Interesting but not going to happen

[jms62]

Good idea but will never happen with our **** show of a government


http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/07/pf/t...paul-flat-tax/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Good idea but will never happen with our **** show of a government


http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/07/pf/t...paul-flat-tax/

You're right, it will never happen because it would likely destroy one of the two parties. Besides it's racist.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Good idea but will never happen with our **** show of a government


http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/07/pf/t...paul-flat-tax/

interesting, yes. but a flat tax is considered a regressive tax, and is a blow to those in the lowest income groups, and a boon to those in the highest.

matter of fact, it says in that article that it would benefit the rich. so, of course paul will want to propose things that would get the koch bros and others like them to back him financially.

[joeydb]

"Stop spending money you don't have."

Wow, that is controversial. Can you even say that in America anymore?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

"Stop spending money you don't have."

Wow, that is controversial. Can you even say that in America anymore?

it's a great idea. all candidates for all offices espouse it. none ever follow it!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's a great idea. all candidates for all offices espouse it. none ever follow it!

Only way to make it happen is to have Congress debate how to split up a fixed amount of money (like last year's revenue). Instead of what they do now: coming up with figures out of thin air that are then totaled up and passed in a bill, which has no relationship whatsoever to our ability to pay.

When was the last year that the government actually made a dent in the principal of the debt, not just balancing the budget based on the current yearly deficit alone? A long time ago.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Only way to make it happen is to have Congress debate how to split up a fixed amount of money (like last year's revenue). Instead of what they do now: coming up with figures out of thin air that are then totaled up and passed in a bill, which has no relationship whatsoever to our ability to pay.

When was the last year that the government actually made a dent in the principal of the debt, not just balancing the budget based on the current yearly deficit alone? A long time ago.

Good luck with getting Congress to pass legislation that would make its own job infinitely harder.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Only way to make it happen is to have Congress debate how to split up a fixed amount of money (like last year's revenue). Instead of what they do now: coming up with figures out of thin air that are then totaled up and passed in a bill, which has no relationship whatsoever to our ability to pay.

When was the last year that the government actually made a dent in the principal of the debt, not just balancing the budget based on the current yearly deficit alone? A long time ago.

i have no idea.
i know the country hasn't been out of debt since andrew jackson was president.
and the income tax was 'temporary'.

Originally Posted by jms62

Good luck with getting Congress to pass legislation that would make its own job infinitely harder.

yeah, it'll never happen!
just like they handle their own ethics questions....and raises, and insider trading! the fox guarding the henhouse has never worked well.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Good luck with getting Congress to pass legislation that would make its own job infinitely harder.

They won't do it. I agree with you.

Then maybe they'll at least spare us the endless comparisons to how Americans run their lives at the kitchen table. The common citizen does indeed have to try to spend some fraction of what they take in - after they are taxed of course.

The government on the other hand does no such thing. They total it up, and add it to the debt via a deficit for the year. Simple as that. Which is how you eventually get up to 18 trillion dollars in debt and beyond.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

interesting, yes. but a flat tax is considered a regressive tax, and is a blow to those in the lowest income groups, and a boon to those in the highest.

matter of fact, it says in that article that it would benefit the rich. so, of course paul will want to propose things that would get the koch bros and others like them to back him financially.

Make the first $10K earned tax free and tax everything above that at 20%. An individual making minimum wage or $16,320/year would pay $1,264 for an effective rate of 7.7% while an individual making $200K would pay $38K and be at an effective rate of 19%.

Stop enticing poor, single, too young mothers to breed for dollars.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They won't do it. I agree with you.

Then maybe they'll at least spare us the endless comparisons to how Americans run their lives at the kitchen table. The common citizen does indeed have to try to spend some fraction of what they take in - after they are taxed of course.

The government on the other hand does no such thing. They total it up, and add it to the debt via a deficit for the year. Simple as that. Which is how you eventually get up to 18 trillion dollars in debt and beyond.

Just print more money!

[Danzig]

Posted for the math example.be sure to read the hypothetical.


http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Make the first $10K earned tax free and tax everything above that at 20%. An individual making minimum wage or $16,320/year would pay $1,264 for an effective rate of 7.7% while an individual making $200K would pay $38K and be at an effective rate of 19%.

Stop enticing poor, single, too young mothers to breed for dollars.

From reading the article he did talk about an earned tax credit. Now all he needs to do is allow me to write off trading gains vs gambling losses. It's all glorified gambling anyway

[Danzig]

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is...e-new-problems


also, note:

Because flat tax proposals lower rates at the top, and because the top is where an increasing share of income is being concentrated, they also tend to bring in significantly less revenue than the current tax code, resulting in higher deficits, fewer public investments, and pressure to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare

[GenuineRisk]

Here's the tell on who Rand's tax benefits:

"Investment income: Capital gains, dividends and interest would be tax free."

In other words, where rich people get most of their income. So he's saying working schlubs pay tax, and the hereditary wealthy pay no tax.

I am surprised so many right-wingers spout off about their alleged love of freedom, since it's clear that they don't want a democratic society; they want a feudalistic one. Where the peasants support the aristocrats.

That's what this flat tax proposal is. The poor and working class paying for the wealthy.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I am surprised so many right-wingers spout off about their alleged love of freedom, since it's clear that they don't want a democratic society; they want a feudalistic one. Where the peasants support the aristocrats.

That's what this flat tax proposal is. The poor and working class paying for the wealthy.

The top 10% pays 68% of all individual taxes while the bottom 50% pays 3% of all taxes. (this of course does not include those who file no taxes).

The notion the rich don't pay more than their fair share is complete fantasy.

But then again it only affects 10% so who cares?

It's not like they're being denied pizza at their weddings.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by Danzig

interesting, yes. but a flat tax is considered a regressive tax, and is a blow to those in the lowest income groups, and a boon to those in the highest.

matter of fact, it says in that article that it would benefit the rich. so, of course paul will want to propose things that would get the koch bros and others like them to back him financially.

that's me....woo hoo!

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

interesting, yes. but a flat tax is considered a regressive tax, and is a blow to those in the lowest income groups, and a boon to those in the highest.

matter of fact, it says in that article that it would benefit the rich. so, of course paul will want to propose things that would get the koch bros and others like them to back him financially.

that's me....woo hoo!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

that's me....woo hoo!

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by geeker2

that's me....woo hoo!

congrats!