What's silly about abolishing the IRS and going to a straight flat tax paid by everyone-no exceptions, and no "progressivity". I would even go with a consumption tax if we could rid ourselves of the 16th Amendment.
Never happen without blood in the streets. Nor should it. Billionaires at the same tax rate as a couple kids working three jobs trying to feed a couple of kids? That would give the Obama's of the world all they need to bring real live marxism to America.
It absolutely should. The math, and concept is simple. The billionaires will pay much, much, much ... more than the poor. A flat percentage of a whole lot, is a whole lot. A flat percentage of very little, is very little. If everyone pays a flat percentage, they all have a stake. And my how wonderfully simple filling out the income tax return would be. Granted, H&R Block and friends would need to seek new hunting grounds.
I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Oh I'm so loving the "libertarians" complaining about voting here. LOL. Nice one Mike762.
The RPer's offer nothing but an unrealistic immediate return to 1789 in theory as a dogma.
It simply cannot happen. Even Jefferson used military power projection as a tool.
Facts are there are not any reasonable leaders with a reasonable plan reduce the size and scope of the Federal government, competently manage a national currency, control spending and taxation while maintaining an effective reality based defense of the nation. It's not 1804 and 50 seperate currencies for the 50 states is not an option for anything but disaster. National defense isn't about 20 pirate ships powered by sails hanging out in Tripoli it's about nations with ballisitc missiles, nukes and the desire for genocide. Trade isn't simply farm goods and housewares, it's technology and information too. Get a grip people RP is deluded, narrow and regressive in thinking. Now many of his points are good and need to be heeded particularly on spending and scope of the Feds. The rest of it is amusingly deluded. Just abolish the IRS? have you noticed the already 17% real unemployment rate? Perhaps we shopuld just dump a few million more people on that number? Get a grip people.
Gingrich/Romney or Romney/Gingrich? Newt gives a good speech, but I have reservations. Give him a maybe. Romney? No way, no how. RINO through and through, regardless of his business background. There are plenty in business who are more than willing to spend OPM on their pet ideas.
"The era of Reagan is over. ... It's the end of the Reagan era." - Newt Gingrich
I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
I didn't know you were a Marxist, dude. Learn something new every day.
I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
I suppose we agree to disagree. The other option is a flat consumption tax. Pay according to use. I fail to see how a flat tax is unfair. Of course with a flat tax, some will pay less than they did before, and still pay a whole lot more than those at the bottom of the rung. Greater use of infrastructure? ... You say you understand how percentages work. Since the wealthy do pay more on a flat percentage as they make more, how are they getting a free lunch? The tax paid scales proportionately. Can YOU quantify this greater use of the infrastructure? Or should we just pad that tax rate to make sure? Ah. I don't know why I bother. Your mind is made up, and so is mine. I do know this, I sure would benefit now. But when I started out my working life at the very bottom at $3.35/hr minimum wage, I never supported the idea of soaking those of greater means to pave my way working up the ladder, and voted accordingly.
I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
I didn't know you were a Marxist, dude. Learn something new every day.
Obviously, you don't.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
I didn't know you were a Marxist, dude. Learn something new every day.
Obviously, you don't.
The graduated income tax was a central plank of Marxism. I believe it was No. 2 of his 10 central planks.
I understand how percentages work. I also understand that those generating higher incomes typically utilize more of the infrastructure tax revenues go to support. That is why they should also pay a higher percentage ie progressive. Another thing I understand is those who support a non-progressive flat tax or a consumption tax believe it will benefit them financially, not because it is fair.
I didn't know you were a Marxist, dude. Learn something new every day.
Obviously, you don't.
The graduated income tax was a central plank of Marxism. I believe it was No. 2 of his 10 central planks.
Do you know who said, "to whom much has been given, much will be required"? Hint: it was not Karl Marx.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Jesus wasn't talking about taxes. He was talking about being accountable for the resources we've been entrusted to be good stewards of. In fact, I would argue that if I have a finite amount of resources (which I do), that I could do much better to further God's kingdom and help the poor myself than to give the money to our very wasteful government.
If you are concerned about the allocation of infrastructure costs, then make those pay as you go with the users picking up the tab (e.g., toll highways, etc.).
Furthermore, RickyD, did not God set out the model for contributing to the common good with the tithe of the Old Testament?
With the tithe requirement, everyone was required to give 10% of what he/she had, regardless of how much they had. God didn't require a rich person to give more than 10% (although God certainly will hold a rich person accountable for what he does with "his" money), and God didn't allow a poor person to give less than 10%. Bottom line, I think a flat tax, with a exemption on the first X amount (poverty level) of income for everyone, is more in line with biblical principles than a misleadingly-named "progressive" tax.
My thought is that the federal government should be able to get by on 10% of the nation's income, so that's what they should charge us. If the federal government has to privatize some things, so be it. The people will decide what is important. If the federal government can't get by on 10% of what the American people make in a year, then there is a serious problem.
If you are concerned about the allocation of infrastructure costs, then make those pay as you go with the users picking up the tab (e.g., toll highways, etc.).
This is my thought on infrastructure costs, although I didn't initially go there because the thread sort of evolved as they often do. The subject of taxes can really be rather broad in terms of sourcing for given usage.
Your example of tolls is an excellent one, although I prefer fuel tax. Fuel consumed is proportional to road usage. Heavier vehicles use more fuel. And the time required to stop for fuel can not be escaped. Stopping for tolls adds to congestion when not necessary if the tax were already paid at the pump. While ez-tag scanning toll systems are now available, the toll stations are redundant, and so add to cost. Also, traffic still tends to slow in the scanner lanes as drivers pass through the toll stations. Why build toll booths when gas stations already exist? Anyways, either a toll or a fuel tax can be directly tied to infrastructure usage and cost. Either makes much more sense than trying to tax income to cover this expense.
If the federal government can't get by on 10% of what the American people make in a year, then there is a serious problem. govt. needs to reduce spending.
Thanks for the response , Isacc . I'll only address the first paragraph since I'm in agreement with your domestic " agenda " .
What is wrong with us stepping back and letting Russia and China go at it ? Or do you think the paranoid Russians would lose their fear of China and form a real alliance capable of doing us harm ?
Granted , there would be a global upheaval of some magnitude if we leave troops only in those nations which are historically our allies , but I'd rather see us " managing the aftermath " than continue down the " nation building , global policeman " route .
Our nuclear subs provide the only real deterrant we need for Russia or China .
We could buy a strip of land along our southern border and give it to the jews provided they get out of the Middle East .
.