I can't believe I'm seeing flat tax supporters on DU. The mind boggles

[jpgray]

Prebate you say? Fine. Poor people will -still- spend a higher percentage of income on consumables than the obscenely rich, and thus the tax is regressive, lowers government revenues, and remains a Grover Norquist wet dream that can kill off the New Deal and drown most significant gov't services in the proverbial bathtub.

The really dangerous supporters of this system are feeble minded middle class people bereft of math skills that have some vaunted idea of hoarding their pittance of wealth, clutching for half-understood concepts of tax shelters saving the rich from "real taxation." Don't fool yourself. The real gains all go to the rich and super-rich, and of course the corporations. There is a reason that the absurdly wealthy support a flat sales tax, etc., and organizations for the poor, the elderly, and non-selfish folks the world-round do not.

[Donnachaidh]

1. Thank you thank you!

I'm boggled too. It's amazing how people who seem to be up on the issues suddenly go into fits of raving about something that will screw them so totally.

[TahitiNut]

2. Stunning, isn't it? Yet entire corporations can be bought and sold without a sales tax.

If a working family buys or sells a small home, they pay sales tax ... on top of all their other taxes. But Cyrus Q. Fatcat can buy and sell stock in corporations (property!!) to his heart's desire and pay absolutely no sales tax. Buy food? In most places, you get charged a sales tax. Buy clothes? In most places, you get charged a sales tax. But if you buy an entire food corporation or an entire clothing corporation, there's no sales tax.

All the talk of 'flat tax' and nobody talks about a DEDUCTION-FREE flat tax on corporations.
All the talk of 'national sales tax' and nobody talks about a national sales tax on corporate stock.

Funny 'bout that.

[jpgray]

9. It's an investor's paradise. Worth about three hundred NAFTAs of salivation time

[northofdenali]

116. Welcome to Ronny RayGun n/t

[Kolesar]

59. The capital-gains tax on "selling your own home" was phased out by 2003

However, when I sold my house in 2003, Ohio had just raised my "recording fee" to $600.

[TahitiNut]

67. Under a $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple) lifetime limit, yes ...

... but sales taxes are still applied in most states.

[Jelybe903]

100. Underground Economy To The Rescue!

Flat Tax = Disaster. It is just another way of having the middle class support the nation!

Has anyone really checked out www.cats.org

The beauty of a federal sales tax is in what it will draw from underground economies. I don't mean people who are bartering for food stamps. Very simply it draws on untold numbers of dollars from people who operate outside of the tax systems. How much do you think we could make by actually be able to tax dollars used to purchase big ticket items from dollars earned by illegal and legal underground economies? Consider this...

A drug dealer (even the kingpins)
Prostitutes
Gun Runners
Mercenaries
Thief's and Robbers

and then we have almost legal underground economies

Contractors
The scams on the internet
Anyone who pays someone "under the table"
Large, Medium and Small Businesses and their owners who don't quite declare all they made!

Some of these are people purchasing large ticket items (boats, planes, houses (not the 3 bedroom track house down the street)It would bring millions of dollars into our country with the added bonus of ABOLISHING the IRS! And people who choose to save their money rather then buy cool things...they make out too, because they don't get taxed for doing nothing! Perhaps with our new found wealth instead of seeing the same people who claim not to of earned money or have an income using systems in this country that were originally set up to help people in need! They can help pay for health care and programs to expand our economy, instead of draining it!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

151. So, you'd have government benefit from criminal activity? Fascinating.

"A drug dealer" (indeed, every other example) wouldn't be collecting sales tax on the sale of of drugs (just like he'd not be paying income tax on his profits) but there's some kind of virtue in collecting sales tax on his legal purchases of other items? Not only does this ignore the mere shift in uncollected taxes (from income to sales), it pretends that there wouldn't be more and more sold/exchanged 'under the table' in order to evade sales taxes (just like folks now evade income taxes).

Whoosh! The 'advantage' just vanished! :eyes:

I can't believe people actually buy this shit. (Maybe a sales tax would stop even that?)

The website you've cited is a cover for a GOP 'plan' to shift the tax burden to the vanishing middle class ... a site that extols the (questionable) 'virtues' of proposals by Jim DeMint (R-SC), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dan Schaefer (R-CO), Billy Tauzin (Dino-LA), Dick Armey (R-Hell), and other right-wingers.

[Jelybe903]

194. A little Nip...A little Tuck...And presto it fits!

Well lets start with some of the others who only offer services...Non taxable services...

Services are not subject to sales tax...in a twisted, obscure way I suppose we could include prostitution, mercenaries, gun runners and many other exchanges of this nature...not subject to tax. Hum...but just because the benefitiaries of these services don't pay tax do you think maybe the suppliers say to themselves...its not real money...so we won't really spend it.

So I think the answer to your question is an unequalable YES, if not virtuous it at least seems to even the score a bit after a 90 hour week. And again...it doesn't ignore anything, its not a shift, its money we would have never seen in the first place.

I have been fined by the IRS...I have been a victim of some over zealous paper cowboy with a low level job, no incentive, but tons of power...This is a miserable place to be! And in the end there were not enough hours in a lifetime to deal with their documentation...I ended up paying attorneys, accountants and penalties that were twice what I owed in the first place. This was not me claiming to not owe anything...this was me telling them that I owed them more then what they thought. So they punished me! The system is not broken, its crap!

Your right though...there are some GOP and Dino's in support of the web sight I noted...and I do not agree with all the caveat's of CATS...but as any entrepreneur will tell you, you can take a little here, add a little there and WHALA...it fits...just ask Bill Gates, nobody takes credit for other peoples ideas like he can.

[TahitiNut]

202. FIrst off ..

Try "let's," "beneficiaries," "unqualified," "than," "You're," "site," "caveats," "VOILA," and "people's."

Second ... getting screwed over by desk dictators on an IRS audit is hardly a rare incident. Many people have had such experiences, including me. It's not even close to being an argument to change the tax system - merely the administration of it, at best.

Lastly, the whole proposal is a scam - a pig in a poke - designed to accelerate the concentration of wealth in this country to the top 0.1-1.0%. The bottom 50% of wage-earners have little or nothing left after paying for life's necessities - and paying means sales tax. The national sales tax would assess taxes on people who have NO INCOMES - including people living on disability, SSI, and the unemployed. Instead of 150,000,000 paying federal income tax we'd have 300,000,000 paying federal sales tax. In sum - it's REGRESSIVE and favors those who can afford to 'invest' their excess income after paying for life's necessities and comforts.


As a side note ... you claim "Services are not subject to sales tax," That's false. Services ARE subject to sales tax in many states, including California. Perhaps you misspoke and meant to say that the "CATS" proposal does not plan to subject services to sales tax. Wanna buy a bridge??

[Jelybe903]

207. Some apologies

your right on the spelling...I am usually more careful...or at least try to use spell check sometimes however my fingers move differently then my brain...I apologize. Too bad you did not have a red pen to really make your point.

And your right again on the services...I meant to say labor.

And lastly...California does not have tax on food, nor should any other state although I realize some do. The basics such as food and shelter (not your vacation home) but your primary residence be it purchased or rented should be exempt from taxes. So should medications and toilet paper. And some if not all are addressed in the CATS proposal, thats what I meant by customizing the plan.

Look, maybe your right, maybe its not the all together right way to go...but discussions on the table need to include alternate ideas. "If you always do, what you have always done, you'll always get what you always had." So what is the better idea? Live with what we have, or find an alternative.

[TahitiNut]

209. The sales tax on "food" is far more complicated.

Some groceries are exempt and some aren't. Imported or domestic? Carry-out or eat in? The sales tax on the differences vary throughout the states.

People who 'think' it'd be cheaper or simpler are swallowing the bait, imho. What about purchases brought back from overseas? Imports? Duty-free stores? Indian reservations? On-line? We already have tempests in every state over just these complications. What about different tax rates depending on the item? We already have this - homes, for instance, depending on state and locale. Who's going to pay the sellers (retailers, et. al.) for more than tripling their sales tax collections and remittances? The individual is still expected to file something and sometimes pay on his/her own. I can't even imagine how much the politicians could fuck around with it - given the ways they've screwed around with the present system.

And FWIW ... employers won't be able to stop collecting/withholding income tax. Income taxes won't go away. Many states and localities collect income taxes and I doubt they'll stop. Over and above that, they'll continue to collect (and pay) payroll taxes (i.e. FICA OASDI and HI) as well. The vast infrastructure for collecting and remitting taxes will remain ... except we'd (no doubt!) be told we have to pay for the expenses of "change-over" if (God forbid) such a restructuring were to occur.

[northofdenali]

115. Tahiti - you fucking rock.

TAX THEM ALL WITHOUT LOOPHOLES.

BTW, friend - :pals::hug::pals:

[murloc]

162. Sales tax on houses?

I have to say, I've never heard of such a thing.

Where is this done?

[Exiled in America]

197. It's worse than that, GAO report from 2004: 61% of U.S. corporations pay ****ZERO**** taxes.

[terrya]

3. Anyone who supports this nutty idea of Steve Forbes....

really doesn't belong here, now do they?

[jpgray]

5. I don't see why people can't like Gravel for his statements on Iraq, etc.

Without feeling the need to defend to the death this very flawed economic plan. We don't have to be lockstep drone spear-carriers to appreciate some aspects of a candidate.

[terrya]

6. As has been said, there's a reason why the likes of Steve Forbes supports the flat tax.

And that's because...it benefits the rich!!!! Jesus, haven't the gotten enough tax breaks??? Jesus..

BTW: welcome to the Greatest Page, jpgray. :-)

[SammyWinstonJack]

164. The rich won't be happy until they pay NO TAXES. After all, taxes are only for the "little people"

:eyes:

[papau]

52. I totally agree n/t

n/t

[Possumpoint]

12. I Support The Flat Tax

If we must have an income tax, let's have one that's set up on an equal basis. Each of us as wage earning citizens should bear an equal share of the burden of government. No deductions, no loop holes, a straight percentage of your income, all income. An alternative I support is, a national sales tax on everything in lieu of an income tax.

This will never resolve the inequities of the poor versus the rich. Using a tax system to benefit the poor, corporations, real estate interests, the rich or child production sucks. Make it equal or get rid of it.

Now, do you really want to tell me to my face I don't belong here. Do you really subscribe to the premise we all must think alike on everything. I thought this was the democratic Party, not the other.

[jpgray]

13. Think what you like. I just don't support throwing the New Deal, the poor or the elderly under a bus

[donco6]

15. Flat tax is not equal.

The poorer you are, the higher the percentage of your income is devoted to taxes. Not at all fair, and is antithetical to just about every tenet of the Democratic Party.

[OlderButWiser]

23. I ask because I'm ignorant

Isn't 10 percent of $10,000 $1,000
and 10 percent of $100,000 $10,000
and 10 percent of a million $100,000

so isn't that the same percentage of income devoted to taxes?

[Lars39]

24. $1,000 knocked off of a $10,000 income means that something

vital like food or medicine is not being bought. $10,000 knocked off of $100,000 means the belt is tightened, depending on where the person lives. $100,000 knocked off of a million isn't even missed, ie the person can eat and/or buy medicines.

[minavasht]

73. Why are we trying to make the rich poorer

instead of making the poor richer?
Call me stupid, but I think that people who are rich deserve to be.
A doctor makes more money than a McDonald's cook. But unlike the latter he spend years and years studying.
So now you want to punish him for his efforts and hard work and tax him more than the cook?
And you call it progressive and fair?

[TheBaldyMan]

75. the rich wont get poorer, they will just be slightly less rich

The rich won't be living in their limousine because they can't make the rent.

Incidently, that's why it's called a progressive tax. The more you earn the higher the rate you pay, you can afford it if you're earning vast wads of cash. :sarcasm: Dick Cheney really earns his money, Dubya is a self made multi-millionaaire and all those war-profiteers really deserve the big bonuses they'll be paying themselves out of U.S. taxpayers no-bid contacts.

Get real.

Edited to add sarcasm smiley.

[bbgrunt]

84. fair is a relative term. The doctor had the advantage

of living in an economy where people have enough money to pay fees to doctors (instead of simply providing him/her with a meal or a few chickens) and that is due in no small part to the existance of a strong middle class.

Secondly, the doctor's education was probably supported by taxpayers through a strong state university system and a historically government supported public health system.

While it seems that the doctor applied him/herself to acquire skills to perform in the job, he/she also has reaped many advantages from living in this society instead of some undeveloped poor country without the infrastructure and income distribution to pay them so generously. What is unfair about asking them to support a progressive tax system that helps maintain that society and a strong middle class? Just ask how many would rather have been born in a third world country--or how much they would be willing to pay to have been born here instead.

[minavasht]

124. I WAS born in Eastern Europe

The doctor and the cook live in the same society. Both had the same opportunities. One made the decision to become successful, the other quit school and had a child at 19.
One is paying off more than $100,000 college debt, the other is paying off $150 he put down on a set of nipple rings.
Both made choices that ended them were they are.
I still don't think that people should pay more percentage wise just because they make more money.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

148. You really don't get it, do you?

Maybe in Eastern Europe under Communism everyone had absolutely equal opportunities, but the ugly side of capitalism is that the losers REALLY lose.

[minavasht]

163. And that's why communism is long gone

Everybody there was paid as losers. Nobody had an incentive to work better and harder, the pay was the same.
Do you want the doctor, who put 10 and more years in studying to get the same pay as the cook in McDonald's?

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. I'm going to give you a free clue that you will not like

COmmunism and Capitalism are IDEAL system

In the real world they DO NOT exist

The closest any nation has ever come to a socialist system is Norway

On a small scale kibbutzim

but if you think the US is a capitalist society (as prescribed by Adamn Smith who HATED monopolies) or that the USSR was Communist, as prescribed by Mark... I have some fine land to sell you.

Communism is not gone, because it truly never existed... just as we do not live in a capitalist economy where we have an even playing field and no monopolies

Oh and flat taxes will produce far less people with Dachas on the black sea that will be eating caviar but oh boy they will be laughing all the way to the bank, on your back.

[Madspirit]

153. Right....jeez

Yup...all people who are poor are poor because they made bad decisions and bought nipple rings instead of a college education and all rich people are rich because they really really deserve it and worked so very hard to get rich. :rofl:

What a piece of classist crap.
Lee

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. An Ryand has nothing on this guy hjuh?

She spouted the same crap, every day of the week... and we are living increasingly in her dysfuncitonal dream society

[DireStrike]

174. That's definitely not true.

Same opportunities. Lol.

Whether you become rich or poor depends mostly on totally random luck. A good portion of it has to do with who you know and what you can afford to do with yourself (whether you have a decent supply of resources to begin with).

I don't know where you get such a poor opinion of lower class workers. Maybe you live in a bad neighborhood or something. Most of them are people who work their asses off all their lives and will never have a chance to get anywhere.

[Zomby Woof]

135. As William Munny said...

"Deserve's" got nothin' to do with it.

[The Magistrate]

138. Indeed, Mr.Woof, It Does Not

Nor, for that matter, is the doctor mentioned above a rich man or woman: he or she is actually merely a prosperous peasant by compare to the truely wealthy. People have no conception what the existing degree of concentrated wealth really means. People whose only work is wagering on business activities, mere currency speculation at botttom, clear tens and hundreds of millions individually a year, and place the bets for people worth ten times that and more. Where one hundredth of the people own more than three fifths of their fellows combined, it is not possible to speak of 'making the poor richer'. Nor, for that matter, is it possible for long to maintain even a semblance of Democratic government.

[DireStrike]

172. We're not talking about Doctors here

A doctor has FAR more in common with a McDonalds laborer or even a homeless person than he does with the truly rich, top 1% of the population.

In general, people who have to perform labor are not rich. Really rich people just get more money for having money. You think they deserve that?

[minavasht]

178. Yes, I do.

Somebody did something to make the money. It is his money. Why do you think that somebody else is entitled to it?
If I have money when I die, I want my child to have it, so he can live better. Do you think that when people die their property should be taken by the government?

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. Hmm so you are going to hire your own police force?

how about repairing your own streets?

When you got a fire, better pay that insurance or the FOR PROFIT fire department will not respond

See... taxes are service fees to live in a society.

You are not paying for somebody else to have something, you are paying to have emergency services, roads, armies, and schools. In some systms that includes public health systems that will ensure that the population is healthy, or you will catch something from us not being able to treat it.

Taxes = service fees.

You don't like that idea... Somalia is a good example of a society where there are no taxes, but there is no security either.

[minavasht]

181. WHO is talking about NOT paying taxes?????

Not me! I'm just saying that I, as a person use the same amount of those services as you or any other in this country. The police actually spends more time in bad neighborhoods.
So why somebody who makes more has to pay bigger portion of his income?
Keep in mind, I am far from being rich and paying more, just it sounds unfair.

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Because you are not aware of how the commons works

or what progressive societies (you did not come from one, nor are you living in one) need to function... and for those to function you need to pay not an equal percentage, but a PROGRESSIVE rate of taxation where the rich, who use most of the services, pay accordingly. It is not only police, but every time that Wallmarh truck is devi livering goods, the company is getting an employee educated in a PUBLIC educational system. That truck is driving on an Interstate built with Federal taxes and bonds, and maintained that way. That highway, in order to keep it safe, is patrolled by Highway patrolmen, paid by my taxes, or yours depending on the state, who also went to school to public schools paid by my taxes, and who went to a police academy, which again is funded by taxes. So tell me, how much of the services that we provide through taxes do you use and how many of those same services does Mr. Walton use?

Perhaps you are right, and we should have a flat tax and a collapse of federal and state revenues, and having highway robberies will wake you up to the reality of the commons.

And no I don't expect this to be taught by conservative schools of economics, but you should read more

[minavasht]

189. Do you have an example were flat tax

collapsed the economy? I'd like to read about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. After the VAT was introduced in Mexico it didn't do too well

but I am sure you will question that too

Look, you did NOT, I REPEAT did NOT address the fact that YOU and Mr Walton use services at different rates... and Mr. Walton SHOULD PAY his service fees commensurate to HIS USE, which is quite higher than yours.

[minavasht]

193. And Mexico was doing OK .... when?

Yes, and 10% of his income would cover for his use of those cervices. The same way my 10% cover my use of the services.
Lets say we drive on the turnpike. I pay $1 toll for the one car I have. You have 15 cars, but you have to pay $1.25 for each one, just because you have more cars than me!
It doesn't make sense, does it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. Ah you are very familiar with Mexican History I see

between 1950 to 1976 Mexico saw quite the expansion economically and all boats rose up

When the neoliberals in the PRI (and later the PAN) took over the country, well the rest is history

And yes, yes it does, I am paying for my usage fees

Apparently they never explained this to you, or you are too dense to get it

Mr Walton and his trucks use far more of the infrastructure than I use... he should pay for his use

[conscious evolution]

196. The ultra rich do not do anything to make the money

They use money,usually given to them by their parents,to buy little peices of paper that makes them the owners of a company.
They then sit back and take moneyfrom the profits made by people who actually do the work required to earn the profit.
Why should they get the lions share of others labor?

[minavasht]

201. Good point

I don't have the vision to start something like Walmart. I don't have the balls to start something like that either.
But i don't want to take the money he left his children just because of that.

[conscious evolution]

203. Sam had a vision all right

More importantly,he had people who actually carried out the labor to bring it about.
I don't mind people making a buck but to do so by taking it from those who put in the sweat equity is not right.Granted,some early employees made out like bandits but I cannot imagine todays cashier joining the walmart millionaires club anytime soon.
As for waltons family,what exactly did they do to earn all that money?Other than having the foresight to pick the right people to be their parents.

[DireStrike]

213. Vision? lol!

Yeah, you need "vision" to start a business. Hundreds of thousands or millions, at least, of "vision".

Just about anyone could start a national chain under the right circumstances.

[DireStrike]

214. Some of it, yes

Inheritance tax keeps society from stagnating. If the children turn out to be spectacular failures, they will eventually blow the money themselves, but most people are not that stupid.

There's plenty of money left for them to leave to their children, even if you took 90% of it in taxes. Which is beyond anything I'd ever propose.

[Exiled in America]

205. Ok, minavasht, you need to read this data (provided) and then SHUT THE HELL UP.

I really don't mind discussion, and I regularly have dialogue with folks who have much different points of view than I do.

But what I can not and will not abide are people who have no clue what they are talking about, who are ignorant, ill-informed, and speaking mostly from prejudice, arrogance and other emotion, not reason.

What makes me so angry and sad are people who demonstrate attitudes like yours, because it is little more than allowing their inner Archie Bunker rant and trump their reason. It also makes my heart break so much is that someone like you who has chosen to remain so ignorant about concepts like privilege and inequality in America. You've chosen to foster a sense of arrogant entitlement and become a "miser" in the truest sense of the word - devoid of mercy, unable to empathize with the experiences of others, incapable for feeling a shared sense of responsibility to a community of others, and so on.

Your attitude is borderline sociopath. That's something I point out about all people who have a very militant and ultra-conservative attitude when it comes to inequality and poverty in America.

But you know what is worst about it? It is the fact that you are so horribly, tragically, infuriatingly mistaken and ignorant - and PROVABLY SO!

READ:
Life on the Mississippi: East St. Louis, Illinois
http://www.mediafire.com/?8mywwyjlmqd

America's Econnomic System Depends on Inequality
http://www.mediafire.com/?3m2z4dxuwmy


There are other factors that contribute to poverty. Poverty is not always a choice, and wealth is not always earned.

[minavasht]

215. I had time just for the first one

Man, I hope this is fiction.
But if it were true, what do you propose to do? 75% of the residents there are on welfare already.
The first american I met back in my country told me something I'll remember forever: "If you give somebody a fish, he'll eat once. If you teach him to fish, he'll have food all the time."
People like me come here from all over the world for better live. If conditions in that city are so bad, it's residents should move.
Even in bad schools one can get education - the author admits that the lack of it is the reason for unemployment.
What would you do to fix the situation there?

[donco6]

25. And what poor person can survive on $9,000?

As opposed to the wealther person who only has to survive on $90,000?

And the wealthier person who has to scrape by on $900,000?

That's called a regressive tax, and has been opposed in Dem platforms for decades.

[GirlinContempt]

206. I can't believe this is such a hard concept for some

When you make less, every dollar you make is more meaningful.
If, no matter what, the cheapest apartment you can get in your town is $300/month, the cheapest ground beef is 0.99/lb, it's the SAME for the rich and the poor. The income is different. And losing ten percent of your income when you're at the bottom of the scale is like not being able to pay your rent for four months. Losing ten percent at the middle or the top does not jeopardize basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter because there is just MORE to begin with.

Clearly you know this, but I just can't fathom how this is such a hard thing for some people to understand.

[liberal N proud]

27. It is easier for the guy making a million to pay 30% than

10% of 10,000 dollars, hurts the guy making that small amount worse. Every dime he has is going to survive.

So the millionaire can only buy one yacht bfd!

[minavasht]

126. Why is the guy making $9,000?

And why is the millionaire a millionaire?
Why is the millionaire required to pay for the $9,000 guy's choices?

[Zomby Woof]

141. Tired, cliched right-wing talking point you have there

"The poor choose to be poor." :eyes:

The real question: Why is the $9,000 guy required to be paid less than shit-for-wages in order to make the millionaire richer?

If you think for a moment that one person ends up a millionaire and the other a pauper because of choices alone, you are are either congenitally naive or suffer from the same willful combination of ignorance and arrogance that infects Republicans and other shortsighted narcissists. It's easy to dismiss poverty as a "choice" from a position of comfort and isolation from above.

You and others who 'think' like you just don't need a lesson in economics, you need a lesson in humanity. But you and your kind are unteachable, so I'll just stick to calling out your bullshit for what it is - a big steaming pile of it.

[Greyhound]

142. Another one from Florida? Just what goes on down there?

It's like some kind of brain-eating virus.

Every time I see this kind of nonsense it comes out of Florida or Texas. What gives?

[minavasht]

144. Whoa! Slow down!

We came here 6 years ago with less than a $500. Barely understood any english.
In 3 weeks I had a job paying $12/hour. My wife started at $8.50. In 3 months we bought our first car and it took us an year to get a second one. We still have them.
In these 6 years I tried 8 different jobs. Now I work 3 days a week, pay all my bills and have something left for 2 months of vacation each year.
How i do it? Don't buy stuff I don't need, drive the same two cars, never spend money I don't have.
I make these choices and live with the results.
It may sound crazy to you, but for me there are two excuses of being poor in this country - being disabled or being mentally ill.
Yeah, it could be the water down here...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

149. Something wrong with this picture

You work three days a week, and yet you pay all your bills and can afford two months of vacation--AND you have not one, but two cars?

What kind of job lets you earn that kind of money on three days of work per week--plastic surgeon to the stars?

[minavasht]

160. A '93 escort and a '94 concorde

Paid in cash. Still running good. And I change the oil and fix them when needed - it is easy, just read the book.
My expenses are less than $2000 a month. I install satellites for one of the two companies.

[Madspirit]

156. Probably

I'm probably going to get this post deleted but your beliefs are PIGGISH.
How obnoxious can you be? You have no prinicples, no compassion and no indepth understanding of the way things work HERE in the ol' USA...
Lee

[minavasht]

159. Hm. Talk is cheap.

I gave $3000 of the $30000 I made last year to people in need.
How about you?

[Madspirit]

182. Me?

Moran...I've been homeless and I'm unemployed, uninsured and unmedicated. Moran.
Lee

[minavasht]

192. Do you look for a job with this attitude?

Calling people morAns just because they ask questions?

[Midlodemocrat]

161. Among the most ignorant statements I've ever seen here.

Disability or Mentally ill?


Wow, dude. :eyes:

[minavasht]

166. Well, educate me, then!

What stops the poor from going to school, getting good degrees, staying kids-free until they have means to support them, going to college, getting college loans, graduating with a usable degree, finding a job, making kids and raising them?
Tell me please?

[Midlodemocrat]

168. I don't think I've ever been asked to educate someone

about basic compassion.

Does the phrase 'entitlement by birth' mean anything to you? Do you have any idea how hard it can be to get enough financial aid to put oneself through school? Do you have any idea about the cycle of poverty in this country which commits people to lifelong struggles? People who are one step from the street if they miss a minimum wage paycheck? People who are struggling with illness of a family member that will force them into bankruptcy before the ill person dies?

I'm one of the fortunate ones. I came from a middle class family that valued education. I lived in a beautiful home with plenty to eat, plenty to wear, heat in the winter and A/C in the summer. New cars every two years. Fully paid for education.

Not everyone is born into the white, middle class entitlement I was. The difference is that I RECOGNIZE it, while for some reason you are under the impression that everyone should just do what you did and all will be well. It's not that easy. If it were, there would be no poverty in this country.

And, you state that you live on $2000 a month. In some places here in this country, that won't even pay the rent.

[minavasht]

173. Yes, yes, and yes - to your questions.

Now a question of my own - did you know that foreigners pay 4 times more in college fees than US citizens, at least here in Florida? Yet I know dozens who paid their fees working 2 and 3 jobs and graduated.
You still can't convince me that people who want to get better don't stand a chance.
Sam Walton was not born rich, Oprah was not born rich, the only two millionaires I know personally were not born rich.

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. You are not paying resident fees in the state yet?

wow... you sure you are legal resident?

Sorry I had to ask, but I know how that works

As to the poor make choices to stay poor, you are quite clueless, and I am sure you are a fan Ann Ryand and Atlas Shrugged. If you are not, you should read that

By the way... STATE taxes financed your education, believe it or not

You paid through the nose, but you did NOT pay the full cost of your education. Taxes did.

[minavasht]

191. I didn't attend college

My friends did and still do. On student visas.
No, I'm not a legal resident, last july I became another US citizen, just like you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

212. Well your firends are getting financed by your and my taxes

amazing though, you are very libertarian, hell almost club for growth, and I am rather progressive, and we both imigrated and have done what we have done through hard work

I guess the difference is I undertand that when I went to college and I paid my fees, they did not cover all of it... taxes paid by state residents financed quite a bit of my education and I did not get loans either.

But what I paid did not cover my education, cost of buildigns, or teachers or other staff, not by a long shot

[Madspirit]

183. I absolutely cannot wait

Until you get the Big Tombstone. ...and I doubt it will be long.
Lee

[minavasht]

195. Who cares?

I didn't call people ignorant and morAns. This is a private forum, if the moderators don't like my views they have the right to kick me out.
Trust me, the sun will rise tomorrow.

[GirlinContempt]

208. Jesus christ

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200201/ai_n9082628
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Studies have been done that show children from low-income families in America have only a 1% chance of reaching the top 5% of income earners. Children of rich families have a 22% chance. The chances of children of middle income Americans getting into the top 5% was just 1.8%

[Exiled in America]

199. Holy fucking shit. That's the most assholish thing I've heard in at least a month.

Yeah, I'm sorry I forgot.... we liberals of course believe that all poor people are poor because their lazy, stupid and like to fuck too much and "choose" to be poor.

Right.

[jobycom]

31. Not the same percentage of disposable income.

A person making 10K would be spending 10% of his necessary disposable income on taxes, a person making a million would be spending zero percent of ncessary disposable.

On top of that, there's the fairness issue. A person making 10K is using a far lower percentage of societal resources to make that money. A person making a million is using more than an equal percentage of resources to make that money, from infrastructure, to police and fire, to government-regulated services like radio and television (commercials) and phone, to the amount of energy used (the carbon footprint, in other words), to water. In contrast to use, the larger the business, the greater the discount, so this same person is paying less for state and local services but using more.

A flat tax assumes an "All you can eat" mentality. America is a big buffet, and everyone pays the same rate no matter how much they eat. The current Republican mentality is even worse--America makes the poor pay for the food the rich eat as well as their own. Democrats want a progressive--as opposed to a regressive tax. It's an old-fashioned idea that one pays for the food they eat, and maybe those who can afford it give a little more to help those who truly can't. Republicans, of course, want a free meal, so they like making the poor pay more. The problem with that strategy is that the poor can't afford as much, and so the restaurant takes in less money, and the quality of food goes down. Republicans don't care about quality of food--to them it's an end game, and whoever has the most numbers in their account wins, even if those numbers buy than they should.

Democrats understand that the value of money is not just in the number of dollars one has, but also in the buying power of those dollars. That's a little above the ability of Republicans to grasp, sadly.

[bbgrunt]

82. there are at least 2 parts of an answer to your query.

1. What is meant by equal "burden" or sacrifice is not necessarily the same percentage in taxes at every income level. If you assume that every dollar is more important to a poor person than it is to a rich person, it would take more dollars from the rich person to equal the burden of a dollar in taxes paid by the poor--more than simply the same percentage of their income.

2. The problem with the sales tax is that it is only applied to that portion of income that is spent on items subject to the sales tax. A person earning 10,000 will likely spend their entire income on items subject to the sales tax. (at a 10% sales tax, that means $1,000 paid in taxes for an effective rate of 10%)

However, the person making $100,000 may save %40,000 and only spend $60,000 on things that are taxed by the sales tax. That means $6,000 in taxes on an income of $100,000 which works out to only a 6% effective rate. Hence the tax is regressive.

[minavasht]

127. Sooner or later

those saved money will be spent and taxed.

[northofdenali]

120. donco6, 10 % is.............. 10%.

If you make $1000, it's $100. If you make $1,000,000,000 (that's a billion, by the way) it's $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars).
So what's not fair?

I'd be happy to pay an extra ten cents on my dollar. If there are NO ALLOWED LOOPHOLES - and I mean NONE, including churches, charities, PACs, political fund raising, NONE NONE NONE - what wrong, and how much unfairness can you find?

I have a step-daughter with a child by herself, working for Sam's Club. SHE PAID 14% this year.

So, give me a fucking rational argument. You haven't yet - let's hear one.

[FredMertz]

145. What percentage of your income goes to pay taxes?

Not just federal income taxes. To be really fair, we need to consider all taxes...taxes on food, clothing, gas, school tax, property tax; even the cost of your car registration, fishing license,etc. If I make 20K a year, you can be damn sure that a much bigger chunk of my money goes to taxes. You want a flat tax? Well fine, but let's make all taxes income based then. If you make ten times more than me, you should be willing to pay ten times my tax rate for a gallon of gas, or a pair of shoes. Fair is fair.

[northofdenali]

204. Well, this crazy state has no income tax at all -

no sales taxes unless enacted by a specific town or borough (North Pole has a 3% sales tax) and they actually pay us to live here - the PFD. Our usual licensing fees (for cars/trucks) is about $70 every 4 years. Motorcycles are less, motor homes are more, but not by much. My father-in-law's motor home usually ran about $100 every 2 years.

I agree 100% that an income tax is the ONLY truly fair tax. We pay a very high rate on cigarettes, booze and gas - the usual "sin tax" crap the Republicans come up with (they don't have to pay it on their hookers or drugs).

I'm not saying a flat tax is the be-all-and-end-all save us all from whatever scenario. I am saying that if EVERYONE and that includes churches, charities, corporations et al- had to pay, it'd be better than what we've got now!

BTW, Fred (where's Ethel?) - Welcome to DU :hi:

[FredMertz]

216. Thanks...

For the welcome! Ethel's working (like I'm supposed to be)---gotta pay all those taxes, you know. Seriously,though, what I was trying to say in my post was that we need to consider what percentage of one's income goes toward paying taxes---all taxes, not just the federal income tax. Look at it that way and I'm sure that poorer people end up spending a larger percentage of their income on taxes.

[Lars39]

16. I'd tell ya to your face.

This is a progressive Democratic board. Flat tax hurts the poor and middle class.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Thankfully, It Isn't Up To You To Make Such Decisions.

Though I don't agree with a flat tax, I still disagree even more with your assertion that the poster above doesn't belong here. You may be of the OPINION that he doesn't, but that's all it is; your opinion. Thankfully, the definition of who does or doesn't belong here doesn't rest upon your shoulders so your saying it to his face is just an exercise in arrogance. Until Skinner chooses to post a direct line in the rules stating that someone who supports the flat tax doesn't belong here (which he won't, cause he's like, ya know, fair and stuff), you have no leg to stand on in attempting to declare that the poster doesn't belong here. He absolutely does, whether he chooses to agree with you on certain issues or not.

[Zhade]

54. True. It's not like equal right to marriage...

...wherein Skinner specifically stated that not supporting the equal right for queerfolk to marry means one isn't welcome here.

But I would have to say that the poster needs some education on this subject.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Agreed.

I agree with Skinner on that concept as well and beyond, since I'm a firm believer that equal rights for all regardless of race, gender, religion or otherwise is something that is mandatory and non-negotiable. I also agree with you on the fact that those who support a flat tax may quite possibly be in need of further education towards the facts of the matter, but I also recognize that some even after having the facts may still be apt to hold onto an opinion that differs from our own. But that still wouldn't make them someone that shouldn't be here in my opinion. Not a one of us is perfect in our positions on everything nor is there a perfect gamut of positions to have to begin with. But equal rights towards all without caveat is not a position in my opinion, it is a core concept of human decency.

[Dutch]

63. Yes, gay-bashing is [100% rightly] not tolerated here, but poor-bashing is fine.

[Sapphire Blue]

77. "but poor-bashing is fine."... and done routinely.

:puke:

[Exiled in America]

218. THANK YOU. I'm so glad someone wrote that.

Poor-bashing seems to be perfectly acceptable.... :(

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Of Course. Since Differing Opinions Cause You Such Grief I'd Expect Such A Reponse From You.

Thankfully, this website (which happens to be the best political site on the web) doesn't subscribe to your 'if you don't think exactly like me then you don't belong here' mentality.

The fact still stands: You are not the one who gets to define who does or doesn't belong here, and you were completely in the wrong for declaring to the poster that he doesn't. :hi:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

96. This is a Democratic board. Conservative, moderate, progressive, liberal Democratic board.

And it is a discussion board. Simple as that.

So... discuss.

[jobycom]

33. You may belong, but that doesn't mean your idea does.

A flat tax is antithetical to everything the Democratic Party stands for. Fairness, equality, good government, and smart economic policy. It's a creation of the "other" party you mention. It's no more a part of the Democratic Party than any other form of elitism or segregation.

That's not judging you, just the idea. If you hold that idea, fine. Just don't expect to mention it and not have it explained to you.

[hfojvt]

49. Why does using a tax system to benefit the poor suck?

In what way is that progressive?

Why should the taxes be equal? Is that more fair?

Look at it this way. One person suggested that the rich paid more, but only got the same fire and police protection that I do. But that is clearly not true. The fire department protects their $300,000 house as well as my $35,000 house. They are getting more protection because they have more to protect, so they should pay more, just like they do for insurance.

[struggle4progress]

51. Why shouldn't those who benefit more from the society pay more to support the society?

Those with financial means get good food, good clothing, good housing, good police protection, good health care, and good recreational opportunities. Those without financial means may work two low-paying jobs to make ends meet, often eat only the junk food they can afford, live with less police protection, forego needed medical care to survive, and scrape along without much in the way of vacations.

One percent of the US population owns one-fifth of our country's wealth. Meanwhile, about one-tenth of the population doesn't have enough income to meet basic food needs regularly. In this context, I should shed tears about the unfairness of a progressive tax scheme?

[HughBeaumont]

65. This is why it's a stupid idea:

Guy A makes 15000 gross a year. He has to give up 2300 dollars of that money (15%), leaving him with a measly 12700 to feed, clothe, shelter and transport him. I didn't even mention if he has a child, which would make his particular income situation far more difficult.

Guy B makes 1,500,000 gross a year. He has to give up 230,000 of that a year (15%), leaving him with a measly 1,270,000 a year to somehow make do and scrape by with. :eyes:

Who suffers more?

Get the picture?

When you hold all the cards, you deserve no aces.

It's called paying your fair share.

[TheBaldyMan]

74. Whats equal about a family on $15k p.a. and a Brazillionaire both paying a flat rate?

Please enlighten me.

[Madspirit]

152. I will.

I'll tell you to your face you don't belong here, if you want to screw the poor, the working class, in favor of the fat cats.
Lee

[Greyhound]

79. The problem with the tax Forbes proposed was not that it was a flat tax, but rather that it included

so many exemptions that it virtually eliminated taxes for business and high-income, high-asset, Americans.

IOW, it had all the same problems built into it that our current system does, blatant inequity and shifted the burden further onto those least able to afford it.

[northofdenali]

118. Oh bullshit, terrya - everyone who supports true democracy belongs here.

A flat tax would work if it applied to everyone and everything (churches, charities, corporations, etc.)

But it will take a hell of a lot of work.

Most people don't like that part.

[lonestarnot]

139. accck. You've got that right!

[magellan]

4. Thank you!

I'd really rather avoid hearing the chorus of "we were wrong" after a flat tax is imposed, by not going there in the first place. Flat Tax, Fair Tax...let's call the whole thing off.

[unblock]

7. exactly. sales tax sounds great to them because EVERYTHING ELSE isn't taxed

hell, rich people don't need to buy anything. they can just acquire a company and use inventory for personal use.

[leftofthedial]

8. but we can make it up to those who lose (the middle class, the working class, the poor)

by outsourcing more and more of their jobs and by making sure that they have no access to health care.

fucking idiots.

[Elwood P Dowd]

10. There are still NAFTA supporters on DU.

Some of them have thousands of posts and have been here longer than me. Go figure? :eyes:

[iamthebandfanman]

217. must be fun

to support private banks across the globe!

eh?!

maybe we should join up ;)
hah

[Alexander]

11. That's why I cannot ever support Mike Gravel. He supports this.

Jerry Brown also supported it. A very poorly-thought out idea, unless you're rich and benefit from it, obviously.

[deadmessengers]

48. I always found that inexplicable

I could never figure out why Jerry Brown thought a flat tax was a good idea.

[unblock]

14. here's my nutty idea to counter their nutty idea: a WEALTH tax

not an income tax, but a WEALTH tax. economists love this one since all economic activity is tax-free; no transactions are taxed at all.

it's inherently progressive, and the actual formula can be made more so.

the only thing it punishes is the accumulation of wealth, which obviously provides its own means to support the tax. it especially discourages hoarding or idle wealth, something economists despise.


no sales tax, no income tax, nothing. just a wealth tax. if you aren't rich you don't pay it.



the real problems, naturally, come in enforcement and appraisal, but that's already a problem in parts of the existing system.

[donco6]

17. A tax on hoarding . . . interesting.

So would people who had to save for their own pensions through 401K be taxed higher than officials who had their benefits held by the corporation on their behalf? That's what happens now in some defined benefit pension plans.

[unblock]

21. well you always have transition issues when switching from one scheme to another

presumably retirement savings would be "grandfathered" in (possible pun intended!)

but in general the idea of a defined future benefit would become more valuable as wealth otherwise naturally erodes. or more precisely, you have to put it to work to maintain it.

the idea is that taking an art collection out of circulation benefits no one but the owner. if you want to do that, fine, but you pay a tax on it while you do so. this encourages you to do the right thing (from an economic perspective) of putting the collection on display and charging at least enough to cover your tax bill.

[conscious evolution]

198. I think sci-fi author RH Hienlien had some ideas along this line.

In his first novel he discussess some interesting economic ideas.
Now if I could just remember the name of that book.

[Gold Metal Flake]

50. The Wealth Tax. Now there is a plan!

"There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents. The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Oct 28, 1813

[TheBaldyMan]

76. the slippery bastards will discover a permanent state of transaction

their greed knows no bounds.

[bbgrunt]

86. wonderful thought unblock. We could become a national potlatch economy.

[mudesi]

18. We have a sales tax in Canada

We also have income taxes and other taxes, of course, but the sales tax here does do something in the way of making sure the wealthy spenders pay a good share into the system. It's universally hated, as far as I can tell, but it's only 6%. (Used to be 7% before the neo cons took minority power).

Necessity items, (like basic food staples, for example) are not taxed. Only "luxury" items. We also get the rebate checks depending on our income.

I think a lot of the fear I see on DU regarding a sales tax is slightly unwarranted. You can't have a sales tax as the sole source of taxation, of course, but a low sales tax is not exactly the boogie man I see it being made out to be here.

[frazzled]

29. Flat tax means getting RID of the income tax

and having only a national sales tax. We have plenty of sales tax here in the U.S., through the states, and sometimes large cities add extra: where I live, the sales tax is 9%.

Abandoning the income tax system and gaining government income through a national sales tax (of 30% or so), would be a huge present to the wealthy, and hurt the poor and middle income sectors enormously.

[hfojvt]

47. We have a sales tax here too, you know

It is from 5-9% and the money goes to states, schools, universities, city and county governments, but it varies by state. Some states tax food, like Kansas, of course, but they also have a food sales tax rebate.

[SoCalDem]

19. I could get behind a "flat tax"

an EXCISE flat tax of expensive/unnecessary/potentially polluting THINGS..

This would be in ADDITION to a truly progressive tax...kind of like we had back when corporations paid their fair share and when super rich paid about 50%..

You young'uns don't know this, but there USED to be a federal excise tax on jewelry, furs, and other "luxury" items. It was 10%..and people got used to it.

I think it's time to reinstate this sort of tax for stuff like

personal autos over a certain price/weight/HP..whatever

booze (not domestic beer/wine)

imported fabrics/clothing/shoes
(might get people interested in making stuff here again)

Pleasure boats, skidoos, jetskis, 4-wheelers etc.

[deadmessengers]

30. Alcohol is already taxed out the wazoo

no need to jack it up even more.

[SoCalDem]

41. As a smoker, I would favor higher taxes on booze

:evilgrin:.. why should WE have all the pleasure of filling gaps in a profligate adminsitration's budget..

and after the booze tax, lets have a pizza & donut tax too :)

[Solo_in_MD]

44. As an advocate for significant tax reform, I oppose sin taxes of any kind

[northofdenali]

111. Amen, Amen, Amen, SCD -

AS LONG AS EVERYBODY PAYS. No outs. None. No "my kid died so I can deduct the headstone" shit - because all that is garbage, you're gonna do it anyway.

No outs for churches, charities, etc. NO OUTS.

[boot@9]

132. I remember...

and it is too bad it is no longer in effect. And the idea of a flat tax is just what the elite repugs would have an orgasm over!

[Sapphire Blue]

20. THANK YOU... and a very well deserved K&R!

[Sapphire Blue]

66. kick

:kick:

[noahmijo]

22. First fix how spending is controlled then we'll worry about taxes

For example this country can't find it in themselves to pay a 1st grade teacher like my fiance more than $30000 a year, but somehow we have no problem with sending millions out to companies like Microsoft and Intel in the form of corporate welfare? no one in this country seems to be demanding to take a look at Halliburton's and see how much taxpayer dollars have been wasted so that they may display an inflated revenue for their stockholders to produce their "O" faces.

That's what I want to see. Demanding of accountability of where the funds in this country go to, demand that certain entities start earning their keep like the rest of us and quit being the fuckin welfare bums that they are.

[SarahB]

26. K&R

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

28. Fuckin idiotic, isn't it? lol!

[tech3149]

32. We've got a lot of different ideas here and I won't discount any

The ideas may be biased by education and life experience, but I consider them all welcome. There are conditions that I could accept a flat tax or a sales tax. My ultimate choice would be a progressive tax system that burdens those gain the most from society. Taxation of income from investments should be equivilant to that level of wages.

I'd be willing to consider a sales tax only if it did not apply to the neccesities of life and their were a VAT for luxury items like boats, second homes, and such. I'd be willing to consider a flat income tax if it excluded the income needed to exist in the highest cost of living part of the country and taxed dividends and interest at the same rate as wages. I'd also support those ideas if the structure simplified compliance to the point that even the most simple-minded of us could prepare their own income tax returns.

While I understand that a flat tax or sales tax only have the potential to be a hardship on the less well-off, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are potentials to both ideas that could reduce the cost and complexity of management and still provide the revenues to do the job that needs to be done.

[Theduckno2]

53. The type of flat tax system matters to me.

The flat tax system would need to be tiered and therefore progressive. Those who benefit most by our government (infrastructure, security, etc.) need to pay more to provide for that government.

I like the following hypothetical, please excuse its vagueness..

A low (but significant) rate for income less than, let's say, twice the poverty level. A higher rate on income up to approx $250,000/yr and then a stiff rate on income above $250,000/yr. Do away with almost all deductions (possibly excepting children, disability, elderly).

A novel twist could have those over 70 years of age paying the middle rate for all income above twice the poverty level.

I am not currently aware of the details of either Steve Forbes' or Gravely's flat tax plans. I do believe the current system needs major overhaul and I too, won't discount any choices.

[Solo_in_MD]

34. Something has to be be done, and simple structured approaches are popular

Start at the begining...the current tax code sucks serious ass. Way way way to much tinkering for worthy causes, and not all of it done by repukes. By attempting to use taxes to incentivize certain behaviors (a major character flaw in many Dems) over the years we now have a major mess. Those saying just tax the stuff the rich buy are part of the problem. Remember the expensive yacht tax? Lots of boat builders (and the jobs they supported) went out of business in the US. However, the rich just registered their yachts out of the country in the name of their companies. No increase taxes and more unemployment. NOt a good thing.

Another key part is that most Americans have little faith in tax system equity. AMT and other items are forcing more people to look at tax dodges. The IRS can't stop much of it. Less taxes collected and more people deciding its alright to screw the system. Not a good thing.

We need a simple system that allows people to know what they are going to pay ahead of time. It needs to make compliance easy and is easily enforceable. No marriage penalty, strict limitation on deductions or offsets and hard limits on depreciation. It also needs to be paid automated as part of basic transactions, which is why it it tending to either an income or transaction based tax.

Such a move will cause a revolt among certain groups and lots of lawsuits. It will threaten many lawyers and accountants not to mention the IRS. There will be all sorts of FUDs and claims of unfairness, including the "its not progressive enough". I don't really care. We need to knock the current system on its ass and start over.

I tend to like a tiered system based on earned and unearned income with a floor to protect the working poor coupled with a VAT. Simple, easy to administer and enforce. Its a damn site better than what we have now.

[jpgray]

36. I think it's clear our current tax system doesn't work based on the rich-poor gap alone

But this is just to specifically say that a substitution of our current income tax system with a flat sales tax, in almost any conceivable form, is not the answer. Hopefully ProfessorGAC will show up and tell me what to really think about alternatives. :D

[Solo_in_MD]

42. It much worse than the rich/poor gap and so complex that it can not be understood by ordinary people

It has to be scrapped and started over

[bbgrunt]

89. I'd agree with you solo, if before we knocked our current

system "on its arse" we could be sure that those in political office doing the tinkering and voting really have individual, not corporate interests at heart.

[nicknameless]

35. Yep.

A few months back, when I first heard Gravel speak, I was mesmerized ... until he got to the part about a flat tax.

**Sigh**

That crappy idea was the single issue that obscenely rich Steve Forbes used to push whenever he ran for pres.

[deadmessengers]

38. Want a flat tax? here's one I could get behind

0% on incomes smaller than 100,000/yr, localized to the cost of living of the taxpayer's zip code. (In other words, someone living in a high-cost area would get a bigger exemption than someone living in a low-cost area). %25 on everything above it. The only allowable deduction would be for children, say at $10,000 per rugrat. Most importantly, NO DISTINCTIONS ON SOURCE OF INCOME. Capital gains? 25%. Dividends? 25%. Interest? 25%. Salary? 25%. Stock options? 25%.

It's dead easy, and inherently progressive. It'll also never happen - the corporate interests wouldn't stand for it.

[jpgray]

40. Exactly. The big political power centers in this country are death on investment/corporate taxes

[Celeborn Skywalker]

56. Hmmm.

That actually seems like a pretty decent plan you got there.

[Blue-Jay]

39. Some folks are enamored by tough-talking, crusty old farts.

Some other folks are themselves tough-talking, crusty old farts.

Yeah, it was great that Gravel took a few swipes at the failings of our current crop of Democratic contenders. I ain't sending his gravelly old ass any money, though. Might as well flush it down the toilet.

[hfojvt]

43. It ain't me. It ain't me.

I'm too smart for that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=779306&mesg_id=779344

[jpgray]

46. It doesn't take someone who is one letter removed from your username, does it?

:)

[struggle4progress]

45. Join the 'Billionaires for Bush Club'

By BRUCE WEST
Special to the Examiner
April 24, 2007

~snip~ The minimum wage should be reduced. American industry cannot compete with third-world workers who earn in a day what our workers earn in an hour. This makes U.S. goods too expensive to compete on the world market and contributes to industries leaving for cheaper labor markets in foreign countries. All wages should be brought into line with world realities. This will make American industry more competitive and we won't be losing jobs to overseas labor markets. It will also make workers hungrier and less likely to strike and damage industry profits. ~snip~

There should be a flat tax. A progressive tax unfairly burdens rich people by making them pay a greater percentage of tax than the poor. Everyone should pay the same rate. By allowing the wealthy to keep more of their money, profits in banks and investment programs will increase. This will make more money available for working people to borrow. Simple. ~snip~

Expand the size of the military. In a shrinking world, an imperial global economy controlled by the U.S. is important. The military is the enforcement arm of the economic empire and perpetual war has many benefits: it provides employment for the poor who traditionally cost the country by packing the prisons and welfare roles; it inflates the military-industrial complex thereby providing jobs in war-related industry; it increases the president's power by circumventing the Constitution and giving him special war powers thereby streamlining government and making it more efficient; and it opens the natural resources of third-world countries to American development. Perpetual war is important to the economy.

Moreover, by taking poor kids off the streets and giving them meaningful employment in the military, we provide them with a future. If they are killed or injured, private insurance they purchase should provide for their care. This will benefit the insurance industry and save billions by eliminating the Veterans Administration. ~snip~

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18255376&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222071&rfi=6

[baldguy]

57. The old hippy slogan was "Eat The Rich!"

In Neocon Amerika, the rich eat you!

[trackfan]

58. Amen n/t

[MyNameGoesHere]

60. I can't believe i am seeing people who see people on DU

supporting a flat tax. I mean here i am seeing you, seeing them, seeing someone supporting a flat tax. Wow weird indeed.

And what is downright appalling is that the gulags are full and you can not send them away for not toeing the party line. A shame indeed.

[Dutch]

61. Same here. Further proof that a some so-called 'progressives' stopped giving a f*ck about the poor

long ago. It's been touted here by a vocifeorus minority for as long as I've been posting, but it never ceases to amaze me.

[HughBeaumont]

62. Why is it surprising? There's people on here who support job offshoring.

So why not this equally bad for the middle class and poor practice?

I still don't get how they can't SEE that a flat tax would be infinitely worse than the tax system we have now? And as it's been proven during this six-year nightmare, giving the wealthy MORE cash means they'll either hoard it or create jobs . . . in third-world nations.

This is just another means of widening the gap.

[dysfunctional press]

64. how about a flat tax that exempts the first 50K...?

nt

[WinkyDink]

69. Of course. Anyone who thinks 10% from $100 week has the same effect on a worker as 10% from

$1000, needs to join the $100 group.

(P.S. This post hadn't shown up when I posted the next one. ?)

[WinkyDink]

70. I repeat (from another thread): ANY TAX that takes ONE MORE DIME from the poor than now, is

disgustingly REGRESSIVE.

10% to a rich man is NOTHING; to a poor man, it might very well send him over the brink into homelessness.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

71. A truly regressive tax system

Even with the proposed "prebates" I can still see flaws in the concept.

Having said that, I do like the way Gravel speaks out on Iraq and I don't feel as if I'm a traitor to the poor and middle class for feeling that way.

[jmowreader]

72. jpgray, I hate to tell you this, but...

you're crossing terms here.

The two Conservative-Approved Tax Plans out there are the Flat Tax and the FairTax.

The Flat Tax is a nonprogressive income tax--one rate for everyone, no deductions for anything. Steve Forbes is the head cheerleader.

The FairTax is the scheme whereby the federal income tax, plus the federal payroll tax, PLUS the IRS, are abolished in favor of a national sales tax on new products only. Mike Gravel is the only Democrat running on this idea; this alone proves Gravel isn't fit to be president.

Both schemes suck, but the FairTax is the most likely to destroy the economy. It charges sales tax only on new products, which will eliminate the market for new large-ticket goods.

[jpgray]

83. I know that. I refuse to use the term "fair tax," as a one-rate sales tax is, in essence, flat

And has the same fundamental problem as a flat tax--no taxing investments, higher percentage of poor/middle class folk's income taxed, rich people love it, lowers government revenue, etc.

[jmowreader]

103. Come up with a new term for it, then

When most people mention "flat tax" it's in reference to a one-rate income tax, not Boortz' national sales tax.

I opened the thread thinking it was a flat income tax discussion. You know, the standard "the Internal Revenue Code is 153,000 pages long, there are 2500 different schedules, no one likes to do math, we need to scrap the whole thing and go to a Flat Tax System because taxes are too complex" thing.

Lemme tell ya something about taxes. The only item an individual taxpayer should ever have to deal with that exceeds the sophistication of the filer is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is very complex. Shit, ACCOUNTANTS fuck this up, and a lot of the people who are eligible for it don't even have high school diplomas. They need to fix that, and as soon as we get a president who doesn't think every poor person in America is out to rip off the government, they might be able to. But the rest of it? If you can figure out how to make the money in the first place, you can figure out how to report it--or you can afford to pay someone who knows how to report it.

Everyone, listen close: There is a book out on how to do your income taxes that is so wonderful, so easy to use and makes things so clear, that not only am I surprised it's free I'm surprised even more the Bush administration hasn't gotten it killed yet. The book is IRS Publication 17, "Your Federal Income Tax." Next year on about January 1, I will remind everyone of this and even provide a link to it. Get an IRS Publication 17 (free PDF download!) and you can do your taxes so easily it'll shock you.

[LeftishBrit]

78. A flat task is a right-wing economic idea, that would be disastrous for poorer people

The ultimate in the economic rightward shift championed by Maggie and Ronnie.

I'm surprised it's even considered as controversial here - I assume most are against it?

[bbgrunt]

80. well said, jpgray. This whole sales job smells of the same rhetoric as the "death tax" propagana

that was so readily bought by so many against their own interests. Indeed, the mind boggles.

[Cleita]

85. This is the same reason I don't support the national sales tax

instead of income tax proponents . It still puts the tax burden on the poor and middle class, yet it sounds good in theory, which fools the unwary

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

90. No, because low/middle income people would still spend a higher percentage of income on taxed goods

That's why the tax is regressive. And removing taxes on investments, corporate income and the like would bankrupt the gov't and deny people extremely important social services.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

98. It still wouldn't tax all the income of the rich as much of that

income isn't spend on necessities and luxuries, it is invested instead. Also, the rich purchase many more services than we ordinary folks do and most of those services are not taxed.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

106. Steve Forbes is an idiot.

Enuff said!

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

112. Well, isn't he?

Hey buddy, you have got to stop drinking the kool-aid. Forbes ideas don't work and there is plenty of recent historical evidence for it. The guy, whose name starts with an "F", that you ought to be listening to is Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company, who said that he wanted to make an automobile that his auto workers could afford to buy.

Inherent in that statement is what makes real economic growth. If the lowest paid worker has enough money from his labor at the end of the day to meet his needs and has some left over to spend and to put away for an emergency or his retirement, then everyone benefits. The more money the common worker spends, the better businesses whom he is buying from do. That translates into better profits, which are reflected in the stock market.

Now when people are unemployed or living from hand to mouth, corporations have to rely on corporate welfare and deregulation from the government for this so-called "competitive market" as well as the myriad of tax loopholes. This is what Forbes advocates. These ideas, based on Milton Friedman's economics have been proven to not work by the economies who have tried all or part of them.

The most prosperous era of our country was post World War II when FDR's socialist type programs were implemented enabling the ordinary factory worker to own a home, a car, have health care and a decent retirement waiting for him when the time came. In no way were the rich being forced to do without. We had a prosperous middle class then too. Conservative economics have ruined all that in the last thirty years. I can remember a time when there were no homeless in the streets. Even the poor had shelter due to enlightened social programs. Now we are becoming like Dicken's England. Too bad.

[Cleita]

94. A credit could be done on the income tax as well, however,

on the sales tax, the rich, no matter how big a spendthrift they are, cannot spend the amount that taxing their income with a progressive tax would yield. Also, since the rich purchase a lot of services that we the working class do for ourselves, no sales tax is attached to that.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

105. Yes, and in theory we both want the same thing, however,

flat tax and national sales tax puts the burden on the poor not the rich who can afford to pay more and still not miss the money in their day to day lives. When the burden is on the poor, those deductions often leave people short of food money and other necessities like health care. So if you are feeling the pinch someone at the other end of the income bracket spectrum isn't paying their fair share.

The idea of people receiving more money than they pay in when receiving welfare is the idea behind progressive taxation. It's known as redistribution of the wealth, a liberal idea, that many boneheaded conservatives don't get. Also, if people made a living wage they would be paying more taxes not less. There's a lot of issues here that taxing the poor and blaming them for not having enough money isn't going to solve. I think you ought to take your Forbes economic ideas elsewhere. They have already been proven not to work. It's time to do what other progressive countries do like the Scandanavian countries, who have better GNPs for the sizes of their populations with *gasp* socialist laws in place than we do.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

119. Yes, the Scandanavian countries pay more taxes than we do

and they are progressive taxes, but in return they have what they call womb to tomb safety nets, which translates into free medical care, free education, even through Phd, family allowances and housing allowances for all their citizens. Because they have security to fall back on in times of crisis, it's believed this is why their crime rates are very low. Yet their society is very affluent. Go figure. But I guess Steve Forbes has better ideas?

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

131. Thank you for the link.

I have bookmarked it because it looks like a lot of reading, and I will read it, but not this evening.

However, you did come to the right person regarding what Swedes think of their government. I happened to become acquainted with a group of Swedish girls, who came over here as teenagers, to work as au pairs for rich people in Bel Air and Beverly Hills, California. The people who hired them as nannies liked the fact that they were very white and spoke English.

The girls, on-the-other-hand came over with a sense of adventure and another sense of rebellion, like most teenagers, who don't know when they have it good. The first let down was when they were treated like servants, asked to do a lot of housework they hadn't signed up for and yet couldn't argue against because then they realized that the visas they signed up for didn't allow them to look for other work if they were kicked out into the street.

Well, some of them did get kicked out and found work in restaurants and other venues, but they were illegal aliens then as much as any Mexican working in the kitchens of the same restaurants. Others found husbands among Americans. One of them was a neighbor of mine. Well, at first Inga (not her real name) liked the new freedom particularly to smoke as much pot as she wanted to, while her American husband labored delivering heavy loads up and down the coast to support them.

Well, American husband hurt his back and couldn't work for a while. This is when Inga realized that our system wasn't like Sweden's although back then it wasn't as bad as it is now. The neighborhood we lived in crawled with homeless in the alleys and dope dealers. Burglaries during the day when people were working was a matter of routine. We each had cars stolen at one time or the other. Inga and husband finally came to a parting of ways. I spoke to her while she was packing her bags to go back to Sweden.

Because she had bad-mouthed Sweden a lot while she was here, I asked her if it was going to be hard for her to go back. She said no it wasn't. She said until she had gone through this experience, she realized that in her country they didn't let people die in their own vomit in the street. In her town no one locked their doors. They didn't need to. She realized she was mad because sometimes the old people, who were stubborn about some things annoyed her. She said she was going to hug every single one of them when she got home.

[seasat]

128. The poor aren't taxed? That is false.

What about FICA, sales taxes, gas taxes, communication taxes, or property taxes? The very poor do not pay any income taxes but there are a host of other federal, state, and local taxes that a much greater percentage of their income.

Welfare no longer passes as being a large percentage of their income since folks are limited to only five years of welfare in their lifetime and are required to work at least 30 hours a week for part of the time they are on welfare.

[Cleita]

133. Yes, everything you say is true.

The poor are always taxed unfairly.

[Matsubara]

130. How would it be fairer? The rich would pay less than they do now, which is very little.

The only way to make the tax system fairer would be to ensure that the wealthy paid MORE.

[Cleita]

134. And much MORE!

Truer words were never spoken. Yet, they wouldn't miss the money because it's in excess of what they can possibly spend on themselves.

[Matsubara]

136. The amazing thing to me is this...

The wealthiest Americans got HUGE tax reductions twice under Reagan, their taxes remained low under Clinton, and then they got MORE tax cuts under POS Bush, and yet they still grasp for more. There is never any such thing as enough for them.

[depakid]

87. Ignorance of economics- That's the bottom line.

ANYONE who supports a flat tax doesn't understand the very basic principle of declining marginal utility, which is why they get suckered.

Sad, yet all too common in the dumbed down America of the 21st Century.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

97. How do you figure that?

A sales tax is a flat tax on consumption- and it's equally as regressive.

A single mother- say a waitress who purchases a $100 item pays upwards of $8 or so on that purchase. That $8 feeds her family for a day... that $8 means A LOT to someone getting by from paycheck to paycheck.

A wealthy individual who purchases a $1,000 item (and it could be the same "type of item") pays $80- but the $80 means a whole lot less. Suffice it to say, the wealthy individual may like "comfort foods" like Kraft mac & cheese as well, but they're not going out and buying $80 worth....

Heck, that individual likely drops more than that on a bottle of wine at her restaurant.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seasat]

137. Then you shift the burden to middle classes.

To maintain the current level of revenue, a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would require higher taxes on the middle class. That is why they have never passed despite theoretical posturing by a small set of libertarian economists. Most economic studies that I have read note that investment or earning disincentives do not occur until the effective tax rate reaches somewhere between 40 and 50%. The US has not had rates that high in decades. Reagan's cuts did not result in increases in real revenue to the federal Government.

Clinton's tax increase did not result in investment disincentives. In fact the stock market rose, real income increased at all levels, and the saving rate was higher.

Bush's tax cuts also disprove your theory. The savings rate is the lowest in decades after his large tax cuts which lowered top rates in both income and intangibles to their lowest level in decades.

[bbgrunt]

93. but of course, depakid, that "principle" is only an assumption

when it comes to income--but one I wholly agree with.

[LittleClarkie]

95. "I can't believe I'm seeing someone disagree with me on a discussion board"

The horror.

[Cleita]

99. LOL!

:rofl:

[northofdenali]

110. Shit. I'll get flamed.

EVERYONE. Including Churches, Charities, Corporations like WalMart, Home Depot, Lowes, Barnes & Noble, PetSMart, Fred Meyer, Safeway, whateever isn't taxed now, NO exemptions for ANYTHING...

SHIT YEAH I'D PAY A FLAT TAX.

[Chovexani]

113. This is the best idea I've seen in this thread

Tax all the motherfuckers. Tax Pat Robertson until he has to pawn his dentures. :thumbsup:

[northofdenali]

114. Not to mention his toupee's and

all that frickin' makeup. Do you suppose he uses Estee Lauder? :rofl:

[Cleita]

121. Funny enough Jerry Brown said something similar when

he ran for President. His reasoning was that the flat tax would eliminate any loopholes and credits forcing those same entities who don't pay taxes into paying some tax. However, I'm sure that the loopholes would appear again bit by bit except for the poor.

[Telly Savalas]

125. There is absolutely no reason one can't elimate loopholes and credits

and keep a progressive structure of marginal tax rates in place.

[seasat]

140. Exactly, we can simply the current system.

We have a regressive sale tax here in Florida. However, even that didn't stop loopholes for the wealthy. They actually exempt air craft parts from our sales tax. I have to pay a sales tax on brake pads for my wife's old Ford, but the rich guy with a Cessna gets an exemption on his parts. Even a "flat tax" will end up with loopholes. The folks with the money can afford to pay the lobbyists to get them.

[TahitiNut]

155. As I've said for decades - let me deduct everything a corporation can deduct.

Virtually every expense incurred to even exist is deductible for the "artificial person" called a corporation - including housing (offices and factories), all travel (including meals and transportation), vehicles (trucks and cars), tort liabilities, and servants. Corporations are taxed only on "what's left over" while a human being is taxed to the point that NOTHING is "left over."

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Tell me about it

just one small correction, you still need a certain ammount of spending before you can deduct it as a corporation

But hell, businesses get soem advantages (the theory goes) so they can afford to stay in business. This works if yuo are a micro-company, trying to make it (raises hand), but for wallymart... they are well beyond the stage of needing any help

[entanglement]

122. They must be from the upper 15% of the income distribution...

Or, more likely, Kool-Aid drinkers in the lower 85%

[Matsubara]

129. Yep, pro-occupation of Iraq threads too.

Can the calls for school vouchers be far behind?


It goes without saying that ALL flat-tax gimmicks, regardless of set-asides for the peons, are designed specifically as YET ANOTHER tax break for the rich and upper-middle classes.

AS IF these people had not caught enough breaks over the past 3 decades. It's not enough that their incomes have soared while ours have stagnated, they have to get tax break after tax break after tax break after tax break...


Here's income tax simplification for you:

Capital gains tax back to 1980 levels.

$6000 exemption for each dependent, all mortgage interest on first home only deductible.

No tax on income from $0 to $18,000

10% tax on income from $18K to $25K

15% tax on income from $25K to $35K

25% tax on income from $35K to $70K

30% tax on income from $70K to $300K

50% tax on income from $300K to $1 million

60% tax on income from $1 million to $10 million

70% tax on all income above $10 million


Simple. Fair. It's similar to what worked well in the 1960s, when the US had widespread prosperity and a GROWING middle class.


Oh, yeah, and with this I would call for a reduction or elimination of all regressive sales and use taxes. States would be barred from levying sales taxes over 5% on any item under $100K, with the exception of alcohol and tobacco, which would be taxed up to 20% and 50% respectively. Luxury items like yachts could still be assessed federal and state luxury taxes.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

146. There was never a $10 million bracket

I am not sure where you got those numbers but there hasn't been a "millionaire's bracket" since 1941 when it was $5,000,000.
The last time we hade a 70% bracket it was 1980 and for all income over $215,400.

But generally I agree with you. People earning less than 20k should not be paying taxes.

[gollygee]

143. The more I think about it, the less I think the sales tax idea would work

The "prebate" thing sounds like a pain in the ass and I doubt that would really take care of the needs of people in poverty. There would still be a cash flow issue. I'm pretty comfortable now, but I've been in bad situations in the past, and as I recall if I got a check in there were several places it immediately needed to go, and then I'd never have money for gas and groceries and what-not.

If there were a so-called "flat tax" on income but you were only taxed after the first $40,000 or something, maybe it would be fair? I'm not an economist. I just like the idea of eliminating loopholes. But I can't get behind any idea that doesn't protect people with small incomes from paying the same percentage of their income as those with large incomes.

The system is so set up against people without money. Or, worded differently, it's set up entirely for people who have a lot of money, and the hell with everyone else. Something has to change. But I will keep my mind open and *look at* any alternative given.

[Lilith Velkor]

147. There are even assholes who support the draft on DU

Takes all kinds, or something. :shrug:

[Marie26]

150. How can you be a Democrat & pro-flat tax?

That's a mind-bender there.

[Madspirit]

158. That's what I think Marie26

This board is for Democrats. How can you be a Democrat and support a flat tax? Mind boggling.
Lee

[Madspirit]

154. I tried,,,

I tried to recommend you but it's been over 24 hours. I can still kick you though...

...and in my heart, you are recommended...<g>
Lee

[donco6]

157. After this thread, I'm even more shocked.

That people *still* support it. How thick can people be?

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. People truly do not know how it works

I have seen a VAT at work, and it is ugly.

Now modified VATS (CANADA) work somewhat well... but they are also complex and by their own admision, still quite regressive

[Evoman]

165. I don't understand WHY rich people fight progressive taxation so much.

If I were a millionaire, I would have no problem being taxed more. What is the fucking point of hoarding wealth? After awhile, you have nothing to spend your money on anways.

Wealthy people should WANT to be taxed. Don't they hate driving down the street and seeing homeless people? Don't they hate the fact that they have to be continually more afraid of people with nothing coming after their money? Don't they have to fear the loss of security that comes with higher crime rates and corruption? Don't they want a nice, clean world to live in?

I don't get it.

What is wrong with rich people?!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

169. Like a certain person upthread, they think that poor people deserve

to be poor. They think that crime can be solved by "getting tough." :eyes:

[Evoman]

170. I say we kill all the rich people and eat their hearts.

Okay, I'm kidding. Kind of.

[Sapphire Blue]

175. They have hearts?

[Lurking Dem]

200. Jesus.

[Sapere aude]

167. Look the government cannot run on a 10% flat tax. It will have to be something like 25%

So the poor get raised to 25% and the rich get lowered to 25%. That is why the rich love the flat tax.

It is another way to shift wealth to the wealthy. I believe we need to use tax policy to motivate people to do things like the tax credit for R&D. Things like accelerated depreciation help in times of a bad economy. It spurs buying of capital goods.

Deductions for mortgage interest help spur home buying and gives lower income people a way to invest some of their money rather than pay rent.

A flat tax does not enable these things to happen.

If you are middle class or lower and you want a flat tax, basically you want to raise your taxes while lowering taxes for the wealthy. Why not just buy a gun and shoot yourself in the head or take a pay cut?

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. Because most people

truly do not understand how a FLAT TAX works

Let me try to explain this to the math impaired, if you do not mind.... (and I do not mean you)

Two families, Joe wroks for 7.50 an hour

Jill makes seven figures

They both buy dinner

Tax, for the sake of argument is 10%

They both spend 100 dollars, plus 10 in taxes

Who do you think will feel the pinh of those ten dollars faster, Joe or Jill?

Any person who undesrtand how this works will give the correct answer.

(By the by this is the reason why sales taxes are extremely regressive, but every time somebody proposes this as a FEDERAL flat tax to get rid of the IRS for some resson people's IQ drops by ten points)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

185. I propose a 40% flat tax

All income taxed at 40% after one deduction for yourself.
Yourself = $20,000
So if you make 30k, you pay 40% of $10,000, or $4,000.

Examples:
Gross
$30,000 = 10,000 taxable at 40% = 4,000 taxes (effective 13.333% rate)
$40,000 = 20,000 taxable at 40% = 8,000 taxes (effective 20% rate) this bad only pays 16% now)
$50,000 = 30,000 taxable at 40% = 12,000 taxes (effective 24% rate)
$70,000 = 50,000 taxable at 40% = 20,000 taxes (effective 28.57% rate)
$100,000 = 80,000 taxable at 40% = 32,000 taxes (effective 32% rate)
$200,000 = 180,000 taxable at 40% = 72,000 taxes (effective 36% rate)
$400,000 = 370,000 taxable at 40% = 148,000 taxes (effective 37% rate)

This gets the higher end above the criminally low 35% rate Bush has set for them, which only begins at $326,450.
It's problematic for people making between 40 and 70k since they would pay more than they pay now, but I think you could do something like this and get the high end people back up to 40% which is where they were under Clinton, and I haven't even put in any other deductions for dependents etc...
You might get something to work if the rate was high and standard deductions were also high.
I don't agree with sales taxes. They are terribly regressive unless you structure so-called "luxury taxes".

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. Regresive

what we need to do is reform the IRS code, get rid of the loopholes, get rid of corporate personhood and tax the rich at rates more in line with the resources they use.

At one time we taxed them at 80%, 65% woudl be more than adecuate to make them pay for the resources they use

And yes there is a level of inccome, poverty, that should not pay taxes mostly they cannot afford them

[camero]

210. Well we just had the VT thing in the news

Everytime something big happens, traffic increases, and out of the woodwork they come. You can almost set your clock to it.