We'll have a flat tax if Bush is re-elected

Have you noticed how much the gaps are closing? The bottom tax bracket went from 10 percent to 12 percent while the top tax bracket went down.

Do you think Bush would change the tax code?

the bottom bracket went from 15% to 10%. It's already been done.
The problem is those darn FICA taxes are killing us...15% for every worker in America.

FICA taxes are 7.65% of a worker's pay. The other 7.65% is paid by the corporation that is robbing the workers of their labor. If anything we need to take more than the 7.65% from the corporations that are destroying America and return it to the people.

Let's not say bad things about FICA. Those contributions are what make up the social safety net. If we didn't have those contributions, the lowest paid among us would have no income at retirement or any healthcare. Those contributions go to the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust fund for the people. With no FICA taxes we might as well privatize Social Security and Medicare.

Besides, both of these programs are our idea. So let's not complain about them. The Rep's will use this to say the programs are not working.

earned by (and thus taxed from) the laborer.

Taking half here and half there is how the government anesthetizes workers to how much taxes they are actually paying (similar to withholding).

I'd be surprised if 5% of the US population could tell you within 30% what they paid last year in actual federal income taxes. Most only know what they wrote a check for (or received a rebate for) on April 15.

It is all the result of the productivity of the worker but don't think for a second that the corporation would raise the pay of it's workers 7% if they didn't have to pay it in taxes.

No one knows how much they pay in taxes. They think if they get a refund that they have beaten the gov't. Actually, they are just getting their own money back.

BUT let's be nice when talking about the gov't and these taxes, SS and Medicare are Liberal programs. If we start saying they are bad the (R)'s might remind everyone it was our idea and that the programs aren't working (in their view).

And the consumer, as well. The taxes, whether taken directly out of the workers paycheck, or indirectly out of the paycheck because they increase the cost of hiring the worker, all fully affect the worker. The worker doesn't pay half; he only sees half blatantly taken from his pay stub.

Incidentally, I'd be careful about arguing that corporations are "robbing the workers of their labor." You want to make an argument that a worker should be paid more, fine, but I will point out that the business (unless something well and truly criminal happened) made a voluntary agreement with its employees to exchange their time and labor for some form of remuneration. That is not robbery. Unless you're just being flippant, in which case, nevermind.

The matching per cent is paid by the employer, corporation or not. I pay $435.00 a month in matching FICA tax on my little business. I own a ballet(dance) school..... of course I pay my teachers $36.00 to $20.00 per hour depending on how long they have been with me. Believe me, they never quit.

I agree with your post except the "robbing the workers of their labor" part.

Grrrrrrrrrr.

A regressive tax.

Maybe they think they can discourage poverty by taxing it.

1.) Bush can't change the tax code.

2.) The public supports a "flat" tax. They don't understand that "flat" means unfair. Therefore, if you support equitable tax systems, you should refer to FAIR tax systems. The public is too dumb to even grasp that "progressive" means fair. So, don't use "progressive", either.
Use FAIR and/or EQUITABLE (better stick with "fair").

I think a flat tax could be "fair" if done in the right way..

Say hypothetically, a 15% tax on all income above $20k

you earn 10k, you pay 0%
20k, you pay 0%
30k, you pay 5%
40k, you pay 7.5%

and so on...

the more you make, the higher the %% you pay
flat tax, but still progressive

The system you describe as a "flat tax" is actually what we have. The more you make, the higher the percentage of your income you pay in taxes. I don't have the exact figures but it is like a family of 4 earning less $40,000 pays no Federal income taxes because of the deductions and tax credits. IRS.gov has the exact figures.

A Flat tax would be everyone earning more than $50,000 would pay 20% of all income above $50,000. We need to tax wealth,(inherited money) too, but I am not for that because we have most of the country's wealth. If you check who the richest people in the Senate and the country are you'll see that they are our's (Kerry, Kohl (Wi), Kennedy, Rockefeller etc.)

Can you imagine what the stock market would do to all of our 401Ks, Pension Funds, College Funds, etc. when every rich person in the country had to sell 1% of their stock on April 14 every year just to pay their tax bill?

The common man has no wealth and the direction of the stock market has no bearing on there lives. Even with a 1% downturn in the market, our 401k, pension etc would be ok because those are exempt from taxes and over time (27 years till retirement for me) they would still be in a good position. Remember employers pay into 401k and totally fund pension so a 1% downturn wouln't even eat up their portion of the contribution.

Education is paid for by the gov't. That's what the Dept of Ed is for... scholarships and grants,

understanding of how capital markets work.

I am not rich, but my retirement depends on a pension fund. And if all the rich people had to sell shares of stock at the same time every year to pay taxes, the value of my pension fund would suffer drastically.

And if 1% of virtually all stock market wealth was for sale at the same time, the downturn in the value of my pension would be MUCH MUCH more than 1%.

And the US stock market effects the lives of 99% of the people alive on Earth.

A tax on wealth wouldn't hurt the "common man" because he "has no wealth?" Riiiggghhht.

Let's start with the assumption that the common man has no wealth. What's your limitation of common man, here? Many people--most working people out of their twenties--have some sort of retirement program in addition to Social Security. All those plans, generally speaking, unless they're a coffe can full of money buried in the yard, are investments: stocks, bonds, etc., etc. That's WEALTH. Will the amount be much? Not necessarily--but it's there. And even more than retirement accounts, many, perhaps most, working-class people save, and invest, in an attempt to elevate their economic status. Those SAVINGS and INVESTMENTS constitute WEALTH. Pretty much all of those investments go through the major stock and bond markets, right? Right.

Now then, any savings and investments the "common man" has would be rather impressively affected by mass selloffs of investment portfolios and share holdings. Why? Because the massive selloffs that would almost inevitably result from a tax on accumulated wealth would send stock prices plunging. That lowers the value of almost any retirement plan that depends on stocks--whether or not those retirement plans are taxed when you cash them in!

Oh, and most employer payments into 401ks and such are VOLUNTARY. If the employer is taking a financial beating, why would it want to spend money on retirement programs for its employees?

Oh, yes; any tax on accumulated wealth would almost inevitably tear the heart out of the small businesses that form the cornerstone of most of the American economy. A 5% tax on accumulated wealth--even a 1% tax--could easily be disastrous to a small business grossing 1 million, 5 million, even 10 million a year. Hundreds or thousands of small business going out of business would, I'm sure, hurt the "common man."

Incidentally, education is not paid for by the government. The government does not produce, and earn a profit. The LABORER, the "common man" pays for education--it is his money that the government appropriates and directs to fund education.

Now, one can make a cogent argument for income taxation; one can make a cogent argument for sales taxes; one can make a cogent argument for estate taxes. I've yet to see a truly solid argument for a tax on accumulated wealth, in light of the fact that, as far as any research I've ever done or seen indicates, such a tax would eviscerate many businesses, especially small businesses. If you can present one, I'm interested in hearing it--but I have to admit I find it an impractical idea.

The Kennedy and Rockefeller clans have always had money and have used it to benefit others.

Mitch McConnell (as an example) was broke when he first got elected, is now a multi-millionare and wants to keep the Regan ideal alive and kicking so he can earn more and have the population under "his" thumb.

There has got to be compromise somewhere, but it won't happen with the current "crop" of thieves holding office and controlling everything.

Throw them out and elect your next-door neighbor so we can have a government run by and for the people again. The differences should be worked out on and televised in Senate and Congressional deates anyway.

When we have money we do good things with it but when they have it they work only for evil. One bad little secret though. John D. Rockefeller got his money from oil and on the backs of his workers and Joseph Kennedy got his money running liquor during Prohabition. Let us never speak of this again. SSHHHH!

Did you just say that there is a need to tax accumulated wealth, but you wouldn't do that because it would be financially detrimental to people that share your beliefs? Wouldn't it make sense that those wealthy individuals who share progressive beliefs would be the first ones to champion a tax on inherited wealth? Or should the tax codes just be arranged so that those who share YOUR beliefs should be benefited? Oh, I'm sorry, that sounds a lot like what Republicans do. I must have mistaken what your meaning was. I don't suppose you could clarify that remark?

then it's not a flat tax. Flat taxes are even across all income levels and recognize no deductions.

that he will pay less in taxes than his secretary does!

A flat tax would now actually hurt the rich, because their interest and capital gains would be taxed at a higher rate than they pay right now.

Don't look for them to be whining for a flat tax anymore.

Remember the rich write the tax code. They would exempt Capital Gains and Interest from the tax computation and only tax wages.

I like the idea of a flat tax... 10% accross the board...but with the following restrictions... No deductions... nada... nil...

Tax exempt under 20 grand a year.

Income is income... no deductions (If GM earns 6 billion bucks in sales, that's income, not to be offset by losses: rationale, electric, food, insurance are my overhead costs, and they're not deductable.)

No kids, 12 kids... no deductions (rationale: Why should I not get a break if I decide to not have kids. I spend more on my animals then most of my neighbors do on their kids and I can't deduct it)

Buy or rent... no deductions (rationale: I own a house, why should part of my mortgage payment be deductable but my tenants rent isn't)

Get rid of those deductions and you'll see the folks above 250,000 a year paying their fair share for a change...

That's why a tax change like this would never go through... those who got bucks use the loopholes to keep it... those who don't maybe can get a 500 dollar a year tax credit... big deal...

As a simple example... 2 years ago my dad grossed apx. $92,000. I grossed a smidge over $35,000. I got a $1200 refund. He got a $14,000 refund because of "business losses" from his part time, out of home business.

Makes you go hmmmm...

No kids, 12 kids... no deductions (rationale: Why should I not get a break if I decide to not have kids. I spend more on my animals then most of my neighbors do on their kids and I can't deduct it)

All your political opponent would have to say: "You're anti-family. You hate children".

Buy or rent... no deductions (rationale: I own a house, why should part of my mortgage payment be deductable but my tenants rent isn't)

All your political opponent would have to say: You would kill the home building industry and cost millions of jobs. Good paying construction jobs.

Now, I'm a political novice. Imagine what a professional political consultant would do with your proposals.

not an income tax. I try to evaluate these things objectively, and I haven't had time to completely do that yet, but there are some interesting components to it:

-- Every American gets a rebate for the the amount of taxes they would pay on necessary goods up to the poverty level (or something like that).

I'm betting there's some smoke and mirrors there and look forward to studying it more deeply in the future.

-- Illegal workers would pay taxes

This is fair.

The most interesting effect would be on prices of goods and services. All the non-productive capital that is currently used to comply with the tax code is astronomical. A good bit of that would disappear and the cost basis of everything would shrink, freeing up capital for higher wages or lower prices (which is the same thing).

to make sure the poor do not have to pay the sales tax. If you gave them the tax money prior to the year beginning would they save it to make up for the coming taxes during the year? Or would they spend it to just get by? Gov't should take care of us and I'm not sure it could under a sales tax.

What if everyone stopped working, and just expected the government to "take care of them?" What, precisely, do you think what happen?
Please tell me, I'm VERY curious.

But there is one problem almost everyone with political views of the liberal persuasion encounters, and that is the almost invariably regressive nature of the sales tax; the absolute theoretically most even distribution of tax burden it could effect would be a flat tax, with the same percentile on all brackets.

Here's why: T=flat tax rate, V=value of goods purchased, I=Income
X=portion of income paid as taxes
Basic Formulas for taxes as percentage of income:
Flat Tax: Sales Tax:
T*I=X T*(V/I)=X

Since V/I is going to be smaller than I unless the actor is spending all of their income, and one becomes less likely to spend all of their income as they earn more, at all points below V=I the sales tax is regressive. At V=I it becomes flat, and only if V>I can it become progressive, and even then only if those with the highest income are the only ones whose spending outstrips their income; but, if V>I, that had to be achieved through the use of credit, and as the rich are less likely to need credit, the demographic that would actually be likely to pay any disproportionately high taxes above the flat tax point (V=I) would not be the richest, but the poorest.

There's the rub most liberals experience: the Sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. Is THAT fair?

The poor spend a far greater proportion of their income on the basic necessaties of life. In Texas, food, medicine are tax exempt. Add to that rent or a home purchase up to a certain level, and a vehicle up to a certain level, and the poor would be exempt from most sales taxation. But the person that wanted to live a high life style would be taxed for their life style.

I have known a few wealthy people that lived simple lives. Not poor lives, but you would not have known they were rich. People like that are producing more than they consume, and that's good for the economy.

I am completely for a modified sales tax to replace the income tax.