Tax Rate Question

[45Auto]

Should those Americans earning more than $1 million a year pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do?

Yes,__________

No, __________

If 'No' then what rate should they pay?

[Juker]

As painful as it is, tax is necessary to keep the wheels of government oiled.

The problem, as most thinking people realize, is that our government can't control its spending. The government has overreached its authority and has its fingers in far too many pies.

So I believe in a flat tax. It's fair, everyone would know their portion, and it would be far simpler to manage.

How about 1%? If you're making $20,000 per year, your federal income tax would be $200. Another 1% for state income tax. $1,000,000 a year? Your federal tax would be $10,000.

If we had wise people in our government, they could easily run the country on that amount of money. An economy only works if earners decide where to spend their money, instead of having the government do it for them.

The only reason the tax code hasn't been revised is that lobbyists, special interests, foreign aid, bailouts, etc. are getting far too much of our cash.

[carver]

I also agree with the fair tax, or flat rate tax. And as Juker pointed out, everyone payes the same amount. If we went to either system think of the number of IRS employees that will out looking for a job! It's like total electric cars. Too many people will find them selves out of work, so no politican would ever consider such a move on improving the tax situation, they would become unpopular, and not get re-elected.

[todd51]

I too like the idea of a flat tax or fair share tax, what ever we call it. I have no idea what that tax rate would have to be and it would not remove our need to rein in the spending that has been going on. I don't begrudge a rich man his wealth and don't want to punish him because of it. What I don't like it the fact that close to 50% of the population doesn't pay any income tax at all. I think Steve Forbes had the right idea on a flat tax system.

[terryu1]

I also agree with the flat tax with NO DEDUCTIONS. Come up with a percentage and EVERYONE has it deducted and it is sent to the gov't.
I am tired of the arguments being floated. People are mixing capital gains tax with income tax and then of course the liberals will say that the "myth" is that 60% of households pay no tax. Then they go on to say they pay tax on items etc that is not relevant to income tax. Also the statement that the top 10 percent pay 75 percent of tax. Well of course they do cause that also make 75 percent of the income paid in the US. The flat tax is the way to go.

That said I also do believe though that after a certain income level, people can afford a few percent more to ease the burden on less fortunate (like me LOL)

[cutter]

The tax rates Obummer is talking about two different taxes and making them sound as if they are the same. Capital Gains Tax and Federal Income Tax. Two different taxes, so it is comparing apples and oranges. Warren Buffet does not get a "salery" wheras his secrutary (spelling) does. Buffet pays a Capital gains tax because his money has been invested (already paid Fed taxes at the start) The secrutary (sp) is paying Fed Income tax (money has not been taxed) I would love to see a FLAT Tax, no deductions, every one pays the same % of money made whether income or capital gains.

[rentalguy1]

Originally Posted by terryu1

That said I also do believe though that after a certain income level, people can afford a few percent more to ease the burden on less fortunate (like me LOL)

Your thoughts are flawed on this. Everyone seems to think that high income taxpayers are just like themselves; they earn a paycheck and pay taxes based upon that. In the majority of these high earners, this is not the case. The high income that is reported to the IRS is from receivables, not wages. In other words, not all of the money that is shown as income can be used for personal needs by the taxpayer, because it has to be put back into the business. Take a independent trucker, for example. He can easily earn about $120,000/year, but, after he makes a monthly payment on his truck and trailer, bobtail and freight insurance, IFTA fees, apportioned plates, maintenance and fuel, then he might be lucky to clear $30,000 for himself. He is taxed on the entire $120,000 for that year, though. This is the reason there are "loopholes" to begin with; to offset some of the business owner's expenses. You would think that more people would know this stuff, except that the government does not want it to be taught in school. If young people started learning how "real" economics work, then they would no longer have a base to scream to about the "rich not paying their fair share."

[carver]

The same thing applies to the owner of a Construction Co. He pays taxes on equipment at the time of purcahse, then at the end of the year, he has to pay taxes on the same equipment again. Example: He buys a 2X4, and pays taxes on it at the time of purcahse, then at the end of the year, if he hasn't used it up, he has to inventory, and pay taxes again on that same 2X4. He has no obligation to pay more taxes than anyone else, but he already does. Fair Tax would have him pay 5% of his total income one time a year, just like all other tax payers in America. We know who the 49% that don't pay taxes are, and they got to go! Under most forms of Comunism, if you don't work, you don't eat, but under the Socialist system everyone gets the same even if you don't work.

[todd51]

I haven't gone deeply into it but was intrigued by the idea of not taxing what we make but taxing what we spent, a consumption tax. Buy a john boat and pay a tax, buy a yacht pay a tax, buy a hamburger or buy a lobster, buy a tent or buy a mansion. Tax collected at the time of sale reducing the need for the huge IRS. The more you spend the more you pay. On the surface it sounds like it might work but I haven't looked into the pit falls.

[carver]

Some in Government are looking at this system now, it would work just as well as a fair tax, or flat tax. If you pay on a percentage basis. If you buy a Toyota, or Ford Ranger truck, you pay the consumer tax rate at that time. If you buy a Rolls Royce it's because you make more money, and you pay the same rate on the tax, and that will be a lot higher than the taxes on the Toyota, or Ford.

[Cowboy6373]

Todd51, I like your thought on the consumption tax but one thing to keep in mind is fixed and variable expenses. Just like small businesses or individuals we have fixed expenses (rent for example) and variable (entertainment) the govt has a fixed base in which they need to raise funds (military). So a flat tax is the answer for those fxed expenses and the consumption tax fills the needs for variable expenses. A pitfall of consumtion tax only would be if people didn't spend there wouldn't be enough tax dollars to cover fixed expenses.
One other thing that people often overlook is that a flat tax is still progressive. If the rate were 10% a person earning 1 million would pay 100k and a person earning 100,000 would pay 10k. So the rich end up paying more.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by todd51

I haven't gone deeply into it but was intrigued by the idea of not taxing what we make but taxing what we spent, a consumption tax. Buy a john boat and pay a tax, buy a yacht pay a tax, buy a hamburger or buy a lobster, buy a tent or buy a mansion. Tax collected at the time of sale reducing the need for the huge IRS. The more you spend the more you pay. On the surface it sounds like it might work but I haven't looked into the pit falls.

Once you look into that, you'll see that it's a regressive tax that destroys an economy, because a sub-economy (black market) will be created.

The danger in this idea is that it will be ADDED on to all the other taxes we already pay, instead of abolishing them.

The VAT tax is another really really really bad idea.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Should those Americans earning more than $1 million a year pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do?

Yes,_____X_____

No, __________

If 'No' then what rate should they pay?

EVERYONE should pay the same tax rate. Everyone. This country, the states, the localities all should not be able to tax the way they do. It's evil.

1% (one percent) federal income tax - on all income and only on income (not receivables, etc). Any more kills business. A business pays the same as an individual. Period.

1% state and local income tax, SPLIT between the two, equally. Period.

Abolish all sales tax - it's regressive.
Abolish the tax code, period.
Abolish the IRS, period.
Abolish welfare, period.
Abolish medicare, medicaid, etc, period.
No loopholes, no handouts.
Abolish ALL federal pensions, state pensions, local municipality pensions, etc. (They can all have an IRA like the rest of us - with no guarantees - welcome to the real world.)

Okay? So, you'd pay your 2% and the rest is yours. No tax hikes allowed, ever. A small, well run government (at all levels - there'd be fewer levels) can run on 2 percent.

Now, imagine how you could help your church, charity, neighbor, family member, friend, etc., when the 35-50% of YOUR money is NOT taken through taxes. Think about it. You'd have enough to build wealth, and be generous.

[jbmid1]

In case you haven't notice, there are two issues that come up in every election cycle -
Jobs and taxes. If we had full employment and fair taxation, these people would have nothing to talk about.

[TCoggins]

I hope this doesn't get too off topic, but I keep hearing the term "paying their fair share". I have yet to hear the definition of somebody's fair share.

Anybody here know what the fair share is? Should a millionaire pay $200,000 in income taxes while I pay $20,000 in income taxes for essentially the same 'benefits'?

By the way, I feel that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income as income tax.

Thanks.

Tim

[45Auto]

I might have missed something here, but it seems that we are agreed that everyone should pay the same % of income in taxes regardless of how high or low that income is.

Ideas varied as to what that universal % of income paid in taxes should be and what should be considered "income" for tax purposes.

But what about the idea that the super rich are "job creators" and thus should pay a far smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than middle class taxpers?

[rcairflr]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Should those Americans earning more than $1 million a year pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do?

Yes,__________

No, __________

If 'No' then what rate should they pay?

To me this is a stupid question and has no bearing on the situation the USA finds itself in. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. Obummer is just using it as part of his reelection campaign, to firm up his base, which just so happens to be the 50% in this country who don't pay any income tax. He knows it won't help solve the problem

Most millionaires pay a higher percentage of tax than the average middle class. If there is a multimillionaire who doesn't have income other than dividends, than yes he would pay less in income tax.

This accounts for such a low percentage of Americans it would not help the debt problem. It would be like throwing a sandbag in the flood plain of the Mississippi river.

Bottom line for me is, we need to re do the whole tax system and get a tax system where "EVERYONE" pays, not just 50% of the people.

[Bobitis]

Flat tax across the board, and eliminate ALL loopholes.

It IS that simple.

When ya think about it, what's not to like?

I get taxed on my income. The fed gets their cut.
Then they give it away to some user, who then has to pay tax on it.

Double taxation! How can that not be a win-win?

As it is, we want to blame the rich for our self inflicted woes for the sake of the users that don't care about anything other than their free money, food, healthcare, schooling, etc.

No more free ride.

If ya want welfare and all the fed perks, ya gotta pay the price. That means ya gotta work for them. I don't care what it is. Pick up litter, clean toilets, work the school crosswalks, whatever... And on top of that, ya still gotta pay taxes on your earnings.

THAT'S what I call hope and change.

In a word... Accountability.

Not willing to work for welfare? Then ya don't get any.

Obviously the aged and disabled would not be held to this standard. I for one will work a little harder for their benefit.

What's an addicts worst problem? Enablers!

Hand up, NOT hand out!

[hogger129]

Should those Americans earning more than $1 million a year pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do?

Yes,__________

No, ___X______

If 'No' then what rate should they pay?




I'm going to change my previous statement and say no. The reason being because what would a "fair share" be? I would support going to a flat tax rate, but what would that rate be? Who decides? Obama?

Another part of it I take issue with is the other taxes we already have. Would they all be consolidated into one giant tax? Where we just have one Federal and one State tax rate?

Also, Washington already has enough money. They don't need more. They obviously cannot be responsible with what they have. Saving is a foreign concept to these people. I mean just look at that $535,000,000 of our tax money that got thrown out the window.

If you ask me, more spending cuts need to happen, and more tax cuts for everybody need to happen.


I also feel that a lot of this is rooted in corporate tax rates. Jobs would be here if our corporate tax rates were competitive with the countries all the jobs are moving to. Plus these corporations can move somewhere else and pay workers next to nothing. I'm not saying we should pay our workers next to nothing, but there needs to be something done to bring jobs back here. Raising taxes ain't the solution.


The problem here is that if you allow them to go tax the heck out of the rich, etc, etc, it opens up the door to them increasing taxes on everybody - including people who don't make $250,000+.

Don't give them the authority.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by TCoggins

I hope this doesn't get too off topic, but I keep hearing the term "paying their fair share". I have yet to hear the definition of somebody's fair share.

Anybody here know what the fair share is? Should a millionaire pay $200,000 in income taxes while I pay $20,000 in income taxes for essentially the same 'benefits'?

By the way, I feel that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income as income tax.

Thanks.

Tim

From the progressive point of view (those that are pushing for the rich to pay their fair share), it's a moving target. It's whatever they want it to be, and could change from year to year, if not month to month. It's whatever amount makes them feel good about themselves, and buys votes to keep them in power.

[rentalguy1]

Originally Posted by rcairflr

T We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. Obummer is just using it as part of his reelection campaign, to firm up his base, which just so happens to be the 50% in this country who don't pay any income tax. He knows it won't help solve the problem

^ FTW

[storecloser]

Steve Forbes had a book out & he proposed a flat tax of 17%.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by storecloser

Steve Forbes had a book out & he proposed a flat tax of 17%.

Which is ridiculous and stupid. He's not a small government guy either (i.e., the founders).

The founders abhorred debt, they abhorred frivolous spending, abhorred taxation, and wanted to avoid FOREIGN entanglements (wars). We've gone in exactly the opposite direction. Hmmmm, wonder why the republic they founded is dead? I don't wonder.

And it's the posers who CLAIM to be conservative, and are not, that do the most damage.

[rcairflr]

Originally Posted by graehaven

Which is ridiculous and stupid. He's not a small government guy either (i.e., the founders).

The founders abhorred debt, they abhorred frivolous spending, abhorred taxation, and wanted to avoid FOREIGN entanglements (wars). We've gone in exactly the opposite direction. Hmmmm, wonder why the republic they founded is dead? I don't wonder.

And it's the posers who CLAIM to be conservative, and are not, that do the most damage.

Well said and most of the Republicans in Washington today are not conservative. If they were, we would not have continued to run up $6 trillion in debt during the GW Bush administraion with record money going into the government. Magically now that the democrats are in control, they are now conservative again (yeah righ). But for most of you, it seems like you don't look at the facts or believe since it was the Republicans instead of the Democrats running up $6 trillion in debt it was OK.

Kick all of them out of Washington and get true conservatives in Washington, until that happens, nothing will change. if the Republicans were in power we would still have deficits of $1.5 trillion a year, the only difference would be is where the money went. As middle class Americans, it would not be coming to us, just as with Obummer, it is not coming to us.

Both parties have one main priority and that is to retain power and advance their agendas, which has nothing good to do with any of us. But if it makes you all feel better, just keep calling the Republicans conservative.

[cb5300]

Originally Posted by storecloser

Steve Forbes had a book out & he proposed a flat tax of 17%.

17% might be a little high, but the 1% number is to low (would never happen), maybe shoot for a 10% rate. After all 10% was good enough for God, why should Uncle Sam get more?