American flat tax

Who here would favor a national flat tax to replace our very complicated tax system. Everyone would pay the same percentage of their income so the Rich would pay more because their earnings are more for example . Some say this is a regressive tax system . And some suggest that a national sales tax should be used because everyone has to buy something . Anyway what do you think

 

I think it is unfair to tax women just because they have A-cups or less. So I don't agree with your suggestion.

Hush....an alias

 

@Hush would be exempt...

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, also known as Taxpayer Bill of Rights III, (Pub.L. 105–206, 112 Stat. 685, enacted July 22, 1998), resulted from hearings held by the United States Congress in 1996 and 1997. The Act included numerous amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.



Examples of provisions related to individuals
The Act provides that individuals who fail to provide their taxpayer identification numbers are not allowed to take the earned income credit for the year in which the failure occurs.

Individuals are allowed to deduct interest expense paid on certain student loans.

The exclusion, from income, of gain on the sale of a principal residence (up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 on a joint return) is pro-rated for certain taxpayers.

The use of a continuous levy—a levy attaching to both property held on the date of levy and to property acquired after that date—must be specifically approved by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) before the levy is effective

 

The Stamp Act of 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that imposed a direct tax on the colonies of British America and required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp.[1][2] Printed materials included legal documents, magazines, playing cards, newspapers, and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money.[3] The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War and its North American theater of the French and Indian War. The Americans said that there was no military need for the soldiers because there were no foreign enemies on the continent, and the Americans had always protected themselves against Indians.

 

Trysting that you bring up the Indians because Thomas Jefferson actually mentioned them specifically in the Declaration of Independence . He used it as one of the reasons that the US should be independent of Britain because they refused to protect the colonists against the what he called savage Indians

 

A flat tax?
Sure.
Get rid of all deductions; all of them.
Tax individuals and corporations at the same rate.
For starters, lets say 5%.

And at the same time require a balanced budget and give the President line item veto power in the budget, reversible by 2/3 majority vote of the House.

 

I say no, although if we were to eliminate progressive taxing in America we would also have to eliminate sales tax or at least base it off the income of buyers. Just like progressive tax makes the rich have to pay more sales tax a regressive tax hurts the lower income people . With this being said I do not support rich getting even richer because it leaves even more room for corruption and monopoly within corporations in theory I think progressive tax is a good idea but I don't support the currupt conservative mindset behind it

 

I think we can do better than a tax code that is 70,000 pages thick....hard to hide loop holes in a document of reasonable comprehension and length. No politician wants transparency, won't change.

 

If that is what you mean by all your hysterical raving about a "revolution" it will never happen, because most Americans do not want it to happen.

 

If the GOP gets serious about a flat tax this would break lower income whites of their fatal attraction to the Republican Party, because it would raise their taxes.

Even the poorly educated whites Trump pretends to love would be able to figure that out.

 

A flat tax sounds good in theory but isn't very "fair" in reality.
Take a person making $25,000 a year and another making $250,000 per year.
Which one would probably feel the loss of 15% of their income more than the other?
I'm pretty sure the person making 25K would feel the $3,500 hit much more severely than the $37,500 that the person making $250K.

 

For a flat tax to be revenue neutral it would need to raise taxes for most Americans.

 

Absolutely, a flat tax is a far better system.

No loopholes, no deductions, all pay.

Individual rate for $10,000-$50,000---Joint rate for $10,000-$50,000-----------$100.00

$50,001-$250,000-- 50,001-$250,000-----------12%

$250,001-$750,000-- $250,001-$750,000--------18%

$750,001-$1.5 million $750,001-$1.5 million -----22%

$1,500,001 -+ $1,500,001--+--------------26%

 

BULLSHIT...

Reduce spending for the federal fucking government.

 

Having spent a lot of time around wealthy people I can assure you that they are not paying their fair share of taxes because they know how to use the tax laws to their advantage . They are the biggest opponents of the flat tax for this reason . And I have heard some say that they should not have to pay any tax because they create wealth .

Progressive taxes as the very liberal wish them to be would block incentives for the wealthy to create jobs because without the incentive to make money what would be the point of creating jobs .

The very poor if they have their way would bleed the rich completely dry.

So both the poor and the rich oppose a flat tax so it will never happen .

So taxes will continually be paid by the middle class .

Last I heard our tax law comprises over 10,000 pages .I don't see how anything this complicated can be to anyone's benefit

 

There is little support for specific spending cuts. President Trump has advocated increases in military and infrastructure spending, as well as an expensive wall with Mexico.

-------

Pew Research Center FEBRUARY 22, 2013

As the March 1 deadline for a possible budget sequester approaches, a new national survey finds limited public support for reducing spending for a range of specific programs, including defense, entitlements, education and health care.

For 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels. The only exception is assistance for needy people around the world. Nonetheless, as many say that funding for aid to the needy overseas should either be increased (21%), or kept the same (28%), as decreased (48%).

The survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Feb. 13-18, 2013 among 1,504 adults, finds little change in attitudes about government spending since 2011. One notable exception: somewhat fewer support reducing military defense spending, which would bear a major share of the sequester cuts.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/02...oms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/

 

Let's have steeply progressive taxation with no deductions then.

 

I agree about no deductions but I fiercely disagree about any so-called progressive tax because the reason they call it progressive is because it has the cache of moral certitude

 

And OK if we cut military spending where are we going to cut it specifically in this age where we have so many enemies