question about taxes

[directinfection]

I get a lot of crap from conservatives on the issue of taxation. How different is a proportional system from a flat tax of say, 10%?

im told repeatably that 10% from everyone would be enough to fund our country. But i just don't see how 10% from a minumum wage worker to a millionaire is the same. I have a hard time crying over a conservative who says we are taxing sucess. What is everyones idea of a fair tax system? I feel like the canidates are all over the place on this issue.

I feel like this issue is the only one i am really weak on when i get into arguments with these people. But usually it doesn't matter because the conversation always regresses back to clinton and monica and how 9-11 is clintons fault. the other day i even heard that we have such a mess in iraq now because of clinton. do these people have any bounds? 40 years from now we will still be hearing shit about clinton.

[Brucey]

1. Well, you can't argue with congenital conservatives, but

almost all reasonable people, including wealthy ones such as Warren Buffett, feel that the rich should pay a higher percentage, since they have gained their wealth from the society, and also because it is the hallmark of a civilized society that those that have should contribute more (sort of Noblese oblige). A flat tax would have to be higher than 10%. Reasonable people realize that taxes are good because 1) they are the income for the society (who wants to have a low income?) and 2) they generate large expenditures that otherwise would not be made by individuals (schools, parks, libraries, bridges, nursing homes, etc.) and 3) they keep the money going round, which is what keeps the economy humming (if everyone stopped spending, the economy would dry up). Most people think that giving someone a tax rebate is a good thing, but spending the money is a bad thing. But think about that. Giving someone money and getting nothing in return is better than giving money and getting something in return? Spending is just giving money to people... but you get goods and services in return, and then you tax them on their income! Money goes round and round even more!

[papau]

2. 40% flat tax if deductible of 10000 per person,. Note that 75% of budget

is Defense, SS and Medicare, and interest on Debt - all paid by the 2 income taxes we have - namely the payroll tax and the FIT.

Cut out SS and Medicare and you cut flat tax to maybe 27% - then cut out deductible so poor and middle class pay more and you get to 22% - but Gov will consist of defense and interest on the debt - and nothing much else - no SS or medicare.

With the large per person deductible and a high rate that is enough to cover the current take on the payroll tax and FIT (high 30's to 40% rate), and you have a "flat tax" that makes the rich pay more, and the poor pay less.

BUT - continue a wage based capped SS payroll tax, and have a flat tax FIT of say 17%, and then the rich pay less while the poor and middle class pay more.

The other right wing screw the poor wet dream is a national sales tax replacing FIT - while we keep the payroll tax and its capped wage base - with the same rich pay less result

[Festivito]

3. Taxes are as frustrating as the "conservatives."

I put conservatives in quotes because they don't seem to conserve anything. I'm ranting. I will now return to your question.

First, a "flat tax" is a "proportional tax." The other idea of taxation is "progressive tax" where the percentage increases as more money is made.

No one seems to say this, but, even the flat tax is progressive. Huh, what, how, I hear you bellow. Well, for the first $10,000 the percentage is zero, then the percentage increases to 10%. It then stays at 10%. It seems fair even to heartless Republicans because people need to EAT. It's called being FAIR. Not that I find the flat tax fair, I don't. I think it should be even more progressive since many items needed to live increase as wage increases. Such as an executive/manager needs more expensive clothes and a better more reliable car, expenses which are necessary to do their jobs.

A "regressive tax" decreases the percentage as more money is made. Social Security is an example of this. 7.65% is taken out of your pay, BUT, twice that, 15.3% is sent in by your employer... until you make over $100,000 at which point the rich little buggers don't pay any more. (Actually, the number is somewhere over $90,000 in a year and is probably picked to make sure that discussions such as this one become tiresome and tricky to express especially if one, like me, cannot remember the exact 5-digit number. Also, the Medicare portion which I think is 2.9% inside the 15.3% continues to be paid over $100K, but, I'm not sure.) It is still regressive since the more money one makes, once over $100K in a year, the percentage they pay is less and less and less. Since the wealthy pay a percentage lower than we poor under $100K a year folks in order to support SS payments for the disabled and yet they reap the benefit of not having to support the disabled, I call this regressive tax unfair. WORSE, is that a person making one dollar can have this taken out of their pay which is terribly unfair. (No self-respecting employer would, the first $600 is ignorable, but, it could still be taken out if the employer or employee wants it taken out.)

Taxes are frustrating, complex and just plain impossible to understand let alone describe. So many people are in different situations that no one method is fair, and if it was, I'd bet it wouldn't be fair next year.

So, kindly fight back. Yes, Democrats are "tax and spend" which is to say we pay as we go. Republicans are "borrow and blame." Huge deficits children must pay, and then they blame Clinton. By the way, Clinton's military did a fine job in Afghanistan and Iraq. Too bad Clinton hadn't forseen that Bush would not have made plans about what to do after Clinton's military won and now we are in a big Bushy mess. Yup, Clinton got sex outside of his marriage. Too bad he didn't take drugs like Bush did since cocaine lowers the sex drive. And, Clinton mislead us about his affair, though technically telling the truth about sexual relations as defined in Washington D.C., and was impeached for misleading, not impeached for lying, but, misleading, like Bush mislead us in the State of the Union about Iraq's weapons of mass distruction technically telling the truth that the Brits had information, only, why is it that Bush is not being impeached for misleading us, lying to Congress is a felony, hmmmm, just why isn't he being impeached.