posted on July 31, 2004 03:45:38 PM new
How much? It will never be enough. Their party will take the tax rates right back up to the 70% level they once were at....if they possibly can.
From the different articles I've read eliminating the tax cuts this President gave to those making $200,000 or more....would produce [different] estimates of savings - anyway where between $40B and $60B dollars.
What I'd like to know is since most are projecting all kerry's new programs, raising funding for existing programs are estimated to cost around $200Billion dollars....just where does he think he's going to get that addition funding from?
There are only a couple of choices.....he's promising the middle and lower class levels they won't be taxed. yea...right. That's one way he'll pay for them. Or end up not fulfilling all the promises he's made to special interest grops. Then there's also taking money from our military....like clinton did to reduce the deficit.
Mark my words...he'll find some excuse to come up with why he has to raise ALL our taxes/tax rates - not just those of the so called 'rich'.
Just look to recent news that says kerry's NOT going to give us his economic plan until AFTER he's elected. He promised us he'd give us his numbers for his upcoming spending when some were pointing all his promises out to him and questioning what HE projected the costs to do so would be. He said he'd give us those numbers...shortly. It's been months and he still hasn't.
Go on faith I guess is his new mantra. Trust me not to change what I've said I'll do.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 04:18:42 PM new
The problem is not with the taxes, it's not with the rich or the poor. The problem is with the tax SYSTEM.
In *MY* opinion, every man, woman, and child with a job should send in 10% of their gross to the government. ***NO*** deductions of any kind for anyone. I'm no mathematician, maybe the 10% would need to be adjusted, I dunno.
How can that not be fair?
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 31, 2004 04:26:36 PM new
I've always agreed to a flat tax system being used. Thought it would be more fair.
The problem is that the dems would still argue that the lower income people would be paying an unfair burden if it were that way. As it is right now...they don't pay any taxes.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 04:39:09 PM new
who is to decide who is 'rich'??
married to someone who is worth 500 millions,is that rich??
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
posted on July 31, 2004 05:02:40 PM new
With my suggestion, there is no "rich" or "poor".
And it's NOT an unfair burden on the low income people. 10% of very little still ain't much. NO ONE should get away without paying any tax, not even the poor.
Unemployed people should pay no taxes, but if you are working, then the percentage kicks in. The EXCEPTIONS to the flat tax is what has ruined our system. I suspect when the Income Tax was first established it was much simpler, probably just what I have suggested. It's the "we can make an exception for XXX" concept that has created all the loopholes, deductions, and tomfoolery that surrounds our tax code.
One flat number for rich or poor alike. No exceptions, no breaks, no complex rules. The employer takes your paycheck and sends 10% to the government every week. On April 15th or whenever, NOTHING HAPPENS.
Simple. Easy. Foolproof.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 31, 2004 05:10:10 PM new
Replay, that would be a great system, but the socialist demos would have a coniption fit that "rich" are only paying 10%... I do think that would be a great way to go.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Homosexuality is a choice that can be corrected...
posted on July 31, 2004 05:18:34 PM new
10% of what??gross pay??
define gross pay??
and define work,who is working and who is not??
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
posted on July 31, 2004 05:23:10 PM newsimple...easy...foolproof.
We'll see if any dems agree with that or not. My bet is still on they won't...no way. Especially because they thought even those who didn't pay any taxes at all...or paid very little... should have gotten bigger tax refunds/checks. And they whined about the fact that those who paid more in taxes - got more back. ie: "They got back enough to buy a new BMW...I didn't get back enough to buy tires for one."
Besides, simplifing our tax system would put how many in that field out of work - accountants, CPA,etc? Tons.
How, in your opinion, would small businesses be dealt with tax wise under this flat tax? Asking because some, like on ebay, are run by individuals and that income is added to their personal combined wages, if there are any. Would they not be able to deduct their expenses from their gross receipts?
posted on July 31, 2004 06:26:02 PM new
"10% of what??gross pay?? define gross pay?? "
If you are an employee of a company, it's the regular gross pay on the top of the paycheck. Keep in mind, I pulled the 10% number out of my butt. It could be higher or lower in reality.
"define work,who is working and who is not??"
I don't see why there would be a question of this. Jobholders of all kinds. Self-employed people. If it were up to me, even Social Security recipients would be taxed. As few exceptions as possible would be the goal. If the IRS wanted to audit you, all they would have to do is look at your bank deposits and zap you for undeclared income.
"How, in your opinion, would small businesses be dealt with tax wise under this flat tax?"
Pretty much the same as it is now. You take gross SALES minus EXPENSES and what's left is profit (simplified, I admit, but that's basically it). In the case of a sole proprietorship, like most eBayers, that profit is added to the gross income. For corporations, they would pay the same 10% income tax.
"simplifing our tax system would put how many in that field out of work - accountants, CPA,etc? Tons. "
And that's why it won't happen easily or anytime soon.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 31, 2004 07:04:33 PM new
replay - I know, a lot of complex considerations would have to go into this happening.
On the SS benefits being taxed. They are sometimes - thank you democrats - depending on a persons income. Usually if they are a persons *only* source of income..they're not taxed. Have to work out the IRS form sheet to determine whether one pays taxes on it now.
And on the IRS auditing checking accounts to verify income....I believe we'd go from a society that's becoming more and more a cashless society to one where more worked for cash...and didn't deposit it, so no record there to be checked.
Just playing devil's advociate with you. Hope you don't mind.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 31, 2004 10:46:53 PM newThe problem is that the dems would still argue that the lower income people would be paying an unfair burden if it were that way.
That's just silly Linda. I know you'd like to blame everything on the Democrats, but it's not Dems who have driven the US deficit recently. Yeah, I know they voted for it too....
I like the idea of a flat tax. I wouldn't mind paying my 20% with no loopholes if I knew the people above and below me were doing the same. At the same time, the whole concept of punishing productivity with income tax while encouraging profligate spending with low sales tax bothers me greatly. I'd like to read someone who knows what they're talking about's ideas about a national sales tax in place of income tax altogether.
How much should the rich pay? The same proportion as the rest of us, and that's just not happening. Nobody who works hard to support his own deserves more breaks than anyone else.
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 31, 2004 10:49:51 PM new
By the way. Stating that the rich already pay a 35% federal income tax cannot be supported out of hand. There are too many loopholes.
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on August 1, 2004 05:09:17 AM new
No one should carry the burden more than anyone else. We live in an economically depressed area. Not because of Bush or Clinton...it's just a very rural area....not high on anyone's "agenda". ALOT of people on welfare or disability (SS) or retired. All of these people live better than those of us working and living paycheck to paycheck. As far as I'M concerned, if you can golf, fish and hunt, you are not disabled. If you can afford to let your children have a pool, one of those expensive wooden swingsets, and go-carts, you have too much of MY money and should go get a job!
I like the idea of a "flat-tax". We already pay federal, state, local, school, property, sales, a $10 "privilige-to-work" tax (only in our county), and fica. I don't mind paying my share...but it's getting ridiculous!
TerryAnn
btw-I don't begrudge poor children wearing decent clothing, having decent housing and food to eat. But $75.00 jeans and $150.00 sneakers makes them NOT poor. Until one mother was unwillingly "fixed", she had 13 children, not counting the pregnancies that didn't go to term, and she's in her mid-30's.
posted on August 1, 2004 05:48:54 AM new
ss benefits should not be taxed,where does it all end??you work all your life to earn that ss benefits,paying taxes of all kinds so you can get ss benefits when you retire.
Retirement is not death,retiress have expenses like sales tax,property tax,car repair,house repair.
Retirees have limited earning power,not everyone can find a job at McDONALD or Walmart.
They could raise the retirement age as people are staying in school longer with graduate study,say instead of working at 22 after getting a BS degree,they start work at 24 after getting a MS degree.
But the SS system is designed years ago when a man and woman married for life and the age difference is a few years,these days with divorces and second marriages,you can have a man who retires at 65 and have a wife who is 42 with small kids.
Also more women are working,some earn more than their spouse.
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
posted on August 1, 2004 06:03:42 AM new
profe - That's just silly Linda. I know you'd like to blame everything on the Democrats, but it's not Dems who have driven the US deficit recently. Yeah, I know they voted for it too....
First of all...we're talking *tax rates* here....not Congressional spending patterns.
Second it's the democratic administrations that really 'socks' it to the taxpayers....while the Republicans usually offer tax reductions. Dems like to spend our money, republicans like to let us keep more of what we earn. There have been exceptions of course, but the dems didn't earn the reputation of the 'tax and spend' party for no reason. And yes, this administration has shown they can spend too. But we have had to deal with abnormal circumstances since 9-11.
And my statement's not silly ...there has been few subjects that haven't been discussed on these boards, over the years, and this is one of thoses. What I stated was an argument that the dems who did not agree with the 'poor' paying a flat tax. Their argument was 10% of say $30,000 would be more unfair [more of a hardship to pay] - while 10% of $200,000 wouldn't hurt the wealthy in the same manner.
As I said....I was playing devil's advocate....using the arguments used before. I like the flat tax idea.
posted on August 1, 2004 06:10:24 AM new
there will never be a fair system ??what is fair??
You see your neighbor come home with a new car and you ask why him,why not me??
But would you ask yourself that there are people who have less than you do-those who live in an apt instead of a house,those who take the bus instead of driving a car,those who have never been on a plane or take a vacation in a resort area??
Those who cant afford to dryclean their clothes or eat out 1-3 times a week??
I have a friend who worked for the Internal Revenue Service for many years and then moved on to private practice,one day he just said,the US tax system is geared to favor the rich,the middle class just does not have a chance,they are screwed!!
But is it not what this great industrial society is all about-build a strong middle class so the govt has a steady tax paying base ??
Think of some African countries,they were so anxious to become independant from the Europeans and when they finally achieved independance,they find out they have no steady stream of tax revenue to pay all the expenses,nor the talents needed to run a full govt??
Japan built a strong middle class after WWII .
Admit it,middle class are like sitting ducks,easy to find,and easy to tax.
Where can you find Middle class folks??They are usually at work from 8-5 at their desk somewhere and they are home after 5 watching TV.On weekends they are shopping for grocery,eating out or at the malls.
Their employers deduct their ss,fed and state and city taxes from their paycheck and remit them to the tax authorities,the shops where they buy grocery,clothes,shoes from remit their sales tax.
You dont want to be part of this great class,go to some African country ,they have found ways to create jobs for themselves,they get up in the morning and go to war with each other,thats their job.
Join the army and you get to eat everyday!!
AND YOU PAY NO TAXES!!
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
And just remember, they were HIGHER before President Bush cut our tax rates. They've all been lowered...and a 5th level [low income] was added....those who pay no taxes.
posted on August 1, 2004 12:05:37 PM new
Replay: [b[In *MY* opinion, every man, woman, and child with a job should send in 10% of their gross to the government. ***NO*** deductions of any kind for anyone. I'm no mathematician, maybe the 10% would need to be adjusted, I dunno.[/b]
How can that not be fair?
It sounds fair, but how do you expect a family that is just making $10,000 a year to pay 10% toward taxes. It would be more of a burden on them than it would be for the person making $200,000.
I think it would be wiser for the government to take out all the loopholes for the rich instead. Let them actually pay their 33%. There should also be no deductions for anything.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 1, 2004 12:19:58 PM new
Most employers still take out 15% or more every week. Under my plan, there would most likely be a reduction there, actually increasing week to week pay. Granted, there would be no big refund at the end of the year, but the higher paycheck should offset that.
"...more of a burden on them..."
That phrase is the root of all our current problems. What does the "burden" load have to do with it? Who says taxes must be a "burden" for anyone?
"...take out all the loopholes for the rich instead. Let them actually pay their 33%. There should also be no deductions for anything."
Which is exactly what I was advocating, only I include removing the loopholes for the poor as well. Fair ir Fair. You can't be fair to the poor by being unfair to the rich. Why penalize the wealthy because they've worked harder or gotten more education?
And besides, if EVERYONE pays their equal 10%, government revenue would most likely go up, and there could be more spending on services we ALL can use. If anything the VERY poor get more benefit from the government than rich people anyway.
Bottom line: Your argument sounds like you are more interesting in penalizing the wealthy than helping the poor.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on August 1, 2004 12:24:33 PM newIt sounds fair, but how do you expect a family that is just making $10,000 a year to pay 10% toward taxes. It would be more of a burden on them than it would be for the person making $200,000.
here we go socialist lefty and their flawed reasoning...
Family making $10,000 would pay $1000 in taxes... faimily making $200,000 would pay $20,000 in taxes... 10% is 10% How many faimlies do you know only make $10,000 per year?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Homosexuality is a choice that can be corrected...
posted on August 1, 2004 12:28:29 PM new
What loopholes for the poor? Are you referring to 401K Plans, IRA Accounts (Traditional and Roth), Tax deferred annuities, tax exempt bond funds, off shore investments designed to shirk tax responsibility or do you mean deductions for those who itemize including but not limited to medical?
Those in upper income brackets do not pay their fair share they pay disproportionately with regard to their income weighted in their favor.
posted on August 1, 2004 12:32:00 PM new
That phrase is the root of all our current problems. What does the "burden" load have to do with it? Who says taxes must be a "burden" for anyone?
Replay, Why should a family in poverty still have to an equal share as the family living in a mansion? Taxes would be a more of burden for the family in poverty. This is not fair in my opinion.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
He promised us he'd give us his numbers for his upcoming spending when some were pointing all his promises out to him and questioning what HE projected the costs to do so would be. He said he'd give us those numbers...shortly. 
My bet is still on they won't...no way. Especially because they thought even those who didn't pay any taxes at all...or paid very little... should have gotten bigger tax refunds/checks. And they whined about the fact that those who paid more in taxes - got more back. ie: "They got back enough to buy a new BMW...I didn't get back enough to buy tires for one."
