Would you pay a flat 55% tax on your gross income, if.....?

[SoCalDem]

40% federal.. 10% state.. 5% local

no deductions...make more, pay more..simple

includes ALL income..not just LABOR
...........................................................


You had no co-pay, free medical (including vision, dental, mental health care, Rx)

A workers' union for EVERY job in the US

Free college at a state college for your kids

A guaranteed old age pension

5-7 weeks paid vacation a year

12 mo paid maternity leave/6 mo paid paternity leave
..................................

add ons...

maximum mortgage interest 7% fixed..15, 30 & 40 yr

maximum credit card/revolving credit 12%
(credit-worthiness MUST apply to ALL who seek credit, and maximum credit for ANY ONE person , including ALL "accounts" should never exceed 10% of the annual NET pay..and minimum age of 21 should apply also)

[Union Thug]

1. Gladly.

[iiibbb]

2. Probably not.

[geckosfeet]

3. In a heartbeat - and I have no kids!

[JanMichael]

4. I'd have to stop being a crazy revolutionary Marxist.

Sort of like if I moved to Norway - it's got it all - what would I bitch about?

[Diclotican]

46. JanMichael

JanMichael

Are you in Norway?. In that case, you don't need to be a revolutionary Marxist to be here I guess.. Many here is rather conservative, but still they do support the system we have have... Because the benefit are better than the opposite.. Even that it cost a lot of taxes to get it right.. But compared to the right or conservative in the US, I would say even FRP, our Right,right party would be an moderate to liberal party compared to the right wings in the US..

And that is maybe the worst thing who can happened to an american I guess.. To pay taxes, even it it means they would have aces to near free healtcare. And all the other thing what make a civilized country so good to live in..

Not that our healtcare is perfect, by far. I would rather have our system, than the US system where you can be bankrupt if you have your pendics removed, and have not the right insurance paper..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language.

[Hugabear]

66. What's the immigration policy of Norway?

If somehow, McCain winds up winning - either legitimately or by stealing the election - I suspect some of us DUers may be wanting to escape.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. I actually looked into that

It's very hard unless you have a job offer or a parent who was born in Norway. (I have two grandparents who were born in Norway, but that doesn't count.)

I had a job offer about 25 years ago, but I turned it down, for what seemed like good reasons at the time, but which weren't really. :-(

[Diclotican]

80. Lydia Leftcoast

Lydia Leftcoast

Very sad you can't emigrate because the grandparents don't count.. It should if I have a say to it.. But yes, it is strict, much more strict than it was before.. 25 years ago... That is an long time:P I was maybe 7-8 when you was thinking about emigrating to Norway then:evilgrin:

But if you have an job offer, or have other connections to Norway, it should be easy enough to emigrate I hope.. The bureaucracy LOVE their paperwork, and it is not easy to work it all out..

You can at least, if you have the money then, visit our country to be little more knowledge about the country before you emigrate to it.. I for one, in my young years was thinking very hard about emigrate to the US.. At the time it looks like a good idea. But I never materialized it.. And I have to say, I am glad I don't do it.. Some how I believe it was the right decision to do..

I just hope, you and your family, and the rest of the US would make it right this time around.. I fear if the system that the republicans are making more and more the norm in the US, it would end in an exodus for every one who are fearfully for their life, or their family.. To tell that the US are immune to be fascist is just dam wrong.. Every country could be plunging into that trap.. And if the economy in the US are going down the tube.. A Fascist take over, by law or by other means, is very likely.. If the Dollar was flat lining example.. As in the 1920s-1930s Germany.. A "strong leader" would be very good to have - for the fascists.. And as many smart people have been told before. If the fascist ever came to the US, it would be raped into the US flag. And both Bush administration, and the current President and Vice President candidate for the republican side, have been misusing the flag pretty many times.. We have even seen Palin wrapping herself into a giant US flag (isn't it no law against that type of behavior in the US.. It's sure are in Norway... Even that the law is pretty "sleepy" it is there at least).

I can at least give the official site for the Norwegian ambassdey in Washington DC http://www.norway.org/

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language.

[Diclotican]

78. Paint It Black

Paint It Black

Hm that is an good questing. I am not sure about the policy when it come to immigration.. But I somehow believe that americans are more than welcome to Norway, or for the sake of it, in most european country's specially in the West (even france, but you do have to learn the language pretty well before you are accepted)

But I fear it is little hard work, paperwork before you can emigrate to Europe, or to Norway.. But Norway need people with knowledge, so I would not be that afraid of working to emigrate to Norway..

But beware. We in Norway are little different from what you might believe.. Many americans who I know and have been here for years, still are confusing about how we are, and our attitudes.. We can be pretty hard to "crack" the code of why we are, but if you ever visit Norway. On Holiday, or as more permanent bases, I would guess you would find us pretty interesting subjects when you are here then:pals: And I am sure you would be surprised to how we act sometimes.. It is better to know little about Norway I guess, before you emigrate. Some americans I have known over the years, have been impressive how we party when our National Day is here (17 may) And one I know once.. Was maybe even little scared by the all.. We still have "some" viking heritage, even if it is more than 800 year since the Vikings was roaming the world :evilgrin:

I would guess, from what I know (and that is not that much, but I can always work with it and came back to it later) that if you are from the US, the policy of emigration are far more easy, than say you are from the old Soviet union, or other parts of the world. Compared to what they have to go true, I am pretty sure americans would breeze true the whole thing.. But it is better to get the information from the Consulate or the Norwegian Ambassador in Washington DC http://www.norway.org/ I believe this to be the official site in Washington DC. This is the visa rules http://www.norway.org/visas/ (It looks like Sweden and Norway is working toghter in Washington DC when it come to Visa rules)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[JanMichael]

93. No but I'd LOVE to live where you live.

Like you mention your conservatives are better and more lefty than our democrats.

I'd move to Norway in a heartbeat if we didn't have so many older family members here that need us.

Other than those folks we'd move right now...of course only if Norway would take us!

PS~ Your English is fine, don't worry. My worry would be (if I were to hope to move to Norway) is that I don't speak a word of Norwegian and I'm a city planner so that just wouldn't do. Public speaking and understanding written land use codes is a must.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. And all criminal GOPhers in prison? Yes. n/t

[drmeow]

6. A flat tax, not matter what the rate,

is not very progressive, even on all income. So - no, probably not. I would certainly be willing to pay that much and even more if that was part of a progressive tax structure but not as a flat tax.

[ContinentalOp]

35. That's an understatement.

A flat tax by definition is not progressive.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Sure.

Between self-employment tax, Federal, State & local taxes, etc., we're not paying a whole lot less than that now.

Health care insurance & copays cost me $18k a year. SE tax is about 15%. State income is 5%. I have zero paid vacation. I would probably come out ahead, when I start adding it all together.

[rucky]

8. Does it matter how much I make?

[SoCalDem]

10. Nope.. because the UNION guarantee in "my" plan assures that you

have access to collective bargaining, and the free college offers you an opportunity to learn more, and get a better job :)

earn more, pay more..

[barbtries]

9. yes

[mwooldri]

11. Add on a guaranteed minimum income from some source ...

... and that might be a winner.

[GoesTo11]

12. a wash

Wouldn't benefit me personally, but if you rolled in what my employer and I pay together for healthcare and social security, it would probably work out to just about that anyway. Parental leave would just be good for society, and so would good state colleges & universities. And most people would take a lower paying job in exchange for 5-7 weeks vacation.

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. Flat tax is an idea pushed by the rich - it should be on them predominately

graduated down, to nothing on those making minimum wage or close to it. And minimum wage should be what it actually costs to get by on a minimal level. The most taxes should be on those who are benefitting the most. And allowing too much extreme wealth to accumulate at the top is dangerous - it's used to influence the whole country too much then.

There are people who can afford their own army. It encourages influencing the media and elections. It's a bad idea. And wrong, IMO. Nobody is so talented that they're worth 400 other people.

[Trillo]

61. There is much wisdom in your words.

"Allowing too much wealth to accumulate at the top is dangerous" and should be ever so clear to everyone in the whole world today.

We need some kind of step-less exponential tax that increases as income increases.

We also need some kind of a livable wage for any kind of work, as well as support and assistance and healthcare for those who cannot or can no longer work.

Either that or eliminate money altogether. Not sure how that would work though, but it sure would get rid of the financial terrorists. Can anyone imagine a future world where those who are in seek of money become as stigmatized as controlled substance addicts are in the current one?

[Betsy Ross]

14. Sounds pretty good to me.

But it does hit the lower income folks a little hard. Can we add a basic, per person exemption at a middle-class level, say $10K per person?

[Winterblues]

15. National Health Care has to be included

I would gladly pay that amount.

[SoCalDem]

17. item #1

:hi:

[baldguy]

16. A flat tax is a bad idea.

The poor - say, people making 20k/yr and under - shouldn't pay any tax. And the top 10% who own 50% of our wealth should pay at least 50% of the taxes.

[jpgray]

18. Why flat? Those of us who are working, renting students would run into trouble

Avg. income for a decent waiter at a decent restaurant is probably around $30k. Being left with $15k is enough to cover rent and expenses just barely. The justice of a progressive tax is that those who are required to use more percentage of income for necessities have less of that income taxed.

[SoCalDem]

19. free college, free medical, a union

kind of takes care of your issues:)

[Selatius]

21. Yeah, but there is no "free housing" in there to take the bite off of rent.

If that situation were addressed, I'd be more willing to sign on. Not every 20-something is living on college campuses.

You might want to include one exemption on income up to 30,000/year. (I'm spit-balling a number here) Every dollar after that would be taxed, but every dollar before that threshold would go directly to the worker.

[uppityperson]

38. I ran housing figures through my head and found your post to agree with.

So long as there was some sort of ability to pay rent written in, I would agree with it. Trying to figure out if there would be a housing tax credit, or a minimum income to start at (pro-rated below that).

[MsLeopard]

20. In a heartbeat n/t

[excess_3]

22. NO

[Warpy]

23. Only if they took away all the niggling taxes and fees we now pay

from sales taxes to excise taxes to luxuries taxes to intangibles taxes to phone taxes to payroll taxes, and on and on it goes on through all the licensing fees we pay, another set of taxes. Most of those taxes and licensing fees are just more ways to shift the burden off the rich and onto working families and drive up the percentage of total taxation on working people within waving distance of that 55% already.

That sort of system would shaft people like me, who saved and stayed out of debt and are no longer young enough to need many of the benefits, but I'd gladly pay it to live in a civilized country.

However, since this country is now in such serious financial trouble, there needs to be a surtax on the highest income until that debt is paid down to what it was before Reagan started to run it up, adjusted for inflation.

We can't do anything without getting this country's financial house in order, and that means paying down that debt while putting people back to work for living wages, and that means progressive taxes.

[HamdenRice]

24. No. First cut defense spending by 80% and pay off the debt. Then see where we stand

I am becoming more and more a low tax liberal, because when I look at the federal budget I see almost nothing for people, infrastructure or real investment in new technology.

Our current heavy tax burden is primarily a result of defense spending and interest. Get rid of those, and I suppose we could have a flat tax of about 10%. Add national health care and we could have a flat tax of 15%.

But flat taxes are inherently unfair. The more you make, the more percentage, not just the more absolute dollars, you should pay.

[Gregorian]

36. I totally agree with this.

Our taxes are subsidizing a monster.

But one must ask just what effect on our economy decreasing the military budget would have. I think it would be worse than most think. This country is like a drunk who has his own bar. Free drinks for all. Mil-spec martinis.

[tjwash]

59. Yeah...that's about as likely as the OP's scenario

[KG]

25. the idea works for me, but i'd like to see a sliding scale for different aspects.

[carlyhippy]

26. count me in

[mizzuzmojorizin]

27. Absolutely, but why the credit cards?

I think that if you were guaranteed all those basics, you wouldn't need to go out and charge extra stuff (and if half your salary's gone, it probably wouldn't be wise to be anything but frugal).

I think your idea is humane and exactly what we need for a sane, healthy society. I also think that Americans need to become less materialistic as a whole. Too many parents shower their kids with way too much stuff. Some can't afford to and do it anyway. But even if you can afford it, it's not the kind of values you want to send to young people.

[magellan]

28. No, not as a flat tax. n/t

[Lint Head]

29. No. But I would pay 30%.

:dem:

[kaygore]

30. Why a flat tax?

It would hurt those in the lowest income brackets. If I make $10 million a year, I would still have over $4 million while the poor guy who makes $10,000 would have only $4,500. What if I have no kids--just myself--and he has four kids. Quite frankly, unless free food is thrown in for this poor guy, he and his family starve.

Nope, the tax still needs to be progressive.

[nonconformist]

31. No, because I'm opposed to a flat tax. It's regressive. nt

[OnionPatch]

32. That seems a bit high.

Is it that high in Europe? I thought it was a little lower there for a similar deal.

[ContinentalOp]

34. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that any European nations have a regressive flat tax.

Certainly not any countries with any social services worth speaking of.

[OnionPatch]

73. Oops, somehow I didn't see the "flat" part.

Guess I didn't read it closely enough, but that changes my answer. My answer is NO. No flat taxes.

Tax the rich....feed the poor.

[ContinentalOp]

33. Would you be in favor of privatizing social security if it meant you were guaranteed $10,000 a month

Your question is nonsensical. You can't get progressive socialized services under a regressive flat tax system. It doesn't follow.

You're going to take 55% of a person's income if they make minimum wage!? :wtf: So what if they get free college and maternity leave if they can't afford basic food and housing?

[PeaceNikki]

37. If it included a pony, I would.

[KitchenWitch]

45. ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. 15% state and local would be a big tax cut for me. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

40. SoCalDem for president! Woo hoo! n/t

[RoyGBiv]

41. No flat taxes ...

I'd gladly pay higher taxes if services were improved and expanded and, especially, if military spending were curbed, but flat taxes unfairly tax those who can least afford it.

I suppose the general idea here is that with union representation and a free education, one could expect to find jobs that pay enough that they could afford such a tax. But on the practical side of things, this is unrealistic unless you manage all wages and prices such that the bare essentials (housing, food, utilities) do not consume over half of your income, which is the case for many, many people and would continue to be the case without those controls, regardless of educational opportunities.

[depakid]

42. No, because a flat tax ignores a very basic economic principle:

Declining marginal utility.

In this case, of money.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/jg.htm

[ileus]

43. We already pay close to that, so HELL yeah! that would be a steal

By the time you pile in all the hidden taxes (phone, 9/11, estate, property, sales, petrol, hotel, ect...) I'm sure it's close to 45 or 50...That's a plan anyone repuke, dem, communist, socialist could get behind.

[TahitiNut]

44. Make the mortgage interest 5% fixed and tax applicable only above 3x living wage and I'd go along.

:shrug: I STRONGLY prefer a progressive income tax structure ... and taxes on investment income (i.e. unearned income) even MORE progressive.

Anyone getting income from capital gains and dividends at or below a living wage (about $28k/year) or below their EARNED income should probably pay SLIGHTLY less income tax on that unearned income. HOWEVER, when someone is living high on the hog off the labor of others, I'd say their marginal income tax rates should be ABOVE the marginal rates on earned income.

In this way, we don't penalize retirees who saved and invested in order to live decently, but people like the Walton Klan can pay through the nose for wallowing in wealth they neither created nor sustained ... wealth that comes solely from the labor of others.

[DustyJoe]

47. Interesting

Knock out sales tax, property tax, gas tax, beer tax, cigarette tax, union fees and i'll think about it.

[ContinentalOp]

48. It's scary how many people here seem to be in favor of a flat tax.

:wtf: people?

[madokie]

49. Yes I would

The amount of the average wage earners tax is close to that now when all taxes are taken in consideration

[deaniac21]

50. Only if we had a whole bunch of 5 year plans thrown in.

[SidDithers]

51. Flat taxes are horribly regressive...

so, no.

Sid

[Dukkha]

52. but I already have a fixed 5% mortgage

flat tax might work but the lower incomes would still suffer the most I think.

[tabasco]

53. Not unless I wanted bloody revolution.

[fla nocount]

54. Everybody has the same rules? All I have to do is be special to get...

MOAR. Bring it on, everybody should have everything they need to prosper and grow. Cream always rises to the top. I'm not selfish, if I want to show off, extend myself to get the remaining 45% to obscene levels, to have my cultural and national identity shown as the way all people should live. Oh, Yes.

But then again, I identify with an agrarian and indigenous people. We would never let our brother go without, nor his children, especially his children, they are our future.

[seemunkee]

55. First $75K tax free

Maybe

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Flat taxes are bad

but everything you said, with a nice progressive system is PART of the solution

[and-justice-for-all]

57. YES.

as long as EVERYONE is contributing evenly and fairly.

[Festivito]

58. When you include all that into my salary, I pay more than 55%.

And, I get less transportability and security of my retirement and insurances.

[ContinentalOp]

68. Yeah but you're probably in the middle class right?

So essentially what the OP is advocating is a tax cut for the middle class, a HUGE tax cut on the wealthy and an absolutely massive tax increase on the poor. And because of those big tax cuts, there wouldn't be enough tax revenue left to fund all of the proposed social programs.

[Festivito]

76. I did not see it that way even tho he did invoke the evil flat tax.

A flat tax is regressive, i.e. oppressive upon the lesser earners, which, I think we'd agree is a ridiculous path to take. So, instead, I ignored the flat tax point and I took it as meaning to compare to the European style of tax and spend which does take around 50% and offers all the nice things he mentions.

I would still prefer a progressive tax that makes the top end use their money in ways that helps our country and promotes democracy rather than the flat tax that makes a silly attempt to pick some arbitrary point at which to begin the actual taxation. There should be an equation that can be adjusted for each year, and it would have no tax percentage breaking points where the percentage changes radically on either side of a dollar value.

Mostly, the idea of having the strongest and best force we know, democracy, to insure health, wealth and well-being throughout life whether young, old, sick or well, for less money than we pay now sounds great.

[NNN0LHI]

60. If you taxed someone $6000 who was making $13,000 that would only leave them $7000 to live on

I don't think taxing someone making minimum wage over half their pay is the answer.

Don

[RB TexLa]

64. But, but, but . . . . they can use that credit card with the $700 limit to get by on.

:crazy:

[ContinentalOp]

69. But I don't think you understand.

It's a FLAT tax, so it MUST be more fair right? :crazy:

[theophilus]

62. Absotively posilutely!!!!! n/t

[1awake]

63. well...

On second thought, no to all of it. It would be a very bad idea all around with what is described.

[Hugabear]

65. Is this OP designed to be troll bait?

Because I think I smell a couple in some of the replies above. Not going to call anyone out by name - since that's against DU rules after all O8) but the signs are there if you know what to look for!

[varelse]

67. I couldn't live on my "net" income under that plan, due to the cost of living where I am now

so my answer is, "if forced to, and only until I went bankrupt, was evicted and then lost my job eventually because of it".

Sorry, a 55% flat tax doesn't work for me :(

[tismyself]

72. same here

With the cost of living where I am, I would be living in the back of my truck within 3 months.

I say throw in all the perks mentioned above and leave taxes the way they are. :evilgrin:

[Hippo_Tron]

70. If I went to work on capitol hill I wouldn't be able to survive

Starting salaries are around $30,000 there and in DC, rent for a cheap apartment can be $1000 even if you have roommates. That means with $12 months of rent, I have $3,000 left for all other expenses except health care. An entry level job for a lobbying firm, non-profit, or a think tank might pay slightly better than the government but not much.

So do junior staffers for Congressmen and Senators have a union that gets our salaries bumped up to $45,000 a year? Cause I don't see that happening.

[The Gunslinger]

71. no doubt

[Chemical Bill]

74. No, tax holdings, not income.

Have a floor which allows people to own a house, then have an all inclusive tax. This includes corporations, overseas holdings of anyone doing business in the US, and churches and schools too.

Bill

[Cobalt Violet]

75. 55 percent wouldn't leave me enough for rent.

Since my rent is about 60-70 percent of my income, I dont think I could afford this plan. Of course I would have to stop eating, wearing cloths and paying all bills as well.

[gravity]

79. Progressive taxation is much better

Plus some of those policies are too socialistic.

[struggle4progress]

81. That would screw the minimum wage earners: they earn less than $15K per year

and after a 55% tax their take-home would be less than $120 per week: I really doubt most people can do much more than barely survive on thart

[OakCliffDem]

82. Kick

[Vinca]

83. Yes . . . and I don't have kids. nt

[Indenturedebtor]

84. Yes - no kids here yet. But you know there are countries like that with lower taxes

Our taxes are actually pretty high here in the States... but hey we have a HUGE military so that plenty of brown people get killed. That's important too ya know :sarcasm:

[JVS]

85. No. I don't make enough to survive on the 45% remaining

[fed_up_mother]

87. Agree that flat tax isn't progressive. Furthermore, we don't all need unions

so, no, I wouldn't agree to that.

[NNN0LHI]

90. What unions would you like to do away with?

[fed_up_mother]

91. I don't want to do away with any unions. We need more unions - not less

We need strong unions in many areas - like nursing, imo.

However, not every worker in this country wants or should be in a union.

For instance, I used to work for a small company doing - shall we say - work strongly related to creativity. Unions would totally stifle that field. The work also has a high burnout rate, but everyone knows that going in. Certain professional jobs shouldn't be unionized, imo, and some couldn't be.

(I don't like to give out too much info about myself which is why the above is worded the way it is.)

[bunkerbuster1]

86. Depends on the "guaranteed old age pension."

If it really and truly provided a secure income in retirement, and meant that I didn't need to bother socking away income any more, I'd seriously consider it.

(Not that it's gonna happen.)

[dysfunctional press]

88. probably not, seeing as i have no children...

but if the first 35K was tax-free, i'd acquiesce

[specialed]

89. HELL and YES

[Unbowed]

92. If I did, I'd be homeless. That's the truth. n/t

[roamer65]

94. No.

55% is tax rate that should be applied to incomes over 250K. Taxing the middle class at that rate is regressive and will kill the economy.