This is embarrassing.

Romania's new government pushed through a 16% flat tax within two days of taking office on Jan 1st--a tax cut of nearly 50% for those in the highest bracket.

Among the states of the old Evil Empire, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, Estonia, Slovokia and Serbia have flat taxes. Czechs and Poles are considering it. As are...gasp...countries in the EU.

Sweden, of all places, has privatized part of its state run pension plan.

But then none of these countries have Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer there stopping progress.

Hmmm...i was just thinking that instead of a flat tax it would be better for society to have a limited maximum income.

Let us say 50.000 Euro per year max. Do you really need more money that that for living nicely?

Believe Switzerland offered such a deal to foreigners. A fixed amount every year no matter what the income. Don't know the details.

Ooops...misread your post. You are suggesting a Huey Long type tax system--not a tax cap but an income cap.

Kills incentive, doesn't it?

Sorry for the confusion, I meant that there should be a maximum income of 50.000 and not a maximum tax.

edit: I don't mind if it kills incentive to fuck over your fellow human being.

Without a proper tax revenue your country will turn into a third world entity thats why you need a graded tax system that taxes according to your earning potential . A fair tax system funding a proper welfare system is great .

Graded? What does that mean?

Income tax is 'evil'. IMO we should only have a consumption tax. (VAT, GST, Sales Tax)

VAT, i though this was only in Vanuatu, although i must be wrong!

Although as for the rest of the thread

Limted income, isn't that like a comunisim(in a way), all the rest goes to the government

Limited tax, that would just make the divisions in classes just so much more!

Limted income, isn't that like a comunisim(in a way), all the rest goes to the government


Not really. If you need more than 50.000 Euro a year to be happy you are suffering from a disease, also known as consumerism.

SM, the companies will be very happy with your approach. How will you finance the government?

Jolly Rodger...only if you view people as members as a class and not as people.

Graded? What does that mean?
Graded as to your gross earnings , meaning someone earning basic minimum wage should not be taxed more than say 5% on the $ and someone earning $500,000+ a year should be taxed 50% .

This was the platform of Huey Long the man who would of been President by popular choice over Franklin D Roosevelt . Unfortunately and suspiciously and predictably was assasinated in 1935 before he could of changed America forever .


believed concentrated wealth was greatest danger to society - Share Our Wealth Society organized Feb. 23, 1934 with Gerald L.K. Smith (of NC Silver Shirts) - goal to tax the rich and give to the poor; tax on all inherited fortunes over $1m and personal income over $4m would pay for redistribution of wealth: give $5000 allowance to every family, a guaranteed $2000 annual income to all for a 30-hour wrok week, all personal debt cancelled, free education through college, and a pension for the aged over 60 - was promoted with a national newspaper the American Progress and radio broadcasts - by 1935 had 7m members in 27,000 clubs in every state (but most were in the South) http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/classes/20th/hueylong.html

Then in 1981 Americans voted in Ronald Reagan which ushered in an era of economic vandalism which culuminated with the Bush tax cuts for the rich which in essence is the final looting of the US economy .

Not really. If you need more than 50.000 Euro a year to be happy you are suffering from a disease, also known as consumerism.
So what you're saying is that the state should own the means of production? How the hell can an individual or family own a business if the top salary is 50k? Furthermore, I make way more than that now, and what with taxes, student loans, four kids, a wife, etc, it's not that much.

Hmmm...i was just thinking that instead of a flat tax it would be better for society to have a limited maximum income.

Let us say 50.000 Euro per year max. Do you really need more money that that for living nicely?

Why shouldn't wages be determined by the market; supply and demand?

A fair tax system funding a proper welfare system is great .

A flat tax is a fair tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. It doesn't get any more fair than that.

Why shouldn't wages be determined by the market; supply and demand?

Because currently we live in a false model that is based on constant expansion and on economical differences between different groups within society. And society can be viewed here as the entire worlf. Needless to say this cannot last forever. I would even dare to say that the current model is only losely based on supply and demand.

But this seems all rather off topic. Maybe we should start another thread on this subject if we want to continue discussing this.

A flat tax is a fair tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. It doesn't get any more fair than that.

so your asying its fair for someone on minimum wage ot be taxed the saem as someone earning $250,000 per year?

so your asying its fair for someone on minimum wage ot be taxed the saem as someone earning $250,000 per year?

The same percentage of their income, yes.

Are you saying it's fair to make one person forfeit, say, 40 percent of his or her income to the government and make another give up only 10 percent of his or her income?

Those in favor of a progressive income tax, who oppose tax cuts and who oppose privatizing Social Security hold those positions because they do not want the power of the state reduced.

A flat tax is a fair tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. It doesn't get any more fair than that.

No a person say earning $250 a week who has to pay say %20 in tax is left with $200 to live on he would just squeak by . Where as someone earning $1.5 million a year would be left $1.2 million to live on in fact if that individual was to pay %60 tax he would still be left with $480,000 to live with more than enough . A fair graded tax system for me would be ..........
Low income %5
Working Class %10
Middle income %20
Upper income %30
Wealthy %30-50
Corporate Tax %50

Liberals don't care about fairness. All they are interested in is power for themselves, control over others and social engineering.

A flat tax creates more wealth (witness HK from 1960-1990, from a society of unemployed illiterate peasants to the higher per capita income in the world)

Everyone benefits.

Except the left which can't force people to do this and that via the tax code.

A flat tax cuts "the annointed" and their visions off at the neck.

Has anyone bothered to ask themselves how "income tax" come about in the first place? It is not a fair tax regardless of the rate. On top of income taxes we have a myriad of other taxes and levies, so most of us already pay tax well above the income tax rate. It's a total scam and you all believe we need it :rolleyes:
A flat rate consumption tax is the best way to go.

Our founding fathers never intended there to be a national income tax. They specifically put that in the Constitution. They knew that directly taxing citizens is incompatible with a truly free society. For over a hundred years the US government functioned just fine without it. Then World War I came, and the government needed money to fund the war. They used the war as an excuse to do away with the original intent of our founders and amended the constitution to allow direct taxation. It was the biggest hoodwink and swindle in American history. They got it passed by assuring the states that any tax would only be temporary and it would never become a burden to the people. We all know how that worked out. The founding fathers were absolutely correct and there fears have been realized. We ceased to become a truly free people when the 16th amendment was ratified.

Interesting...So in a way the current size of the US military also clashes with the intent of the founding fathers??? Because it raises the taxes unnecessarily?

spuriosmonkey

National defense is the only thing that is absolutely required for the Federal government to provide for. The military is the governments #1 priority. Without it no other right, liberty, or country exists. The Founders never intended the federal government to be the all encompassing entity that it has become.

Social spending--most of which Congress does not have the constitutional power to do--is what is causing debt.

Even at the high of the Cold War, military spending was not a major factor in the U.S. economy. Peaked at just under 10%. Running about 4.5% now.

The world should be glad the USA carries debt. If we didn't it would destablized everyone.

Right now there is a shortage of long term U.S.bills--the EU likes them to even out their pension liabilities.

The same percentage of their income, yes.

Are you saying it's fair to make one person forfeit, say, 40 percent of his or her income to the government and make another give up only 10 percent of his or her income?

yes i do, i dont think we should be taxing someone earning $30,000 the same 45% as someone earninc $250,000.

if we do it that way then the poor person earns only $16,500 while the rich guy earns $125,000, its just not fair. its like telling a beggar to cede half of the coins he gets to the government, then telling a lawyer he can only buy one mercedes that year. if we adopted tha system then the world wolud soon fall into a similar state of hell as the US

It should be none of the governments business what someone makes. This is exactly the problem with the income tax is it gives the government the authority to pry into everyone's personal lives. The income tax should be abolished. It is an attack on our very being. It takes away the sweat of our brow. It steels our productivity. If the federal government must tax us it should only be a consumption tax. You pay no taxes until you spend your money. The best would be to go back to our founding fathers idea and have no direct taxes at all. The federal government should levy taxes on imports and interstate trade. We will never be the land of the free as long as the government can tax us directly.

I dont think anyone is listening Brutus :(
They'll continue to argue about the rate of income tax regardless of what we say...

brutus,

if there is no tax on earnings, then money stays out of circulation for a longer time, reduceing the amount people further on in the cycle can earn, which in turn lowers the pay of the first group to the oint where they may as awell have income tax

I dont think anyone is listening Brutus :(
They'll continue to argue about the rate of income tax regardless of what we say...

The idea of a graduated income tax began with Karl Marx. It is a communist consept through and through.

which is one of the reasons communism is superior

The idea of a graduated income tax began with Karl Marx. It is a communist consept through and through.
Indeed, and I should note that I'm for an anarchist form of government. And as to your earlier comment about taxes on interstate trade etc, IMO that would be open to more corruption then a general consumption tax on all consumers.

We already have anarchist governments, i.e. they do whatever they want to do, not minding the wishes of their people.

Indeed, and I should note that I'm for an anarchist form of government.:confused: And just exactly how does an "...anarchist form of government..." work? Oxymoronicaly?

if there is no tax on earnings, then money stays out of circulation for a longer time, reduceing the amount people further on in the cycle can earn, which in turn lowers the pay of the first group to the oint where they may as awell have income taxNot if people keep their money in banks...

so your asying its fair for someone on minimum wage ot be taxed the saem as someone earning $250,000 per year?With a flat tax system you are not taxing someone making $250,000/year "the same" as someone making minimum wage. The person who makes $250,000 will be taxed much, much more.

Having a flat tax system simply means that the difference in their taxes would be exactly proportional to the difference in their incomes.

I think what vslayer is saying is that the basic cost of living (food, clothing, transportation, housing) is similar for both someone earning $250,000/year and someone earning $25,000/year. A flat tax would affect someone with lower income more than it would someone earning more and would thus be unfair.

As long as cost of living is taken into account prior to taxable income, then a flat tax would be fair.

And just exactly how does an "...anarchist form of government..." work? Oxymoronicaly?
Look it up, I'm not here for your education.

The same percentage of their income, yes.

Are you saying it's fair to make one person forfeit, say, 40 percent of his or her income to the government and make another give up only 10 percent of his or her income?

yes, if they payed the same percentage, then for the low earner that rate of tax is the difference between food and starvation, while for the high earner it is on car and 2 cars.

if they pay progressive tax then they can afford more if they earn more, just just as much more

As long as cost of living is taken into account prior to taxable income, then a flat tax would be fair.You already don't pay any tax if you make under a certain amount, due to basic cost of living. I think it's $11,000 for an unmarried person with no children in the U.S. If you make over that amount, then you only pay taxes the amount of your income over the basic cost of living.

You already don't pay any tax if you make under a certain amount, due to basic cost of living. I think it's $11,000 for an unmarried person with no children in the U.S. If you make over that amount, then you only pay taxes the amount of your income over the basic cost of living.


Actually it is 8,300.00 US today but rises every year. You pay about 15 percent of anything over that up to a certain amount about 25,000.00 US then it goes up I think. What they should do is not tax anyone making anything below 25,000.00 but levy a 15 percent tax on everything above without any exemptions for anyone.

yes, if they payed the same percentage, then for the low earner that rate of tax is the difference between food and starvation, while for the high earner it is on car and 2 cars.Taxes are only paid on income that's above what the government determines to be the minimum cost of living, so taxes will never be the difference between food and starvation for anyone.

Having people who make more money pay more in taxes proportionally to the amount that they make seems pretty fair to me. I don't see why you're objecting to it.

No a person say earning $250 a week who has to pay say %20 in tax is left with $200 to live on he would just squeak by . Where as someone earning $1.5 million a year would be left $1.2 million to live on in fact if that individual was to pay %60 tax he would still be left with $480,000 to live with more than enough .

So the guy making $1.5 million should be punished for not making as little money as the dude squeaking by on $250 per week? The millionaire owes a higher percentage of his life to the government than his less successful peers?

The fact that you can live on much less than $1.5 million per year doesn't mean you have any less right to that money that you've earned.


A fair graded tax system for me would be ..........
Low income %5
Working Class %10
Middle income %20
Upper income %30
Wealthy %30-50
Corporate Tax %50

By what standard did you determine that these tax rates were "fair"?

yes, if they payed the same percentage, then for the low earner that rate of tax is the difference between food and starvation, while for the high earner it is on car and 2 cars.

if they pay progressive tax then they can afford more if they earn more, just just as much more

I'm not buying it. It still sounds like you are punishing the rich for the "crime" of being more successful than someone else.

Hypothetical question:

A person making $30,000 per year goes to a car dealership to purchase a new truck. After selecting the model, options, color, etc. the price of the truck comes to $25,000. If a millionaire or billionaire goes to that same dealership and buys a truck identical to that which was purchased by the first person, would it be fair to charge the millionaire/billionaire $300,000?

So the guy making $1.5 million should be punished for not making as little money as the dude squeaking by on $250 per week? The millionaire owes a higher percentage of his life to the government than his less successful peers?

The fact that you can live on much less than $1.5 million per year doesn't mean you have any less right to that money that you've earned.

no, its not fair to take money from them for being rich, but as with your car example, the car is still only $25000, so what do they do with the rest of the money? spend it on things they dont need, if tmhe poor guy can get by on the remaining $5000 then surely the rich guy also can, so why not give his leftover money to the poor guy

no, its not fair...
Again, income tax is not fair.
It's quite funny watching you guys argue about the fairness of the rate, bona fide children of the system :D

income is not fair. wealth should be distributed by the government, not by the corporations

income is not fair.
WTF?

wealth should be distributed by the government,
:eek:

not by the corporations
Corporations must die...

income is not fair. wealth should be distributed by the government, not by the corporationsYou know, a lot of people don't work for corporations. Someone who owns a very popular restaurant could easily make over $50,000. A talented artist might be able to sell paintings for more than $50,000/year. Why shouldn't they be able to make more money, if people like their product/service more?

yes, soem people should be allowed more money if they put in long hours etc setting up a business, but that amount should not be 10 times what the other guy is making, its just not fair, he can live quite happily on standrad wage, and should he work harder than the other guy he can have some extra to reward him

What if I start a company that produces a fabulous new product and employs 5000 people? I just created 5000 jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployed. Now can I make 10 times more than most people?

no, because in order for you to have that 10x more your employees must have that 5% less, what good is working if you still cannot afford the necessities yet dont haev time to enjoy unemployment

I, like many others, have formed a coorporation largely as a way to decrease my tax burden. (that's how John Kerry paid less than a 12% tax rate on his billions last year) If there was a flat tax, there would be fewer cooporations since it wouldn't be worth the trouble avoiding a low tax rate. Furthermore, there's no point in taxing coorporations. All you have to do to avoid paying coorporate taxes is make sure the cooporation doesn't turn a profit by giving yourself a dividend or bonus. A flat tax would be a boon to the economy if for no other reasos than freeing up all the time and money spent avoiding our present punitive tax system.

madanthonywayne...exactly right of course.

The problem is those in favor of a progressive income tax like it because of their pseudo-religious quest for equality and "fairness". They also like it because it gives the state more power than other taxes would. Envy is their driving motivation.

They don't care if a flat tax would boom the economy or produce more revenue. Radical equalitarians want society leveled.

everyone wants society leveled, it just takes people like us and the bolsheviks before that far off dream becomes a reality

I'm not buying it. It still sounds like you are punishing the rich for the "crime" of being more successful than someone else.

Hypothetical question:

A person making $30,000 per year goes to a car dealership to purchase a new truck. After selecting the model, options, color, etc. the price of the truck comes to $25,000. If a millionaire or billionaire goes to that same dealership and buys a truck identical to that which was purchased by the first person, would it be fair to charge the millionaire/billionaire $300,000?

The answer could be yes. If you get a speeding ticket in finland the penalty is a precentage of your income. So it has happened that people had to pay over 100.000 Euros. A very fair system in all.