Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
At the end he says if you tax them at a higher percentage they will just use more loopholes to avoid the taxes. However, they are going to use these loopholes anyway....
|
This is not correct. Think about your behavior. If your marginal tax rate was 100%, how much effort would you put into tax avoidance? Or, would you simply not putting any effort into making an additional dollar? Either way taxes collected from you might be less than if your marginal tax rate was 50%, 25%, 10%, at a lower rate you may put little or no effort into avoiding taxes or you may work X times harder to make X times more dollars which would be taxed.
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 12 : 19-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
There's a flip side to this, Ace. If those below the median contribute so little, why would anyone have a problem with them getting a bit of a tax cut?
|
I have no objection to people getting tax cuts. My preference is to not tax the fruits a man labor at all. I think we should tax consumption. Tax the rich guy who has his corporation buy a $10 million dollar jet that he uses for business and can be used as a corporate tax deductible expense. Don't tax the savings account interest income from a disabled blue collar guy who save his entire life and now needs the money to live.
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 15 : 38-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
I suggest a simple flat tax for all would be the best solution and end all these petty arguments.
|
Tax policy is not petty. It impacts every person, and the future of this nation. If we don't fix Medicare and social security tax related issues our nation will be "bankrupt" (or currency will be made almost worthless). Either the Dems have it right, or they don't. Given their rhetoric on the subject isn't it fair to point out discrepancies?
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 19 : 33-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by girldetective
A flat tax?! Really?! Now who would that benefit, and how would that be fair?
|
There is another thread I suggest looking at: You can't soak the rich. Our current system protects the existing "rich", retired, and the "poor", but the burden is squarely on middle class upwardly mobile wage earners. Our current system is also putting a bigger and bigger burden on our children.
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 27 : 27-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Most flat tax proposals I have seen are inherently regressive and would not only require significant spending offsets, but significant exemptions for the lowest wage earners in order to come anywhere close to approaching "fairness."
|
No system is perfect and has flaws. Our current system allows a man like Warren Buffet to increase his net worth by $10 billion in a year and pay no tax on it (and he will pay no tax on it upon his death), but as he says his secretary pays a higher percent of her income than he does. Buffet does not live the lifestyle of a typical billionaire but his tax avoidance strategies are typical. In my view the first step in developing a "fair" system is to agree on the underlying principles. do we want to tax work, savings and investment or do we want to tax consumption or the goods and services actually used by people?