Rand Paul To Detail Flat Tax Plan
Senator Rand Paul will advocate a flat tax as part of his presidential platform.
The flat tax is one way that Mr. Paul is trying to reassure conservatives who are mistrustful of him and his libertarian approach to other issues like foreign policy and criminal justice. And, depending on how it is structured for lower-income Americans, a flat tax could also be a way to broaden his populist appeal. As far as tax cuts are concerned, this is about as big as they come, Mr. Paul has said.
But he has been coy about the exact details so far.
“It will be the largest tax cut in American history,” Mr. Paul writes on his website, “and a tax cut that will leave more money in the paychecks of every worker in America.”
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
80 responses to Rand Paul To Detail Flat Tax Plan
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tracey marie June 17th, 2015 at 20:20
More crumbling infrastructure, more hurting for the poor, more tax cuts for large multi billion corporation, more tax cuts for the wealthy….this is wrong.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:39
You need to prove how a flat tax will do any of that. Remember that corporations currently pay a lower percentage than the common person.
CandideThirtythree June 18th, 2015 at 06:20
You need to shut up, you have been spamming this thread with pure unadulterated ignorance and republican math for hours…
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 06:23
I’m not a Republican, and I rather dislike them. If I am ignorant, please show me how. If my math is faulty, then please show me how. Nobody has pointed anything out yet.
I would also like to point out that you haven’t proven anything with that post. I’ve included a picture for you. It will let you know where your argument stands. Please save it and use it for future arguments.
CandideThirtythree June 18th, 2015 at 06:44
EVERYONE on this thread has pointed out numerous times, you are just too dense to get it. There is no point in me repeating what you have already heard a dozen times and still refuse to understand.
I don’t blame you for denying you are a republican but we all know how you vote just by the stupid things you say.
You can take your passive aggressive trolling on down the road because homie don’t play that!
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 06:53
You can keep claiming it all you want. I’m not a Republican. I have a huge problem with Republicans giving tax cuts to the rich, pushing religion upon people who may not be religious (gay marriage and abortion being two examples of where we differ on that one). I hate the fact that they feel we need to patrol the world, even as that world does not share the financial burden. I hate that they pushed allowing China into the Free Trade. I hate that they pushed the repeal of Glass Steagall, amongst other repeals. I voted for Bush Jr when I was 18 (which I regretted immensely , and then voted for Obama twice (which I now also regret equally).
No, I have no love for Republicans. But do not confuse my disdain for them as an alliance with Democrats.
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 13:10
Libertarians are just Republican lite. At least all the candidates and prominent voiced ones are.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 17:30
Democrats want a 40+% tax rate. Republicans want a a 30-40% tax rate. Libertarians want a 10% tax rate. Explain how that, or this picture, makes a libertarian a “Republican lite.”
tracey marie June 18th, 2015 at 12:39
Read again, I am against flat taxation, it is a gift to corporations and the wealthy and a hit to the middle class and the poor. Notice when the right talks about a flat tax they never say or add changes to the tax code that help the wealthy nor do they say what services will be cut….we can guess any cuts would be on the backs of the poor and education.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 17:39
I knew you were against flat taxation. You didn’t prove how a flat tax benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Obewon June 17th, 2015 at 20:35
DOA because eliminating every personal and corporate deduction begins a 25% tax with +25% price hikes on every piece of food, restaurant bill, home, car, boat, plane, college education, loan, lease, property tax and wages! Rand wants wages to rise +25% too? Sure…
ErnestineBass June 17th, 2015 at 22:26
Where’s my magnifying glass? There’s gonna be a buttload of fine print in Rand’s “plan”.
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 00:20
Like most all Republican ideas, they sound good, even have nice pleasant sounding titles. The devil is in the details though. The flat tax scam is a back door way to give the rich another tax cut. Add in a huge hick in other taxes to make up the difference and for most of us, things are right back to where we are now; except the poor, the disabled and the retirees are now even poorer than before and need even more government help.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 01:37
The retirees are doing so poorly because they elected representatives that robbed Social Security, and put in a bunch of IOU’s with no plan on how to pay them back. So now, you have FICA and Medicare steadily increasing, and, on top of that, 25% of your federal deductions were spent on SS. This means that, total, for me, over 50% of ALL taxes were going to SS.
Disability comes from people seeing a way out of working, while still living comfortably. Don’t believe me? Visit 4chan’s /r9k/ board, where there is a persistent thread calling the working people “Wage slaves,” and openly mocking them. Stop mandating that people pay, and let people spend their money freely. If I had an extra 300 dollars every 2 weeks, I would be much more able and willing to help out the people who I know that are struggling (which I already do, by volunteering at a food kitchen, and helping out people I know and like with food and rent as they need it, and I can afford it).
Retirees and disabled people need help, no doubt about it. They don’t need help from the government, who robs people at gunpoint, and then spends some of the money they steal to pay large groups of people a salary to distribute it. They need help from people who know and love them, and from charities that people can voluntarily give to (run by people who do it for free).
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 02:22
You’re very well proven delusional. “robbed Social Security, and put in a bunch of IOU’s with no plan on how to pay them back”-SS & Medicare surpluses total $5.1 Trillion today. Were you homeschooled?
Intragovernmental Holdings are Medicare and Social Security trust fund audited assets: “$5,085,320,810,990.20” http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:27
So that’s why they keep raising how the tax rate (non-refundable) while also raising the age necessary to retire?
Also, you don’t have to take my word for it:
For more than 25 years after the 1983 amendments to Social Security, the federal government collected more in Social Security payroll taxes each year than it paid out in benefits. Those surplus revenues were supposed to be saved, but instead Congress spent every last dime of them and replaced the excess payroll tax revenue it looted from the Social Security Trust Fund with IOUs written to itself. At the end of 2010, the federal government owed the Trust Fund $2.61 trillion. Congress has drained the Trust Fund dry. (Source: Forbes)
SteveD June 18th, 2015 at 04:45
“Those surplus revenues were supposed to be saved…”
Social Security’s Trust Fund is nothing more than a Treasury account. There are presently 167 US govt trust funds, yet the only accounts anyone ever seems aware of are the SS Trust Fund(s) and the Highway Trust Fund. By law, Congress can manipulate the amount (the balance sheet entries) in any of these accounts. Basic fact: For the US govt. NO ACTUAL DOLLARS EVER “RESIDE” OR EVEN NEED TO “RESIDE” within any of these accounts.
‘Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future.
Far from being “worthless IOUs,” the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government.,/b> The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.’
‘The assets of the larger trust fund (OASI), from which retirement benefits are paid, were nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds and then later enacted legislation to strengthen OASI Trust Fund financing. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.’ http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#a0=8
The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. The government neither needs nor uses FICA money. In 1971, President Nixon eliminated the final connection between gold and U.S. money. The purpose: To give the government the unlimited power to create money. There literally is no limit to the amount of money the federal government can create, and no limit to the size of the debt it can support.
STOP! The limit to federal deficit spending (“money creation”) is an inflation that cannot be cured via interest rate control. Inflation is caused by the increase in supply of money without a corresponding increase in demand. Demand for dollars can be stimulated by increasing the reward for owning dollars [interest]. The Fed has all the tools it needs to stop any such inflation.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 05:32
This post leads me to believe that you are for abolishing FICA. I can agree with that sentiment for a number of reasons, even exempting the possibility of a flat tax. I hope what I’m taking from this is accurate to what you meant to portray.
SteveD June 18th, 2015 at 19:02
Yes indeed. I am for abolishing the FICA tax. FICA is the most regressive of all taxes.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 19:13
Then you and I stand together on that issue.
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 13:07
Now you’re talking nonsense. The vast majority of disabled are indeed disabled. The very few that exploit the system, by not being disabled, or not being as bad as claimed, should be reported and please do so. If someone is fudging, bad on them.
I sure hope you’re not suggesting that the retirees are ‘milking’ the system because they are getting SS and Medicare. And even then many of them are low income and qualify for SNAP as well.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 17:36
How do you report an anonymous individual?
I would never make any presumption about retirees, as I don’t even know enough retirees to even cherry pick. That said, the few I do know stopped working long before they reached their limit, simply because they hit a magical age number, and retirement wasn’t set up to be like that. This, coupled with the economic depression of 2008, means that retiring “on time,” means that you are going to be hurting.
That said, I have a pension building, as well as paying into SS. When I reach my “magic number” for full retirement, I will simply start pulling that money while continuing to work the same job. I don’t believe in SS; but if I’m going to be forced to pay into it, you’re darn right I’m going to start pulling that money ASAP.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 01:29
In my opinion, a “flat tax” has the potential to be great, but only if it is done properly. Rather than automatic deductions of paychecks, make absolutely EVERYTHING a sales tax (even getting rid of stuff like property taxes). Businesses will bring their money back to US banks, rather than hiding it away off shore, and the businesses will have to spend money on supplies, and pay the sales tax on that.
Also, this way, people know exactly how much they are getting screwed. Turns out you CAN put a price on education, and that price is a 5% increase in your sales tax, at which point people will know to demand results from the tax increase.
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 01:46
B/Millionaires and Corps that pay U.S. federal income taxes average paying 12% on net income, after very generous writeoff deductions. Rand’s plan IF fiscally sound begins at 25%+ Doubling corporate federal income taxes. Why would corps and B/Millionaires want to pay 25%+ or twice their tax rate paid today, but without any deductions for goods, services, marketing, employee wages, HC, retirement, SSI DI Here’s a better idea for fairly eliminating $6 T+ in subsidies per decade!
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 01:48
Once again, sales tax could do all that, while being fair to everyone, especially if you start tariffing overseas products to the point of it being cheaper to produce the stuff at home.
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 01:50
A 25%+ sales tax is guaranteed to implode into another Great Depression. (You know your 5% raises just 1/5 of revenue right?)
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:07
If that’s what the people vote for, they have every right to feel that. If they just want to vote for military defense, and then have the public own the universal goods (like roads, water, electricity, etc) on a local level, and pay for what they use, then those taxes can plummet to almost nothing (on a federal level). Local level can increase taxes to whatever they want (say they want a several billion dollar increase to go to schools, despite only having 300,000 population). It will also allow you to actually OWN your property, rather than renting it from the government (while you pay to maintain everything, or be fined).
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 02:13
A 25%+ sales tax, plus state and local taxes = 35%+. But without any deductions whatsoever. I don’t think you thought this through accurately. It’s great that you want to pay 35%+ more for houses, cars, food, HC and everything else. Businesses thank you for your corporate welfare hiking their prices and profits 35%+!
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:17
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said that it was up to what the people vote for. Read what I said again. If you wanted the federal government to do little shy of military defense, that could drop to practically nil (I’m not talking about maintaining our military presence throughout the world; I’m talking about a military to deter war on our own lands). Even if you added ecological and worker safety federal organizations, your tax rate could still be well under 10% (remembering that by 10%, I mean 10% of ALL sales for the entire year, from the purchase of a McDouble, to the purchase of a mansion).
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 02:33
You have no idea what you are balking about. Read the U.S. Constitution. It’s only 4 pages! E.g. “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”
..”To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;…”-Article I, section 8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:38
Ok. And? Considering that I already allowed for the Universal Goods (roads, electricity, water, etc), to be owned by the public I’m not seeing how I’m contradicting myself.
And, to be fair, the very same people have advocated that no debt should be accrued that couldn’t be paid off within the generation (they hated banks), we are to the point that we can’t achieve both ends using the methods we are currently using.
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 02:44
Sorry but you’re a mathematically and constitutionally challenged fruitcake.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:54
How we got to where we are does not change where we are. I never claimed to love Bush. I would also like to point out that you used a forecast, rather than actual numbers. I do not claim to know what Bush actually walked into (debt or surplus), but even acknowledging your figures (which I have no problem doing; just pointing out that forecast is not actual), it doesn’t change where we are. Part of the economic boom was thanks to allowing China to enter the Free Trade Agreement. You could also argue that Glass Steagall Act being repealed also caused a short term boom, followed by the housing crisis. I do not lay any of this solely at the feet of Democrats or Republicans. They both share the blame.
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 02:58
Where we are is U.S. record $17.5 T+ GDP equal to 1/4 of global GDP. Sorry but proving your ignorance of $550 B in realized consecutive Clinton Surpluses, plus $5.6 T+ in continuing forecast surpluses is reality: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 02:59
I already acknowledged that we could use your figures. It’s immaterial.
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 03:04
Maybe if you researched the unfair tax, you’d see why not many want to give the wealthy further tax cuts, for 35%+ greater Rand Paul taxes on 98% of America.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 03:09
Except what I was talking about wasn’t unfair tax. It was flat sales tax supplying everything, so everyone knew exactly how bent over the table they were, rather than paying for the IRS to exist, as well as making the tax code so confusing that nobody knows for certain who is really getting screwed, and who is doing well (talking about individuals, of course).
Obewon June 18th, 2015 at 03:13
Nice 5% vaporware. Good luck with your 35%+ fantasies.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 03:21
Prove its vaporware. To my knowledge, since income tax was implemented in 1913, it hasn’t been tried once. That said, there is no property tax in Las Vegas, as well as several other places (I believe Florida is one) and their economies are finding ways to survive, while letting people actually OWN land.
Of course, property taxes are just one part of the unfair system that has been set up (and, to my knowledge, property taxes are local, not national), but a flat tax is certainly possible IF done correctly, unless you have a piece of information you have yet to present (and if you have it, PLEASE share it, so that my views can evolve into something better than they are).
bpollen June 18th, 2015 at 05:08
Sales tax is a regressive tax. The impact is felt most acutely at the bottom of the pay scale. The majority of a middle or lower income bracket is spent to simply live. So a flat tax hits almost ALL of their income. On the other hand, if your income is sufficient that you don’t have to spend the majority of your income to just survive, you will feel that tax much much less. Jamie Dimon made $20 mil in 2014… bet ya he didn’t spend all of that on living expenses. So everything he DIDN’T spend would NOT be subject to a tax. Ergo, the burden falls disproportionately on the poor.
“Flat tax” is just a giveaway to the people who least need a giveaway.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 05:19
Flat tax is what’s fair. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you want to feel the taxes less, then cut programs that are not universal goods, while simultaneously aspiring for better pay, which will be easier by bringing production home via tariffs on foreign products, coupled with welfare benefits that can be claimed only by citizens/legal immigrant workers.
bpollen June 18th, 2015 at 05:34
What the hell are you talking about? If I want a lower tax burden, I should cut programs? I should sit around and hope for better pay? Who the hell in the middle class has “programs” that are not universal goods that they can cut? Flat tax is regressive. If regressive means fair to you, then you don’t understand the meaning of the word. And your prescription for reducing my personal tax burden is nonsensical…
You can put words together to form sentences, but as far as supporting your point, you speak Palinese.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 05:40
If you want a lower tax burden, then yes, you should cut programs. World Police Force would be one. Perhaps some welfare benefits. Social Security can and should be drastically reduced. Middle class pays for the lower class and upper class simultaneously, and it needs to stop.
Rich need to pay their fare share (they currently pay a lower percentage than you). Poor need to pay for their fare share, as well. Perhaps then they won’t constantly be clamoring for more “entitlements,” when they have to bear some of the load, as well.
bpollen June 18th, 2015 at 05:55
You said if *I* want to feel the tax burden less, *I* should cut programs. *I* don’t actually have a Word Police Force. *I* don’t have a welfare benefit program to cut. So *I* can’t reduce my burden as you prescribe. As I said, nonsense.
Now, you say that cutting welfare benefits would help reduce my personal tax burden. Well, I don’t GIVE any welfare benefits and so cannot realize any burden-reduction by stopping doing something I already am not doing. And implying that reducing benefits TO a person somehow reduces THEIR tax burden is nonsense too. Right now, most people who are receiving benefits are already working, but not making enough to make ends meet. How would cutting benefits to such a person REDUCE how much he or she pays in taxes?
And Social Security is not a paid benefit, it is a paid-for benefit, and is totally outside the federal budget. It also is not under control of the average person, and so the public CANNOT cut Social Security even if it WOULD somehow reduce their tax burden.
You whine about entitlements, while championing a prescription that EXACERBATES the movement of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.
You can form words into sentences, but…
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 06:04
I’m not going to make assumptions about what you are saying, so please come out with it: Are you an American? If so, are you lower class, so low that you do not pay taxes? Also, do you receive any entitlement benefits?
bpollen June 18th, 2015 at 06:30
I pay taxes. I receive no benefits. I don’t hang on your every word, so maybe you should get enough of a life to have a little patience. You make assumptions that I must be a moocher because I call your “plan” nonsense. Well, it is nonsense. That *I* dictate your tax burden (and apparently my own) is nonsense. You apparently don’t understand that most people who receive benefits freakin’ WORK (excluding Social Security) and PAY freakin’ taxes. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state taxes… But that doesn’t fit in with your “freeloader” whine, as if POOR people are somehow stealing something from you. YOU have been brainwashed into thinking that its the poor, or minorities, or some OTHER group is the cause of economic “malaise.” Simple facts, should you choose to actually look for some, would show you that the rich are getting proportionately richer and everybody else is getting proportionately poorer. But somehow it’s the POOR that are your enemy.
You are a fool, and continuing to discuss things with a fool is what might whimsically be described as a “fools errand.”
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 06:38
I made a presumption, yes. Attacking the character of the person has nothing to do with the person’s ideas. The two are separate. Moving onto your response…
I understand that most people who receive benefits work. They don’t pay income taxes, and the sales tax would include all taxes, including the ones that you listed. And yes, including what would have been an income tax. Any taxes that are not universal good are theft. And it’s mandated theft at gunpoint. I never stated that any group is the cause of anything, shy of diversity (which I do not discourage). I agree that the rich are getting proportionately richer. They should pay their fair share, as should the poor, rather than saddling it all on the middle class.
And if a group appears that wants to be charitable, so long as they do not “coerce charity,” from anyone, then so much the better, and that group should be applauded, as should the people who donate to that charity.
So far, you have given neither economic nor moral argument as to why people should be stripped from decision of how their money is spent, shy of the Universal Goods.
bpollen June 18th, 2015 at 15:16
“You are a fool, and continuing to discuss things with a fool is what might whimsically be described as a ‘fools errand.'”
YO mama…
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 17:24
You need to prove the “fool” part. Ad hominems and name callings do not prove your point.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 06:55
To add to bpollen’s comment;
One does not have to benefit from a particular policy to know that it is better for the nation.
“Because my country -our country- means more than my money.”Charlie Fink, former AOL executive
CNBC survey shows millionaires want higher taxes to fix inequality
Nick Hanauer, describes the conventional wisdom this way: “If you pour money into rich people, like an ingredient, in the form of lower tax rates, jobs will squirt out of them…which makes people like me job creators.” “And all that’s happened is that the fat cats have gotten fatter,” he adds. “And that makes no sense.”
Alsp;
Our country is having an extremely important argument about
taxation. We have lived the trickle-down theory since the Reagan years, and are now having a great debate about whether it does or does not work. Clearly, it does not.
Those words came from venture capitalist Nick Hanauer in a conference call with Bill Gates, Sr., father of Microsoft founder
Bill Gates, and they were music to my ears. Hanauer and Mr. Gates are the leading voices in a Washington state initiative to shift some of the tax burden away from the poor and middle class onto the richest residents in the state.
And remember old Adam Smith;
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion. ”
“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. ”
Moochers and commies, ALL!!!!
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 07:04
AOL CEO does not share my opinions. I believe each country should make their own destiny, without interference from other countries, unless that country’s decisions threaten the well-being of other countries; then they have the right to self-defense.
Good for the millionaires They are more than welcome to donate the money to the state, or to whatever charities they wish (while not claiming tax deductions), rather than prattling on about it. It’s their money; they should spend it how they want (outside of maintaining the Universal Goods).
I agree tax cuts on the rich is stupid. It is also unfair.
Trickle down doesn’t work. Never argued that. Not arguing for trickle down.
I agree that inequality of taxation is unfair.
People seem to keep mistaking me for a Republican. I’m not.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 07:11
People seem to keep mistaking me for a Republican. I’m not.
__________
Doesn’t matter.
I am responding to the Pavlovian meme that anyone who believes in a progressive tax, or opposes a flat tax must be a “moocher” which is pablum.
The whole point of these millionaires, and those like The Patriotic Millionaires is that they realize that the kind of income inequality that we are experiencing leads to 3rd world status.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 07:16
And if they want to pay more, they are welcome to. And they most certainly should spend their money as they want, as well as paying their fair share in taxes. I have never said anyone who believes in progressive tax is a moocher. I DO say that it is unfair that some people pay zero income tax, and that the rich pay a lower percentage than the middle class. And people who do not pay in, but receive dividends from it ARE moochers, whether they be illegal immigrants paying benefits, or anyone else who does not pay into the system.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 07:23
And if they want to pay more, they are welcome to
______
That doesn’t work. It never has.
Most people who pay no taxes do so because they don’t make enough. Many are disabled, deployed and elderly.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 07:26
You have a group of people that want to pay more. What’s stopping them?
That’s what non-coercive charities and family/friends are for.
That’s what non-coercive charities, family, and friends are for.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 07:44
Because that doesn’t work, and actually results in the oligarchs being the greatest moochers.
Meanwhile;
Flat tax at 10%;
For an Income; $20,000,
Taxes, $2,000
Income left over after taxes, (to pay for food, housing, transportation etc); $18,000
As opposed to;
For an Income; $1,000,000
Taxes , $100,000
Income left over after taxes, (to pay for food, housing, transportation etc); $900,000
Progressive tax at 0% and 50%;
For an Income; $20,000,
Taxes , $0
Income left over after taxes, (to pay for food, housing, transportation etc); $20,000
As opposed to;
For an Income; $1,000,000
Taxes, $500,000
Income left over after taxes, (to pay for food, housing, transportation etc); $500,000
Already, between 1979 and 2006, while in ALL quintiles together there was 50% rise in after tax household income;
In the lowest quintile, there was an 10.7% rise.
In the middle quintile, there was a 21% rise.
In the top 5% there was a 142% rise
In the top 1%, there was a 256% rise
http://cbo.gov/publication/42729
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 07:54
That’s really neat. Doesn’t tell me how its fair.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 08:01
It does more than the flat tax.
If you don’t agree that is another issue.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 08:11
It’s not fair, and it isn’t moral. Your opinions are rather irrelevant. Fair is fair, and an equal percentage is nothing if not equal.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 08:25
No it’s not.
I assures that those who take the most from society get to keep the most, while those who benefit the least from the system designed to benefit the oligarchs pay more of their disposable income in taxes to support the system. (those with the lowest incomes don’t get to pay less for a gallon of milk, ya know.)
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 18:24
Yes, those who take the most get to keep and spend the most (the government employees). As for the wage disparity, as I’ve stated above, we live in a Meritocracy, not a commune. The people who are paid the most either give the most, or spent years building what they had to where they have created something of value that gets them the most.
This doesn’t mean they should be paying a lower percentage of taxes, however. There shouldn’t be tax breaks and tax loopholes for them to take advantage of. They should be paying the same percent as the middle class, who should be paying as much as the poor class. Stop thinking that because someone who is smart deserves to be taxed higher. Personal responsibility and ingenuity should be rewarded (through higher paychecks, NOT tax breaks), not punished (through a higher tax percentage).
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 18:59
Yes, those who take the most get to keep and spend the most
_______
The 1% who use the most infrastructure.
We do NOT live in a meritocracy.
Have not since the 1980’s.
We live in an oligarchy.
Perhaps you could call it corporate socialism where we have socialize the risks and losses and privatize the profits and ceos make many times their salaries for failure.
” Stop thinking that because someone who is smart deserves to be taxed higher.”????
______
Nobody thinks that at all.
We live in a society that values money made from money over money made from hard work and innovation.
We think that when you benefit, the most from the society, from tax increment financing, cost plus contracts, carried interest, deferred compensation, subsidies and property tax abatements and grant of public money to private businesses…to R&D funded by taxpayers….. to the Court, the police, the ports, the embassies, the seaways and airways, the banking system… you can pay your share for the maintenance of the same, like they did back in the days when we were more prosperous.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 19:07
I would call what we live in Corporate Socialism. Forgive me for calling it a meritocracy. A meritocracy is what we should be striving for, and not what we actually live in. I am 100% for ending Corporate Socialism by demanding that they pay the exact same tax rate as literally everyone else within America’s borders.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 08:36
Your opinions are rather irrelevant.
______
As opposed to YOUR opinions?
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 12:55
And it’s certainly moral that the rich pay more it taxes. They don’t NEED it and the poor can’t afford to pay taxes. As it is, many of the rich don’t pay the rates they rant and rave about. Few, if any, of the 1% pay 35% taxes. Yet those making $50 a week do pay taxes. Not income taxes but SS and Medicare taxes. And even those with income over the standard deduction and exemptions pay taxes on the first $5.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 14:26
Plus, they create the economy that creates people who don’t make enough to pay taxes.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 18:19
Last I checked, we live in a meritocracy. And of course the poor pay SS and Medicare taxes. That’s what’s fair. They should pay for what they want to use, and they pay their fair share for those things. Why should the be exempt from certain kinds of taxes? Why should the rich be exempt from paying certain taxes (thus lowering their tax rate).
This isn’t communism, and we shouldn’t borrow Marxist platitudes, regardless of which way the money flows.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 18:20
“Fairness” isn’t an opinion. It’s equality. Equality in the eyes of the law, and equality in the portion of your paycheck that you pay to support those things.
OldLefty June 18th, 2015 at 18:38
“Fairness” isn’t an opinion. It’s equality. Equality in the eyes of the law, and equality in the portion of your paycheck that you pay to support those things.
_______
Yes it is. Opinion is EXACTLY what it is.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 19:04
Feel free to provide evidence disproving me. I feel my claim is self-evident. If you disagree, it should be easy to disprove using facts.
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 12:50
If you know of any illegals receiving benefits, turn them in. And right now would be great. They can’t receive SS, Medicare or VA benefits.
They may, just may, get food stamps, but I don’t think they are eligible for Section 8.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 17:37
Most of them in California are allowed to claim some benefits.
booker25 June 18th, 2015 at 07:30
Flat tax is not fair, is a fairy tale that folks like Rand Paul and right pass off as working man’s dream, more like a freaking nightmare.
TuMadre June 18th, 2015 at 07:31
How so?
fahvel June 18th, 2015 at 03:02
you are too practical -the revenuers won’t understand your complex math. :-)
booker25 June 18th, 2015 at 07:28
That flat tax is the biggest load of BS going, Utah went for it when Huntsman was Gov and my taxes when up, thanks for nothing !!!!
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 12:32
Ah, but the rich made out big time. Which was the idea all along.
Honey Vig June 18th, 2015 at 08:21
A flat tax is certainly an uphill battle, particularly since both
parties have sold us a bill of goods with respect to how the government
need to raise revenue. Perhaps its time for a new thought process, since
the current tax system is substantially more costly. It would be
interesting to see the actual cost of tax compliance – probably a
hundred billion – that is not being factored in as the government
externality that it is. The cost of H&R Block, private accountants,
corporate tax departments and tax lawyers are costing the economy a
significant amount of money. Our current system causes so much economic
leakage that, I believe, growth rates are materially negatively
impacted.
Dwendt44 June 18th, 2015 at 12:32
For individuals at least, the cost is going down. On line ‘free’ tax returns are helping the computer savvy do their taxes for free. Real easy if you are lower income.
Corporations need those CPAs and accountants to wiggle out of paying taxes or at least their fair share of them. About a third of corporations pay zero taxes. And that includes some of the biggest. Small business has plenty of wiggle room and some folks are really adept at paying no or very little income taxes. Not hard to find an ‘entrepreneur’ with three LLCs and a couple of S-corp. used to spread their income around. ( they sell to them selves, buy from themselves).
The fantasy of doing away with the IRS has some greedy types all a flutter. That’s not going to happen as no matter what the tax system is, there are going to be those that exploit it.
oldfart June 18th, 2015 at 11:04
When wealthy folks mention the flat tax, it’s their own interests they’re thinking of.