Home     Forum     401k     401k Rollovers
    Register   Login   Members   Search   FAQs     Recent Posts    




Fixed rate taxation by the Federal and State Govt.

Reply to topic
Money Talk > Taxes

Author Thread
littleroc02us
Moderator


Cash: $ 383.10

Posts: 1885
Joined: 09 Feb 2009

Fixed rate taxation by the Federal and State Govt.  Reply with quote  

I want to know what you guys think, but first I'll post my opinion. I am a big supporter of a fixed tax rate for all Americans no matter what their income. What I mean by this, lets say that percentage is 20% by the federal govt (includes social security, roads, govt operation/salary, police, other govt expenditures) and a 10% by the state govt. Now based on the geographical location to the big city and the average mean income the govt could budget and plan to live within their means based on the projected revenue through taxation. Just like the average american working on their own budgets for many years and making it better, the State and Federal Govt would become better at creating a budget. Although it would never be perfect, at least they would have strong projections each year based on unemployement and median incomes filed through the IRS. The big problem here is that the US govt would actually have to live within their means and we would need to elect representatives and presidents that don't spend more than they make. No more borrowing and they would have to get use to saying "NO". To me this would be fair for everyone and we would become a stronger country because our national debt wouldn't increase. Ross Perot tried this in the past but the American public wasn't ready for it. Personally, I don't think there is a chance in heck, that our govt could ever live within their means. What do you think?
Post Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

I'm in favor of a flat tax on one condition: the entire current income tax code is scrapped and we start with a blank sheet.

I'd also be in favor of a VAT on the same condition.

Either one or the other, but not both. Either one or the other, but start fresh.

I'm ambivalent about a balanced-budget requirement. Debt has its uses and its places in situations like funding continuing operations when revenue streams are irregular. You can't just say "live within your means" to the government like it was just a big family because the nature of its income and outgo is so far different that I don't think it can be rightly compared. And that doesn't take into account extraordinary items it wasn't possible to forsee. Imagine budgeting for Hurricane Katrina, for example.

~Tim~
Post Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Cherryl Hanson-Simpson
Preferred Member


Cash: $ 26.70

Posts: 129
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Jamaica
 Reply with quote  

I am in agreement with you but we all know that there will be persons who will try to outsmart the program. What we need to do is pay our taxes and hold our representative accountable. Smile

http://blog.financiallysmartonline.com
www.financiallysmartonline.com
http://fsadvice.com
Post Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Raptor
Full Member


Cash: $ 14.50

Posts: 70
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Location: Missouri
 Reply with quote  

You must make in excess of $200k, which puts you in the less than 10% of America bracket that pays over 70% of the taxes. The flat tax will never pass since the majority (75%) currently does not pay over what that rate will need to be. On paper it sounds great for a flat tax, but to keep people of power in check there has to be some type of income redistribution built into the system. If not, then as we seen in history, workers will form unions (bigger than we have now) to over through the system. This ends up looking like socialism.
While it is great to have household surplus, very bad things happen at the macroeconomic level when a government is running a surplus. Need to maintain some debt.
Post Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

Keeping "people of power" in check by income redistribution?

Sorry, I don't buy that on two counts: that it's possible, desirable, or constitutional to keep anybody "in check" and second that using tax policies to promote social programs and agendas is misuse of the means of producing revenue.

I think you might better ask how the government can be kept in check.

As far as "redistribution" that's a Communist/Socialist/Fascist concept. Government does these days need to take the leadership and responsibility to see to it that the disadvantagedand unfortunate in our society are taken care of. But the motive for that should be social concern and compassion, not redistribution of wealth.

Punishing the wealthy for their success has only one eventual outcome: everybody gets poorer.

~Tim~
Post Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:17 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Raptor
Full Member


Cash: $ 14.50

Posts: 70
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Location: Missouri
 Reply with quote  

My actual postion is slightly on the side of the fence of don't punish the sucessful. Hower I think there must be a balancing act on this issue. Bottom line is that the poor spend nears 100% of their income and the rich invest a larger portion. Supply and demand must meet, so ensuring the consumer has adeqaute income to consume the amount of capacity generated by the rich, we maintain a good balance. I think this balance would be tossed of track if a flat tax was applied. Cruching numbers on paper is great, but any system must include the social aspect and acknoledge that greedy people exist in this world and would not adeqautly copensate employees that are generating the revenue with their hard labor. Which starts the engine on workers forming worker parties that get corrupted by union leaders etc, the rest is history. However I don't think we should be at pre Regan tax brackets, I'm just not in favor of the flat tax.
Post Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

Any flat tax would still have to have an exemption, and a fairly high one, say for example, the first $25K of income goes untaxed.

What are your thoughts on a VAT (in place of an income tax)?

~Tim~
Post Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message
littleroc02us
Moderator


Cash: $ 383.10

Posts: 1885
Joined: 09 Feb 2009

 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by coaster

What are your thoughts on a VAT (in place of an income tax)?


I'm all for it. A fee levied on all goods and services as goods and services go through the production chain, from the raw material to final consumption.

I guess that would put a taxation also on usage. It makes total sense. My stance is just that whether your poor, middle class or wealthy the taxes should be fair and not heavier taxation to those who make more. Flat tax baby.
Post Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
coaster
Senior Advisor


Cash: $ 1626.30

Posts: 7990
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

I think that in the case of a VAT, some basic goods and services would need to be exempted from the tax, as with sales taxes today, otherwise the percentage of income paid would be higher for low-income taxpayers.

~Tim~
Post Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
  Display posts from previous:      





Money Talk © 2003-2016