Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Zaac, Aug 10, 2015.
With control of both Houses of Congress, why isn't the GOP doing anything with this RIGHT NOW?
I support the Automatic Electronic Tax
Because in order to get it done they would likely have to shut the government down. The Rhinos are to afraid to do so.
Look at how many people would be out of a job - if the tax code was simplified.
Just a shame. Just another reason why I can't stand either party. .They all talk a good game, but the minute they are in a position to really do some stuff, all we get is the status quo.
Hey I am as fed up with the liberal Repubs we got now as anyone ie Beohner, McConnel etc.
The ice cream close, "which do you prefer chocolate or vanilla?"
You see what just happened? I just limited you to two choices. Don't even think outside the little funnel because it's not allowed.
How about no tax? How about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS and replacing the IRS with nothing?
The USA did just fine without either up until 1913.
Look at how many people would have to get an honest job if the giant ponzi scheme that makes up the Federal Reserve and IRS were abolished.
Republicans only control the Senate on paper.
But it wouldn't matter if they really controlled it.
They are gutless cowards.
That's a good question especially when you consider enacting either one would be the biggest tax cut on the wealthy in history.
Democrats will never let it happen.
Republicans will never try.
A flat tax is the least disruptive system that would sustain the current economic model that drives our country. I favor the flat tax.
I also favor a flat tax system for corporations.
A national sales tax would end up harming the economic model as it would inflate prices (by actually and perceptively) and reduce spending. When you're considering a tax model to use in an actual country, and not some warped policy wonk's mind, you've got to play the entire scenarios.
Flat tax at what rate? Ben Carson suggested 10%. Steve Forbes had proposed 15% when he ran for President in 1996. Sounds good, right?
I invite everyone reading this to dig out your 1040 return of last year (or any year, really) and take a look at line 7 (wages, salaries, tips) and compare to line 44 (tax). Now divide line 44 by line 7.
Go on, do it. Then get back to me about how you favor a flat tax of 15%, or even 10%.
I have other tax returns - just not handy at the moment.
The Automatic Electronic Tax would only have to be about 2% - if now less than 1%.
As ITL pointed out, our tax liability is less than 10%.
A married working couple pays no tax on the first $19,500 that they make.
A couple with two children pays no tax for the first $27,100.
If the AET was in effect - a 1% tax on a $50 purchase would only be fifty cents.
12.5% seems okay by me....:laugh:
Actually I'm good with 15%
I have done this (though I am not going to share my personal info with you all) and I'm entirely okay with the results. Most flat tax approaches still provide for deductions such as dependent credit, tuition payments, mortgage interest, charitable contributions. If we limit the deductions to what the vast majority of Americans use (like those listed above) and remove the loopholes for the uber-wealthy we actually level the playing field tax wise.
20%. Joseph's model. They were able to care for the sick and elderly, and everyone prospered.
It does require people who can, work. There is no room for fraud or abuse.
But wouldn't 2% be even better?
and that is the problem with the flat / fair tax system. There would still be deductions, paperwork, ect and the IRS.
The AET - has NO paperwork - everyone pays the same %.
Keep in mind that the uber rich has many (legal) loopholes - including not paying tax on certain transactions. Under the AET, all electronic transactions are taxes. In fact, about the only transaction not taxed would be greenback cash.
Of course the big disadvantage would be not getting a big refund back at the end of the year. (but why let the govt keep your money - interest free?)
This seems accurate. Also, most flat tax proposals include a "standard deduction", the adjusted gross income level above which the tax begins to be applied.
Except that whenever the flat tax idea is proposed we are told that we could file our taxes on a postcard. I don't see how that could be accomplished with all the deductions you listed.
As far as leveling the playing field, recall that when Romney released his tax records in 2012 he was paying (net) about 16% in taxes on his gross income. So a 10% or a 15% flat tax would be a tax cut for him, and a tax increase for most of the middle class. That's not leveling the playing field, that's tilting it.
That, in fact would be the very definition of leveling the playing field.
OK, but now we are back into the gamesmanship of changing the amount of the standard deduction to adjust the tax code, changing the percentage of the "flat tax", and if preachinjesus' deductions are part of the scheme, adjusting or changing those items. So we would be back to complexity in no time. Where will it end?