8 members (VNORTH2, couchgrouch, Fdemetrio, Gary E. Andrews, Perry Neal Crawford, Sunset Poet, Guy E. Trepanier, bennash),
4,084
guests, and
265
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
If a front-end loaded sales tax works, shouldn't a front-end loaded income tax work as well?
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579 Likes: 13 |
Ah.. something we can likely agree with Richard. I am 100% for a flat tax and removal of the charade of the Federal Income tax. People would likely initially freak out about it, but it would remove so much fraud and beauracracy from the process that the results on the economy, I think, would be significant beyond just the money raised. I think it should come with no deductions of any kind. Money is money. You earn 1 dollar, X% goes to the government. If everyone could know that factor going in, all sorts of financial planning would be easier.
Getting politicians who hide all sorts of stuff into the tax code to please special interests and fund raisers would likely fight it tooth and nail. It would take an extremely strong leader to use brute force to make it happen. I don't see that on the horizon unfortunately. Every time a Flat Taxer runs for either party, they are overlooked for the same old same old.
There are different schools of thought concerning how it might work. I think the idea of one big national sales tax and no other taxes at all is very interesting. People would likely freak out over huge sales taxes (especially since so few people actually pay income tax now) and many would claim it would harm the low income people more than the rich. But it taxes consumption and if the rich are consumers, they'll pay a lot more. If they are investors (which we want them to be) then the economy benefits from that.
Brian
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
I think it is a great idea.......but there are entire industries that use the existing tax system to their advantage and they would be lobbying against it full tilt. Everyone from accounting firms to attorneys to tax consultants to those who have built businesses based on tax deductions, etc. etc. would be against it.
It would really rock the boat but to me it is the fairest, simplest way of raising tax dollars with a similar impact on everyone. I have read that it would only need to be about a 10% tax to raise the revenues of the current tax system because there are so many people who presently pay nothing due to various exemptions and deductions.
The present system creates a bureaucratic nightmare - I don't even want to know how many people are employed by the government and private "industry" just to collect and keep score. What a waste!
Colin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403 |
Qick answer is it would take nothing except willpower to make a flat tax system work.
They had one in Oregon when I first moved here in 1972. I hated it when I first encountered it--i'd lived here 3 months, made virtually nothing, and here the state of Oregon wanted 4% of my money? No exemptions, no deductions, nothing? The following year, my brother-in-law and I had built roughly a house a month, and made enough money to support two families--and the state of Oregon still wanted only 4% of our money. Been a believer ever since.
Alas, the state of Oregon was not a believer. In 1991, they "connected" to the Federal tax code, and my tax rate last year was between 10-12%. My teenaged daughter, who worked part-time at a fast-food restaurant and made 10% pof what I did, got more money back. I don't like that setup at all.
It was pointed out above that there are a lot of folks who have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is--not just the burgeoned bureaucracy and hangers on who write, revise, interpret and litigate the tax code, but a lot of businesses, small and large, that make investment decisions based on the "tax consequences." I would expect them to fight any change with ferocity. And they all have a lot more muscle than I do.
I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a beneficial change.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
With so many people for it, it must be a good thing.
I like the idea of consumption-based revenue collection. Seems fair as can be: if you can't afford to buy anything, you probably can't afford to pay taxes either. Maybe the Flat Tax system could be phased in - ordinary citizens begin paying their 10% now, while businesses take time to adjust their accounting procedures and business plans before getting with the program. It would be counter-productive to hamstring investors and employers who didn't create the current mess and are only making the best of it.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 158
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 158 |
My biggest problem with the sales tax approach is that it has the potential to hurt low income citizens - who currently don't pay income tax - with a hefty increase on the sales tax they pay on necessities.
I've heard there's a proposal going around that supposedly deals with that problem in an elegant way but I haven't seen the details yet.
The allure of the sales tax model is that you virtually eliminate the problem of tax fraud and the cost of enforcement.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
I'm with Joe on this one.
The answer is willpower and a leader with the guts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,893
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,893 |
Here is another thing to consider...
Do you have any idea how much the IRS loses when they collect taxes?? I'd say it's in the billions... Also their system of "collecting" isn't always the most honest either... Think about all the people who are "employed" by the federal government to "review" tax returns.. I'm not talking people who have passed background checks and are federal employees.. I'm talking anyone who needs a little extra money can become a "processor"... Now what type of information goes on a tax form? It's the reason I refuse to file any way, but electronicaly... you never know who might get your personal info otherwise... At any rate putting an end to the IRS and having it all funnneled in through a sales tax on goods and services would elimante in the magnitude of 50 billion or more a year in my opinion... Nothing like the trillions in debt we are in, but it's a start... Derek
Last edited by Derek Hines; 09/07/08 11:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
Phil. That is a big problem. There may be a solution. One idea is this:
Let's assume that people who don't earn much money are either responsible or frivolous with their money. And let's say that individuals who earn less than $33,000 per year can petition for income tax relief by submitting expense receipts along with their tax returns. Reviewing one's spending patterns may be the first step in gaining control over one's finances. So the process by which low-income earners obtain tax relief also helps them understand how to make more prudent spending decisions.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554
Top 200 Poster
|
Top 200 Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554 |
I doubt that congress would ever enact a flat tax, although they might debate it. The debate would be a show, but without any intention of following through. There is too much infrastructure, too many jobs, and industries who depend on the system of taxation in its current form. By setting a flat tax, many of those jobs, and industries would effectively be decimated. What would be the need for accountants, for example? I happen to work for a large accounting firm, and I can tell you a flat tax would be catastrophic for us. I would live with the job loss if it happened, and find something else, but I honestly think it will never happen.
Last edited by Jack Swain; 09/07/08 11:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
There may be a practical way to phase in the changes (see post #649982). It doesn't have to be done tomorrow, Jack. It just has to be done.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554
Top 200 Poster
|
Top 200 Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554 |
I would love to see it, but those who really control the decisions in this country will never agree to it. I do not believe it will ever happen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
You certainly have a right to feel that way, Jack. Thanks for stopping by.
Now, is there anyone who believes it is possible, or who wants to champion the idea anyway?
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
A flat tax would decimate the accounting, tax, and legal industry. Just like our inflated corporate taxes have decimated the blue collar workers through loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. I think the lawyers and accountants will survive.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
Phil. That is a big problem. There may be a solution. One idea is this:
Let's assume that people who don't earn much money are either responsible or frivolous with their money. And let's say that individuals who earn less than $33,000 per year can petition for income tax relief by submitting expense receipts along with their tax returns. Reviewing one's spending patterns may be the first step in gaining control over one's finances. So the process by which low-income earners obtain tax relief also helps them understand how to make more prudent spending decisions. Wouldn't be much of a flat tax if you can have deductions. You'd have everyone wanting deductions and we'd be right back where we started.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554
Top 200 Poster
|
Top 200 Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554 |
Richard, I am in favor of it and if it ever came to a vote, I would vote for it. I am only pointing out what I think you are facing to fight for it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403 |
Me with Bill. A flat tax by definition has no deductions and no exemptions. Everybody pays the same percentage no matter how much or how little they make. Just like the state of Oregon used to do.
joe
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
Okay. We'll call it something else. Income tax reform, perhaps.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554
Top 200 Poster
|
Top 200 Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554 |
If this is just a rah-rah thread with no discussion, then I think you picked the wrong forum, but I will bow out since it seems to bother you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
Jack You are one of the smartest folks I know so maybe you should stay. I might not agree with everything you say but I'd still like to hear it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
This is a rah-rah thread with discussion. If you don't like it, you don't have to play.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
Okay. We'll call it something else. Income tax reform, perhaps. Well every time a politician says he/she is going to reform something I put my hand over my wallet and lock the doors and windows. I'll stick to just calling it a flat tax
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,831
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,831 |
The biggest obstacle to a flat tax (or any equitable tax system) is currently empowered and dwelling in Washington, D.C. where every elected Representative and Senator will fight change and fairness to the bitter end.
I'm for a tax that is the same percentage for everyone. Millionaires, Politicians, Corporate Executives, Bums on the street, Poor folks, Rich folks, Beggars, Indian Chiefs, Songwriters, citizens of all description plus businesses (large and small) and corporations. To my mind, 10% of income would be nice. My regrets to all the CPA's, bean counters and rule-interpreters. Re-training is not such a bad thing.
Business and corporations that close plants in the U.S. and ship the work offshore should pay 20% more.
My prediction: It ain't gonna happen folks!
Dave
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554
Top 200 Poster
|
Top 200 Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,554 |
A flat tax, with no deductions, and no exemptions based entirely on the net profit (gross profit minus all expenses) of every individual, and every corporation all paying exactly the same percentage is the fairest tax possible. The only proviso is that all those determined to be at or below the poverty line would be exempt from taxes, since it would directly take food from the table to face that burden. The problem with setting a dollar amount as a poverty line is that it is not equal for all poor people. The only real measure of poverty should be those with zero expendable income be deemed within the poverty level. Unfortunately there is no way of actually measuring this for every individual, so a dollar amount is a compromise for fixing that level.
The amount of money collected under a true flat tax would be the greatest windfall this country or any country would ever see. With no way to establish an adjusted gross income, or allow additional reductions to that amount, those people who make obscene amounts of money will finally be responsible for their fair share of the burden. The fact that under the current system those who make over $200,000 make up the lion's share of the taxes collected seems to be a justification for them to whine about being over-burdened with having to support the less fortunate. How do they think they made that obscene amount of money in the first place? The system needs the less fortunate otherwise there would be no one to provide the human capital (the true engines of industry) to generate the kind of money that keeps the wealthy in their insulated lap of luxury.
The middle class was allowed to develop and now is finally developing in third world countries to offer enough comfort and available surplus income so that they can spend it on those very products and services that other middle class people produce, so that the very wealthy can make obscene amounts of money. If the middle class does not develop in a capitalist system, then there comes a point where the peasants will rise up and kill off the rich, and the system collapses. This is exactly what happened in the French Revolution, and is an unspoken fear of every family of the extremely wealthy.
I know first hand the ways that people have sheltered unbelievable amounts of money, and paid taxes on sometimes far less than one percent of the real money accumulated. Sometimes the amount paid is less than zero, because of special government programs that actually pay money out to some of those individuals.
I am indeed a believer that a flat tax is the fairest tax possible, but you must not have any idea just how big the monster is that sits in the shadows if you have real expectation that it would ever come about.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
Another vote in favor of an equitable tax system. Equitax.
All I can say about predictions of failure is that beliefs can be very self-limiting.
I am reminded of my favorite line in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen when, confronted with an assault by overwhelming forces, the Baron turns to his ragtag band of misfits and says, "Gentlemen! They're giving us the opportunity to defeat them!"
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
I don't know world history as well as I'd like, but I suppose the argument might be made that the French Revolution played its part in spurring Democracy in America. At any rate, certain people might do well to remember "he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it", for not even an obscene amount of money looks good when your head is rolling into a basket.
Besides, monsters always seem bigger when they're lurking in the shadows.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403 |
Other way around, Richard. The American Revolution happened first, by a good 20 years. It's true the French Revolution would likely have happened anyway--it had been brewing for over 100 years--but the Americans provided both a format and the hope of success. (And the rest, as they say, was history.)
Joe
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
Cojones Great big pair of cojones That's what it will take. I mean like dragging on the floor big. Needin' a wheel barrel big.
Wait a minute....What if the President is a woman? I bet a woman could do it. She wouldn't need no stinkin' cojones. She could just Eye Bitch every one. Just one of them looks, that would do it. Get them eye brows twitchin' and git 'er done.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
Is there no possible way to spin this so it looks like I know what I'm talking about?
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
Sure there is Go back and read what Jack said and then make a profound statement saying you agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
Wow! That was good, Bill.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
Not really cause I don't agree with everything Jack said I was just being a smart ass
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
That's better than a dumb one!
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579 Likes: 13 |
Jack pretty much has it right. I'd think, however, that the accountants at least would still have work to do just keeping up with company budgets and payroll and all the job and economic growth that would happen with the changes.
It would likely take a near revolution to happen. The problem (which I suppose is a very good one to have) is that revolutions only generally happen to people with nothing and nothing to lose. We have very few of those types in the US (a few of them become Rock Stars.. but that's another discussion). When people are fat and happy, as the vast majority of the US actually is, people aren't going to risk it all to revolt. Compared to most of the world, even the very poor among us are far wealthier than most elsewhere. And the Middle Class in this country are better off than the wealthy in nearly every other country minus a handful. When many countries measure monthly wages in low digit dollars, we've got it pretty good here. And when people having it pretty good.. they don't revolt. (Or for that matter, commit crime.. hence the major crime rate drop in the last 10 years).
Brian
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
One of the major problems in the US is that we waste incredible resources on non-value adding activities such as collecting taxes. Adding value to raw materials to make them into something useful is increasingly being farmed out to Asian countries. A large portion of our economy (referred to as "service") is simply moving paper and air (insurance companies, lawyers, tax collectors, government, entertainment). This will become a house of cards at some point, although presently we are O.K. because many other countries are as bad or worse. I believe more than half of people who actually work for a living, work for the government in some form.
Will a flat tax fix this? I dunno, but it would certainly force one humungous bureaucracy to go and do something more useful, plus it might create some incentive for a few people to get off their arses and get a job.
If we let things go on the way they are, the Chinese will soon have us by the cojones just like the Saudis do now.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044 Likes: 16
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044 Likes: 16 |
A poverty level would have to be determined and earnings below that level would not be taxed, or else a kid with a paper route would be taxed on his/her little profit at the same rate as a millionaire. People would likely cut back on giving to charity if they could not claim it as a deduction at tax time. At 10% flat tax, a person making $30,000.00 would pay $3,000.00, while someone making $300,000.00 would pay $30,000.00, leaving them $270,000.00 to scrape by with as opposed to $27,000.00 for the other guy. The spread in spending power would increase for the rich.
I believe if the loopholes that are in the tax system to benefit the rich were closed, governments would have the money it needs. The worst is, the more money governments have, the more they waste, especially around election time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,114
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,114 |
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to remove the current system first. When is the last time that happenend.Ben
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
A poverty level would have to be determined and earnings below that level would not be taxed, or else a kid with a paper route would be taxed on his/her little profit at the same rate as a millionaire. People would likely cut back on giving to charity if they could not claim it as a deduction at tax time. At 10% flat tax, a person making $30,000.00 would pay $3,000.00, while someone making $300,000.00 would pay $30,000.00, leaving them $270,000.00 to scrape by with as opposed to $27,000.00 for the other guy. The spread in spending power would increase for the rich.
I believe if the loopholes that are in the tax system to benefit the rich were closed, governments would have the money it needs. The worst is, the more money governments have, the more they waste, especially around election time. The whole purpose of a flat tax is everyone pays their fair share. Why should the person making $300,000 be punished for there accomplishment? Maybe if every one had a $30,000 deduction it would be ok. No tax on the first 30 K
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 497
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 497 |
The only fair tax system is a per capita tax every individual, man, woman and child pays the same amount. Everyone gets the same # of miles of roads, the same # of soldiers etc. Everyone should pay the same.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
Doug, that is definitely fair but our debtor's prisons would soon run out of space. It would be about $32,000 each, including children.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,941 Likes: 3
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,941 Likes: 3 |
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It makes no mention about how the tax should be structured. I believe a "flat-tax" is doable under the 16th amendment. Kevin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,343 |
I'd have to agree. The 16 amendment does not specify how the tax collection would be structured so I think any system would be doable. Only that it be the same across the states
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325 |
Thank you, Kevin.
Since the subject of this thread is "what would it take to make it work", let's try to stay away from opinions concerning whether or not it can.
If you're just going to fan the flame, piss on it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 29,275
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 29,275 |
HiDee JP Folks!
You-uns tend to forget that the Really Rich can just move their Business's Registration to someplace-Offshore & maintain Biz-as-Usual, perhaps even paying LESS Taxes. The rich simply WON'T pay "Their Fair Share"..'cuz they can AFFORD to pay Someone to Help Em Dodge it. Mick Jagger set up his Biz in Holland..it's a Model to this day of How to Set Up a Low-Tax Corporation.
Now..not ONE mention of how the Lower & Lower-Middle Class avoids paying THEIR Fair Share...it's called Workin' For Cash. To this day, there are MANY a Job where ya can Work For Cash & Who's The Wiser? (Any Street Corner Musician KNOWS all about Beating The Tax System, now don't ya?) So please spare me the Holier-Than-The-Rich Attitudes...
The States have mostly Caught On: Institute a State LOTTERY. It's Fun...SOME actually Get-Some-Back (!), AND The Cash-Only Crowd ends up Paying Their Fair Share. & the State rolls in MILLIONS after-expenses.
So, let things stay as they probably WILL, BUT institute a NATIONAL LOTTERY. BIG Jackpots/Lots OF 'Em. (Maybe NOT so big that the States'll lose THEIR Lottery Buyers..but perhaps TAX-FREE Winnings'd be the Big Draw...ya actually get to KEEP what ya WIN!)
My guess is there'd be a Landslide of NEW Federally-Available Funds...pretty Painless...even FUN to Contribute a buck or two to weekly.
No sense all the Indian Tribes rakin' in ALL the Gamblin' Loot Available, & it's quite FAIR, too: You don't wanna pay in-essence a Tax Increase, you DON'T buy a Ticket. IF the Payouts ARE Interesting-Enough, I'd bet even The Rich'll buy a few--
Otherwise, don't hold yer breath..we already owe Too Many Foreign Nations WAY Too Much.
JMO.. Stan
PS: Brian, I think "Crime Rate's Down" 'cuz Billions been spent on More Prisons..& More Cops. Fewer Kids-per-Adult Ratio is also helpin' out.
Last edited by "TampaStan" Good; 09/08/08 03:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,633
Top 200 Poster
|
Top 200 Poster
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,633 |
You can't rhort a flat tax system So why would any government want one.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 497
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 497 |
Doug, that is definitely fair but our debtor's prisons would soon run out of space. It would be about $32,000 each, including children. You have to lower the taxes where the poor can pay. All taxes are paid by the poor anyway (passed down)
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
Forums117
Topics125,717
Posts1,160,950
Members21,470
|
Most Online37,523 Jan 25th, 2020
|
|
"If one man can do it, any man can do it. It is true. But the real question is, if one man did it, are you willing to do what it takes to do it as well?" –Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|