Trumped up trickle down or Clintonized? - Page 5

JCricket · #41 10-07-2016, 12:48 PM

I have long thought a simple 20% tax on all income, be it personal or business, would solve a lot of problems. No deductions, no loop holes, no exceptions, just a straight 20%.

donquixote99 · #42 10-07-2016, 12:53 PM

Flat-tax schemes are a bonanza for the 1%, shifting the burden to the poor and middle-class.

JCricket · #43 10-07-2016, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Flat-tax schemes are a bonanza for the 1%, shifting the burden to the poor and middle-class.

Really? Trump has paid zero but then would have to pay %20. If he loses money, he loses money. The losses would never be part of the equation. So how much do business and the wealthy pay now, as an average percentage? I have no idea, this is not a cynical question.

Boreas · #44 10-07-2016, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

I have long thought a simple 20% tax on all income, be it personal or business, would solve a lot of problems. No deductions, no loop holes, no exceptions, just a straight 20%.

Are you talking about a flat tax or a top marginal rate? A 20% income tax would be unsustainable for most middle class families and all poor families. A graduated income tax is essential in a country that has the disparity in incomes that we have here.

Oerets · #45 10-07-2016, 01:42 PM

Like I stated before, property taxes are based on value. Higher the value the higher the tax. If one can afford a big home, lots of land, then pay more in taxes. Same with commercial property, taxed at a higher rate. At least in the two states I have owned property, that is the way it worked.

A country can not rely on the wealthy spending habits to fund the economy thus receive revenue. Revenue mind you paid by those who do not qualify for deductions on a whole. Any more most federal tax payer file standard deduction rather then itemize.

Barney

donquixote99 · #46 10-07-2016, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

Really? Trump has paid zero but then would have to pay %20. If he loses money, he loses money. The losses would never be part of the equation. So how much do business and the wealthy pay now, as an average percentage? I have no idea, this is not a cynical question.

Policy isn't made just based on one guy. Not many of the super-rich ever have nearly billion-dollar losses to apply for years and years. The very richest do pay less tax than most of the top one percent.

Some good info here: http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...thy-americans/

Note your scheme would be a tax increase for people earning 75,000 a year, especially if you eliminate that standard deduction that is usually applied to such income....

JJIII · #47 10-07-2016, 03:53 PM

Fair Tax, anyone?

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairta...FQ6taQodfTMP6A

Boreas · #48 10-07-2016, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

Fair Tax, anyone?

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairta...FQ6taQodfTMP6A

Um.... no.

donquixote99 · #49 10-07-2016, 07:11 PM

Not again with the Unfair Tax. The only thing crazier than the income tax would be replacing it with a giant sales tax.

JCricket · #50 10-07-2016, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas

Are you talking about a flat tax or a top marginal rate? A 20% income tax would be unsustainable for most middle class families and all poor families. A graduated income tax is essential in a country that has the disparity in incomes that we have here.

I am talking about a flat tax. I was under the impression that 20% is about what most Americans pay in income tax. Maybe that is the average?

As to the poor, yes they would need a supplement. I have no problem helping the needy. By eliminating all loop holes and exceptions we would also greatly reduce the need for the IRS and all that entails.