NationStates Jolt Archive

The Flat Tax

1. The Flat Tax with no deductions

2. The Flat Tax with deductions

3. List your deductions if any you would like to see in a Flat Tax

4. List the Percent you favor 10, 15, 17, 20, etc, etc.

5. I Know the saying a Flat Tax with deductions is not a Flat Tax,
but I think its the only way it will ever pass , that is if it includes a few
deductions.

The Flat Tax

1. The Flat Tax with no deductions

2. The Flat Tax with deductions

3. List your deductions if any you would like to see in a Flat Tax

4. List the Percent you favor 10, 15, 17, 20, etc, etc.

5. I Know the saying a Flat Tax with deductions is not a Flat Tax,
but I think its the only way it will ever pass , that is if it includes a few
deductions.
No?

I should have added to option 3

3. Other forms of Taxes - This is not a No Tax Option.

PS. That would be nice, cool, etc.

I agree with the flat tax. Puts the rich and poor and everyone in between on the same government chopping block.

I prefer progressive tax rates...

Liberals are always crying about how it must be fair, well here you go, a flat tax is the ultimate definition of fairness. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. I would have no deductions and make those people who are making less than 25,000 annually ineligible to be taxed. I would set the percentage at 10%, why should the government get more than God? Thats my two cents.

Because more people believe that government exists when compared to the number of people that believe God exists...

Liberals are always crying about how it must be fair, well here you go, a flat tax is the ultimate definition of fairness. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. I would have no deductions and make those people who are making less than 25,000 annually ineligible to be taxed. I would set the percentage at 10%, why should the government get more than God? Thats my two cents.

God has no need of money.

A flat tax is not fair. If you are rich, it is either because you inherited the money and therefore either pay no taxes or minimal taxes on it, or you became rich because of hard work, good timing, some luck AND the incredible opportunities the US provides/allows to happen. In other words, our society had a hand in making you rich, so therefore you have a DUTY to society.

"But I earned that money myself! I should be able to keep it!"

Yeah. You did it by yourself. No one helped you. You don't owe anybody anything. Rights, protections, regulations, the quality of a well educated workforce, the vigorousness of the American economy supplying ample consumers for your product, and helping to protect that fortune from theft....yeah, you did it by itself.

I can see a flat-tax maybe if we were also able to get rid of every lobbyist in government as well, and got rid of the dominance by the rich of our elected officials. As long as the rich are better represented and continually have legislation written by them or at their behest, then damn straight the rich better pay more in taxes...they are getting MUCH more from the government.
remove money-influence from government, and I will support a flat-tax.

Liberals are always crying about how it must be fair, well here you go, a flat tax is the ultimate definition of fairness. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. I would have no deductions and make those people who are making less than 25,000 annually ineligible to be taxed. I would set the percentage at 10%, why should the government get more than God? Thats my two cents.
Except that some people earn/have a larger percentage of money then other people. The tax rates in the US are near spot on as far as total tax income (percentage)/total wealth(percentage) for a group.

income taxes suck, but flat versions suck worse.

Liberals are always crying about how it must be fair, well here you go, a flat tax is the ultimate definition of fairness.

not by any reasonable understanding of 'fair' that looks beyond the first glance.

Sounds like I'd be better off earning 24,999$ than earning 25,000$, that way I keep 24,499$ instead of keeping 22,500$.

Liberals are always crying about how it must be fair, well here you go, a flat tax is the ultimate definition of fairness. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. I would have no deductions and make those people who are making less than 25,000 annually ineligible to be taxed. I would set the percentage at 10%, why should the government get more than God? Thats my two cents.
Yeah, its really fair that rich people have a vastly higher amount of money than poor people. :rolleyes:

And incidently, what need has God for this earthly money?

income taxes suck, but flat versions suck worse.
And sales tax is even worse than that.

Flat tax rate is good because it promotes saving money. But as long as it isn't put on food, clothing, and medicine. because that hurts the poor to much.

Flat tax rate is good because it promotes saving money. But as long as it isn't put on food, clothing, and medicine. because that hurts the poor to much.
That is a tax on goods (sales tax) not a flat tax...

Flat tax rate is good because it promotes saving money. But as long as it isn't put on food, clothing, and medicine. because that hurts the poor to much.
Don't know where to begin.

Because more people believe that government exists when compared to the number of people that believe God exists...

Hey, if you prefer to pay 40% of your income to taxes, then be my guest. I really like the idea of a 10% tax rate. In fact, we could downsize that overly larg morass of a government we have now, and then maybe it could get something done.

That is a tax on goods (sales tax) not a flat tax...

Oops your right. Now I feel stupid.

Hey, if you prefer to pay 40% of your income to taxes, then be my guest. I really like the idea of a 10% tax rate. In fact, we could downsize that overly larg morass of a government we have now, and then maybe it could get something done.
Of course, smaller government = more things done. :rolleyes:

Of course, smaller government = more things done. :rolleyes:
Why, didn't you listen to Ronald Reagan?

how about no income tax? Before 1913 we din't have income tax. We need to abolish all governmental programs created since then and then abolish income tax.

Sounds like I'd be better off earning 24,999$ than earning 25,000$, that way I keep 24,499$ instead of keeping 22,500$.

A more likely situation would be, if the cutoff were at $25,000, that your first $25,000 would be tax-free. Therefore, if you earned $27,500, you would be taxed on $2,500 dollars.

how about no income tax? Before 1913 we din't have income tax. We need to abolish all governmental programs created since then and then abolish income tax.
Brilliant. Lets go back to being a third rate power again while we are at it.

Brilliant. Lets go back to being a third rate power again while we are at it.

No, we just scrap medicare, social security, welfare, and other pointless programs. Keep the defense budget up though.

No, we just scrap medicare, social security, welfare, and other pointless programs. Keep the defense budget up though.
Pointless?

I would like a flat tax of 25%, however, the first $30,000 would be untaxed. Further the $30,000 would go up with inflation, so it would always be worth the same amount of actual value. Add to that a 5% sales tax and people could be well enough off.
Social Security would get chopped off at the legs, law enforcement and education could be privatized, all federal elected officials could take a 50% pay cut, all state elected officials would get the same pay, but it could be done part time. Oh, yes, and we could shoot the lawyers and use their money to pay off the national debt.
It could work.

Hey, if you prefer to pay 40% of your income to taxes, then be my guest. I really like the idea of a 10% tax rate. In fact, we could downsize that overly larg morass of a government we have now, and then maybe it could get something done.
What do you get rid of? Because when it comes right down to it--to steal aline from Paul Krugman--the federal government is really just a large insurance company with a sideline in national defense. Everything else--everything called waste or pork or whatever--is chump change when you compare it to what we put into Social Security, Medicare, and national defense. So what are you going to get rid of?

And before you answer--how are you going to get it passed?

All you "small government" yowlers ought to get it through your heads--big government is here to stay, because too many people have paid into it for too long for us to get out of it now. You try convincing your 55 year old dad or granddad that he ought to give up everything he put into Social Security and Medicare because we want a smaller government and lower taxes--most of them will tell you to fuck yourselves. And of course, the military will always be off the table as far as cuts are concerned.

So what's it gonna be?

I think this all boils down to this...

Is equality, how much you have, or how much you earned?

If equality is how much you have, then progressive tax rate is right.

If equality is how much you earned, then a flat tax rate is right. (don't cite people who inherit money as examples, those are not the majority, and most of the people who inherit money's parents worked really hard)

I support a flat tax rate, because it is equal. To those of you who say it's not equal, then explain why, bearing in mind I believe in equality being how much you earned, not how much you have.

I support a flat tax rate, because it is equal. To those of you who say it's not equal, then explain why, bearing in mind I believe in equality being how much you earned, not how much you have.

because to the rich it is 10% less that they can put into the bank, but to the poor it is 10% less that they can eat.

And sales tax is even worse than that.

no doubt - unless it is only on mansions and luxury yatchs. personally, i say cut the middlemen and stop charging people extra to live.

because to the rich it is 10% less that they can put into the bank, but to the poor it is 10% less that they can eat.Or put toward a child's education, or towards health care, or towards the purchase of a house, or towards any of the multitude of things that improve the quality of life. If you're making 20 grand a year, and you have to pay 2 grand of it in taxes, you might be living with your momma until you're thirty, but if you're making 200 grand, and you've got to give up 20, you might have to wait an extra year before trading in the Mercedes or upgrading the BMW, but you're not gonna starve.

Or put toward a child's education, or towards health care, or towards the purchase of a house, or towards any of the multitude of things that improve the quality of life. If you're making 20 grand a year, and you have to pay 2 grand of it in taxes, you might be living with your momma until you're thirty...

OR you could (GASP) get a real job that pays more than 20 grand. Oh wait, that means you would have to go to college, and GET a degree, and find a good paying job. Sound unfair? How do rich people get rich? They act rich (not wasting money on lottery tickets, gambling, useless habits like smoking, etc.) AND work hard, i.e.: not sucking off the gov. aka, other people.

----"All you "small government" yowlers ought to get it through your heads--big government is here to stay, because too many people have paid into it for too long for us to get out of it now. You try convincing your 55 year old dad or granddad that he ought to give up everything he put into Social Security and Medicare because we want a smaller government and lower taxes--most of them will tell you to fuck yourselves. And of course, the military will always be off the table as far as cuts are concerned."

Actually I like big government, I just prefer it all go into national defense. I say calculate and refund everything everyone has paid into social security and medicare,For future budgets give back 50% as a permanent tax cut, and reroute the other half into an additional boost in our defense budget.

Or do a nationwide census on where tax dollars should go to and fund everything according to the % averaged for each department (maintaining a mandatory minimum of 50% of all taxes towards the defense budget)

Yea I know, Keep dreaming!

because to the rich it is 10% less that they can put into the bank, but to the poor it is 10% less that they can eat.
The rish aren't just going to put their money in the bank, or eat it, or use it as toilet papper (Bill Gates could, but I haven't heard as much).
The rich will buy expensive stuff, like yachts or BMWs.
Now, this expenise stuff had to have the resources gathered (which creates jobs), made into the parts (which creates jobs), the parts have to be turned into the finished product (which creates jobs) and then it has to be sold (which generally creates jobs).
This doesn't include maintenance, repairs, fuel, customer support, post factory add-ons, etc.
The rich will also invest in stuff, which can lead to the rise of new companies.
Finally, there is a direct money-guilt ratio in most people. As one rises, so does the other. If rich people get more cash they are more likely to donate (during the 80s charitable giving increased).

The rish aren't just going to put their money in the bank, or eat it, or use it as toilet papper (Bill Gates could, but I haven't heard as much).
The rich will buy expensive stuff, like yachts or BMWs.
Now, this expenise stuff had to have the resources gathered (which creates jobs), made into the parts (which creates jobs), the parts have to be turned into the finished product (which creates jobs) and then it has to be sold (which generally creates jobs).
This doesn't include maintenance, repairs, fuel, customer support, post factory add-ons, etc.
The rich will also invest in stuff, which can lead to the rise of new companies.
Finally, there is a direct money-guilt ratio in most people. As one rises, so does the other. If rich people get more cash they are more likely to donate (during the 80s charitable giving increased).

Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself...

because to the rich it is 10% less that they can put into the bank, but to the poor it is 10% less that they can eat.

You're ignoring something... why are they poor in the first place? Why is it that they have so little money that that 10% will directly affect how much they have to eat? If it's their own fault, boo hoo for them, I don't care. For those where it isn't their own fault, there are very few of them, and as unfortunate as it is, some people will be simply unlucky. I personally (if I were wealthy) would be willing to set up a small (well... could be bigger, depends HOW wealthy) charity foundation to help those that are in poverty through no fault of their own.

On what you said specifically though, I don't know about you, but if you cut out 10% of what I normally eat, hell even if you cut out 33% of what I normally eat I wouldn't miss it much, 50% I might get annoyed but it sure wouldn't have an impact on my health...

More realistically though, for most people in society, 10% less money for them would be probably they have to buy a 27" T.V instead of a 31". For the rich it's how long you wait before you buy a new vacation home. For the poor it's whether you can afford to buy luxury items (such as a sofa, T.V, carpeting, etc.)

Anyways, using one example of a poor person I can think of... my friend, her mother makes about as much money as I do.... I'm a high school student with a part-time summer job.... Do you think it's through no fault of her own that she doesn't make any more money than me? Many other poor people are in the same position I imagine.

So on the thing about what that 10% of the tax will affect, you must look at the causes behind it in the first place.

I say flat is good but none is best. Eliminate at the most a national sales tax or something but no income tax! If so flat is good, but with deductions. ANd lower than it is right now.

You're ignoring something... why are they poor in the first place? Why is it that they have so little money that that 10% will directly affect how much they have to eat?

doesn't matter. most probably because they are single mothers, amerindians, or recent immigrants. but really, why should you implement a tax policy that disproportionately punishes people who are in unfortunate circumstances, even if they willingly put themselves into them? they simply do not have the money to give, why demand that their lives be even worse?

The rish aren't just going to put their money in the bank, or eat it, or use it as toilet papper (Bill Gates could, but I haven't heard as much).
The rich will buy expensive stuff, like yachts or BMWs.
Now, this expenise stuff had to have the resources gathered (which creates jobs), made into the parts (which creates jobs), the parts have to be turned into the finished product (which creates jobs) and then it has to be sold (which generally creates jobs).
This doesn't include maintenance, repairs, fuel, customer support, post factory add-ons, etc.
The rich will also invest in stuff, which can lead to the rise of new companies.
Finally, there is a direct money-guilt ratio in most people. As one rises, so does the other. If rich people get more cash they are more likely to donate (during the 80s charitable giving increased).

mostly the rich put their income back into the stock market from whence it came to get them even more of it - its what makes them rich. this can easily be argued to be benefitial to the economy under capitalism; there's no point in disputing that. but it does not change the fact that they aren't going to miss the money taken from them as tax as much as the poor will. wealth does not behave in a linear fashion. the poor will be disprorotionately harmed by a flat tax. if you are going to tax income at all you can either take it from those that won't be terribly hurt by it or those that will.

mostly the rich put their income back into the stock market from whence it came to get them even more of it - its what makes them rich. this can easily be argued to be benefitial to the economy under capitalism; there's no point in disputing that. but it does not change the fact that they aren't going to miss the money taken from them as tax as much as the poor will. wealth does not behave in a linear fashion. the poor will be disprorotionately harmed by a flat tax. if you are going to tax income at all you can either take it from those that won't be terribly hurt by it or those that will.

ok, to take your arguement to the illogical extreme... you wouldnt miss one of your kidneys.. so I suggest that the govt take one of yours and give it to someone who needs it.. since you "wont be terribly hurt by it"

ok, to take your arguement to the illogical extreme... you wouldnt miss one of your kidneys.. so I suggest that the govt take one of yours and give it to someone who needs it.. since you "wont be terribly hurt by it"

one problem - i don't like income taxes at all. at least not on earned income. and your attempted reductio isn't really against progressive income taxation per se, but against taxation of all forms.

besides, i think being forced to undergo major surgery might count as being terribly hurt. even with the painkillers.

OR you could (GASP) get a real job that pays more than 20 grand. Oh wait, that means you would have to go to college, and GET a degree, and find a good paying job. Sound unfair? How do rich people get rich? They act rich (not wasting money on lottery tickets, gambling, useless habits like smoking, etc.) AND work hard, i.e.: not sucking off the gov. aka, other people.

Who will do the hundred thousand badly paid jobs that need done? Real jobs pay under $20k, very real and very valuable jobs.

I#'m a rich person, and I didn't have to work a day in my life. I gamble and I smoke, and no matter how hard you work, you will never earn as much as me.

If you want to earn as much as me, you'll have to be very, very lucky; or already stinking rich.

On what you said specifically though, I don't know about you, but if you cut out 10% of what I normally eat, hell even if you cut out 33% of what I normally eat I wouldn't miss it much, 50% I might get annoyed but it sure wouldn't have an impact on my health...


Let me guess, your american?

Fat b@$t@rd.

It would be good for you, if you can live with 33% less food, you are eating far too much in the first place.

The rish aren't just going to put their money in the bank, or eat it, or use it as toilet papper (Bill Gates could, but I haven't heard as much).
The rich will buy expensive stuff, like yachts or BMWs.
Now, this expenise stuff had to have the resources gathered (which creates jobs), made into the parts (which creates jobs), the parts have to be turned into the finished product (which creates jobs) and then it has to be sold (which generally creates jobs).
This doesn't include maintenance, repairs, fuel, customer support, post factory add-ons, etc.
The rich will also invest in stuff, which can lead to the rise of new companies.
Finally, there is a direct money-guilt ratio in most people. As one rises, so does the other. If rich people get more cash they are more likely to donate (during the 80s charitable giving increased).


The government isn't just going to put its money in the bank, or eat it, or use it as toilet papper (Bill Gates could, but I haven't heard as much).
The government will buy lots of expensive stuffstuff, like schools and hospitals.
Now, this expenise stuff had to have the resources gathered (which creates jobs), made into the parts (which creates jobs), the parts have to be turned into the finished product (which creates jobs) and then it has to be used to help the people.
This doesn't include maintenance, repairs, fuel, support, post factory add-ons, etc.
The government will also invest in stuff, which can lead to the rise of new companies.
Finally, there is a direct money-guilt ratio in most people. As one rises, so does the other. If rich people get less cash there is no need to donate. (during the 80s charitable giving increased).

Now that's a stupid idea if ever I've heard of one. If people were going to give as much money to charityt as they pay in tax, then they wouldn't complain about tax, and would just look on it as charity.

The thing is they don't. Yes people give more to charity when taxes are lower, but not in proportion. someone who was paying 40% tax gets it cut to 20%, then they give 10% to charity, where does that extra 10% come from? If the rich get to keep it, what do the needy do? (notice I said needy, not "poor")

Further to the origional point, the rich, who in america also seem to be the greedy, are less likely to give to charity. The mind-set that makes people rich by their own work is such that they are less charitable, and so the rich do not give much to charity, because they believe they are more entitled to the money.

Charitable donations can not replace taxation.

EDIT: An afterthought. If charitable donations are compulsory, then they are another form of taxation. That could work.

God has no need of money.

A flat tax is not fair. If you are rich, it is either because you inherited the money and therefore either pay no taxes or minimal taxes on it, or you became rich because of hard work, good timing, some luck AND the incredible opportunities the US provides/allows to happen. In other words, our society had a hand in making you rich, so therefore you have a DUTY to society.

"But I earned that money myself! I should be able to keep it!"

Yeah. You did it by yourself. No one helped you. You don't owe anybody anything. Rights, protections, regulations, the quality of a well educated workforce, the vigorousness of the American economy supplying ample consumers for your product, and helping to protect that fortune from theft....yeah, you did it by itself.

I can see a flat-tax maybe if we were also able to get rid of every lobbyist in government as well, and got rid of the dominance by the rich of our elected officials. As long as the rich are better represented and continually have legislation written by them or at their behest, then damn straight the rich better pay more in taxes...they are getting MUCH more from the government.
Remove money-influence from government, and prove that the rich do not receive favorable political/legal treatment, and I will support a flat-tax.

Obviously the flat-taxers failed to read my post. I submit it again for the edification of the "but I earned that money!" whiners. If you don't like a progressive tax, try making a fortune from scratch in a 3rd world country, you un-American bastards! (That last sentence posted with ironic glee.)

If you live in the "Land of Opportunity", expect to give back for those opportunities you have received.

Obviously the flat-taxers failed to read my post. I submit it again for the edification of the "but I earned that money!" whiners. If you don't like a progressive tax, try making a fortune from scratch in a 3rd world country, you un-American bastards! (That last sentence posted with ironic glee.)

If you live in the "Land of Opportunity", expect to give back for those opportunities you have received.

Why? What have YOU done for ME? It's always been trade and barter--it's just that we have money to do it with, instead of livestock or other goods.

Egalitarianism doesn't work. It stagnates growth (of any kind).

ok, to take your arguement to the illogical extreme... you wouldnt miss one of your kidneys.. so I suggest that the govt take one of yours and give it to someone who needs it.. since you "wont be terribly hurt by it"

The government has absolutely no claim to anything of mine. It is not our "ruler". It is our infrastructure. Time to realize what America actually is: a federal republic. We, the citizens, rule the government, not the other way around. Not like European nations. We don't have a ruler. We have a chief operating officer, who directly reports to the citizens (think of us as a board of directors).

The government has no legal claim to anything we own. It's ours.

OR you could (GASP) get a real job that pays more than 20 grand. Oh wait, that means you would have to go to college, and GET a degree, and find a good paying job. Sound unfair? How do rich people get rich? They act rich (not wasting money on lottery tickets, gambling, useless habits like smoking, etc.) AND work hard, i.e.: not sucking off the gov. aka, other people.
What are you, in high school? College? From an upper middle class family? Never had to scrape for anything? Fuck you. It's not as easy as "get a real job," especially when the game's been rigged against social mobility by the people at the top.

What are you, in high school? College? From an upper middle class family? Never had to scrape for anything? Fuck you. It's not as easy as "get a real job," especially when the game's been rigged against social mobility by the people at the top.

I do get sick of that particular line. When I dropped out of college, I DID have to scrape by on my own (less than $10K a year), using what I had already learned in high school. I had crappy jobs for a good five years, before I used what I had already learned about computers in school to get me an entry level position at a help desk.

I'm not smarter, stronger, or faster than anyone else, and yet, somehow I managed to eventually study (yeah, when I wasn't working, on my own time, not getting to have a life because I was improving myself) and WORK my way into computer security, and am doing quite well for myself.

Just to prove I haven't been coasting for the last 14 years: the day after 9-11-2001, I was laid off. I started back at square one, taking crappy jobs for over a year (oh yeah, and racking up yet more computer certifications to yet better myself), until I could get back into computer security, and almost make the money I was making before (the economy still sucks--regardless of what the Bushites say, and no one is making what they were back in the late 90's in I/T).

You can beat any system. You just have to have the brain power and the will to do it. You have to be adaptable and try different approaches. Just trying one, failing, whining about it, and then begging the government to help you with more regulation doesn't get it done.

You're right. It's not easy.

But don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've BEEN there. And those that don't pull themselves up, like any human can, makes me rather ill.

The government isn't just going to put its money in the bank, or eat it, or use it as toilet papper (Bill Gates could, but I haven't heard as much).
The government will buy lots of expensive stuffstuff, like schools and hospitals.
Now, this expenise stuff had to have the resources gathered (which creates jobs), made into the parts (which creates jobs), the parts have to be turned into the finished product (which creates jobs) and then it has to be used to help the people.
This doesn't include maintenance, repairs, fuel, support, post factory add-ons, etc.
Except for the fact that schools and hospitals are not the primary government industry. Further, the government will bring in its union workers, rather than higher the locals for labor.
Further, a handful of schools or 50 BMWs, which one do you think will involve more money going into the economy?
Finally, the government does use money as toilet paper. Think of all the times the government discovers that *gasp* its been ripped off! Spend a moment thinking of the bureacracy which exists for the sole purpose of sponging up cash and time.

The government will also invest in stuff, which can lead to the rise of new companies.
Except the government doesn't "invest smart" as you might say.
Governments are far more likely to bail out a failing company than Bill Gates is (If it came down to it, Bill Gates would probably let Microsoft die.), and if a rich guy does bail out a failing company, they will inact sweeping changes to make it profitable again. The government would just let it go on setting fire to piles of taxpayer cash.

Finally, there is a direct money-guilt ratio in most people. As one rises, so does the other. If rich people get less cash there is no need to donate. (during the 80s charitable giving increased).
Except with the rich there are fewer levels of bureacracy for the money to get clogged up in. With the rich that 10% goes straight into the United Way. With government, it has to go through congress, several layers of bureacracy and then it can go to Welfare, where it endures more bureacracy before finally finding its way to its recipient.

What do you get rid of? Because when it comes right down to it--to steal aline from Paul Krugman--the federal government is really just a large insurance company with a sideline in national defense. Everything else--everything called waste or pork or whatever--is chump change when you compare it to what we put into Social Security, Medicare, and national defense. So what are you going to get rid of?

http://http://money.cnn.com/pf/101/lessons/18/page4.html

And yet, oddly enough, Social Security and Medicare appear as a separate tax when you pay your taxes (FICA). And those taxes are flat rate taxes -- Social Security is 12.4% (up to a certain salary limit) and Medicare is another 2.4% (no limit). <--- HEY LOOK! Flat taxes!
(That's that "FICA" portion of your taxes...)

So where's all the other money from the actual (non-FICA) income tax going to? Defense? I don't think so. Social Security and Medicare are already covered in FICA. Must be that "chump change" stuff. :rolleyes:

(In fairness, I suspect that a bunch of money from income taxes is going into Social Security, but not the way you might think... it's being used to "pay back" the money the politicians stole.... err, I mean, borrowed for other things...)

http://http://money.cnn.com/pf/101/lessons/18/page4.html

And yet, oddly enough, Social Security and Medicare appear as a separate tax when you pay your taxes (FICA). And those taxes are flat rate taxes -- Social Security is 12.4% (up to a certain salary limit) and Medicare is another 2.4% (no limit). <--- HEY LOOK! Flat taxes!
(That's that "FICA" portion of your taxes...)

So where's all the other money from the actual (non-FICA) income tax going to? Defense? I don't think so. Social Security and Medicare are already covered in FICA. Must be that "chump change" stuff. :rolleyes:

(In fairness, I suspect that a bunch of money from income taxes is going into Social Security, but not the way you might think... it's being used to "pay back" the money the politicians stole.... err, I mean, borrowed for other things...)

No, its defense...mostly. Big ass expenditure, up to a quarter/third of the entire federal budget, including FICA taxes...

----"Except the government doesn't "invest smart" as you might say.
Governments are far more likely to bail out a failing company than Bill Gates is (If it came down to it, Bill Gates would probably let Microsoft die.), and if a rich guy does bail out a failing company, they will inact sweeping changes to make it profitable again. The government would just let it go on setting fire to piles of taxpayer cash."

I have to agree here, just look at the airline industry. It will continue to be a lost cause because why should they ever stop accepting the tax payers bail out (simliar to a person on welfare or assitance that can do something for themselve, but chooses not to because they know the money will keep coming in)
Now I'm not saying everyone on welfare or assitance doesn't need or even deserve to be helped, because frankly I know a few people missing both legs and arms or a quadropalegic that does in deed need help. The ones that are perfectly healthy though and have found an exploit in the system so they don't need to look for a job, well they need to be lined up and beaten to a bloody pulp by the money bags they emptied (replaced by billiard balls), we should be aiming for these thiefs eye socket's before our tax payers pockets.

I have lived comfortably on less than 20g's a year for the last 4 years all the while paying for full time college (this going from making 48g in 2000). This whining about the rich is nothing more than envy and jealousy, it is funny to hear someone cry about even someone that inherited thier wealth, they are just lucky to have someone in thier bloodline that made that wealth and did not spend it all in thier lifetime thats all. Nobody has any right to anybody elses wealth, unless it is given to you by the producer of that wealth (as it should be). The Capitalism in the US is awesome, just ask any rich or poor American because most of us believe a every person's wealth belongs to no one but themselves. Freedom is being as wasteful or helpful with your own money as you want to be. Doesn't it make you happy to see people blow thier money on whatever they want to, over what another would rather have it spent on? It does to me, because thats the American way.

Except for the fact that schools and hospitals are not the primary government industry. Further, the government will bring in its union workers, rather than higher the locals for labor.
Further, a handful of schools or 50 BMWs, which one do you think will involve more money going into the economy?
Finally, the government does use money as toilet paper. Think of all the times the government discovers that *gasp* its been ripped off! Spend a moment thinking of the bureacracy which exists for the sole purpose of sponging up cash and time.

Primary government expenditures:
Social Security 28%
Health 17%
Education 13%

Like I said, schools and hospitals, nothing else is greater than 10% of government spending. What did you think the primary government industry was? Schools will involve more money going into the economy, of course, because BMW's aren't made here. 50 BMW's means money going to another countries economy.

End private individuals are never ripped off? That's hardly an argument to not let the government spend money.

Except the government doesn't "invest smart" as you might say.
Governments are far more likely to bail out a failing company than Bill Gates is (If it came down to it, Bill Gates would probably let Microsoft die.), and if a rich guy does bail out a failing company, they will inact sweeping changes to make it profitable again. The government would just let it go on setting fire to piles of taxpayer cash.

Maybe so, maybe so. Is mismanagement the fault of the employees? Allowing the company to go bust means paying out further down the line when unemployment sky-rockets, exports are dropping and the economy goes into recession. The government should take over the company, though the US would never do this as it is so opposed to state intervention.

Except with the rich there are fewer levels of bureacracy for the money to get clogged up in. With the rich that 10% goes straight into the United Way. With government, it has to go through congress, several layers of bureacracy and then it can go to Welfare, where it endures more bureacracy before finally finding its way to its recipient.

What is this imaginary bureacracy that is so much worse than the charities? Most charities deliver below 50% of donations to the intended recipient. The rest goes to "costs" of running the charity. The government is far more efficient at delivering to the needy. Such outgoings account for 28% of government expenditure, that is delivered to Joe Bloggs, the administration cost of getting it to him, along with all other government buraucracy is 5% of government spending. That's a lot of money, but the government is very big!

What are you, in high school? College? From an upper middle class family? Never had to scrape for anything? Fuck you. It's not as easy as "get a real job," especially when the game's been rigged against social mobility by the people at the top.

What are you? A college graduate with a major in basket weaving that you cant find a job? F*ck you. It's easy to get a real job. The game's not rigged. But you do have to work for it. You dont like that because you feel it's someone elses responsibility to give you the life you want to live.

Grow the f*ck up. Do some hard work. Still feel that the system is rigged against some people? Watch and listen to James Earl Jones in Soul Man. You might learn something.

Primary government expenditures:
Social Security 28%
Health 17%
Education 13%
Education includes paying teachers.
Health includes paying for other health things that I don't want to think about.
Further, that only adds up to 30% going to Health and Education.

Like I said, schools and hospitals, nothing else is greater than 10% of government spending. What did you think the primary government industry was? Schools will involve more money going into the economy, of course, because BMW's aren't made here. 50 BMW's means money going to another countries economy.
But the gas has to be bought here.
The mechanic reparing it will be here.
Anyway, what about the yacht?
What about the paint job?
What about the specialty garage that is kept open only because some rich idiot keeps running their BMW head first into trees?

End private individuals are never ripped off? That's hardly an argument to not let the government spend money.
Oh, private individuals are ripped off less than the government.
The reason is that the government isn't spending its own money. The average bureacrat doesn't give a rat's ass about public funds and won't go through near the efforts me or you would to insure we don't get ripped off.
We are talking about the government which gets jiffed on nearly every contract or deal it signs.

Maybe so, maybe so. Is mismanagement the fault of the employees? Allowing the company to go bust means paying out further down the line when unemployment sky-rockets, exports are dropping and the economy goes into recession. The government should take over the company, though the US would never do this as it is so opposed to state intervention.
If the state intervenes then we're all paying for it on this part of the line. First, with a government bail out the government is setting fire to piles of tax dollars that could be left in the pocket of the individual.
Next, these people are being kept in jobs that are rather obviously not essential to the economy.
If these peoples' jobs were to disappear the available work force would increase, allowing another industry to be born or step in to fill the vacuum.
Finally, if a private group bails them out, they will slash the bad parts of the business and make it profitable again.

What is this imaginary bureacracy that is so much worse than the charities? Most charities deliver below 50% of donations to the intended recipient. The rest goes to "costs" of running the charity. The government is far more efficient at delivering to the needy. Such outgoings account for 28% of government expenditure, that is delivered to Joe Bloggs, the administration cost of getting it to him, along with all other government buraucracy is 5% of government spending. That's a lot of money, but the government is very big!\
I'm just going to concede here becuase to do otherwise would involve research and numbers. Neither of which do I feel like focusing on now.

Why? What have YOU done for ME? It's always been trade and barter--it's just that we have money to do it with, instead of livestock or other goods.

Egalitarianism doesn't work. It stagnates growth (of any kind).

Simple. While I, as an individual, might not have done anything for you, society has done plenty. If you want to believe you are an individual on an island, far be it from me to kick apart the cardboard walls of your fantasyland.

Just to drill it through people's heads a bit more, America supplies you with the most robust group of consumers in the world. A business in any other society is less likely to make a profit. The rich reap the benefits of this system more than others, obviously, so it makes all the sense in the world that the rich pay back the society that makes it all possible. I would love to hear a good, reasonable refutation of that specific bit of logic.

I had crappy jobs for a good five years, before I used what I had already learned about computers in school to get me an entry level position at a help desk.
You can beat any system. You just have to have the brain power and the will to do it.
But don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've BEEN there. And those that don't pull themselves up, like any human can, makes me rather ill.
Congrats to being lucky enough to have gone to a school that taught you something about computers. Congrats to being lucky enough to have the brain power and the will to beat any system.
You don't know what you're talking about. Simply because you're capable of doing something doesn't mean another person is. This applies to everything, from running 10 meters in less than 2 seconds, to making more than $100,000 a year. Not every human is capable of doing the things that you mentioned.

Anyway, back to the point. The income tax should be graduated because the sales tax is graduated. (I could explain this if you want.) The only way that a flat tax would be acceptable is if there were no sales tax. But even in that case a flat tax is not the best solution.