Flat Tax?

[Disneycrazymom]

Lower revenue combined with bank bailouts=what we have now. Sorry but this didn't just happen in the last two years, it's a culmination of the last 11. Where was all that "the gov't spends too much" back in '04, '05, 06 when Bush was stimulating the economy with rebate checks for everyone????? The majority of gov't programs have been steadily funded the same manner for the last 10 years, no agency short of defense and newly created homeland security has gotten significant increases over that time. Lets face it Bush tax cuts in 2001 that benefitted the rich and corporations, two wars, and Bush bank bailouts put us over the top and got us to where we are now.......so I'm saying this in the nicest way possible and thinking you should be reading some history books....

Ok so you got your Bush Bash in now finish the story. What has happened in the last 2 years? More money spent in the last administration that all the others combined. No budget even finished for 2010. I think there is more than "it's Bushes fault" going on.

 

[Dominus]

I think ( and I'm not 100% positive) I read the argument with that was that young families may be burden for a very short period of time. The argument for this was that most people reach their highest earning potential in their late 40's and 50's when they are moving out of the diaper era and are already in their primary residence.

I thought that was the argument, I'm trying to find where I read it, so don't hold my feet to the fire.

I'll post when I do.

Define "very short period of time". After the diaper years comes the school clothes years, then the car years, then the college years. The sales tax is great if you want to encourage people to not have, or only have 1 kid. Imagine paying north of 20% sales tax on everything you buy for a kid over their entire childhood. I forgot to mention that you'd also have to do away with most if not all sales tax exemptions in order to replace the income tax. So young families would suffer greatly, ie. not fair at all.

 

[housemouse]

Define "very short period of time". After the diaper years comes the school clothes years, then the car years, then the college years. The sales tax is great if you want to encourage people to not have, or only have 1 kid. Imagine paying north of 20% sales tax on everything you buy for a kid over their entire childhood. I forgot to mention that you'd also have to do away with most if not all sales tax exemptions in order to replace the income tax. So young families would suffer greatly, ie. not fair at all.

I remember reading a while back that this tax, if implemented, would apply to new purchases. So used vehicles, used clothing, used furniture, etc. would not have the tax applied. Careful shopping could theoretically lower the actual tax you pay in a year.

 

[Dominus]

I remember reading a while back that this tax, if implemented, would apply to new purchases. So used vehicles, used clothing, used furniture, etc. would not have the tax applied. Careful shopping could theoretically lower the actual tax you pay in a year.

I think you're talking about the VAT (value added tax). A sales tax would apply to anything you buy.

 

[leahjade]

Oh Good. We can blame Bush once again.

Yeah remember a few years ago everyone said Bush was getting gas kickbacks for his company and that's why gas prices were so high. What's their answer to why gas is higher than ever now? Bush must still be involved somehow. And I guess it's his fault that we're still spending money for our military overseas and even starting new conflicts in Libya. Wonder how many years Bush will take the blame for all our ails?

 

[housemouse]

I think you're talking about the VAT (value added tax). A sales tax would apply to anything you buy.

Probably right. It's been several years ago since I read that. It still wouldn't apply to private sales between folks on merchandise that doesn't have to be licensed.

 

[Dominus]

Probably right. It's been several years ago since I read that. It still wouldn't apply to private sales between folks on merchandise that doesn't have to be licensed.[/QUOTE
I think in the UK it even applies to folks selling stuff on ebay, but I could be wrong.

 

[Muushka]

Yeah remember a few years ago everyone said Bush was getting gas kickbacks for his company and that's why gas prices were so high. What's their answer to why gas is higher than ever now? Bush must still be involved somehow. And I guess it's his fault that we're still spending money for our military overseas and even starting new conflicts in Libya. Wonder how many years Bush will take the blame for all our ails?

It will go on forever.......

 

[eliza61]

Define "very short period of time". After the diaper years comes the school clothes years, then the car years, then the college years. The sales tax is great if you want to encourage people to not have, or only have 1 kid. Imagine paying north of 20% sales tax on everything you buy for a kid over their entire childhood. I forgot to mention that you'd also have to do away with most if not all sales tax exemptions in order to replace the income tax. So young families would suffer greatly, ie. not fair at all.

Sorry Dominus, I can't help on this one. Iwasn't trying to actually support the vat or national sales tax. I just read an article about why it would work and that was one of the reasons.

Libya. Wonder how many years Bush will take the blame for all our ails?

Probably about as long as we Keep having to hear about the President being Muslim.. I simply try to ignore and stick to the topic. Since pretty much everyone is living in a "glass" house right now, no one can safely throw stones and since all the past and current administrations have alot to answer for.... like I said no one should be lobbing any type of insults.

 

[Muushka]

Sorry Dominus, I can't help on this one. Iwasn't trying to actually support the vat or national sales tax. I just read an article about why it would work and that was one of the reasons.


Probably about as long as we Keep having to hear about the President being Muslim.. I simply try to ignore and stick to the topic. Since pretty much everyone is living in a "glass" house right now, no one can safely throw stones and since all the past and current administrations have alot to answer for.... like I said no one should be lobbing any type of insults.

E, my bud, you have to know that there is a portion of us who could not give a flip whether the president is a Muslim or not.

And you are right about current and past administrations having a lot to answer for.

 

[cheshireqt]

Yes, certainly would be unfair for a guy making $1M a year to pay $170K in taxes while the guy making $40K has to pay $6800..

Was going to post something similar. That is what always gets me too with con arguments...the rich guy is paying less with flat tax? how? In fact rich guy no longer has loop holes and has to pay the entire 170K!

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Yeah, that seems to be what it comes down to. If the wealthy person decreases their tax bill by 100K via deductions and credits that is smart planning. If the person making 45K reduces his tax bill by 3K using the same methods he's a deadbeat who has no reason to care about the direction our country is taking.

Difference being that one person is till paying $50K while the other is paying nothing..

 

[Charade]

Lower revenue combined with bank bailouts=what we have now.

They paid it back. With interest.

Sorry but this didn't just happen in the last two years, it's a culmination of the last 11. Where was all that "the gov't spends too much" back in '04, '05, 06 when Bush was stimulating the economy with rebate checks for everyone?????

Didn't say it did. If you're complaining about the Bush "rebates", you should really be complaining about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from 2009. Bush's "rebates" included more than just rebates to individuals. The ARRA dwarfed the Bush rebates (167B vs 787B). Critics that supported the ARRA said it wasn't big enough.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/...mic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The majority of gov't programs have been steadily funded the same manner for the last 10 years, no agency short of defense and newly created homeland security has gotten significant increases over that time. Lets face it Bush tax cuts in 2001 that benefitted the rich and corporations, two wars, and Bush bank bailouts put us over the top and got us to where we are now.......so I'm saying this in the nicest way possible and thinking you should be reading some history books....

You also forgot Medicare part D. And in just the last 2-3 years, deficit budget spending skyrocketed along with the debt which is now $14T (and about to go up).

 

[DVCKev]

They paid it back. With interest.



Didn't say it did. If you're complaining about the Bush "rebates", you should really be complaining about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from 2009. Bush's "rebates" included more than just rebates to individuals. The ARRA dwarfed the Bush rebates (167B vs 787B). Critics that supported the ARRA said it wasn't big enough.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/...mic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx




You also forgot Medicare part D. And in just the last 2-3 years, deficit budget spending skyrocketed along with the debt which is now $14T (and about to go up).

The majority of the spending happened in the 8 years PRIOR to 2008, and did we forget about the wars and what a drain they have been? That's right I almost forgot that the ARRA dwarfed the Bush rebates and stimulus for the rich and allowed what few people that have jobs now to keep them...did you forget we had a budget surplus in 98/99? The current administration inherited the sins of the previous one....

 

[HHSTigerFan]

The majority of the spending happened in the 8 years PRIOR to 2008, and did we forget about the wars and what a drain they have been? That's right I almost forgot that the ARRA dwarfed the Bush rebates and stimulus for the rich and allowed what few people that have jobs now to keep them...did you forget we had a budget surplus in 98/99? The current administration inherited the sins of the previous one....

Obama has increased the national debt about the same in 2 years as Bush did in 8.. and he still wants to blame someone else? And lets remember, he was in Washington while Bush was overspending, what did he do to stop it?

Same with oil prices, gas has doubled since he took office, but when he was campaigning it was GW's close ties with big oil that was the cause of high prices at the pump..

At some point he is going to need to stop deflecting blame and get something done..

 

[eliza61]

E, my bud, you have to know that there is a portion of us who could not give a flip whether the president is a Muslim or not.

And you are right about current and past administrations having a lot to answer for.

Definitely and there are also a huge portion of us that recognize that the previous administration did not cause all the evils of the world. There will always be those who will stick with a certain mantra.

The sad truth is these issues have been long time building and personally there hasn't been any leader or group of leadership in my life time that I would waste the salvia it takes to lick a stamp.

 

[Colleen27]

Definitely and there are also a huge portion of us that recognize that the previous administration did not cause all the evils of the world. There will always be those who will stick with a certain mantra.

The sad truth is these issues have been long time building and personally there hasn't been any leader or group of leadership in my life time that I would waste the salvia it takes to lick a stamp.

Yeah, this.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

While blaming Washington is always the easier solution, doesn't the US population also deserve blame? Not only are we the ones that have elected these people, we are also the ones that have created a society where people expect the govt to do more for them.. We have created a lifestyle where people expect to live in a 3000 SQF house, have 2 nice cars, have cell phones, high speed internet, eat out 5 times a week, a few plasmas, cable TV etc.. Seems we as Americans are going to have a hard time having all of that AND compete with China..

 

[Colleen27]

While blaming Washington is always the easier solution, doesn't the US population also deserve blame? Not only are we the ones that have elected these people, we are also the ones that have created a society where people expect the govt to do more for them.. We have created a lifestyle where people expect to live in a 3000 SQF house, have 2 nice cars, have cell phones, high speed internet, eat out 5 times a week, a few plasmas, cable TV etc.. Seems we as Americans are going to have a hard time having all of that AND compete with China..

To some degree yes, but as far as who we elect that gets to be a tough one in a two-party system because many voters are stuck in a position of voting for the person they disagree with less or voting for someone unelectable. And of course many politicians' actions once elected have nothing at all to do with their campaign promises or the will of the people that elected them.

As far as expecting govt to do for the people, that blame lies on both sides as well. A lot of the things we expect of govt right now originated on the govt side of things, and as far as competing with China that's an area where our govt has really fallen down on the job. What we're seeing now is an inevitable consequence of globalization, but our leaders (from both parties) whole-heartedly embraced it and chose to ignore the knowledge that it would mean a decline in the American standard of living. We the people screwed up by leveraging the easy credit era into a more luxe lifestyle rather than using it to fill the gap between rising costs and flat/falling wages, but the underlying policy decisions have the same effect either way.

 

[Mickeyluver37]

I doubt the IRS will ever make a change to make something so simple that it would cut their department by 90% if not eliminate it all together.

I agree... It sure would eliminate a lot of government spending, and not just in the IRS, if there were a flat tax. The government doesn't want that, and I am pretty confident that there will never be a flat tax in my lifetime. And this really has nothing to do with who is currently in office, or a Democrat/Republican issue.