- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 12, 2010 at 5:30 am #698243
Mark32Participant“THEY CAME FIRST for the Large Corporations,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Corporation.
THEN THEY CAME for the Business Owners,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Business owner.
THEN THEY CAME for the people making over $200,00 per year,
and I didn’t speak up because I didn’t make $200,00 a year.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Nope,if the tax is good for one group of people it’s good for all the people. A flat tax is the only fair tax.
Or maybe we should only allow those making over $200,000 a year to vote on 1098.
I don’t trust anything in 1098, there is no such thing as a “trust fund” it’s all general funds. You just don’t fund programs that should be covered out of the general budget and let the “Trust Fund” pay for it.
July 12, 2010 at 11:28 am #698244
jellyfishMemberI don’t agree with the flat tax argument, and neither do most rich people. There are tax loopholes that most of the middle class cannot access. Our state needs to generate revenue somehow, and this is one great solution.
July 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm #698245
JoBParticipantMark32..
that’s a strong sentiment…
that doesn’t reflect reality.
If you wouldn’t be affected by 1098..
then they have already come for you
you are paying more than your fair share now.
July 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm #698246
CarsonParticipantI support 1098.
I support a state income tax
I support a lowering of the sales tax
I support a more fair, reasonably revenue neutral tax system.
July 12, 2010 at 5:08 pm #698247
JoBParticipantAmerica is still a very rich country… as a country.. it can afford services for it’s people.
But the wealth is distributed unequally and the gap between the haves and have nots got wider in the last economic crisis… the rich got much richer while the have nots increased exponentially.
those who are holding the cash in America had choices..
had they invested in American infrastructure and American jobs the middle class tax payer could still be carrying the brunt of the tax burden because they would be employed… and tax relief would be possible.
They didn’t. So there is a dwindling pool of wage earners left to shoulder the full tax burden.
1098 addresses that inequality here in Washington.
We still need to do something about it elsewhere.
hubby digs these things up and puts them on my plate every day. Be thankful i don’t share them all :(
July 12, 2010 at 6:38 pm #698248
dawsonctParticipantReally Mark32!? you are equating our Nation’s taxing of our people with the Nazi Holocaust? Amazingly disgusting and ignorant.
July 12, 2010 at 7:00 pm #698249
cookie addictMemberI am all for a 10% flat tax as well. It has to be levied on all income (profit, investment, wage, pension, rental property – all of it) with no deductions. You have no income or on SSI – then you don’t pay taxes. make 10K a year – pay $1000 in taxes. Make 200K a year pay 20K in taxes. Everyone pay their share, I don’t have to pay an accountant $600 to figure out that I owe a ton of cash every year, huge corporations and the extremely wealthy will have no tax shelters, etc…
The more money we make the more money there is for defense, public works, health-care, transit, and the like. Our government makes money when we make money and loses money when the economy is in the tank. That would seem a massive insensitive to keep the economy rolling along.
My $.02 worth
July 12, 2010 at 10:15 pm #698250
WorldCitizenParticipantYeah, a flat tax really seems like the only fair way. The only problem is it will never happen. Or at least probably never happen. The disparity between the rich and poor is, in fact, reality. It seems as if tax loopholes should be closed first…adding new taxes doesn’t seem like a good first step. Fixing the tax structure of this country seems better and easier to digest than adding new taxes.
Taxes are necessary. Why not make them actually work for us instead of being a lightning rod, wedge issue?
July 12, 2010 at 10:32 pm #698251
JulieMemberIt would probably be possible to make a flat tax progressive, if it exempted a very large chunk of earnings, so that people would only be paying on their earnings above whatever level was excluded. It would then have to be quite high, I think.
There are lots of alternative taxing schemes that are better than what we have, and even better than 1098. But they’re not on the table. 1098 is, at least, an improvement. If we hold out for a perfect tax system, we’ll stay stuck with the one we have; plenty of good people have worked hard for a long time to improve it, with little success.
July 15, 2010 at 12:46 am #698252
DPMemberJulie:
I like your idea. It’s the best way I can think of to make the flat tax more progressive. You could just exempt the first $10,000 of income for example—or exempt whatever amount is considered to be poverty level—then tax everything above that equally for everyone.
I suspect that most flat-tax proponents wouldn’t support this, because it adds a level of complexity to the tax, and the flat tax is supposed to be all about simplification.
Â
One concern I have with the flat tax is that, by removing all exemptions and deductions, it takes away the government’s ability to reward citizens for doing certain things. The government wants us to save energy, for example, so they give us tax credits for weatherizing, buying energy efficient appliances, and so forth. I haven’t seen the numbers on how the tax credit program is working, but I suspect it is, because the logic is quite simple.
With a flat tax, the tax credit system would presumably go away and the government could no longer use the credit to encourage us to do good stuff.
Flat taxers: Your thoughts?
–David
July 15, 2010 at 1:13 am #698253
JulieMemberDavid, I agree about removing exemptions and deductions–I’m not really advocating a flat tax, just pointing out that it is theoretically possible to make it progressive.
There are also other ways to accomplish the same thing the credits and exemptions do, though: you can apply taxes to accomplish the same kinds of things (the stick instead of the carrot, I guess?) For example, a carbon tax would encourage people to be more energy-efficient. That method does have the virtue of making the cost of whatever you’re trying to discourage more evident. The “carrot” of credits is a bit more roundabout, although I do think it is working, at least somewhat. It seems quite possible the “stick” would be even more effective, as well as simpler to administer, but I’m not sure.
July 15, 2010 at 2:34 am #698254
SmittyParticipantI think it would have to exempt the first 20K at least, maybe 30K. It would still be “regressive” though – but fair imho.
July 15, 2010 at 3:32 am #698255
WSBKeymaster1098 was the major presentation tonight at the 34th District Democrats’ meeting (which is still under way). We’ll have a summary later in the home-page report. The presenter was pro-1098 – the 34th DDs have endorsed it – but she also outlined some of the opponents’ main arguments (and how she’d suggest supporters address them).
July 15, 2010 at 3:57 am #698256
Garden_nymphMemberI look forward to reading the summary and suggestions.
July 16, 2010 at 3:15 am #698257
WorldCitizenParticipantInstead of tax credits for things like weatherizing, why not just rebates?
July 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm #698258
JoBParticipantJuly 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm #698259
charlabobParticipantHow can regressive be fair?
July 17, 2010 at 6:06 pm #698260
c@lbobMemberState Democrats are total wusses when it comes to tax increases — that’s why the measure’s backers were forced to rely on the initiative process in the first place. The “slippery-slope to a 99% tax rate” argument holds no water. All substantive tax increases come before voters. If our Legislature ever did discover the stones to attempt an expanded income tax as part of a broad based tax restructuring (which would be a good thing), rest assured that voters would have the final say via either initiative or referendum.
July 19, 2010 at 6:45 pm #698261
WorldCitizenParticipantExempting the 1st “X” amount of earnings sounds reasonable on the surface, but leads to problems. If you exempt the first 10K then at 10,001 you suddenly get hit? That sounds unfair to me. Just because you made 1 more dollar, you’re hit wit a $1,000 or $1,400 (Depending on the rate) “penalty”? Where do you justify this cutoff?
I think the only way to actually be fair is to make it across the board, true flat tax. If you make a buck, then you get hit up for roughly a dime. 1K = ~$100 and so on.
July 19, 2010 at 7:09 pm #698262
DPMemberGood point, WC. If the tax-free ceiling is set at $10,000 per annum, we will surely be amazed to discover how many people are making exactly $9,999.99 per year.
;-)
Still, don’t you feel that taxing someone who earns only a buck is like taking money out of a Salvation Army bucket?
Â
July 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm #698263
HSGParticipantRe: Flat Tax
I always think of the exemption as being no tax owed on the 1st “X” amount. So if the exemption was $40K, then if you made $100K the equation would be ($100K – $40K)*10% = $6K in taxes. Or, if you made $40001 you would owe $0.10.
I like the idea of a flat tax applied to all earnings, with a high exemption for each person in the household, but without any additional deductions. The calculations would be simple, the savings from reducing the size of the IRS would be significant, and the more money you make the higher percentage you would pay in taxes. Using the numbers above someone making $1M a year with no kids would pay 9.6% of their income in taxes. That same person would pay only 2% of their income in taxes if they made $50k a year.
July 19, 2010 at 7:42 pm #698264
JulieMemberWorld Citizen, even with the system we have now, there’s a point at which you “suddenly get hit” with taxes. I don’t think that’s really a problem…
I doubt many would disagree that people with no income whatsoever shouldn’t pay an income tax. Then, you “suddenly get hit” with a tax when you make your first cent. (I do realize this is an absurdity–just trying to make a point that even if you have a graduated income tax, there’s a line at some level between those who pay and those who don’t.)
July 19, 2010 at 8:21 pm #698265
WorldCitizenParticipantDP:
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking (the $9,999.99 thing). But I guess if the system is as HSG states then…
HSG:
Good point. That sounds infinitely more fair than getting nailed with such a big tax bill for essentially a $0.01 increase in earnings. Your system seems to work and still be fair.
Julie:
Yeah, I know. That was my initial rationale for making a flat tax the same across the board with no exemption at all. That way everyone is in the same boat. But if you exempt everyone, regardless of income, to the same amount, then it seems to remain fair and help the people who are just scraping by.
There does remain an argument from the rich that this tax affects a higher percentage of their income than the poor. I can’t say I don’t see their point. It is somewhat ridiculous to make that accusation, but the fact remains if you make one million dollars you’re being taxed a higher percentage than if you make 50K. Anyway, I don’t think it would cause too much fervor in the masses (although I am constantly surprised what does make a big stink these days).
P.S. As far as the Salvation Army comparison…well, maybe. But it’s still fair. Unfortunate, but fair.
September 11, 2010 at 4:04 am #698266
BikerDudeMembertime for the state to live within its means
September 11, 2010 at 4:10 am #698267
JanSParticipantgee, bikerdude..tell us exactly how that’s done…tell us where you’d make the cuts. Try to not make it on the backs of the poor this time.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.