody paying 9% or 15% or even 25% going to magically produce 30-40%? That's a slight over-simplification, but it illustrates the basic situation.

    Think about it. Jeez.

    -Gary
     
  9. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    GW22 makes the strongest fact-studded point on this issue so far. What isn't being said is that our governments sponge up more than 60% of our GDP right now. Unfunded mandates and usurped trust funds, raided to buy votes is the 600 pound Gorilla in that room.

    A flat tax will not work, has no hope of ever being enacted and is always regressive - meaning it hurts the marginal earner the most. Far too little, and way too late to save us. Nations strictly made up of Haves, and Have-nots look just like the Arabian pensulia....they don't work, and most important they don't produce anything meaningful to the world.

    We are presently suffering chronically from disastrous mission-creep, coupled with sociopathic greed (being taught in our colleges). Until we re-find the National Will and elect real leaders, those who have, first, last and foremost, the full country's best interest at heart nothing will save us.

    Just for fun, I'll expose my own throat and give you some of the things I would do, and strongly believe need to be done - immediately. We really have a spending problem, much more than we have a tax revenue problem.

    1. I'm retired military, but I see mountains of taxes (debt) being squandered overseas, and at home for that matter. I say, Immediately section off northern Iraq, to save the Kurds (our only true, but disgustingly self-centered Arab friends) and pull out of Iraq - all together. $10 Billion a month in savings. We gave them our blood and treasure, it's now up to them to make something of it. If it's an Islamic Caliphate then so be it. Same thing in Afghanistan, self-determination is a good thing, a perpetual welfare-conflict is not, there, or at home.

    Close all 814 foreign military bases and about half our embassy's around the world. This has an unexpected benefit for our manufacturing. When the regions destabilize, our robber-Barron's will bring home some (not all) of our manufacturing base. Without our manufacturing base, the US will never make a full economic recovery. On this note, if we could convince the libbers and tree-huggers that all the ocean super-tanker and box-boat traffic is polluting our air and water as much as it truly is, imports would be curtailed instantly.

    2. Shrink the size of all governments immediately, but compassionately by attrition. Martin Gross wrote a book called 'National Suicide' in 2009 (?) that has a very good plan in it. He also is a fantastic researcher and the book exposes a galaxy of waste, fraud and abuse. His plan, and by extension a part of mine is to allow the size of government (which in-fact, is nothing more than the employees that make it up) to shrink by retirement, resignations and election turn-over. Election turn-over can speed up the shrink by allowing fewer and fewer staffers and support personnel for new electees.

    There are over 300 alphabet agencies with grossly overlapping and unintended, excessive responsibilities that need to go on a 'biggest-loosers' diet right away. Law enforcement, or in the case of Homeland Security, non-enforcement, is the next largest waste and drain on the annual budget. This includes Air Facre one and the emperor's travel budget - current, and past.

    Put the county's government-operations on a strict second-tier Cash Budget. If the cash isn't there, the branches don't travel, or party on our money. There is another unseen benefit to this exercise. When public officials are not able to give everything to everyone that asks they will be quickly un-elected (my word) and term limits will summarily enacted.

    There are so many other reasonable and worthwhile and necessary actions to be taken. How? That my friend is the $64 question. But, it's a hot and very slow day here on the lake, so I'll save those thoughts for your attack-responses.

    your's in austerity,

    Kip
     
  10. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    Rick:

    You asked, "Why the higher income earner must pay more than those who pay the least?"

    I'll give you a long answer and a short answer:

    LONG ANSWER: I have several guys working for me who make $35-$50K per year. I pay a lot more tax (in raw dollars and by percentage) than they do. This makes sense because SOMEBODY needs to pay for government spending, and I can afford to pay more than these young guys can. And I should -- because I am reaping the benefits of this country more than them right now. If/when they get to my income level they can pay more, just like I do. At the same time, my boss, who makes several hundred thousand dollar per year, can afford to pay a lot more than me. And again, maybe he should because he is reaping more benefits from this country than me.

    I realize that, to the simple-minded, this smells a little bit like Socialism. But it isn't. America has always been a country where those who can afford to pay a little more usually do. It's going one step further and attempting wholesale redistribution of wealth when it becomes Socialism. I'm against that because it is morally wrong, it discourages hard work and success, and because it simply is not necessary. There is a difference between progressive and repressive.

    SHORT ANSWER: Because for America to exist, THEY HAVE TO. As I said above, the top 25% of earners in this country pay 86.3% of all the federal taxes. If you could snap your fingers and have a flat tax -- even a 25% flat tax -- the country would collapse in a few months from the loss of revenue. It's like you asking your teenage kid why you have to pay the entire house payment. You have to, because someone has to pay it and he has no means by which to do it.

    We're conservatives, but let's not lose our marbles.

    -Gary
     
  11. Chichay

    Chichay TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,857
    Gary,

    How did you come to the conclusion that those who have it get more out of the country than the have-nots? They certainly do not get more out of government. And even at a flat rate tax, isn't say 15% of $100,000 more than 15% of $50,000?

    Supermarket A charges according to your ability to pay. Supermarket B charges a set price for a partuclar item. Which would you patronize?

    And... what is keeping you from sending more to the IRS than what they ask for?

    In your real life experience, when a store wants to increase business (thereby profits) does it declare a sale or increase prices?

    The economy is not a fixed-size pie; it will expand and contract depending on the incentives given to the producers in this society. "A rising tide lifts all boats".

    Jeez (as you would say)
    Chichay
     
  12. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    Chichay:

    When you make a half million, or ten million, per year you're obviously "getting more out of the country" than those who make 50 grand.

    Again, if the wealthiest 25% who are now paying 86.3% of the taxes were suddenly allowed to pay at a 15% tax rate the country would undoubtedly collapse. Is that what you want?

    Anyone who wants a flat tax either hasn't thought through the math, or they want the country to collapse. No other possibility exists (except self-delusion).

    -Gary
     
  13. Chichay

    Chichay TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,857
    Gary,

    You evade my questions. Your assumptions are not borne out by facts. Worse,
    you ascribe sinister motives to those who do not agree with you.

    The above website talks about what REALLY happened to our economy when marginal tax rates were cut, what happened to the tax-burden of the wealthy, etc.

    Education is a very enlightening experience, but only to those with open minds.

    Have a good night,
    Chichay
     
  14. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    What Gary is trying to eloquently to step around is the phrase "wealth redistribution".

    This is the socialist ideal. That capitalism shall be penalized and those unwilling to work shall be rewarded.
     
  15. Don Steele

    Don Steele Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,536
    Location:
    Florida's beautiful E. Coast
    We have had several examples of these re-distribution societies to look at in recent years.
    .
    .
    .
    Joe Stalin's Soviet Union...FAILED
    .
    .
    .

    Fidel Castros' Cuba.....FAILED
    .
    .
    I guess the left-wing socialists in our government missed those classes in their education.
    btw: Please don't waste your time telling us how they manage in Sweden, Switzerland, or some other minor european enclave with nothing like the DIVERSITY the US has to deal with.
     
  16. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    I'm anything but a Socialist. It's just that I've done the math and I see the situation we are currently in for what it is.


    Mr. Barker: You repeatedly say things like, "If they took all money from everybody, the government would run through it in a week." Think about that statement for a second. They currently take less than "all the money from everybody" and the deficit, as sicekning as it is, is not anywhere near the remainder of all post-tax income. You and I are probably of similar political bent, and I will verbally joust with you anytime you like, but please do a little homework so we can debate factually.

    I hate taxes as much as the next guy, trust me. But somebody has to pay the bills and those who make millions have to keep taking the hit they've been taking -- just like they did under Reagan. Do you guys think that this concept is something new?

    -Gary
     
  17. Anti-Fed

    Anti-Fed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    83
    SALES tax. If you spend it you pay taxes. The more you spend, the more you pay. That would bring all sorts of under the table money into taxation, and allow individuals to decide whether they want to pay or not.

    Jed
     
  18. AEST BOSS

    AEST BOSS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    15% consumption tax...across the board!

    The more you make...the more you spend. The more you spend...the more tax you pay. Fair for ALL.
     
  19. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    Everyone please take a breath and listen to what I'm about to tell you...

    Do you happen to remember Ronald Reagan -- the hero of "Get Government Out Of The Way" people like me? Remember how he cut taxes and helped revive the economy that was destroyed in the 70s by people like Jimmy Carter? Remember how Reagan said cut taxes and tax revenue will go UP? Do you recall any of that?

    Well, under Reagan the highest marginal income tax rate was 50% in five of the eight years he held office. It averaged 48.2% for his entire presidency. It's 35% right now. That means we would have to raise it by 37.7% (13.2 points) just to get it up to the "low taxes" of Ronald Reagan. Even Ronald Reagan realized that somebody has to pay the bills.

    OK, forget Reagan -- do you instead long for the 1960s & 70s? Every single year in both of those "Good Old Days" decades had the highest marginal income tax rate at TWICE what it is today (70%) -- or more!

    Forget the 60s & 70s -- let's go back to blessed Ozzie and Harriet days of the 1950s. The federal government barely even knew you existed back then, right? Not much government waste either, right? Well, the highest marginal income tax rate back then was 91-92%. For the math challenged, that means you earn an additional dollar and only get to keep 8 or 9 cents (before state, local and sales tax took a chunk of that).

    SO... is it starting to become clear how foolish it sounds for people to bitch about paying 35%? And guess what -- you don't even start paying 35% until you make $373,650 per year. If you're like most well-paid people ($82.4-171.8K), you only pay 28%. If you make under $83K you better just shut the hell up because you're basically getting a free ride (compared to those in nearly any developed nation on the planet).

    My God, never in a MILLION YEARS did I think I would be defending this side of the federal income tax debate, but some of you people are so far off the deep end it's ridiculous. If you want to argue, at least argue TOTAL taxation, or HIDDEN taxes, or CORPORATE taxes. Argue something that's at least defensible. Arguing that the wealthiest people in the wealthiest country on earth should not have to pay 35% is completely asinine, and ignores both reality and history. Not to mention basic arithmetic.

    JEEZ :)

    -Gary
     
  20. shannon391

    shannon391 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,477
    Why did we revolt from England?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.