Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
Anyway, we disagree but we're still friends, right?
|
I hope we all still are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
I've yet to hear any flat tax proponent advocate taxing the poor at any percentage, let alone 20% Mookie. Obviously there is a minimum to what can be taxed. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. If the 20% income tax only kicked in once someone cleared say $25 grand a year would you support it then?
|
While I like SOME of the merits of a flat tax - I struggle with the above. A person making 24,700 pays no tax - a person paying 25k does? My idea of this is the following - you owe taxes the moment you earn an amount over the federal poverty line + whatever your taxes would be. This would insure that no one gets pushd below the poverty line due to taxation, and would also make sure that anyone making over that amount then would be contributing.
Thus - no one defined as "poor" by federal guidelines would pay taxes - everyone else would.
Quote:
|
As for being the least taxed developed nation you say that like it's a bad thing. How will you feel if we become the most taxed developed nation without any meaningful decrease in the poverty level? That's what I see happening if we keep giving in to these demands for ever more of our money.
|
We have seen what taxes do - Before Reagan, Capital Gains taxes were about 70% - you know - that investment rich person tax.... Anyone remember how great the economy was doing under Carter? Granted - part of that was his failed energy policy as well - but the point still stands. Reagan cut taxes - but yes - he also "raised" them. He eliminated a lot of loopholes - something we should be doing now instead of raising taxes.
Seriously - you raise the tax on a rich person they are just going to hire another accountant to find and use more loopholes. But if you keep the tax rate the same, and eliminate the loopholes - you get more revenue without raising taxes.
Why is this not one part of a solution?